Scalers vs. AF

Welcome to thread drift.  There's no real way to stop it, it happens on all the OGR forums, so just go with the flow.

 

Besides, this isn't the Yahoo boards.

 

Rusty

Actually, Bill, I as I read it, it appears John started this thread as a call to hear from both persuasions to see if the widely accepted 80/20 rule held true.

 

It then became a discussion of the woes S scale faces as a whole in regards to switches not being too friendly between the persuasions.  (A point I agree with based on my experience during my S scale years.)

 

It truly is a quandary that the AF/scale stuff can't be run over the same switches that are readily available. (This doesn't include Tom's Turnouts, which I'm sure are fine switches, but are not commonly available through a plethora of retail outlets.)

 

To me, this AF/scale switch discrepancy makes it all that much tougher for S scale to be a widely accepted scale.

 

I guess decades ago, HO had that problem before almost ALL mfg'ers adapted the NMRA RP25 wheel profile which eliminated the problem. Plus, there doesn't seem to be a contingent within HO that wants "hi-rail" type trains and still insist on the large flanges that AHM, Tyco, and other HO mfg'ers, used to equip their engines/rolling stock with.

 

In S scale, having two distinct persuasions within the scale DOES complicate the manufacturing/marketing issue. In the case of S, it is biased toward the AF/Hi-railer types. 

To me this incompatibility issue seems to be truly a shame, for S scale really is a great size, especially if one has a generous space to fill with trains.

 

However, I'm now more convinced than ever that it will never be able to overcome this division within it, in regards to the manufacturing/marketing side of it. One faction will be catered to, the other minimized.  Not much way around it at this point.

 

Sincerely,

 

Andre

IF one really wants to answer John's original question about the proportion of scale modelers relative to Hi Rail, the closest one is likely to get is to ask Ron at American Models what proportion of his sales of locomotives and rolling stock is sold with scale flanges and what is sold with Hi Rail flanges.

 

Little Tommy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I knew it was/is 85-90% non scaler's with a very small percentage of scales.
So small that it's a miracle that we scaler's get the details we do.
I was in 2 rail O and the same "tension" exists between the 2 and 3 rail crowd.
Since it is in fact "a hobby", it carries no absolutes, therefore, each to their own without condemnation from me.
I'm learning from everyone.
I do believe S (3/16) is the perfect size and like very much what is available.
I think had S gotten the jump on HO, it would have been the predominant scale.
As to S future, who knows?  I'm trying to do my little part in making S "disciples" where I can.
I do hope we can have a future without animosity simply because someone else doesn't model exactly as I do.

As to S future, who knows?  I'm trying to do my little part in making S "disciples" where I can.
I do hope we can have a future without animosity simply because someone else doesn't model exactly as I do.

 

John,

I think you have hit the nail right where it needs to be hit, I don't see scale people as evil, if you prefer scale more power to you. On the other hand if you lean to high rail or even toward toy trains, just enjoy the hobby and where you choose to be, no need to chastise another "model railroader" because his taste is different from yours. This is a hobby.

Ray

The pretty much accepted number is 15% scale, 85% Hirail/Flyer.  I've been hearing that ratio for almost 30 years now.  The actual numbers probably slide back an forth a couple of percent, but it hasn't changed drastically one way or the other.

 

As a scaler, I've come to realize that the scale side needs the Hirail/Flyer side much more than Hirail/Flyer needs scale.

 

Frankly, if things like this

would have been available in 1985, I would have probably gone the down Hirail route. 

 

Who knows, if I ever have to tear down the Great Plywood Glacier, it might just happen.

 

Right now, stuff like the above is just part of the collection.

 

Rusty

Rusty, I'm sure if you need a place to run these there is a high railer there and ready to help.

Ray

Don't worry, I have a stash of S-Trax and can throw down a loop at a moment's notice.

 

Rusty

This has been a very interesting thread.  There is one distinction I would like to make because there is a difference between Flyer and Hi-rail.  It seems most scalers throw the two together when there is a difference between the wheel flange sizes.  Actually, a lot of Flyer guys also consider themselves Hi-railers when they are not. 

 

“Plus, there doesn't seem to be a contingent within HO that wants "hi-rail" type trains and still insist on the large flanges that AHM, Tyco, and other HO mfg'ers,”

 

I would further go on to say that unless you are modeling to P87 standards in H0 your flange size proportionally would be pretty close to what we in S call Hi-rail.  My guess is most H0 modelers would consider themselves to be scalers rather than ‘hi-railers’ even though by S standards they are Hi-railers.  As for N “scale” it only comes close to Hi-rail on the best of days.  Their flanges are probably closer to Flyer size than Hi-rail size.  There is truly not an N “scale”.

 

So for me the question should what is the ratio of Flyer to Hi-rail to scale.  I also agree with Rusty in that drawing a line between any two is pretty tough because it is a continuum form Flyer to scale.  One could put the population on a bell curve with pure Flyer on one end and P64 on the other… everybody else would lie somewhere in between on the curve.

 

On a different topic, but seeing that my turnouts were mentioned here I want to say it is a long way from building turnouts by hand and having them manufactured.  What it really takes is money.  We came very close to having them manufactured but in the end, the money just wasn’t there.  I couldn’t keep making them by hand forever… for my sanity I had to stop.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Give the man a cigar.  He hit the nail on the head.

 

Rusty

"So for me the question should what is the ratio of Flyer to Hi-rail to scale.  I also agree with Rusty in that drawing a line between any two is pretty tough because it is a continuum form Flyer to scale.  One could put the population on a bell curve with pure Flyer on one end and P64 on the other… everybody else would lie somewhere in between on the curve."

 

   Hi Tom, Makes sense to me but what I can't figure out is why anyone who's not a Flyer collector or toy train operator would want to keep the larger flanges and hi-rail track? S scale runs great on code 100 rail and it's a lot easier to make the track look more realistic so I can't see any reason to go hi-rail in that case. Maybe it's just due to lack of scale track and equipment in general?Perhaps if they made 85% scale and 15% flyer the tables would be turned?  I'm sure S scale as a unique modeling scale separate from it's flyer baggage would be a lot more popular if folks could buy a better selection of scale equipment and track like they can in HO scale. A think a newbie would have a hard time recognizing the advantages of S over HO when the supply and price deck is so stacked against it? Funny how being in the right place at the right time can override the physical advantages.....DaveB

Hi Tom, Makes sense to me but what I can't figure out is why anyone who's not a Flyer collector or toy train operator would want to keep the larger flanges and hi-rail track?

 

 

Most people I talk to want a dependable, reliable, easy to operate railroad without constantly having to worry about "What will go wrong next?"

 

BINGO!

Banjoflyer hit my reason perfectly.

Ray

Hi Dave,

 

You open a number of interesting points, some of which I will probably be hung out to dry on.  My own experience with scale wheels is ‘what’s the point?’  As you know I run scale and Hi-rail in the same train and I just don’t see the difference in the flanges as the trains roll by.  If you look really hard you might notice a Flyer flange in a moving train.  However the Flyer trucks are quite noticeable and my objection to them is roll-ability rather than appearance also with plastic wheels keeping the rails clean is more of a chore.

 

I’m not sure I would go so far to say that scale wheels run great.  Granted with a lot of effort you can get them to work, but the laws of physics are against you.  If you want real reliable operation you need to go to 0 scale size flanges.  Yeah, I know no scale operator on this list or any other list as any trouble with S scale flanges (which I think are actually an inch too big to be called scale), however any S scale layout I’ve seen in person is another story – interesting.

 

I think Mark’s take is really true:

 

Most people I talk to want a dependable, reliable, easy to operate railroad without constantly having to worry about "What will go wrong next?"

In short, they want the operation of their railroad to be fun...not a fist fight.

 

And that is what S scale has against it.  Not noticeably different enough from Hi-rail (in the flange department) to be worth the hassle for most people who might even consider S in the first place.

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

OK... I know it's a crummy picture, blame turn-of-the-century digital photography technology, but for Exhibit A, one of these trains is Scale, the other Hirail:

 

Exhibit B:

Purchased as Scale, a change of wheelsets and couplers and presto!  Instant Hirail:

Exhibit C:

Scale or Hirail?  Choose carefully:

 

Rusty

"If you want real reliable operation you need to go to 0 scale size flanges.  Yeah, I know no scale operator on this list or any other list as any trouble with S scale flanges (which I think are actually an inch too big to be called scale), however any S scale layout I’ve seen in person is another story – interesting."

 

   Hi Tom, The key is were those layouts built by flyer guys who don't know how to build a scale layout? Converting from flyer to scale without making the necessary track changes is a recipe for failure. I can think of only 2 reasons S scale would not be reliable , first is poor design with too sharp curves and unfair track and roadbed, second is some of the cars have the old SHS trucks that sit tweaked and tend to de-rail. If the guys don't know these two things their layout will run bad but that's not the fault of the smaller  flanges and rail.  HO runs on smaller flanges than S with total reliability and N runs on very tiny flanges quite well. Any S scale layout built by a modeler familiar with scale practices is gonna be 99.99% reliable. ....DaveB 

I find it really intriguing as to why a lot of people have this hang up over wheel flanges in relation to being classed as a 'scale' person. 

 

If I stuck a set of scale wheels on a AF Casey Jones 21165 engine what do I have? 

I think I still have a crap engine irrespective of the wheels but some may believe I am a scale S modeller because of them.

 

When we operate our trains how many of you actually focus straight away on wheel flanges, I certainly don't, I would say most people's eyes are drawn to the engines, rolling stock and scenery and the wheels are probably not even on most peoples radar.

 

I run a mixture of Gilbert, AM, S Helper and new Lionel loco's and rolling stock on track by S Helper flexi, AM set curves and AM switches and it all runs OK, so for me the Flyer and Hi-rail can be grouped together by default that they can run on a rail system that is regarded as Hi-rail. Now the move to the scale side means that all of the above is basically not able to be used as the wheel tolerances are too large.

 

Also, I thought a sale modeller (irrespective of gauge) is someone that either takes a RTR product and enhances it to meet a criteria of being scale looking and that means the body as well as the wheels or is prepared to invest a lot of time scratch building an item.

 

In previous posts it seems a very small group of scale people are wishing manufactures to make items only to scale proportions, isn't this being a bit selfish and not considering others needs and even then just to add scale wheels and couplers on a toy item.

 

How is the scale going to grow if you only have scale items on offer to the younger generation that are possibly going to be carpet runners or not that way mature enough to build a layout on an 8x4 board?

 

S is not the preserve of the S scalers only, there are others out there that need to have an input as to what they want.

 

 

My hallowed code 100 track is far from perfect, but yet I manage somehow to keep everything with those teeny-tiny flanges on the rails:

 

 

Sure, I have an occasional derailment, but who doesn't?  It's not a chronic condition on the old Plywood Glacier.  I hear tell that it even happens on the real railroads every now and then.

 

Rusty

Rusty, sure like that trackwork!

In the distant past, highrail was closely related to standard AF. In my own highrail days, I used Bob Peare code 172 flex track and code 172 switches I bought from an old SSL&S layout they dismantled. To me the move to scale (code 100) was significant. Todays highrail is closer to the scale side that it is to the old AF (What Lionel calls Classic). Deciding on scale vs highrail is much harder to do. It boils down to the fact that both sides are close and the differences have been significantly blurred and I honestly don't know what decision I'd make today. Since I'm currently a scaler, I'll stay and happy scaler. BTW, Ed L is correct in saying that the lack of a standard for track hurts us greatly as far as growth is concerned. Look at the cylindrical hopper debacle as a good example.

 

Ukaflyer, honestly, it is not the intent of "scalers" to know it all or even claim to do so.
We need a clean forum for anyone who cares to dabble in S gauge without judgement.
I have enjoyed seeing lots of names here that I have not previously seen. 
Great for S!

Geeze, you make it sound like the scale side is holding S hostage.

 

SHS and AM have proved that you can build to scale proportions and still run on Flyer or Hirail track, even the Flyonel cylindrical hopper is a nice scale car and now that the wheel situation is straightened out, it satisfies the Flyer operators. 

 

Sure, we were upset with the truck issue.  It's such a simple thing that we (at least I) couldn't believe how Lionel screwed it up.  But I think most of us "scalers" have developed our own ways of dealing with it.

 

When SHS was alive and offering sets, they had Hirail wheels and three position reverse units standard.  Scalifying them was optional.  The few sets AM offered could likewise be purchased as Flyer compatible AC, DC Hirail or DC scale.

 

The stuff's been out there.

 

The bigger issue is that neither Lionel or MTH have been "balls of fire" when dealing with S. These are where the true starter offerings are going to come from.

 

Lionel's certainly had a head start, does something brilliant, then blows it. Meanwhile MTH seems to be tip-toeing around S.  I'm sure there's a reason for it, I'm just not privy to it.

 

Lionel's FlyerChief Polar Express has the potential to be a portal to S, along with the other two Berkshire sets, whenever they come out.  These would all be fine starter sets, they offer a "big engine" with bells and whistles at a fairly reasonable price.

 

As for MTH, who knows.  Perhaps a simplified F3 in a starter set may emerge at a later date.

 

Rusty

 

 

 

 

>>Posted by Roundhouse Bill

I suggest you scale guys start your own thread.  

 

Tolerance is something modern society embraces.  Time to consider it for S.  Ed L.

"I find it really intriguing as to why a lot of people have this hang up over wheel flanges in relation to being classed as a 'scale' person. "

 

   We don't use scale wheels for classification purposes we use them to make the models look more realistic. If they run as good as hi-rail but look better I see no reason to not go the extra step and it can actually simplify the layout if it means there will be only one wheel flange profile to deal with for frog construction. If S had just been started as a 1:64 scale modeling medium and Flyer had never existed there's be no resistance to S scale wheels and track standards. The Flyer connection is the fly in the soup, not the size of the flanges or the height of the rail....DaveB

Very well said...

 

Mark in Oregon

S did start as a 1:64 scale modeling medium.  Ed Packard's C-D Models (Cleveland) predates Gilbert S by several years.

 

A.C. Gilbert made it popular (almost...)

 

Rusty

Having seen some responses by a few people historically you could easily read into it that S is for scale people only and that the rest should either convert or find another gauge. Some seem to be understanding while others sure do have a blinkered eye view on it.

 

Nobody is disagreeing with the scale people that the CH was a disaster and that the truck should have been designed for both sets of people. The bolster was an issue as well, but this is where I see that any small discrepancies are seen as a challenge to overcome for scale people to achieve that desired perfection they seek. They at least have the good fortune that a manufacturer has got most of it correct and yes you are right that they should in this case have not made it in the first place, but then they made it this way and we can't do much about it now.

 

Just think, if everything was made 100% perfect the scalers would have nothing to do and they would have to sell off most of their tools they used to make and convert stuff, skills would be lost and they become part of the RTR lot, nah, that isn't going to happen hopefully.

 

Like you I wonder what the manufacturers are up to, perhaps they are seeing mixed messages out there and are not sure which direction to go to meet a demand from both sides, perhaps S really isn't something they want to see eat into their main core business of the O gauge line and split funding, time will tell.

"S did start as a 1:64 scale modeling medium."

 

   Well the glass is half full then :> .......DaveB

Trouble is, it's cracked...

 

Rusty

It looks like we've drifted again in this thread.

 

I don't know why someone WOULD want to argue that we should use the word "scale" in a way other than how it is commonly used by NASG because that just confuses the heck out of anyone trying to discuss something rationally when everyone defines "scale" as they please. It may not be "fair" or "right" but at least if we all use the word "scale in a standardized way, we have half a chance of understanding what someone else is talking about.  

 

None the less, let's not lose sight of the fact that everything on our layout is a model.  The engines and rolling stock are models-they don't really run on steam or diesel fuel, the industries are models too, they don't actually turn out products, nor do they have a profit and loss, the scenery is a model, most of us don't have real water on our layouts and the grass doesn't really grow.  The track, too, is a model and some folks chose to model it more realistically than others, 

 

Now not all of us chose to have a layout where all of these models are contest quality.  I have some contest quality items on my layout, and some stuff which is "good enough".  

 

It doesn't bother me if your scenery is not as elaborate as mine is, and it should not bother anyone else that I can not make "scale" track and flanges work for me, so that I choose to operate on Hi Rail track. We all chose to concentrate on aspects of the hobby that we enjoy.  Despite what DaveB says, I can't make scale track 99.99% reliable despite extensive study and effort, and I would rather spend my time scratch building rolling stock and structures and detailing scenery  than being frustrated and annoyed at my inability to lay and maintain track.  Maybe I'm a klutz.  Why should that bother anyone? 

 

Little Tommy

 

 

I think there's the rub;in this discussion and in the scale itself. One can't look at S as either/or "Scale vs. AF",not with this 3rd party,"Hirail". Hirail can mean a lot of different things.

Just because someone puts (slightly) large flanged wheel sets into a pair of scale-sized trucks under a PRS boxcar does not make that car AF, or as they might say in O scale "tinplate". The difference between AF track and (almost) anything else is huge,and,as such,shouldn't be compared. My American Models track bears no resemblance to Gilbert track,nor do the flanges of some of my cars look at all like Flyer's.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we shouldn't look at S as "either/or". I can enjoy Ed L's layout as much as Mr.Stover's. So one is "scale",one is "Hirail";I don't care...and I'm saying that nicely.

 

Mark in Oregon

"perhaps S really isn't something they want to see eat into their main core business of the O gauge line"

 

   I think that's a big problem and one that could best be overcome by a new manufacturer with no pre existing O or HO investment to protect. More stuff like the Des Plaines modern boxcars would certainly attract new modelers to S from both of the adjoining scales. ....DaveB

As I mentioned earlier on, can a scale starter set be made for say a six year old to run at Christmas on the floor?  I would say there would be a lot of frustration on the child and parents with technical issues. I can't see why both sides can't co-exist together and each accept the other sides wishes.

 

If it wasn't for Flyer you wouldn't have what is out there now, S would still be a backwater gauge with a much smaller number of modellers. Perhaps rather than criticising Flyer for the past everyone should be grateful as to what has developed from it both the good and the bad that we have seen.

 "Despite what DaveB says, I can't make scale track 99.99% reliable despite extensive study and effort'

 

   Do you have any of those "tweaked " SHS trucks?  No matter how good your track they'll fall off if not fixed. The other factor is are your curves broad enough and the transitions fair and smooth? .......DaveB

"can a scale starter set be made for say a six year old to run at Christmas on the floor?"

 

   Kato makes unitrack for N scale and Bachman for HO scale so would be no problem for S scale, it's not physics holding us back it's lack of vision. There's no Irv Athearn itching to grow S scale for the masses....DaveB

And what does the track measure out to in respect of being prototypical in height? 

Kato Unitrack is based on a Japanese prototype. The ties are large and are not spaced like here in North America. The rail is "large-sh" (code 70, I think). And it is bullet-proof.

It has gained acceptance,because it IS so "workable", and can look good after being ballasted and weathered. It's acknowleged that it is not comparable to,say,Atlas code 55, but because it does work so well,it has,as I say, been widely accepted. I have a bunch, and I like it very much...

 

Mark in Oregon

Oh there's plenty of "vision"...but as usual, there's precious little cash backing up the talk.

S scale could be lots of things, but at the end of the day it is what it is.

 

Jeff C

So if we scaled it up for S what size would the rail be then?

Tom,

 

Just as a point of info, there are small tubular bushings (sold by Port Lines and others) that after simple insertion onto Flyer trucks, transform the Flyer cars to roll with the best of modern Flyonel, AM oer SHS.

 

Rich

Kato HO Unitrack is very prototypical from a standpoint of rail height, but Kato N scale Unitrack is very oversize (but extremely reliable).

 

Jeff C