ScaleTrains.com and MTH S Scale

@Ukaflyer posted:

What was wrong with Don’s concept for wheels when he ran SHS? i don’t seem to remember people getting upset with him from both camps, or have I missed something?

Nothing.  He hit the nail squarely on the head when it came to selling S.  No duplicate inventories, no guessing of how many of Scale or HiRail to make.  Let the consumer decide.

Although I think originally there were some cheapskates out there that complained about paying for the HiRail wheels and couplers they weren't going to use and others for the scale wheels they weren't going to use.  There were some in the so-called "Builders Scale" that did whine about having to make the effort to change wheelsets and mount Kadees.

Just goes to prove: Can't please every one...

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

Nothing.  He hit the nail squarely on the head when it came to selling S.  No duplicate inventories, no guessing of how many of Scale or HiRail to make.  Let the consumer decide.

Although I think originally there were some cheapskates out there that complained about paying for the HiRail wheels and couplers they weren't going to use and others for the scale wheels they weren't going to use.  There were some in the so-called "Builders Scale" that did whine about having to make the effort to change wheelsets and mount Kadees.

Just goes to prove: Can't please every one...

Rusty

....and I found someone over here who was quite happy to swap his hi-rail for my semi scale wheels. Everyone was happy!

@Rusty Traque posted:

Nothing.  He hit the nail squarely on the head when it came to selling S.  No duplicate inventories, no guessing of how many of Scale or HiRail to make.  Let the consumer decide.

Although I think originally there were some cheapskates out there that complained about paying for the HiRail wheels and couplers they weren't going to use and others for the scale wheels they weren't going to use.  There were some in the so-called "Builders Scale" that did whine about having to make the effort to change wheelsets and mount Kadees.

Just goes to prove: Can't please every one...

Rusty

Boy, I'll say. and I agree with you about SHS, Their stuff was top drawer and they seemed to know the market pretty well.  AM isn't bad about what they market either.  I hope ST does equally well.  I wrote and told them as much and received a very nice reply from Michelle.

A question:  If I exchange the High-rail wheels for scale wheels and the same for the Kadee coupler on a SHS car, does that make it scale?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@Tom Stoltz posted:

A question:  If I exchange the High-rail wheels for scale wheels and the same for the Kadee coupler on a SHS car, does that make it scale?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

...and this potentially seems to be the dilemma, what is scale?  Are we now saying that Don met a second target audience that was between hi-rail and full scale?

Those supporting a full scale wheel profile are looking at a real potentially niche area and I don’t believe even ST will make the old SHS/MTH products for this group only.  I can’t believe the sales would justify whatever they paid MTH for everything.

According to the NASG web site, code 110 wheels have a flange depth of .030 The chart that Rusty posted shows a flange depth of .028 for HO. That makes S-Helper and MTH scale wheel sets a lot closer to scale than HO.

Sounds like S scalers need to establish another category, like "3 Rail Scale"...no, wait; they already have. It's called "high rail", correct?  As far as "scale" is concerned, it's all 1:64, right?

Mark in Oregon

@Oman posted:

According to the NASG web site, code 110 wheels have a flange depth of .030 The chart that Rusty posted shows a flange depth of .028 for HO. That makes S-Helper and MTH scale wheel sets a lot closer to scale than HO.

Or H0 wheels a lot closer to S High-rail wheels in proportion...

@Strummer posted:

As far as "scale" is concerned, it's all 1:64, right?

Mark in Oregon

If only it was

@Tom Stoltz posted:

A question:  If I exchange the High-rail wheels for scale wheels and the same for the Kadee coupler on a SHS car, does that make it scale?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

My Evil Twin poses a similar question from time to time over on .io.   I tend to get a lot of harrumphing.

Got more specific once.  I asked which is more scale: A Pacific Rail Shops car with HiRail wheels and claw couplers or an American Flyer 639 boxcar equipped with P:64 wheels and Sergent couplers.  I almost got excommunicated.

Honestly, given the detail available on AM, SHS/MTH/coming ST and SSA cars, I maintain the only difference between Scale and HiRail boils down to wheels and couplers.

The Lionel Flyer cylindrical hopper can be a perfect example:

Rusty

Strummer Mark, after reading all this with amusement I had the same thought. What we really need is the equivalent of three rail scale but what we would call it? 2 rail almost scale? We can really confuse everyone.

Rusty, I agree keep it simple. But wait what about everything "scale" except wheels and track ala Brooks Stover and others. But we know S gaugers love to debate this stuff. Does it really matter in the end?

@Rusty Traque posted:

My Evil Twin poses a similar question from time to time over on .io.   I tend to get a lot of harrumphing.

Got more specific once.  I asked which is more scale: A Pacific Rail Shops car with HiRail wheels and claw couplers or an American Flyer 639 boxcar equipped with P:64 wheels and Sergent couplers.  I almost got excommunicated.

Honestly, given the detail available on AM, SHS/MTH/coming ST and SSA cars, I maintain the only difference between Scale and HiRail boils down to wheels and couplers.

The Lionel Flyer cylindrical hopper can be a perfect example:

Rusty

Rusty, thank you so much, that is music to my ears.  As you know, I am trying to upset the .io side right now.  I don't like to be looked down on by 'lofty' people.  And I too maintain "only difference between Scale and HiRail boils down to wheels and couplers."  Wonderful story.

I wonder if you had used a 642 if the reception would have been any better...

But what was the answer, the 639 or the PRS?

@Caldwell posted:

Does it really matter in the end?

Absolutely not. The precious people like to confuse simplicity that makes  everything complicated.

Sounds like Rusty likes to poke at bears once in a while. My view is it is up to the owner to decide what is scale taking into account the NASG standards.

All my rolling stock is scale sized with the exception of the AM heavyweight passenger cars and the Lionel AF Big Boy. I do not call them scale because they will not (except for some AM diesels) run on Code 100 or less track. I call my AM engines with scale wheels "scale", even though they do not have Kadee couplers. Perhaps that can get me excommunicated, I mean no harm or insult to those with different criteria.

As far as layouts go, I refer to mine, which is highly detailed, as scale appearing because it does not have Code 100 or smaller track. True scale engines will operate on it.

@Caldwell posted:

Strummer Mark, after reading all this with amusement I had the same thought. What we really need is the equivalent of three rail scale but what we would call it? 2 rail almost scale? We can really confuse everyone.

Rusty, I agree keep it simple. But wait what about everything "scale" except wheels and track ala Brooks Stover and others. But we know S gaugers love to debate this stuff. Does it really matter in the end?

When I was doing model rockets, they had scale and near scale.  No one got up set... unless their rocket pranged.  The scale rocket was submitted with a photo of the rocket modeled.  I was once told if the picture had bird poop on the rocket, the model better well have it too.  I did near scale -- no bird poop.

@Caldwell posted:

Rusty, I agree keep it simple. But wait what about everything "scale" except wheels and track ala Brooks Stover and others. But we know S gaugers love to debate this stuff. Does it really matter in the end?

Brooks is another example my Evil Twin likes to point out when they start yada-yading about scale and rail height over on .io.

Now, I'll admit when I got into S in 1985, I didn't want anything to do with Flyer or Hirail.  It had to be scale or I wanted none of it.  I can't say exactly when my mind began to change, but after looking seriously looking at Gilbert Flyer stuff, I began to understand how well detailed it was for being sold as toys.  Perfect?  No.  But a heckufalot better than I gave it credit for.  I also began to understand the 80/20 (or 85/15 depending on who you ask) ratio of interest in S.

It does matter to a certain extent.  Flyer/HiRail isn't going to go away anytime soon, it should be embraced for helping to keep the Scale alive, because a bunch of fuddy-duddy's proclaiming "the builders scale" ain't gonna do it by itself.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

I can't say exactly when my mind began to change, but after looking seriously at Gilbert Flyer stuff, I began to understand how well detailed it was for being sold as toys.  Perfect?  No.  But a heckufalot better than I gave it credit for.  I also began to understand the 80/20 (or 85/15 depending on who you ask) ratio of interest in S.

It does matter to a certain extent.  Flyer/HiRail isn't going to go away anytime soon, it should be embraced for helping to keep the Scale alive, because a bunch of fuddy-duddy's proclaiming "the builders scale" ain't gonna do it by itself.

Rusty

Hallelujah, someone from the dark area that actually understands both sides of the spectrum and can appreciate where we all are.

if only the others on the dark side will appreciate that they are not the minority dominant group.

From all factions we need to work collectively and to a common goal that we can all get the best product for each and every one of us.

@Ukaflyer posted:

Hallelujah, someone from the dark area that actually understands both sides of the spectrum and can appreciate where we all are.

if only the others on the dark side will appreciate that they are not the minority dominant group.

From all factions we need to work collectively and to a common goal that we can all get the best product for each and every one of us.

yes, yes, yes!!!

Thank you everyone, you made my day. When I started back up in model railroading,  I used to hate  the rift in S.  In one of my first posts I called it the curse of  AC Gilbert.  The early stuff was scale sized but still an expensive toy.  The Northern and Hudson were actually decent models for the time.

So back to the original topic if Scale Trains wants to get other scale converts to S I have a radical idea. Follow the SHS model but do it backwards. Scale wheels and couplers but provide high rail wheels and couplers. That way we 85% or 80%'s can live our remaining years in blissful happiness and keep the dollars rolling in. Yes much of this is tongue in cheek. Yes there will be complaining but that is what model railroaders do best.

If I wasn't old, tired and lazy, I would do high rail track and wheels and Kadee couplers.

@Caldwell posted:

Thank you everyone, you made my day. When I started back up in model railroading,  I used to hate  the rift in S.  In one of my first posts I called it the curse of  AC Gilbert.  The early stuff was scale sized but still an expensive toy.  The Northern and Hudson were actually decent models for the time.

If I wasn't old, tired and lazy, I would do high rail track and wheels and Kadee couplers.

Caldwell, that’s where I am now.  I walked away about ten years ago (same thing with the guitar) and am just starting to get interested again.  So what are you doing now?

I would like to thank everyone who partook in this discussion and kept it on a mostly adult level. I am sorry to say, that is not the case of the .io scale side.  The moderator has stepped in and wants to shut the topic down rather than moderate the individuals who are getting feisty (seems like it’s always the same two).  Shutting it down is a guaranteed way to ensure it will surface again.  Not that we won’t discuss it again sometime in the future and I look forward to new insights, and other points of view.  I find it refreshing.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

To put this all in perspective, when I began to expand my childhood trains in the mid 1970's, all that was being made by the small number of manufacturers in S was  "scale" that one could "reverse engineer" into "AF Compatible" by adding Ace Trucks with wheels that  had slightly larger flanges, and a screw on conversion that allowed you to add an AF coupler to the truck.

All that was necessary to do so was to remove (or not install, if the item was a kit) the coupler pocket and attach the AF compatible hardware, all of which could be done with a screwdriver in a matter of a minute or two.  A really hard conversion required you to put a washer between the bolster and the truck (to accommodate the larger flanges)  and use a longer screw to attach the truck.  It was only a matter of a few dollars to do so and no special tools or skill were needed. 

This isn't rocket science.   Whether to include the necessary hardware or to offer it as a separate sale item, as long as it is easily available, is a marketing decision. 

@Trinity River Bottoms Boomer posted:

Note to Tom Stoltz:  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it appears that some angry S scale rivet counter has "removed" the brakewheel off your American Flyer 642.  Time to call the Railroad Police and have them issue an all points bulletin!

Joe

Hey Joe, yeah it was too scale for them with the brakewheel in place.  In order to keep the peace, the brakewheel had to go...

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@Trinity River Bottoms Boomer posted:

Rusty: Excommunicated?  That was tough man, really tough!

It's too early to tell what ScaleTrains intends to do with S scale at this time.  Afterall, the ink on the sales contract with MTH hasn't even dried yet.

Pretty much what I've been saying...

To insure that they enter the S scale market properly they might consider consulting with the NASG and their members (a survey perhaps?) to determine which products would be best to offer modelers first so the profits made off of the initial sales can be used expand the line without suffering any financial burdon.

Surveys tend to go off into the weeds pretty quickly.  Even if they were limited to what tooling they have.  It is the nature of things.  These guys used to work for Athearn before striking out on their own.  I'm sure they've heard plenty of suggestions over the years on what would be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  Afterall, it will take a substantial amount of $$$ to set up production and see that it properly promoted and be placed on the market ASAP so modelers will be able to take advantage of all the new offerings.

Like all the rest of us, I just have to wait and see.  One thing to their advantage: Competition is S is nowhere near to what it is in HO.  However, my personal hope is that Scale Trains first releases cars that MTH had not gotten around to.  The 3-bay PS-2 covered hopper particularly opens up many possibilities for both railroad and industry decorations.  Back in the day, AHM had at least 15 different HO 3-bay PS-2 covered hopper decorations.

Talk is cheap.  Thus I intend to join the NASG and show my full support in S scale and also do my part to see that ScaleTrains doesn't loose interest in producing S scale products as they begin the S scale adventure.  Hope you guys will also consider the same.  ScaleTrains needs us NOW!

And Scale Trains needs us more later!  They're not going to make this stuff just to decorate the office.  There is an advantage to the 18-24 month scheduling issue.  It creates by default a pent-up demand.  Like everything else nowadays, it's a pre-order world.  Based on what I see on their website, ST will probably announce about 8-10 months before an anticipated delivery.

Rusty

Note to Tom Stoltz:  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it appears that some angry S scale rivet counter has "removed" the brakewheel off your American Flyer 642.  Time to call the Railroad Police and have them issue an all points bulletin!

Joe

As a S scale NEWBIE, I am going to use code 138 rail flex track from SHS/MTH. I settled on using Lionel AF manual fastrack R27 switches because I can run my scale wheel freight and passenger cars and my AF legacy Berkshire with no modifications to those switches. Chuck told me he can run both wheelsets through his with no problems. So that's my plan for my first 5 by 12' Paradise Valley layout, I might make it all steam engines too. I have my 2-8-4, the AF 4-6-2 with legacy/dcc is next. I saw they "found" the mikado tooling, so if that gets made there is my legacy/dcc 2-8-2. Scale trains brings the 2-8-0 back, I was worried that I wouldn't have any steam engines in S. Not a problem anymore, I hope to start construction next month.

Tom, just saw your comment on what I am doing. Without tread drift and boring everyone on an interesting topic, I will just say I never completely left S gauge.

We downsized our house and I dismantled the old layout. I did throw up (pun intended?) a modest 6' by 16' layout. Enough to play trains and small projects. Email in my profile if you want more info.

Back to topic, my buying days are over but if Scale Trains come out with some interesting items, I might free some of the moths from my billfold.

@DL&W Pete posted:

As a S scale NEWBIE, I am going to use code 138 rail flex track from SHS/MTH. I settled on using Lionel AF manual fastrack R27 switches because I can run my scale wheel freight and passenger cars and my AF legacy Berkshire with no modifications to those switches. Chuck told me he can run both wheelsets through his with no problems. So that's my plan for my first 5 by 12' Paradise Valley layout, I might make it all steam engines too. I have my 2-8-4, the AF 4-6-2 with legacy/dcc is next. I saw they "found" the mikado tooling, so if that gets made there is my legacy/dcc 2-8-2. Scale trains brings the 2-8-0 back, I was worried that I wouldn't have any steam engines in S. Not a problem anymore, I hope to start construction next month.

Pete, I might be wrong, but I thought Chuck was using Fox Valley turnouts.  The Flyonel turnouts are a constant radius, lets call it 20"R and might be a bit tight for some of the equipment you plan on running.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine and used to being wrong -- just ask my wife...

Pete, I think you will be happy with the setup you are planning. I hope it come together quickly for you. I have two of the new Legacy USRA Pacifics on order.

Rusty, I assume you know most 642's were made without brakewheels. I have added brakewheels to some Gilbert cars made without them, I might be beyond redemption.

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Pete, I might be wrong, but I thought Chuck was using Fox Valley turnouts.  The Flyonel turnouts are a constant radius, lets call it 20"R and might be a bit tight for some of the equipment you plan on running.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine and used to being wrong -- just ask my wife...

I have AF FasTrack on my current layout. My planned expansion will be all code 138 flex with modified FVM hi-rail turnouts. 

AF FasTrack does have 27" radius as well as 20" turnouts.

@Chuck K posted:

I have AF FasTrack on my current layout. My planned expansion will be all code 138 flex with modified FVM hi-rail turnouts.

AF FasTrack does have 27" radius as well as 20" turnouts.

does that mean I was correct?  I gotta show this to my wife...

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@AmFlyer posted:

Pete, I think you will be happy with the setup you are planning. I hope it come together quickly for you. I have two of the new Legacy USRA Pacifics on order.

Rusty, I assume you know most 642's were made without brakewheels. I have added brakewheels to some Gilbert cars made without them, I might be beyond redemption.

Thanks Tom, When Chuck told me his scale wheel diesels and steam engines roll through the FT switches with no problems, I knew that in the back of my mind that's what I wanted. When I made the decision to start this journey, I told my self to keep it K.I.S.S.

I want to pre-order the pacific now. But given my current medical condition, I really don't want to put the burden on a hobby shop if my neurological issues get any worse.