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.

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

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

 

   Yeah,the smaller the scale the more tolerable oversize rail becomes. Even oversize N rail looks pretty tiny.  S scale flanges are proportionally smaller than HO flanges so an S unitrack system using code 100 rail would be quite nice in appearance and operation. The actual size of rail doesn't matter as much as the attitude that one is using as close to prototype appearance as possible for the chosen scale while still maintaining reasonable operational ease. ...DaveB 

Oh don't worry--I've been known to have my share of attitude...

 

Jeff C

Wow...

 

Three pages and the talk has now drifted about having something similar to Kato Unitrack in S.   Well, S Helper Service/MTH S-Trax is (drum roll, please..) practically just like Kato's Unitrack.

 

As I recall, SHS chose code 125 rail for two reasons.  1) You could run Scale or most if not all Flyer wheeled equipment on it and 2) It represented the Pennsy's 155# track specification of the 1950's.  So, it is in effect, scale size rail.

 

Also, from what I remember, the rail joiners were going originally to be separate, like Kato's, but Kato put a stop to it (patent infringement.)  So, the rail joiners became part of the roadbed, satisfying Kato.

 

The early turnouts were not real friendly to scale wheels on the diverging route, but the redesigned ones are.

 

And, in what has to be the surprise of the century, Lionel actually designed their S Fastrack with the same size rail, roadbed height and half tie on the ends, making it compatible (with minor modification) with S-Trax. 

 

Dogs and cats living together...

 

In other words, there are now two (mostly) compatible "instant" track systems, perfect for the theoretical 6-year old's starter set, so I don't think there's going to be a third molded ballast system with code 100 or 113 rail.

 

Frankly, I don't see a market for code 100 or 113 molded ballast track.

 

What's really lacking with both systems is turnouts.  There's only one size turnout (R20 compatible) for both and Lionel's hasn't even shown up yet. 

 

I know SHS was working on a #5, but what really needs to happen for the molded ballast systems is turnouts that would blend with the R25 and R29 curves to maintain the geometry, just like their O gauge counterparts.

 

Rusty

 

I am one who really enjoys "S" gauge, scale, high rail, tin plate, Gilbert American Flyer, and Flyonel. I like running what I have on Gilbert track and Gilbert roadbed. I guess it is time to go play with my trains and work on my layout and stop following this thread.

To much hash and rehash. Enjoy what you have and what you do, to great a hobby to not enjoy for the relaxation and fun of what it does for you and me.

Ray

As I recall, SHS chose code 125 rail for two reasons.

 

SHS rail is .138”.  You might find some at .1375”, but never .125”

 

I have attached a copy of part of SHS's rail design,

 

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Your right, I remember now measuring it when I compared S-Trax with Fastrack.  I pulled the incorrect info from one of SHS's catalogs this morning...

 

Rusty

"Frankly, I don't see a market for code 100 or 113 molded ballast track."

 

   I don't either. The S "unitrack" is equivalent to what the other popular scales have and can be a stepping stone to flextrack for those who stay in the hobby. All we really need is more product at competitive prices so new comers to the hobby can consider S scale on equal footing to HO or O scales. Being in the sweet spot for size is not being exploited like it could........DaveB