Do We Want Realism or Toys?

So, I assume that if you model in 1:48 scale you have two rail proto48 track and trains, and an absolute minimum radius of 96", which still bears little resemblance to reality unless it's an industrial siding.  True?

The fact of the matter is that all modeling is representational.  If it takes a GP9 to represent a GP7 or vice versa, so what.

Pete

So, using the same analogy, can you tell a Hudson, from a Pacific, from a Northern? How about an EMD "E" unit, from an ALCO "PA"?

Unless you got but two rails it really doesn't matter.  Do you?

Also, not talkin' about different wheel arrangements or different manufacturers, just GP7 and GP9, both EMD four wheel truck plenty similar diesels.

Pete

OK then,,,,,how about the difference between and EMD "FT", and and "F3", and an "F7"?  All were the same manufacturer and have the same wheel arrangement.

You run two or three rail?  Total balls out scale?  Just curious.

As to the FT, F3 and F7, yes, they could all "represent" no problem in my apparently appalling (to you) world.

Pete

A raper from Jurastic Park should be chasing this!

As far as the IRS sees it, any model train is to them a TOY, and is taxed as such.

A Yogi-sim fits here:  When you come to a fork in the road, take it!

I can't think of a less qualified entity than the IRS to make a determination in the argument.

You can call anything a model and we'll compare it to the prototype. We'll determine the degree to which it is an accurate model, good or poor representation. The number of rails has nothing to do with it being a model or not.

A toy to one person may not be so to another person. Toys to me are something which have little value. 

Pete,

I don't really attempt to model track, I merely use it, to run the trains I do model.  If I ever decide to "model" track, I will go 2-rail and have a small switching layout.  i don't worry about the gauge being too wide.  The difference between 4' 8-1/2" and 5'-0" in O scale is 1/16", not enough for me to start working in Proto 48.  For those that do, that's fine.

I'm far from a rivet counter, but I do like my models to at least look like the prototype.

I'm glad the scale guys give the manufacturers reason to think about what they make these days.  I'd rather see them spend their money on making the models more prototypical as far as looks go and less on opening doors, smoking valves, and arm- waving engineers.

I don't think anybody called your toy train world "appalling", except you.  We were asked what we preferred and we responded, along with why we feel this way.

If you're not hauling real freight or passengers, it's a toy.

It just might be that they are both toys and models regardless of how the pie is divided.

One of the main reasons why I like 3-rail O gauge trains is this paradox: the equipment is larger than HO, yet is often modified enough to negotiate sharper curves.  I much rather prefer the semi-scale stuff for precisely that reason.  Now, I do have a couple of scale locos, but they can negotiate O31/O36, and that's all that matters (well, the Hall class can,but is a tight squeeze).  Yes, there are plenty of things on my models that I notice and could point out that are prototypically incorrect, but I don't let it detract from my enjoyment.

The only large-radius, scale-sized equipment I would want is some of MTH's European equipment, mainly because scale models are all that's available.

Even though this branch of the model railroading hobby is called "toy trains", I consider everything I have as models, and I try to treat even my most basic starter set equipment with the same respect that I would a fine-scale model.

Aaron

I like realistic 1/48 scale model trains. But...

I also like:

3-rail track

swinging pilots

and truck mounted lobster claw couplers

And I don't like outrageously expensive, limited production models of obscure steam behemoths that I will never be able to buy or run on my layout.

Thats why diesels rule on my layout.

Allan Miller,

   Thanks much for saying us Tin Plate guys are the most layed back calm chilled out of all runners.  I do agree we are a layed back bunch that gets in trouble around the realism guys, just by having a good time.

I definitely have a mixture of Tin and Post War I guess I am a layed back kind of Toy train guy that has a lot of memories wound around the trains at Christmas time.

Running the Tin on the newer FasTrack and RealTrax makes the Tin really run perfectly, even with old 711 switches.  There is no doubt us Tin Plate guys view our trains as little boys toys, and most of us have never really grown away from building

and running them.  It should be a fun time, and add joy to Christmas and the holidays.

We use the toy trains to relax, and have a good time. Actually I would like to return to more and more Tin of my youth and less realism, can't seem to give up the modern track however.

PCRR/Dave

If I really wanted realism, I wouldn't be in 3-rail O-gauge trains, I'd be in 2-rail HO or O-scale. There's nothing realistic about 3-rail track systems, even the best out there. With that said, I have gravitated to the more detailed "scale" O-gauge trains in recent years, even the Polar Express and Polar RR items that are well-detailed. That's really the neat factor of 3-rail O-gauge.

I think the non-scale flange size on hi-rail wheels is the single greatest advantage to increasing the fun factor.  I like reasonable realism, etc., but agree with Flash, three-rails, big couplers, etc., make things so easy, dependable, and fun.

To me, I want to enjoy the hobby with a minimum of fussing that seeming goes out of it's way to attain the impossible with three rails and simply is accommodation in regard to compromised prototypical "realism'.To me three rail O gauge is simply not realistic and that seems pretty simple to determine. So this quest for realism always struck me as paradoxical. At best it's compromised realism at worst, its simply a term without a basis.

As far as electronics and realism, its not for me. The net effect is increased cost, designed obsolescence and it simply has created another hurdle cost wise for the entrants into the hobby  as the old "you can't have that without this" marketing applies..which the big boys push in a sort of force feeding the market to bring up profit points. Its all a short term flash in the pan in juxtaposition to a shrinking base..and of course then you have the haves and have nots sort of division..Thank the heavens I am a Luddite. 

It is really simple.We want realistic dependable toys.

bob C.

Lee - This is a superb evaluation.  Nicely done.

Pete

Real Toys of course!  

Closer to real but not too carried away..

Keep in mind though, when you say to the effect that the 3rd rail negates any realism, that there is another, although admittedly less obvious, detriment in 2-rail O scale as well.  In 2-rail O scale, the track gauge still measures 5' instead of 4' 8½".  This results not only with the wheelsets of the trains themselves being out of gauge, it also results in truck sideframes and steam engine piston cylinders to be located too far outward to compensate.  Also with "standard" 2-rail O scale, the wheel treads tend to be too wide (a functional compromise for operations).  So unless you model Proto 48 where those variables can be addressed, you're still compromising realism to a degree.

If you have your layout designed where it's viewed at eye level (you know, how you typically view prototype trains in real life, then the 3rd rail is even less obvious.  I can post a couple of pictures of my 3-rail layout I took at eye level that uses Atlas O track, scale sized and weathered cars & engines with 2-rail wheels and Kadee couplers, and I'll be willing to bet I could challenge you to be able to quickly tell it's a 3-rail layout.

I don't really attempt to model track, I merely use it, to run the trains I do model.  If I ever decide to "model" track, I will go 2-rail and have a small switching layout.  i don't worry about the gauge being too wide.  The difference between 4' 8-1/2" and 5'-0" in O scale is 1/16", not enough for me to start working in Proto 48.  For those that do, that's fine.
Completely agree. However, as someone above said, not only is the gauge too wide, the wheels are too fat. That's the compromise we must live with or go all fanatical and do P48.

I'm far from a rivet counter, but I do like my models to at least look like the prototype.
Close. I do at least an approximation of counting rivets- right up to the point where the pain exceeds the gain

I'm glad the scale guys give the manufacturers reason to think about what they make these days.  I'd rather see them spend their money on making the models more prototypical as far as looks go and less on opening doors, smoking valves, and arm- waving engineers.
Absolutely right on!

"Completely agree. However, as someone above said, not only is the gauge too wide, the wheels are too fat. That's the compromise we must live with or go all fanatical and do P48."

I fail to understand how Proto 48 is any more (or less!) fanatical than other aspects of the O gauge hobby.

Pete

I agree with those who say there are compromises up and down the line, but I also see where Pete and the other guys are coming from. The center rail isn't something that is simply a little off here or there. It is a bullseye between the other two rails.

Ain't that the truth. With scale couplers, wheel flanges, and rail, all I'd need or want are display cases.

How about BOTH? - has always worked for me! 

O gauge, standard gauge, scale, tinplate, gauge one live steam - it's ALL GOOD!

I do like the scale world. BUT I grew up with toy trains and feel right at home with them. Looking at postwar catalogs just floods my mind with memories.