Flyer vs Hi-rail vs scale

Oh my, that is a slippery slope...

Personal Opinion:

Traditional: Gilbert track and switches, minimal or basic scenery, straight from the box Plasticville-type buildings and a ton of operating accessories.  Trains are original Flyer (Gilbert and/or Flyonel) and unmodified.

HiRail: Gargraves, AM or any other track with close tie spacing.  Larger curves would be a plus, but not required due to space limitations.  The scenery treatment is more or less realistic. Scenic treatment is perhaps the crucial issue in separating traditional from HiRail.

Certain train equipment may be repainted in a more prototypical manner, (although much original Flyer is pretty darn good in that category...) or the inclusion of AM or SHS stuff.  Still retain the large flanges and couplers may, but need not be replaced with Kadee's.  Any operating accessories are worked in to a scene in a logical manner.

Scale: No deep flanges or big couplers.  Kadee or equivalent couplers.  Track is portrayed realistically, code 125 rail or smaller.  Numbered, as opposed to "radius-type" switches.  (example: #4 vs. 20" radius switch) 

No oversized anything.  Trains are good to extremely accurate representations of their prototypes.  Scenery is realistic and structures are to scale.  "Flights of fantasy" are occasionally allowed if kept to a minimum and don't stand out like a sore thumb.

Your opinion may vary.

Rusty

Rusty, sounds like you nailed it.

Rich

Tom....

The NMRA-affiliated S Scale SIG (Special Interest Group) defines "scale" this way:

"The S Scale SIG defines scale modeling, regardless of gauge, as:

• Wheels and track compatible with NMRA specifications S-1.2 and S-3.2 and S-4.2.
• A coupler size equal to or smaller than Kadee #802 and compatible with NMRA specification S-2.
• A rail height in the approximate ratio of 1:64 to the prototype being modeled."

This definition makes no attempt to judge the quality of models or layouts.  If an AF layout has spectacular scenery, it is still an AF layout.  If a scale layout has lousy scenery, it is still a scale layout.  The only concern is with accurate reproduction of those items that enable operational interchangeability between the trains and models of various manufacturers and hobbyists. 

Rusty captured well the spirit and general intent of these definitions.  The S SIG has adopted specific numbers in order to eliminate subjective judgments.  When talking about flanges, for example, what exactly is meant by "too large"?  At what point, does a coupler become "too big"? 

More information can be found on the S SIG web site at:  http://sscale.org/

Cheers......Ed L.

Ed,

I find NMRA S scale definition intriguing and a bit bazaar. Taking their logic to the extreme, if I convert an old Flyer 21165 to meet their criteria for wheels, track and coupler standards etc, do I then become a true S scaler instead of a hi-railer or AF operator?

In America, you are free to call yourself (and your layout) anything you want. 

However, if you want your equipment to work on someone else's layout or a club layout, then it is most helpful if all the rolling equipment and track is built to the same dimensions.  And, if you are a manufacturer, you will probably want your products to be operable on all the layouts already built to some standard dimensions.  Hence, the inherent value in the NMRA and S SIG numerical standards.

So, if you modify an AF locomotive to have wheels and couplers that conform to the standards, then you will have a "scale" locomotive by NMRA and S SIG definitions.  Appearance factors are not of any concern for the purpose of interchanging rolling stock or running stuff on other layouts. 

You are certainly free to develop your own definitions of things to suit your personal tastes.  It is, after all, a free country.  The problem with doing that is then you have to convince a huge number of folks to accept and use your dictionary instead of the NMRA dictionary which has been around for a l--o--n--g time.  I note here that the Lionel dictionary is quite a bit different with its definition of "scale" when compared to any other dictionary in the hobby.

If you attempt to judge or evaluate the cosmetic factors, and the quality of modeling and the degree of authenticity, you will find yourself with an impossible goal if you want the rest of us accept your definitions.  Nobody will much agree with anything that is subjective, judgmental and open to different interpretations like when does a coupler become "too large" and when does rail size become "too large" and when does a flange become "too huge", when is the track gauge "too big", etc., etc.?   And there is little value in a definition that only applies to one layout/owner.  But you can give it a try if you want.  Let us know how it works out.

Nearly all attempts to judge the "quality of modeling" have failed miserably.  The most common attempts at this were to assign a point value to home layouts which folks could visit while at a convention or model train show.  The end result, in most cases, was hurt feelings, anger, resentment, complaints, etc., etc.  "How did his layout justify more points than my layout?  In the end, everyone decided this was no way to enjoy a hobby and the effort to judge things passed away into oblivion.

Even contests, where judging is everything, have recently become less and less popular.  The "popular vote" method of determining winners and losers is coming on strong these days.

Cheerfully......Ed L.

The definitions I described in an earlier post are my general way of looking at S, but they're not written on stone tablets. 

After all, Brooks Stovers Buffalo Creek and Gauley is an S Scale railroad even though he uses code 148 rail and his equipment has large flanges.

Or, is it HiRail?

Hmmm... A conundrum.

The funny thing is, I've never heard HO or N folks obsess over things like scale and HiRail the way O and S guys do. 

Even in the 60's and 70's, when locomotives by AHM/Rivarossi came with their N.E.M flanges that wouldn't run on anything less than code 100 rail and those absolutely wonderful X2F couplers, they were still considered scale locomotives.

Pretty much the same for N, once it outgrew the crudeness of product and being just a curiosity. (And I remember seeing those first crude battery-operated Arnold Rapido sets in the hobby shop window for the princely sum of $9.99.) 

By O and S definitions, flanges on Micro-Trains N Scale cars would be considered HiRail, but nobody in N scale does...

Rusty

The reason N and HO scales do not have this "definition issue" to contend with is that they never had a tinplate toy-like version that was operationally incompatible with the realistic stuff.  Most of the HO stuff all worked together more or less (not quibbling over AHM or Maerklin here) and that is also true of N scale as well.  Some was of higher quality and some was of lower quality, but it all sort of played together reasonably well.

O does have the Lionel tinplate heritage which is currently referred to as 3-rail to distinguish it from the more realistic 2-rail products.  Or, if you prefer, call it "O gauge" vs. "O scale".   S has AF as its tinplate father.  In S, the terminology is "AF-compatible" vs. "scale", but the intent is the same as 2-rail vs. 3-rail.  Or, as many prefer, "S gauge" vs. "S scale".  Just different words all attempting to distinguish less realism from more realism.

I think the difficulty facing S is that there have been so many attempts at improving the realism of Gilbert AF over the years that it becomes overwhelmingly confusing to potential newcomers to S.  From just adding balsa wood ties to traditional track all the way up to Lionel's SD70 and Y-3 which have very authentic body castings down to the last detail, there is a huge range of possibilities for improved realism.  Nice as the SD70 and Y-3 are, one can still be picky with them with regard to the front handrails (SD70) and the swiveling rear drivers (Y-3).  It all depends on what rivets you want to count and how close you want to look.  As one guy on the S SIG forum states: "I will count my own rivets, but not someone else's."

Quite a range of modeling realism is out there for certain.  Is it traditional AF, is it Flyonel, is it AF-compatible, is it high-rail, is it hi-rail, is it scale, is it P:64, is it........   Well, you get the idea.  In addition, someone just recently used "near scale" and the O crowd calls some stuff "semi-scale" or "scale-plate".  Who knows what new terminology will come along next?  And is there even any attempt to rigorously define each new word as it enters the lexicon?  Each new word just describes a new degree of realism that did not exist before. 

And, to complicate things, there are several dictionaries each with their own different meaning of the same word.  For example, to the NMRA and S SIG, "scale" has a very precise meaning complete with dimensions.  To Lionel, it appears (to me) that "scale" means "more realistic than traditional AF".  But a scale product in the Lionel dictionary will run on AF track and couple with AF couplers.  A scale product in the S SIG dictionary will not run on AF track and will not couple with AF couplers.  So what does "scale" really mean?  It depends who is talking and which dictionary he is using.

I am not surprised that Tom Stoltz asked where to draw the line. I would venture there is no place to draw any line since the degrees of realism are pretty much a continuum with numerous shades of gray all the way along.   There are not convenient distinct categories for things like scenery, structures, control systems, track geometry, operations, etc. that serve to define a layout along the realism continuum. 

Why not say there are no lines at all and just enjoy running the trains?  Because there are clubs and manufacturers and hobbyists who want to run equipment on a variety of layouts both permanent and modular.  In order to do this, there has to be some set of dimensions for a standard or we will all be in the Tower of Babble.  Not much fun there.

Time for dinner. 

Cheers....Ed L.

I could care less.  I just do what I like with my childhood AF set on a small layout which is connected to my O-Scale layout.   They only thing that matters is if I like it.  I could care less what others think.  If folks want to put a label on it, that's on them.  I could care less what others categorize it as.

--Greg

As I mentioned earlier, a slippery slope.

Having been involved with O gauge(Lionel), a close encounter with O scale, HO, N and even G over the course of my model railroading hobby activity, I've been known to use the terms "scale" and "gauge" interchangeably, depending on who I'm talking to.

Sacrilege, I know...  Gauge is not a scale and scale is not a gauge.  (Poor On30, O scale trains on HO gauge track.  What's a mother to do???)

I've found that most people not in the hobby grasp the basic concepts of G, O, S, HO, N "Gauge" much easier than "Scale."  I can then define things further if the conversation continues in depth.

Granted, it's not as simple for manufacturers trying to sell the stuff.  They have to  attract not only the experienced hobbiest, but also new and potentially brand loyal folks.  I've overheard questions from newbies about HO at my LHS about something like Athearn playing well with their Bachmann stuff or vice-versa.

Perhaps that's why they develop their own "dictionaries."  (Probably why Bachmann defines On30 as "On30 scale" in their catalogs.  To make a distinction that these trains are outside the usual modeling sensibilities of the less informed.)

Personally, I don't think we're ever going to see hard, fast definitions of any scale.  The definitions will always be elastic.  Perhaps, that's how it should be, always with room for interpretation by the individual.

Rusty

I just have what I like, which is postwar AF with link couplers on a small layout that is more hi-rail. The train brings back childhood memories...my best friend had a AF K5 with green NH passenger cars. I liked it much better than my Lionel freight set. I also love the AF "whitewalls".

I always thought scale was a dimension, something you measured with a ruler. Detail doesn't matter, size does. At least thats the way I see it.

True enough. 

After all, in the general sense, this:

is no less 3/16ths scale, 1/64th proportion than this:

The difference is in the detail.

But in reality, nobody want's to refer to their trains as "low detail," or "high detail" models.  After all, a scale inch on the Flyer geep is the same as a scale inch on the AM geep.

So we come up with terms like traditional, hirail or scale to try to classify things. I've even heard the term "hi-scale" bandied about.  Boy, now there's a term that speaks and says nothing...

In the end, some could care less about defining their trains, some could care more. 

I'm somewhere in the middle.

Guilty as charged.

Rusty

That's a good point. I was actually thinking of starting a thread about a week ago about that very thing..."Pizza Cutters", they call 'em. 

Mark in Oregon

The term "Hi-Rail" means running toy trains on a layout with realistic scenery. It was coined in the 30's or 40's I believe. If you go back and look at Model Builder magazine from the period you will see good examples of Hi-Rail.

The lines are definitely blurred these days. It seems that the only constant is that the company that makes the products get to call their products whatever they want. It seems to me that Lionel is attempting to duplicate what they already do in O... Make the most accurate scale models while still making compromises to allow them to operate in smaller spaces.

Nothing wrong with that really. As Rusty showed in his review of the SD70 a while back, you can even fix the pilots, add scale wheels, and scale couplers. The only thing you can't easily do is lengthen the handrails. Still, most people in S run 20"r Flyer curves so you have to make trains for the masses.

If you are interested, here is the Wikipedia definition of HiRail:

High rail (also called "hi-rail" and "hirail") is a phrase used in model railroading in North America, mostly in O scale and S scale, to describe a "compromise" form of modelling that strives for realism while accepting the compromises in scale associated with toy train equipment. The phrase exists due to the observation that traditional Lionel and American Flyer toy train track sits much higher than finescale track.

The compromises that were traditionally made in manufacturing these trains have led to three approaches to model railroading in these two scales.

The traditional toy train layout makes little, if any, effort at realism and often makes use of unpainted plastic buildings, particularly the Plasticville brand, and other toys, making little or no effort to disguise their origin. In some cases, the buildings, vehicles, and figures on the layout may not even be the same scale as the train, or each other. Roads, grass, and roadbed may be painted onto the table surface, or may be represented with low-pile carpet.

Scale modeling also occurs in O and S scales, just like in HO or N scales, where the modeler tries to create a miniature world that is as realistic as possible. Scale modelers in O and S scales will often avoid, or at least make limited use of, traditional American Flyer and Lionel locomotives and rolling stock since it sometimes was not very true to scale, was lacking in detail, and used oversized knuckle couplers. Scale modelers use O gauge track, but with two rails rather than the three rails used by Lionel, and the trains run on direct current. Numerous standards for track that is more true to scale exist for both O and S scales.

High rail is an in-between approach. High-railers live with the out-of-scale track and will make use of off-the-shelf diecast vehicles that may be slightly out of scale, especially in O scale because true 1:48 scale vehicles are scarce, whereas 1:43 and 1:50 scale diecast vehicles are very common. Some use vintage Lionel and American Flyer trains, while others opt to use modern equivalents built to greater detail. High railers often will repaint and weather their trains, vehicles, and buildings, just as a scale model railroader would. Sometimes they will go to great lengths to try to conceal the middle rail on Lionel track, and will replace the oversized couplers that came with their trains from the factory with scale versions. High railers are less likely to engage in scratch building than their scale modeling counterparts, but many engage in kitbashing and super-detailing their buildings and structures.

Some manufacturers, particularly in S scale, will offer rolling stock with either scale or high-rail trucks and couplers, in order to cater to all potential markets.

I've always (in the last 30 years) thought of Gilbert Flyer as "hi-rail" in that a majority of it is scale-proportioned, but has large wheel flanges. Gilbert Flyer and most Flyonel will run on most modern hi-rail track systems. Rusty's GP pictures illustrate this nicely. I use the term 'traditional' only with the intention to clarify the trains' use on a toy train layout with operating accessories and the historic aesthetic baggage that goes along for the ride.

So as for S gauge/scale trains, themselves, the terminology in modern usage is either hi-rail or scale, IMHO. Your mileage may vary.

Bob

Traditional: Gilbert track and switches, minimal or basic scenery, straight from the box Plasticville-type buildings and a ton of operating accessories.  Trains are original Flyer (Gilbert and/or Flyonel) and unmodified.

Okay, but let’s not forget layouts of the quality of the American Flyer Boys Club and the Hall of Science.  I’m sure they were not the only layout of the era to go beyond Plasticville.

HiRail: Gargraves, AM or any other track with close tie spacing.  Larger curves would be a plus, but not required due to space limitations.  The scenery treatment is more or less realistic. Scenic treatment is perhaps the crucial issue in separating traditional from HiRail.

Here I disagree a bit more and, by the way, so does the NASG Dispatch, This Is S, special issue.  The Dispatch labels anything above code 148 rail in the Tinplate – Traditional – realm.  That would place Gargraves and the code 172, Am S Gauge trackage systems in the Traditional category.  These layouts have the look and feel of Traditional and generally use the Flyer 19.125” radius curves and switches.   

However the Dispatch also states that Hi-rail starts at code 125.  I would have thought the SHS profile rail was the start of Hi-rail.  I don’t know if code 132 will allow Flyer operation, if it does then Hi-rail would start with there.  But I’m pretty sure Flyer flanges are a little too deep for 125.  Feedback please…

The magazine does go on to include a code 172 layout as Hi-rail, contradicting their original statement…  I’m starting to understand why there is so much confusion here.  If the NASG can’t explain it, who can?

Ed L does his usual great job of defining scale and poses some interesting questions – when is too big, too big and where do we tolerate it?  Flanges no, couplers, yes?  Rusty’s pictures of the Geeps leaves me wondering about flanges though… same thing for Brooks Stover’s BC&G.  And the picture of the NYC RS-3 in the same issue of the Dispatch (page 20) leaves me wondering about couplers.

Thornier question: When someone has a no questions Flyer layout and buys a SHS engine, does the whole layout suddenly become Hi-rail?

For me it comes down to the track or rather the code of the rail.  I do believe we could come up with a fairly simple set of definitions for all 3 categories, however others will disagree.

Thank you for the discussion and I hope there will be some more input,

Tom Stoltz

in Maine -- with another snow storm

As  I've said, the definitions I provided in my original response were my personal opinion.  Ask 5 people, you'll get 8 different answers...

According to the SHS catalogs, their rail represents 155 pound rail, which according to Dave Heine's comprehensive rail article in the Dec 2103 Dispatch, is code 125 rail. 

I've had no trouble running Gilbert Flyer on the SHS code 125 track.  Lionel produced Flyer, is a slightly different story, it seems that over the years, Lionel couldn't decide on flange dept.  Lionel/Flyer still runs on code 125, but some equipment's flanges rattle along the molded in spike heads. 

Regarding the thornier question:  I would respond no.  My railroad with it's code 100 rail and scale structures doesn't become a hirail or Flyer layout just because I use it as a photographic prop for Flyer and/or SHS/AM HiRail equipment.

Conversely, one could build a bona-fied HiRail layout and use Gilbert trains (with the exception of a few pieces) convincingly.  The Boys Club layout comes close to being HiRail, but no cigar.  It still falls under the "traditional" banner. 

Again, my opinion.

Here's a conundrum for you, an illustration from our ignorant past of 2001:

Is it Scale, or is it HiRail? 

Track is AM code 148.  The Canadian Pacific train has scale wheels, Kadee couplers and is running on straight DC.  The Soo Line train has HiRail flanges, Flyer compatible lobster claw couplers and is running on AC.  Plus, running Flyer wasn't unknown, either.

Aieeee...

Madness...

I don't think we're ever going to see hard, fast definitions for the 3 degrees of S Gauge.  It's a sliding scale (sorry) that extends from toy-like trains to museum quality models.

Rusty

Hey Rusty,

I think Dave is correct that PRR #155 rail is represented by code 125 in S scale, However, that is not what SHS rail is.  Perhaps SHS before their big change but not since then.  I've been dealing with SHS rail since 2005 and can tell you the design spec is for .136" (actualy 3.45mm minus 0.00 plus 0.10) with tolerance to bring it up to .138".  With all the rail I've used I've only seen something as small as .1375" once or twice.  The rest of it is .138" as is the new Lionel and MTH track.

Like your scale code 100 with Flyer on it, code 148 does not change its spots.  Hi-rail is Hi-rail.  That's why I go with the rail all the rest (couplers, etc.) is just thrown in to make it confusing.

It is madness...

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Opps...  You're right Tom.

Shoulda remembered that from when I measured the rail for the S-Trax/FasTrack  comparison I did a while back.

Still, it's been an interesting discussion.

Rusty

Rusty,

Yes, an interesting discussion.  I was hoping more would chime in, because judging by the Dispatch that purports to define what S is, the NASG does not have a consistent definition.  I would really like to see that cleaned up.

What did you think about my using just the rail to define the 3 degrees of S?

Does anyone know the smallest code rail Flyer flanges will operate on?

I’m also surprised that no one picked up on my use of 19.125” for the radius of Flyer curves.

Oh well, better days are coming... I just don’t know when,

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

>> <snip>  the Dispatch that purports to define what S is, the NASG does not have a consistent definition.  I would really like to see that cleaned up.

Why not propose a new set of definitions and present it to NASG for evaluation?

>> What did you think about my using just the rail to define the 3 degrees of S?

Didn't think much about it at all.  If the rail size is 1:64 compared to the real rail being modeled, then it is "scale" rail.  Some prototype rail is 9" tall.  Others are much smaller such as with narrow gauge.  Rail is just one of several factors.

>> Does anyone know the smallest code rail Flyer flanges will operate on?

I do know that code 126 allows MOST but not ALL to operate.  Some heavyweight passenger cars have larger flanges than the common freight car.  Dunno why?

>> I’m also surprised that no one picked up on my use of 19.125” for the radius of Flyer curves.

Do you measure to the centerline, outside rail, inside rail, edge of outside ties, edge of inside tie, etc.?  Just curious somewhat. 

>> Oh well, better days are coming... I just don’t know when,   

Tom Stoltz

Keep yer fingers crossed.......Ed L.

I also thought we'd see others chiming in, but they're probably rolling their eyes as we blowhards blow even harder on the subject.   A lot of this kind of thing goes on on the 3 rail side also.

I think it would be difficult to nail down the 3 degrees of S because of the 50 shades of gray in between each classification.  (How's zat for another pop culture reference?)

Bear in mind, when I got into this looney scale, I couldn't have cared if all Flyer and HirRail disappeared from the face of the Earth.  I wanted S to be all scale, all the time, just like HO, where I migrated from.  However, I did want to see the "Scratchbuilders Scale" mentality go away.

My views have moderated quite a bit since then and I've come to the conclusion that "Traditional," HiRail, Scale and else everything in-between are going to have to put up with and not try to pigeon-hole each other.

In the end, it's going to have to be up to the individual to define which classification he wants to identify with, or not identify with at all.

I think I'd rather have flexible definitions of the 3 degrees than rigid ones.

Rusty

Why not propose a new set of definitions and present it to NASG for evaluation?

It is just an idea at this point and what one person thinks doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.  However, should the definition gain grass roots support, then perhaps.

Didn't think much about it at all.  If the rail size is 1:64 compared to the real rail being modeled, then it is "scale" rail.

You are so right for scale, but you don’t address Traditional or Hi-rail.  And like it or not, they are both a part of the S world.  It would be nice to get it straight because of all the confusion some newbies have.

I think it would be difficult to nail down the 3 degrees of S because of the 50 shades of gray in between each classification.

That is the point of using just the rail to define the intent.  Because as you pointed out, placing a piece of Hi-rail on a Flyer layout doesn’t change it to Hi-rail.  The same for scale on a Hi-rail layout… it’s still Hi-rail.  You can put all the Flyer and/or scale on it you want, but that won’t change it form Hi-rail.

In the end, it's going to have to be up to the individual to define which classification he wants to identify with, or not identify with at all.

More or less true.  But when you look at a layout the uses Flyer size rail (Gargraves & AM S Gauge included) and switches, it says Traditional (or perhaps it could be called a period layout), no matter what you run on it or how detailed the scenery.  Conversely, when you look a scale track layout, even if it is the Plywood Central, it is still clear the intent is scale.  Now the guys in the middle… that is the 50 shades of gray.  As it should be, because if you place all S people on a bell curve, I would bet you would have the Flyer guys at one extreme and scale guys at the other with the vast majority somewhere in between.  They would range form just breaking out of Flyer onto Hi-rail track to basically scale, but still on Hi-rail track.

Do you measure to the centerline, outside rail, inside rail, edge of outside ties, edge of inside tie, etc.?

I always thought using the centerline was the standard for model railroading, so that is what I use.  Like the definition for Tradition, Hi-rail and scale, there seems to be a lot of confusion pertaining to what the ACG Flyer radius is.  The answer is really quite easy to figure out.

Enough for now,

Tom Stoltz

in Maine