Is S scale still an option?

@Trinity River Bottoms Boomer posted:

There's plenty of value priced 027 equipment which can be converted to S gauge for model railroaders not into rivet counting who just enjoys the pleasure of running trains.  

This brings up the Lionel Hi-Cube box car.  Are they suitable for S gauge?  They look too small to be true O scale to me.  The original releases had attractive color schemes.  There was even a yellow Frisco which was only available in a set as I recall.  I've thought about this for several years but have never posted the question on any forum before.

A list of 027 equipment from all manufactures that will work well with S gauge trains would be nice, perhaps even for the NASG?

Joe

Don't know if the old MPC Hi-Cube would work.  Never tried it, never will.  Probably would be way too tall, though.

I can hardly be called a rivet counter, but proportion is very important to me.  Lionel's attempts at rebranding some traditional O27 for Flyer look awkward to my eyes unless heavily modified.  As I've probably mentioned before, the old Lionel "Scout" double door boxcar is almost perfect in proportion as is for S.  Jerry's conversion shows that, although the graphics are a little off, IMO.

Cars like these from the low end Lionel Junction sets have wonderful graphics that would really fit right in after a conversion:

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

Cars like these from the low end Lionel Junction sets have wonderful graphics that would really fit right in after a conversion:

Rusty

Little surprised they haven't released those as American flyer.  I mean - use what ya got - is their mantra.

@poniaj posted:

Close enough for government work.  Wouldn't notice a darn thing why they were moving.  Ladder detail would help if it were sitting still.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Close enough for government work.  Wouldn't notice a darn thing why they were moving.  Ladder detail would help if it were sitting still.

The roof detail is way over-sized.  I've looked at grinding off the roof walk but the roof contours are too challenging for me.  Too much work for a mediocre piece of rolling stock.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

@Tom Stoltz posted:

The roof detail is way over-sized.  I've looked at grinding off the roof walk but the roof contours are too challenging for me.  Too much work for a mediocre piece of rolling stock.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Yeah, the roofwalk is a little wide, its grab irons are clunky and of course it's molded on.  I just shaved off the grab irons off and called it a day.  There weren't a lot of options back around 1986.

Never said it would be a fine scale model, but the bulkiness can be mitigated with a nondescript paint job.  (Save the lime green and orange for another project...)

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

Yeah, the roofwalk is a little wide, its grab irons are clunky and of course it's molded on.  I just shaved off the grab irons off and called it a day.  There weren't a lot of options back around 1986.

Never said it would be a fine scale model, but the bulkiness can be mitigated with a nondescript paint job.  (Save the lime green and orange for another project...)

Rusty

I think it looks good in the photos.  Cars were different.  When every element is the exact same from car to car, it starts looking fake.   Harder to get that 2-3 inch variation at 3/16 to a foot - so a bit of over-exageration isn't necessarily a bad thing. 

I don't know if anyone saw my question about kinsman kits.  Worth it?

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Close enough for government work.  Wouldn't notice a darn thing why they were moving.  Ladder detail would help if it were sitting still.

I've run a long train on my club's layout with this car in the consist and nobody caught it.  Even our resident rivet counters...   When pointed out, they laughed.

Sorry, no experience with Kinsman kits.

@poniaj posted:

I've run a long train on my club's layout with this car in the consist and nobody caught it.  Even our resident rivet counters...   When pointed out, they laughed.

Sorry, no experience with Kinsman kits.

It's 100% convincing.   I feel the same way about Weaver cars in O.  Anyone who says they notice the low detail in a moving train -  are full of it.   It's when they are sitting that it "might" be noticable.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

It's 100% convincing.   I feel the same way about Weaver cars in O.  Anyone who says they notice the low detail in a moving train -  are full of it.   It's when they are sitting that it "might" be noticable.

Fully agree.  That's my take on the High-rail verse scale wheel profile debate.

Most of my stuff on my former railroad that took up residence  were Pacific Rail Shops, S Helper and American Models with the occasional DPH/SSA, Flyer conversion and cars of unknown parentage.

I like to model the typical.  Once you get a sea of boxcar red, it all tends to blend together...

Indeed, when the last train pulled out in March of 2020, it was with a mixed bag of cars with varying levels of detail.

Rusty

@Rusty Traque posted:

Most of my stuff on my former railroad that took up residence  were Pacific Rail Shops, S Helper and American Models with the occasional DPH/SSA, Flyer conversion and cars of unknown parentage.

I like to model the typical.  Once you get a sea of boxcar red, it all tends to blend together...

Indeed, when the last train pulled out in March of 2020, it was with a mixed bag of cars with varying levels of detail.

Rusty

Nothing wrong with that.  All the funny bright color schemes came in after your timeframe anyway.   I love steam and wood cars but I do have an affinity for early tofc too.  I've always loved images of cigar band F7s with a line of 20' trailers.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Nothing wrong with that.  All the funny bright color schemes came in after your timeframe anyway.   I love steam and wood cars but I do have an affinity for early tofc too.  I've always loved images of cigar band F7s with a line of 20' trailers.

I've got my share of "shiny things..."  They just usually weren't "permanent fixtures" on my railroad.  The BAR State of Maine and New Haven McGinnis cars came into being in the mid-50's.  Who doesn't have a State of Maine boxcar lurking in their collection somewhere?  Particularly as I have an elastic timeframe: generally mid-late 50's to mid-60's.

Oddly enough, the old Gilbert catalogs are quick references for when some of the colorful cars came into being as they tried to keep up with some of the latest prototype freight car paint schemes.

Rusty

Talking O-27 conversion - I'd wondered about the K-line semi-scale offerings and came across this.

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

Talking O-27 conversion - I'd wondered about the K-line semi-scale offerings and came across this.

The old Atlas O "Industrial Rail" 4-4-2 from what I've read is 1:64 or darn close to it.  Even a "scaler" or two have converted one.

As far as the K-Line ex-Marx freight cars go, they are more or less 1:64.  IMO they fall into "eye of the beholder" territory.  I had considered trying to covert some to scale, but I found the detail too crude (cruder than the Lionel "Scout" boxcar) to make the effort.

K-Line was going to produce some freight sets using a modified ex-Marx 333 Pacific, but K-Line went under before that could happen.  They would have been interesting.

Several S-Fest cars were produced using the K-Line cars.

Rusty

That is Carl Tuveson's engine and layout. There is a complete "how to" on his site to modify that engine.

@Rusty Traque posted:

The old Atlas O "Industrial Rail" 4-4-2 from what I've read is 1:64 or darn close to it.  Even a "scaler" or two have converted one.

As far as the K-Line ex-Marx freight cars go, they are more or less 1:64.  IMO they fall into "eye of the beholder" territory.  I had considered trying to covert some to scale, but I found the detail too crude (cruder than the Lionel "Scout" boxcar) to make the effort.

K-Line was going to produce some freight sets using a modified ex-Marx 333 Pacific, but K-Line went under before that could happen.  They would have been interesting.

Several S-Fest cars were produced using the K-Line cars.

Rusty

Yea, I went investigating the scale of the semi-scale locomotives thinking some of the boilers might be conversion worthy - they produced several good models in O-27 and O scale - the were just underpowered.  The semi-scale ones tend to sell for cheap cause few people want semi-scale locos...  But even though they are small for O-27, they are still too large.   I was mainly investigating the long-term posibility of somehow building a Baldwin mountain (knowing even if a Mountain were to ever be released, it'd be a Mohawk).   ATSF and SLSF both had quite a few Mountains.   

The Atlas loco looks a little 1:29 ish to me.  Fine with the cars - but out of scale with the track.

@AmFlyer posted:

That is Carl Tuveson's engine and layout. There is a complete "how to" on his site to modify that engine.

Hey Tom, I was curious and tried to find the ''how to' but did not see it.  Am I over looking it?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

On the left hand column of Carl's website click on TMCC for S. Then scroll down the list of TMCC items and you will see "Links To Carl's S Gauge TMCC Conversions." Keep scrolling down, the 4th item from the bottom of that list is "Converted to S Atlas O Gauge Atlantic", click on that.

My 2 cents, regarding the OP's question.

"Yes", if you are willing to accept the pretty limited options.

Like most everyone, I feel 1/64 is the "perfect" size, so I dabble.

I've been able to collect some vintage "scale" rolling stock, and since my Flyer 300 and 310 run SO well, I picked up some spare tenders and converted them to Kadee couplers, so I can run these together.

310:

300:

Here's the 300 coupled to a Mid Gage boxcar:

Not overly interesting, I know, but I have fun doing stuff like this... 

Mark in Oregon

@AmFlyer posted:

On the left hand column of Carl's website click on TMCC for S. Then scroll down the list of TMCC items and you will see "Links To Carl's S Gauge TMCC Conversions." Keep scrolling down, the 4th item from the bottom of that list is "Converted to S Atlas O Gauge Atlantic", click on that.

Got it, really great!!!  Thanks

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it? 

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it?

Code 138 representing prototype 125 pound per yard rail.  Hence, the confusion.

***EDIT***  Ooops, Tom is correct below. 155 pound rail.

Rusty

It is NOT code 125. The rail height is .138". Supposedly it is an accurate model of a long out of use PRR 155# rail. I used the MTH flex track to build my layout.

Thanks Fellas!   Good prices on MTH Flex track out there - so I wanted to make sure before I bought some that it'd work with the FV Switches. 

@Jacobpaul81 posted:

The MTH / SHS track is listed as code 125 but then I see folks saying it's actually 138.  What is it?

Try this .pdf:

Tom, I am not clear how to convert the dimensions on that drawing. It says the scale of the rail cross section is 10:1. If I divide the dimensions, I assume these are inches, that makes the rail height .345", clearly not correct. What am I missing?

"All Santa Fe high-speed transcontinental lines have been designated as 131-132-pound rail territory. That means that much of that mileage and all new rail laid in that territory is 131-132-pound rail except in . yards and other localities where lighter rail is preferable. The new standard 115-pound section will shortly replace the present 112-pound. Other rail weights in use by the Santa Fe are 60, 75, · 90, 110 and 112-pound. The three last-mentioned sections were standard on Santa Fe main lines for many years and considerable presentday Santa Fe rail mileage consists of those weights of rail. All Santa Fe rails are steel and have been for many years. Beginning with 1936 all rails have been control cooled by the manufacturers to eliminate as far as possible interior defects in the head of the rail."  - Santa Fe Today, #5.  pg. 22

https://www.railsandtrails.com...Today%20No.%205r.pdf

So 155# isn't too far off for ATSF mainline as they upgraded their 75#, 90# and 112# mains to 132# or 115#.  I'm guessing Argentine to Topeka (IE: Lawrence) was probably upgraded to 132# as it was on the Chief route - so that's not a huge disparity.

@AmFlyer posted:

Tom, I am not clear how to convert the dimensions on that drawing. It says the scale of the rail cross section is 10:1. If I divide the dimensions, I assume these are inches, that makes the rail height .345", clearly not correct. What am I missing?

The dimensions are metric.  That's why I posted the drawing I made in another thread.  Here is is again...

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

The MTH and Fox Valley rail scales to a prototype section height of 8.83". Modern 115# rail is 6-5/8" high, 132# rail is 7-1/8" high. Then 115# rail scales to Code 100 in S scale. Problem is no high rail equipment will run on Code 100 rail, nor Code 125. For high rail wheels the MTH and Fox Valley are the smallest rails that work. I have some Code 125 rail on my layout for the TT pit rails and all the guard/guide rails on the bridges. It is so close to the  .138 rail it looks the same on the layout. The most noticeable thing about the Code 125 rail is the railhead width is wider than the .138 MTH rail.

I have no issue with the appearance of the MTH rail on my layout, I know it is too tall for modern track but set in the scenery with the ballast detailing it looks close enough to scale.

Thanks Tom, I need to save that drawing.

@Trinity River Bottoms Boomer posted:

Strummer, I found your tender convert to KD couplers very interesting.  This is what the hobby is all about.  Would love to see the vintage equipment you picked up and converted as well!

Joe

Thought I'd share a few, too:

This was the first item I ever bought as a kid that cost more than a candy bar.  It never ran well--it was only $18 at the time anyway--but I could not bear to part with it. So I dressed it up with a new motor conversion kit from Doug Peck at Portlines Hobbies and some decoration. It's slow and noisy but reliable and earns its keep.

Terry

@TOKELLY posted:

This was the first item I ever bought as a kid that cost more than a candy bar.  It never ran well--it was only $18 at the time anyway--but I could not bear to part with it. So I dressed it up with a new motor conversion kit from Doug Peck at Portlines Hobbies and some decoration. It's slow and noisy but reliable and earns its keep.

Terry

Looks good to me.

Rusty

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Thought I'd share a few, too:

Those are all very nice; how did you manage to get a Kadee into the K5 pilot!?! 

Mark in Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Those are all very nice; how did you manage to get a Kadee into the K5 pilot!?! 

Mark in Oregon

Hi Mark, first let me ask you, where in Maine is your brother?  Turns out there are several Mainers on this list, Gunny comes to mind.

Then to the K5. IIRC I bought a repo pilot from Doug Peck so I wouldn’t destroy the original.  I started out drilling the K5 coupler pocket out along with the cast fake coupler.  Then enlarged the opening by filing until I could insert a Kadee #5 draft gear box from the outside.  The lip on the box acts as a stop on the outside of the pilot.  Again, IIRC, I made a pad with JB Weld to seat the draft gear box on the inside.  I can’t tell now because our very own Jerry Poniatowski did a custom PRR repaint for me and he painted the underside of the pilot.  In hindsight, I don’t know why I just didn’t use a slab of styrene, I’m sure that would have worked just as well.  In the pix from the outside you can see the hole I drilled and tapped for a 4-40 screw to mount the coupler.

The underside pix shows the coupler mounted.  I did some filing of the box so the pilot truck wheels would clear while negotiating Flyer radii.  I believe I used a medium overset shank, # 42, in the #5 family but it cold be the #49 long, overset shank.  I did this in 2001, so please forgive my lack of recollection.

I did a similar conversion to the Flyonel Mikado.  It was a little more work, but not bad.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom

1. My brother lives in Alna. 30 degrees and currently snowing.  He has zero interest in model trains.

2. So you used an HO scale #5 on that pilot: I suppose an S scale Kadee would have been a bit too large.

3. That is a beautiful paint job; noticed it straight away.

Mark in (currently 43 degrees) Oregon

@Strummer posted:

Tom

1. My brother lives in Alna. 30 degrees and currently snowing.  He has zero interest in model trains.

2. So you used an HO scale #5 on that pilot: I suppose an Scale Kadee would have been a bit too large.

3. That is a beautiful paint job; noticed it straight away.

Mark in (currently 43 degrees) Oregon

Alna???  He’s our next-door neighbor!  Not to hi-jack this thread, my email address is in my profile.

Yes, I only use #5s and family.  I have many complaints against the, what is it, the 802?  The lack of close coupling is one, probably the cost is my biggest.  Also by comparison, it is complex to assemble.  The #5 family has various shank lengths and coupler placement, on the shank, options.  When it comes to Flyer conversions, I have used many of the variations.  As far as I know, there is only one shank with the 802s.

And speaking of cheap, check out my explorations for delayed magnetic uncoupling

https://ogrforum.com/...magnets-and-kadee-5s

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Alna???  He’s our next-door neighbor!  Not to hi-jack this thread, my email address is in my profile.

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

Tom

Email sent...

Mark in Oregon

@Tom Stoltz posted:

Yes, I only use #5s and family.  I have many complaints against the, what is it, the 802?  The lack of close coupling is one, probably the cost is my biggest.  Also by comparison, it is complex to assemble.  The #5 family has various shank lengths and coupler placement, on the shank, options.  When it comes to Flyer conversions, I have used many of the variations.  As far as I know, there is only one shank with the 802s.

Tom Stoltz

in Dresden/Wiscasset, Maine

Your use of the #5 family certainly makes a lot of sense. Plus, there's not that much difference between the S coupler and the HO size.

Kadee was smart to offer early on such a wide range of couplers (for almost any application) in HO. I think that, as much as anything, had a lot to do with HO becoming "the" main scale. As 'bob2" would say..."opinion". 

Mark in (wet) Oregon

I've only used the Kadee HO couplers where I needed them a special application, like an offset shank on my SouthWind 2-8-0's:

and on any "vintage" cars I bought that already had them installed.  Otherwise, the HO couplers look too small to my eyes.

The distance between freight cars using 802's is about 3 scale feet, which is about what it is on the prototype, so I really don't see an issue there, but to each his own.

I can see where cost can be an issue, but as I usually buy a package of 802's when I buy a locomotive or car, that difference is blunted somewhat.  Plus every "scale" locomotive I've bought directly from AM, they've thrown in a package of 802's.  They even installed them on my last purchase: UP E8's...

The irony is I'll have to de-install them for body mounting and fill the pilot gaps with a modified insert, a project currently on a very crowded back burner.

Rusty