Scalers vs. AF

Well I am not a "FLYER GUY" and I am not a "Scaler" either.

I'm a HIGHRAILER with no AC Gilbert rolling stock on the layout other than my MP-54.

I have many of the Lionel S, AM and SHS locos and rolling stock. I run on code .125 track. I am exclusively TMCC.

 

Carl

I am a Gilbert flyer collecter and operator (not the collection pieces) along with any Flyonel that catches my eye. (quite a lot) I also collect and run any SHS/AM/PHM that is appealing to me. (quite a lot) I consider myself a hi rail enthusiast, run AM .148 track, run Legacy and traditional operation and strive to make my layout as realistic as possible. Flyonel, AM, SHS in that order, seem to supply most of motive power on the layout. Rolling stock is a mix of all brands (even selected K line S) including some Pacific Rail and other assorted kits that catch my eye.

 

Rich

John,

I am a high rail/ toy train guy. I have AC Gilbert, Flyonel, S Helper, American Models, and even some Des Plaines Hobbies, and oh I forgot American Highrail. I enjoy it all and now am using the Legacy Cab 1L system for power. The scale guys have their way of enjoying this hobby, they attempt to model the prototype as closely as they possibly can, and that is great.  We have our way of enjoying the hobby also, I for one love to run trains, if they are not perfectly made to scale that is OK with me, I would rather they ran well than be made exactly as what they represent.

Ray

I forgot to mention I run AC Gilbert American Flyer track.

Scale, with gusts into Flyer and HiRail.

 

Rusty

I envision my future layout to be a double track "racetrack" to run anything I have. With a rather involved branch line where only scale equipment can operate. Code 100, industrial switching, off an interchange yard from the mainline. The switches to handle both scale and highrail is a big challenge. Got to buy a house and get the move overwith first. 

I have about 30% scale equipment.

John,

I'm a hi rail operator. I was hi rail in o gauge too. I use Lionel fastrack and Legacy cab1L. Hopefully, I will have fastrack switches soon. I'm using AM rolling stock. I like scale sized equipment with hi rail wheels. I just ordered the Legacy CSX es44ac.

 

Mike

Scale.  Hope to start a small Proto64 switching layout soon...

 

I am primarily scale. Both SHS and SHS/MTH flex track with closed frog turnouts to accommodate the Hirail flanges of the new equipment until I have time and money to convert to scale.  I do find, however SHS/MTH and some Lionel will run on code 100 (Tomalco) without hitting the spike heads.  The way I lay track, I really like AM code 126 scale wheel sets.  Run mostly AM and SHS scale locomotives with a smattering of new LAF.  Rolling stock AM, SHS/MTH, PRS, DPH and Lionel (replaced with scale trucks).

 

Roger 

High rail, I am moving away from the traditional flyer.  I have gotten into the legacy locos and have the ZW-L.  I have not decided on a permanent track system. I am currently using fastrack.  If lionel does not follow through on scaleish rolling stock I will just rely on MTH, AM and Des Plains.  I don't foresee leaving high rail wheels and flyer couplers.  

 

Ben. 

Hello Everyone,

 

I run some of all of it: Flyer and Hi-rail primarily with some scale that I used to use to test turnouts.  My trackage is a mix of Am Models code 148 flex and SHS code 138 flex track… Yes, SHS rail is code 138, not any of the other codes you might have heard.  I do try to use wider radii, 36” at a minimum, with easements.

 

For turnouts I use open frog Tom’s Turnouts (surprise, surprise) that allow for the operation of Flyer, Hi-rail and scale all in the same train.

 

I use Kadee #5s couplers on all new equipment and prefer Flyer link over Flyer knuckle.  But there still is a bunch of stuff with Flyer knuckles.  I tend to keep the original coupler that came with the equipment… except for transition cars.

 

Flyer engines are converted to DC or have been converted to a SnS can motors. There is also lots of SHS and AM engines with a couple of Flyonel thrown it plus one Putt 2-6-0 that Jerry P built for me.  Right now I use DC for track power, but most likely will take the DCC plunge sometime in the New Year.

 

Interesting thread,

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I got back into model trains when I built my house with a basement and my wife was pregnant. She gave birth to a daughter, and she and her sister who followed do not care a whit about trains except when they run the Arttista figures in the gondola; put pigs, cows, horses, and deer in the woods (and check to make sure there is NO livestock in the catttle cars!); and make trees to plant in the woods.

 

I run highrail because the priority has always been to run the American Flyer set my mother earned for me for Christmas years ago. (With five kids at the time, she could not afford such an expensive gift for just one of us; so after I went to school, she bundled up two little ones and went out to sell newspaper subscriptions. She won second prize in a contest and traded whatever she won with the third prize winner--for a Santa Fe PA-PB set with freight cars.) That set runs around the track every Christmas in her honor.

 

Everything else has to run on the American Models track and switches, so the wheels are all high-rail; but couplers are Kadee #808 for everything except the original Flyer set. I run DC for American Models engines with extra detailing, SHS engines, and some of the latest Lionel engines. Only the Challenger requires AC, so I invested in the Legacy system for that engine, a Y-3, and two SD70ACe locomotives for the extra features. It would almost be a scale layout except for the track, turnouts, and wheels because all rolling stock and engines get detailing added to them.  

Really interesting stuff!
Matt, if I could see, I'd consider proto scale.  Heck, I'd drive myself more insane trying to go there.
Did you order a SMMW 44 tonner?  I know you were working on one.
I could live with rail slightly larger.
Gotta admit, I drool over the Y3s and Lionel mikados.  Too much $$ to "scalify" them, as Rusty would say.  Too late to go there since all my rail is laid.
And I don't need another divorce.
��

John,

I have one of each phase, 44 and 70 tonner, unbuilt.  Also an AM Baldwin S12, which will be repowered and include NWSL P64 wheelsets...and scratchbuilding a powered GE 25 ton loco in styrene.  Using Fasttracks custom cut P64 turnout assembly fixtures....which are a BIG help!

 

Hope to be back at the hobby bench in earlier 2015.

 

"how many "scalers" do we have here and how many Flyer guys?"

 

   Hi John, Since my childhood trains were HO scale and I never had toy trains I'm an S scaler. Not too interested in counting rivets or prototypically  correct details but like to make my cars look as realistic as possible in a generic sense. If I ever get flyer or hi-rail stuff it's with the objective of making it look more realistic. Toy train collecting or loop running does not interest me but railroad operations in a realistic manner in plausible scene can hold my interest for an hour or so. I guess that makes me more of a model builder than an operator but if I had a finished layout I'd probably enjoy operations more  .....DaveB 

I have some of everything but consider myself a high railer. All new Desplaines  hobbies cars, S-helper, Pacific rail, AM all have kadee couplers. All traditional Flyer has been restored to the couplers they were made with either link or knuckle. I will convert some newer Flyonel to kadee but will leave older units Gilbert compatible. I have numerous transition cars. The layout I am designing will have an area with traditional flyer track but I will probably be using AM track and switches for the rest.

I decided to move from S highrail to S scale back in 1990. Since then highrail has evolved to new and better standards and I probably would have remained with it if the decision was made today. I love everything S, but we do have to make the ultimate decision on what flavor of S we want to model. I would be happy no matter what aspect as long as it was S. I received a 4904T set back in 1952 and have been in S ever since. I also model the East Broad Top in Sn3 so you could say that I've covered all the main bases in my lifetime.

 

Since I love all of S, I enjoy this forum very much because of the diversity, not in spite of it.

 

You can visit my layout at royhoffman.com/pwrr

 

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

 

Roy Hoffman

　

I am a High Rail guy with lots of Gilbert Flyer, but I run Flyonel from 1981 to current.  I also have American Models stuff.  No SHS at all.

I'm a HIGHRAILER running on SHS S-Trax using TMCC/Legacy on a two loop layout with a point to point option.  I'm currently using AM, SHS, and Lionel S. Still run the Gilbert Flyer set my grandfather gave me for Christmas in 1953 and probably the reason I've switched to S.  Not real picky about rivets or minor details as long as the locomotive or rolling stock looks good and operates well.  I've converted all my non Legacy locomotives to TMCC with Railsounds or Dallee sound (if there was limited space).  Had to modify some Lionel S locos and passenger cars so they would sit a little lower, otherwise they are great products and very robust.

"Since then highrail has evolved to new and better standards and I probably would have remained with it if the decision was made today"

 

   Hi Roy, I'm curious about what you don't like about scale modeling that would make you think of returning to hi-rail? .........DaveB

I run on gargraves with flyer switches mainly because it was all that was really available to run flyer on when I built my layout in 1983 and I love the track plan so well and have detailed it so well I chose not to change. 

 

I run Flyer, SHS, AM and a whole bunch of craftsman scale cars on hi rail trucks and flyer style knuckle couplers and scratch built cars (Prior to AM and SHS, there weren't a lot of choices if you wanted a special car, you built it from scratch or repainted/bashed a flyer car into a close approximation.) At least half of my flyer cars are repainted and decaled.    Most of my buildings are larger HO buildings with enlarged doors.  I guess I am a hi railer.  I have some TMCC engines but mostly run on conventional AC.

 

The level of detail is pretty intense, as I add at least 1 new scenic detail a week and have done so for over 30 years.

 

Little Tommy

"Since then highrail has evolved to new and better standards and I probably would have remained with it if the decision was made today"

 

   Hi Roy, I'm curious about what you don't like about scale modeling that would make you think of returning to hi-rail? .........DaveB

 

Hi Dave,

 

I try to achieve as much realism as I can and back in 1990, scale had a great appeal in that area. I do think that I could have achieved my goals with modern day highrail. However, I would have used handlaid code 125 track, etc. I hope I didn't give the impression that I didn't like scale. I have no regrets for my decision to go with it.

Interesting discussion.  Highrail so I guess I'm the 80%er. I started wanting to run my childhood Flyer so that is how the layout started. As usual I have a little of everything except Lionel engines.

 

My preference of late has been SHS and American Models engines and freight cars of various types except Gilbert or Flyonel. The occasional Gilbert steamer made an appearance for the smoke and Choo-choo.

 

Since we moved the layout is in a landfill somewhere and some stuff in boxes.

 

Who knows what I'll do in the future. Yes it will be "S" unless I succumb to the lure of 3 rail and start posting on why two rail is overrated and the real railroads got it wrong and Lionel got it right with three rails . 

 

Not to worry, two rails and S.

Gents......

 

Over the years, I have purchased products made/imported by ACGilbert, American Models, Lionel (O), Flyonel (S), Marx, SHS, DPH, "S"cenery Unlimited, NASG, ALCO Models, SouthWind Models, Sunset Models, Overland Models, River Raisin Models, Funero&Camerlengo, Smokey Mountain Model Works, Kinsman, Mullet River(?), Delaware Valley Models, Lehigh Valley Models, BTS, PBL, Mantua Metal Products and about a dozen other companies who have made various kits from time to time.  And that is just for stuff that rolls on the track.  Counting structures and scenery items, the number of manufacturers represented on my layout is probably ten times greater.

 

Early on, the need for standardization was obvious.  Couplers, track, wheels, etc. varied all over the map.  Nothing was assured of working with anything else.  And that, my friends, is the bane of S and is what scares off converts from the other lesser scales.  So I turned to the NMRA and standardized on their wheel and track specifications.  As a result, I use code 100 rail, NWSL wheels and Kadee #5 couplers on just about everything possible.  The main exceptions are brass imports and locomotives where changing the wheels is very difficult.  But I have certainly re-gauged loco wheels over the years to become compliant with the NMRA standards.  Today, everything on my layout plays happily with everything else.  But happiness did not come easy.

 

One thing for sure is that "S" does NOT stand for standardization. 

 

Cheers.......Ed L.

 

I would add that perhaps one of the most publicized S Scale model railroad in recent years is Brooks Stover's BC&G.

 

It's been in Railroad Model Craftsman, Model Railroader, S Gaugian, NASG Dispatch, NMRA's Scale Rails and Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette.

IMAGE: Brooks Stover

 

And it's HiRail...

 

Rusty

Rusty,that's a very good example of something I'd like to point out.

This has been an interesting thread,and it's interesting to me that the majority of responses have been "Hirail", which is not in and of itself a dirty word

If you really think about it,unless one is modeling in the Proto field (P:48,P:67,etc.) aren't we all really working in one form or another of "Hirail"?

 

Mark in Oregon

That's part of the problem, there are some in this perfect scale of ours who think Hirail IS a dirty word and will also give you cooties...

 

When I pull out Brook's efforts as an example, I usually hear crickets or after some guffawing, they'll say Brooks is the "exception."

 

Frankly, I consider Brooks much more of a scale modeler than I am.  He's recreated something specific and well detailed in S, where as my scale efforts are much more generic and modestly detailed.

 

Years ago, I didn't want to hear anything about Flyer or Hirail. 

 

I'm feeling much better now.

 

Rusty

"When I pull out Brook's efforts as an example, I usually hear crickets or after some guffawing, they'll say Brooks is the "exception."'

 

   There's always exceptions but that don't make them better.  If he'd done that with more scale like track and wheels it would be even better and would be more relevant to modelers in other scales who might be considering S scale. The visual impact of an S hirail layout is about the same as an N layout using code 80 rail and pizza cutter wheels while an S scale layout is more like a code 70 railed HO layout. It just a matter of how far does one want to go toward prototype appearance.....DaveB  

 ...I guess it all depends on your definition of "better"...

 

Mark in Oregon

"..I guess it all depends on your definition of "better".."

 

    Of course it does. If one is trying to make a toy train looking layout then scale equipment is worse. If one is trying to make a realistic looking scene then the closer to the prototype appearance the better....DaveB

Well,anyway...

 

Merry Christmas,daveb,Brooks Stover, and everyone else...

 

Mark in Oregon

 

PS: My AM code 148 works just fine for me too...

You know, this is YOUR hobby and you make of it what you will.  I really like constructing freight cars from scratch, operation and constructing highly detailed scenery, but despite my best efforts, I am barely adequate at track work and electronics.  So I have gargraves track and flyer compatible wheels and couplers and I have a well sceniced railroad that works reliably and looks like it is October 1959 in Western New York.  

 

Would it be "better"  if it had "scale sized" rails and flanges that I could not make to operate reliably and body mounted couplers that I could not uncouple reliably at all the industries on my layout?  Is a layout with no scenery with "scale sized" rail and flanges "better"?  Is my layout, that is based on a John Armstrong plan, operates with a fast clock, has switch lists, timetables and 3 classes of freights & 4 classes of passenger trains "inferior" to a railroad that has no operating scheme but "scale sized" track and flanges.  

 

You can decide what you want to spend your hobby time and money on.  I chose to concentrate on what I enjoy doing, and I suspect that you do as well.  

 

For me, Hi Rail just works better with my skill set and budget.  It is interesting to look at old issues of Model Railroader from the 1950-60 era.  My "Hi Rail" looks more "Scale" than scale models of that era. Maybe I never grew up.

 

Merry Christmas.
Little Tommy 

"Would it be "better"  if it had "scale sized" rails and flanges that I could not make to operate reliably and body mounted couplers that I could not uncouple reliably at all the industries on my layout?  Is a layout with no scenery with "scale sized" rail and flanges "better"?  Is my layout, that is based on a John Armstrong plan, operates with a fast clock, has switch lists, timetables and 3 classes of freights & 4 classes of passenger trains "inferior" to a railroad that has no operating scheme but "scale sized" track and flanges."

 

 "Better" has to be taken in context. Comparing apples to oranges doesn't help. Sometimes a lack of space for adequate curve radius makes hirail or lionel O-27 in O gauge preferable to scale flanged equipment but the resulting layout while being better for the situation still looks worse than it would if there had been room to widen the curves and use more scale like flanges and rail. Given enough space for curves there's no reason scale wheeled equipment can't run as reliably as Flyer flanged equipment. The N scale guys do it with tiny little flanges on code 55 rail. If S gauge ever wants to capture new modelers it needs to appeal to today's hobbyists who are used to more scale like cars. With no toy train background anchor to drag around an HO modeler looking at a hi rail layout is not gonna focus on the good they are gonna be confused by the message the large flanges send.....DaveB 

Scale.

 

Meaning, I've installed Kadee couplers and the scale wheels on my AM cars and SHS NW-2. I'm not picky, though. Having been in N scale for years, I'm used to oversized rail and flanges, so that doesn't bother me so much.

 

I'm planning on building a switching layout, so I'm more concerned with reliability and robust track. I could go the hi-rail route using AM track, but don't quite know if those scale wheels will negotiate an AM turnout. Perhaps its been said on another thread, but I'd like to know how well those scale wheels work with AM turnouts. Otherwise, I'm leaning toward using code 100 track and Shinohara turnouts.

 

Peace on earth and good will to men. [scale or highrail]

Merry Christmas

Ray

Frankly, when I look at Brooks's work, the track is the last thing I notice.

 

I've seen some pretty fantastic stuff on the 3-rail side, including a few that have used "traditional" sized equipment.  Doesn't seem like it's hurt O Gauge one bit.

 

There is no fixed point in the line between traditional (or toy, if you must) and museum quality in any scale that is the "best."  It's whatever suits the individual, and that's what makes this such a great hobby.

 

Rusty

"Perhaps its been said on another thread, but I'd like to know how well those scale wheels work with AM turnouts. Otherwise, I'm leaning toward using code 100 track and Shinohara turnouts"

 

    It's probably been discussed many time before but if you already have scale wheels on your equipment I can see no reason to go with AM turnouts and hi rail track.  I'd suggest Tomalco or Shinohara flex track and learning to hand lay turnouts. It's very easy to learn and can be done 3 basic ways #1 the traditional way with rails spiked to wooden ties, #2 built in a fast tracks jig with rails soldered to pc board ties , and #3  a composite method that uses pc board ties glued to road bed and rails soldered to them. #3 is a bit easier than #1 and more flexible than #2. No matter which method is used a Fast tracks point and frog filing jig is a good investment.  Building by hand gives one an unlimited choice of rail codes and frog number combinations, no waiting for turnouts to be in stock or shipped, no cost beyond some bare rail, pc board ties, and other materials....DaveB

Joe,

 

AM track is still S gauged.  Their turnouts can be converted to "scale" operation with a slight modification.  Once done, they cannot acomodate hirail items, though.  Ask Brooks Stover.  His track work is all AM because at the time he was constructing his layout, that was about all that was available.  In fact, his original layout was all Flyer converted locomotives and rolling stock.  He even used Flyer couplers and trucks, but converted to more detailed items as they came out. 

 

My present layout, which is in the construction stage, features SHS track, and Tom's Turnouts style turnouts.  But I run exclusively hirail items.  Mostly AM, with a smattering of SHS and quite a bit of Flyonel.  I even run classic Flyer simply because it like it!  I prefer the old AC system, but have the capability of running DC also.  For financial reasons, I don't want anything more complicated.

 

Jerry

This makes the assumption that one wants to build or handlay turnouts.  What's easy for one is either difficult or undesirable for another.

 

I have five #5 turnouts in my yard that were kits from Old Pullman, back when they were making S Scale turnouts.  I looked around for an S Scale code 100 ready-to-plop #4 or #5 to no avail.

 

The Old Pullman's were decent enough, approximately gauged (a little wide) included a template but lacked ties and throwbar.  I cut my own ties out of stripwood and throwbars out of Evergreen styrene.  They also required a little fiddling after installation to get them to work right. 

 

Fiddling aside, I really didn't enjoy installing them, but they allowed me to maximize the available space for my small yard. The fact I didn't also use the Old Pullman #6's everywhere else says something.

 

If the Old Pullman's wouldn't have been available at the time, I would have sacrificed some space and used the Shinohora #6's (left foreground and way back on the mainline) in the yard.

 

Rusty

I suggest you scale guys start your own thread.  This is not where this one started.