L/AF cylindrical hopper scale wheels (?)

Received a cylindrical hopper car from All Aboard Trains in New Jersey:

Scalecoat Paint Remover and a cotton swab made quick work of the unwanted decorations until the car is ready for the paint shop:

I have not received a reply from Lionel regarding the prototype for this model but I did locate an article about the ACF CF3510 3-bay center flow hopper.  Based on the article, the Lionel cylindrical hopper appears to be a car manufactured in late 1964.  The article contains prototype photos and lots of good information...plus it's available online:

http://www.trainlife.com/magaz...february-1997-page-6

The Lionel car looks great and matches the length of the prototype.  The major visual flaw is the ride height...much too high compared to prototype photos.  It would be helpful for kitbashing and painting if Lionel provided an exploded parts view, either with the car or online.  Hopefully prototype paint schemes and an undecorated model will become available. 

Now to go in a backwards direction...a friend asked if it would be possible to take one of the new Hoppers equipped with scale wheel sets and convert them back to AF highrail wheel sets?

Anyone have any info on if this can be done?

If so what wheel sets would be used?

He wants to run these cars on original Gilbert tubular track and doubts if the scale wheels will stay on that track.

Mark

Ed,

If all this is getting a bit much for you why don't you quit 'S' and move to another gauge/scale that meet your needs?

Quitting is easy.  Anybody can do that.  Improving things is the goal.  Why not work to improve things instead of opening the back door?   Cheers....Ed L.

Ed,

There isn't going to be a one size fits all, the only solution is that there are two options available, one for the high rail community and one for whatever the so called 'scale' people want and it is this community that needs to talk to Lionel to discuss the profile required. But then do you need to include the P64 people as well as they are more scale than you, where does it end, multiple profiles?

From a standards point you have the NASG criteria which works well for the HO market in the main. Then you could say that Gilbert actually defined an 'S' gauge standard himself in that he created the tinplate/hi-rail wheel profile for his track system and as there were no other manufactures in 'S' at the time in large commercial manufacturing he was 'it' and it has worked well and does so still.

It is people like you that are trying to make changes to suit a minority group without having any consideration for the much larger established people.

Ed, There isn't going to be a one size fits all,

Yes, we agree one size will not fit all S enthusiasts.

the only solution is that there are two options available,

Actually, I think there are three options already available:  pure AF as created by Mr. Gilbert, scale as defined by the NMRA specifications and high-rail which is sort of in between AF and scale.

one for the high rail community and one for whatever the so called 'scale' people want

The scale people know exactly what they want and it is defined by the NMRA/NASG dimensions.  There is no "whatever" involved.

it is this community that needs to talk to Lionel to discuss the profile required.

Yes, and this is being done.

But then do you need to include the P64 people as well as they are more scale than you, where does it end, multiple profiles?

Personally, I cannot ever see Lionel/AF ever making products for the P:64 enthusiasts because there are so few of them.  I have never proposed anything like that.  I can see S scale per NMRA/NASG scale specs as being an easy way for Lionel to increase sales by perhaps 15% or so.  Maybe even more with a really good product made to scale dimensions.  I do not think it would benefit L/AF to offer multiple profiles other than AF, scale and high-rail.  There are sizeable existing markets for these three segments which can be tapped.

From a standards point you have the NASG criteria which works well for the HO market in the main.

As far as I know, NASG does not have any criteria appropriate for the HO market.  Is this something new?

Then you could say that Gilbert actually defined an 'S' gauge standard himself in that he created the tinplate/hi-rail wheel profile for his track system and as there were no other manufactures in 'S' at the time in large commercial manufacturing he was 'it' and it has worked well and does so still.

We agree on the above.  No problem there.  But for those who want a greater degree of realism, the high-rail or scale options of today are preferred.  Many serious high-rail enthusiasts prefer smaller flanges/couplers as compared to the original ACG flyer equipment.  No problem there.  I never said it didn't work well and, yes, it still does.  It works as designed and intended.

It is people like you that are trying to make changes to suit a minority group

I will take that as a compliment even though you meant it as an insult.  I am trying to assist L/AF make a product that appeals to the scale segment of the S hobby.  They are already 95% of the way there with some of their standard AF products.  So close, yet so far -- all at the same time.  I do not see this as changing anything, but more like adding something new -- such as scale wheels or Kadee coupler brackets, for instance.  I have never suggested changing anything at all as it relates to AF or high-rail.  I have proposed making products more suitable for the scale enthusiast.  There is nothing detrimental to the AF guys or the high-rail guys in anything that I have advocated.  You are imagining things that simply are not true.

without having any consideration for the much larger established people.

It sounds like you are convinced I am trying to change something relating to the AF or high-rail segment of S.  I have never done that.  Can you show me one single message where that has been stated?  Your imagination is working overtime and it would be helpful if you would read the messages more carefully and interpret them correctly.

As I have said before, if L/AF makes scale products and increases S sales by 15% (or whatever) this will benefit everyone including the AF guys and the high-rail guys.  There is nothing in anything I have said that works against AF or high-rail.  And, yes, L/AF does really make a profit when a scale guy purchases a L/AF product.  We are in the same boat together to a large extent.

There is no need to treat me as an enemy.  That is counterproductive and inaccurate.

"S"incerely....Ed Loizeaux

I was going to come to Ed's defense on this one,but he already beat me to it. I find his response to be thoughtful and complete...

Mark in Oregon

In my opinion, being a bit outspoken is not necessarily bad.  How is that for some philosophy?  Cheers...Ed L.

O.K. I'm really gonna regret this but I'd endure a VERY SHORT LESSON  in scale dimensions in regards to wheel sets.

I looked at the NASG "Standards" page concerning wheels:

Now using the above posted info (of the new sets) if you add the Back-to-back dimension of the new wheel sets ---.755 inches---and add to that dimension 2X the wheel width (.127X2)=.254

you get 1.009 inches. That means the out to out of the set is 9 thousands over 1 inch.

The above chart for "standard "NASG wheel sets provides:

Back-to-Back of .800 plus 2X the wheel width (.108 X 2)= .216

totals 1.016 inches...that's 16 thousands over 1 inch for the "out-to-out".

That means the new sets are 7 thousands narrower overall.

So the new wheelsets are overall smaller and still they are "way oversized"?

I don't get it.

The chart shows a sum of .998 for P64.

These new wheel sets are closer to that than scale sets.

Oh well, I'm plenty happy with my Pizza Cutter highrail wheel sets. They run great!

Put them on train behind an S-Helper-Service SW9 (Highrail) and you can run it smoothly on a gravel driveway with NO track. You can run it straight up a wall!

You can...Oh never mind...to each his own.

Mark

I think you are looking a bit deep here, if I was going to insult you it would be obvious.

Again it is a perception of the way you come over in that you are so focused on your needs and that Lionel should listen and suddenly respond without any thought to others. I'm sure that Lionel will slowly deliver a product line with detail like the S-Helper quality that will meet both sides criteria but I don't see it being soon. If you are in such a desperate need for NMRA profile wheel sets, why don't you commission NWSL to produce what you want?

We are in the same boat together to a large extent.

Problem is that we are not, we are in two boats and one is much larger than the other, going in the same direction and close to each other, but not in the same boat yet.

There is no need to treat me as an enemy.  That is counterproductive and inaccurate.

I'm not treating you as the enemy, but I do feel you need to be more considerate of others when you focus your comments that are specific to a minority requirement that give the perception that yours is the only way forward. You may feel that you are including the tinplate/hi-rail area but it isn't clear to see.

While you say that you are in talks with Lionel, are you also in talks with AM and MTH? Now that would be a positive way forward in setting up specific standards that meets all sides needs.

O.K. I'm really gonna regret this but I'd endure a VERY SHORT LESSON  in scale dimensions in regards to wheel sets.

I will try to make it short and easy.  And I will try to avoid a lot of arithmetic.  Hang in there.....

The size of the flange, the width of the tread and the gauge of the wheels are all nonconforming or way oversized. 

I will take these three items one at a time.  Hang in there....

First, the gauge.  Look at the photo that shows the metal gage pushed up against the wheels.  See the word "wheels" printed on the gage?  On the right (not the left) wheel, there is a flange.  If the wheels were properly gauged for scale, the flange would fit into the small notch in the gage.  As you can see, it does not even come close.  These wheels are gauged for AF switches.  The AF wheels and switches are designed for each other and work as intended.  They are harmoniously compatible.

In order for scale wheels to work properly with scale track, their gauge needs to be wider than the AF gauge.  When properly gauged, the scale wheels and the scale turnouts are harmoniously compatible. 

When a too-narrow AF gauged wheel rolls into a scale turnout,  one flange will bump against the scale guard rail and ride up over it instead of rolling smoothly through the flangeway.  AF wheels and scale turnouts are not harmoniously compatible. 

It should be noted that Tom's Turnouts do enable both types of wheels to pass through it although, according to one product review, a bit bumpily.   Tom has created a very unique solution to running both types of wheels on the same switch.

Next, the tread width.  Look at the photo with the green background and compare the L/AF tread width to the P:64 NWSL tread width.  You will note that it is considerably wider.  Tread width has little to do with operation.  It is a cosmetic factor more than anything.  Theoretically, the tread width could be a full inch and the wheel will still work just fine and roll through scale trackwork if all the other dimensions were compliant with NMRA specs.  With regard to cosmetics, the most commonly used wheel profile in S standard gauge is a little bit wider than the P:64 wheel shown in the photo.  But it is a lot thinner than the L/AF wheel.  It is, however, just an appearance factor.  Some folks are really bugged about too-wide treads.  Others do not even notice it.

Next, the flange size.  Note the P:64 wheel has a thinner flange and a smaller (less depth) flange when compared to the L/AF flange.  The common scale wheel (not P:64) has a flange slightly larger, but not by much.  The larger depth of the AF flange can result in the flange bumping along the tie tops if a small rail size is used for trackwork.  The thickness of the flange, depending on the actual measurement, could possibly mean the flange will not roll smoothly through the narrow flangeway on a scale turnout.  It is hard to tell what the exact depth and thickness of the flanges are from the photos, but they appear to be larger than the normal scale wheel.  Keep in mind that the P:64 wheel has even smaller flanges and treads than the common scale wheel.

Now for some arithmetic:

So the new wheelsets are overall smaller and still they are "way oversized"?

I don't get it.

That seeming contradiction is caused by looking at the overall outside dimensions from the outer surface of one wheel to the outer surface of the other wheel.  Note this particular dimension does not exist in the specifications.  That is because it is a meaningless dimension unrelated to rolling smoothly through a scale turnout.  Tread width is a cosmetic factor.  The critical dimension is the K dimension which controls the distance between the inner surface of one flange and the outer surface of the other flange.  This dimension is a LOT smaller for AF wheels when compared to scale wheels.  On AF switches, the guardrails are much closer together when compared to scale turnouts.  And, the AF flangeways are much wider to allow for the thicker AF flanges to pass through smoothly.

I'm plenty happy with my Pizza Cutter highrail wheel sets. They run great!

AF wheels work as intended and do stay on the track.  AF track, that is.  They do not work well on scale track because the flanges are too close together and they bump over the scale guardrails.  Nothing wrong with AF.  Nothing wrong with scale.  They simply do not work well with each other. 

The main problem that I see is calling an AF-dimensioned wheel a "scale" wheel which is very misleading to just about everyone.  I feel sorry for all those scale enthusiasts who purchased the cylindrical hopper thinking it will run on their scale track right out of the box.  Not a good situation.

Hope this helps.  Didn't mean to get long winded.

Cheers.....Ed L.

Guys,

SHORT & SWEET, PLEASE:  Will these hoppers run on my Gargraves hi-rail track and negotiate Gilbert switches?  Yes or No?

Mark

You don't need three, tinplate and hi-rail are close enough to have just one profile, why make problems that you don't need?

I have not made any problems for anyone.  I merely described the real S world which is AF, scale and high-rail enthusiasts with wheels and track for each.  I am sorry if that bothers you, but I did not cause your problem.  I have never heard anyone complain about that being a problem -- until now.

Your definition of being a scale person differs entirely from my perception of a true scale modeller.

That has been my main point from the outset.  There are many many different definitions of the word "scale".  Your definition being different from someone else's definition is not the least bit surprising.

Just because you meet the NMRA standards for track, wheel sets and couplers does not make a scale modeller,

America is a free country and you are free to define "scale" anyway you want.  Why not give us a complete and thorough description of your interpretation of "scale" and see where the discussion leads?

it is as it says on the tin, you meet a number of standards that allows numerous manufacturers to operate together.

So far, we are seeing eye to eye.

If everything else is not dimensionally correct to the original drawings then you are still leaning to being a hi-railer. Elsewhere on the Forum Rich defines what a scaler is and it is more than just standards and I agree with him.

I am still waiting for you to define exactly what you mean by the word "scale" as it pertains to S model railroading.  "Leaning" does not cut the mustard for me.  Sorry.

I cannot ever see Lionel/AF ever making products for the P:64 enthusiasts because there are so few of them.  

You are possibly right but now you are quick to be dismissive of their needs

I am not dismissive of their needs at all.  I have never heard any of them state what they want.  Can you tell me exactly what they want?  From a business perspective, I do not think there are enough P:64 enthusiasts for L/AF to pursue profitably.  If L/AF makes a scale product, the P:64 folks can swap the wheels if they want to do that.  NWSL makes P:64 wheels for just that purpose.  If you think L/AF should produce P:64 products, then you should start a conversation with that objective.  Don't look to others for everything.

without even considering what they may want and could be included, if you don't ask, you don't get.

It would be nice if you would stop the criticism that has no justification.  I am trying to get good S scale products made by L/AF.  I think that is a worthy objective.  I do not think there is enough business potential in the P:64 market for L/AF to worry about.  If you feel differently, you should do something about it yourself instead of criticizing others.  Take up the matter yourself if that is what you want.

So now you accept that the product itself has value in being scale as well as having standards, interesting!

I am not sure what you mean by that remark.  Perhaps you can clarify it without being so argumentative.  Your tone of voice is really out of line.

The AF/hi-rail I see as being close enough to be one

It could be one, but it is two.  Just the reality of the situation.  I did not make it that way so do not get angry with me.

scale is at 15% and currently a small segment.

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

Tell us what the actual numbers of so called scalers actually are

I have no idea and never claimed to know.  Perhaps you know?

So again, can you tell us from primary sources what the numbers are that want smaller flanges and couplers from the hi-rail group?

I have no idea how many high-railers want smaller flanges and couplers.  I do not even know how many high-railers exist on Planet Earth.  I can say that just about every high-railer I know would like them.  But that is a very small sample size compared to every high-railer in the world.

What is interesting is that the early Flyer steam loco's actually had a smaller profile flange up until the early/mid fifties, then they changed them to be deeper. Then later Lionel produced a smaller diesel flange up to the NYC PA's which was fine and then they messed it up with the much larger flange which wasn't really needed because I understand that some people didn't like the smaller profile.

I do not have your knowledge of the history of AF.  I came from HO to S scale without passing through AF.  But it sounds interesting to put it mildly.  Even today, various L/AF locos have different flange sizes for no apparent reason.

if I was going to insult you it would be obvious.

It is obvious to me that you are trying hard to pick a fight with endless criticism of me personally.  I am not sure what I have done to cause your anger.  Perhaps you can explain that to me?

Again it is a perception of the way you come over in that you are so focused on your needs and that Lionel should listen and suddenly respond without any thought to others.

How in the world did you conclude that I think L/AF should not give any thought to others?  Please show me one message that states that.  Your imagination is way out of control.  You are having hallucinations.

If you are in such a desperate need for NMRA profile wheel sets, why don't you commission NWSL to produce what you want?

I am beginning to think you do not read my messages.  Much less actually think about them.  I have the wheels that I want and need.  And I can get more.  My "needs" have not been the issue here and never were.  The issue that needs correcting is the misleading advertising for the cylindrical hopper which claims  to have scale wheels when, in fact, they are AF wheels which will not operate on scale track.

Problem is that we are not, we are in two boats and one is much larger than the other, going in the same direction and close to each other, but not in the same boat yet.

Call it whatever you like.  We are "cousins" regardless of being in the same or different boats.

I'm not treating you as the enemy,

Maybe you could cease with the angry criticism that has no basis in fact.  If we are on similar boats heading in the same direction, a friendlier attitude would be nice.

but I do feel you need to be more considerate of others

Being an avid S scale enthusiast is what I am.  I am not inconsiderate of anyone with different interests.  But I will work for what interests me.  The AF guys and the high-rail guys can work for what interests them.  Please do not expect me to do everything for everyone.  What have you done for others?

when you focus your comments that are specific to a minority requirement that give the perception that yours is the only way forward.

Your perception is 100% wrong.  I have opinions and beliefs, but I have never said that my way is the only way forward.  Your imagination is really out of control.

You may feel that you are including the tinplate/hi-rail area but it isn't clear to see.

I never intended to ask L/AF for anything relating to AF or high-rail.  Why would you expect me to do that?  Seems to me that the 85% should be able to handle their affairs for themselves.  And I suspect they do.

While you say that you are in talks with Lionel, are you also in talks with AM and MTH? Now that would be a positive way forward in setting up specific standards that meets all sides needs.

MTH has printed in their catalog information about scale wheels.  Assuming these will be the same wheels as formerly offered by SHS, they will be NMRA compliant and will operate on scale track.  AM has been offering scale wheels for decades now.  What exactly should I be talking to either of these companies about?  They are already making life easy for the scale enthusiast.  L/AF is where improvement is needed -- not the others.

How about one of these:

1.  Smoke the peace pipe, or

2.  Take an anger management class.

"S"incerely......Ed Loizeaux

Will these hoppers run on my Gargraves hi-rail track and negotiate Gilbert switches? Yes or No? 

Mark

Will Holt says they work fine on AF track and switches.  I would assume (dangerous, I know) that Gargraves track will be OK.  But that is an educated guess.  Good luck....Ed L.

I was going to stay out of this, but based on what's been presented thus far here are my observations.

Let me state that I'm primarily a member of the 15% club.  I'm also a member of the 85% club.  I have no interest in the P:64 club, whatever percentage of the 15% club that might be.

I'm still waiting for my hopper to show up, so I am unable to add any first hand experience.  I'm also more interested in this car for use in a scale environment.  I'm very interested to see how the car bumps and grinds its way unmodified through my Shinohora and Old Pullman turnouts.

Wheels: Being out of gauge is disappointing, no doubt about it.  But looking at the photo's it appears to be something that might be correctable with a little elbow grease.

Before more photo's were added, the comparison was of a P:64 wheelset verses the L/AF wheelset.  This seemed to be the point that set off all the controversy.  Once the AM truck photo was added, the L/AF wheels compared more favorably, except for once again: gauge.

If this is an uncorrectable problem, I will do what the 15% has always done when converting Flyer: Replace the trucks.  SSA, maybe even MTH or AM should also have something suitable.  Might even have something lurking in the scrap box.  Lack of rotating endcaps is not a show stopper for me.

What bothers me more is the high-water pants look. 

This affects my overall impression of the car no matter which side of the S coin I'm looking from.  The car would look high to me no matter what track it runs on or what locomotive is pulling it.  I'm guessing the height is a result of needing to clear the Flyer coupler.  Again, disappointing but not uncorrectable. 

Seems like making a new truck bolster is possible, even for me.  A pain in the patootie, yes, but not impossible judging by the photo's.  Perhaps there's an aftermarket opportunity here for someone.  Or, once again, the old standby: replace the trucks.

As part of the 15%,(or even the 85% for that matter) I really don't want to have to spend more money or effort adjusting the height of an $80 car.  I'll admit, I'm buying this car more as a curiosity than anything else as it's outside my modeling era. 

I've only handled paint samples, so outside of the wheel/truck issues, it does seem to otherwise be a nice car. 

Ed indicated some sort of dialog is currently open with Lionel regarding the shortcomings of the wheels.  I'm willing to take him at his word.  I(we) don't need to know the specifics right now, but perhaps some positive changes will come from it.

Rusty

Ed,

Why not give us a complete and thorough description of your interpretation of "scale" and see where the discussion leads?

OK, here is my perception of a Scale modeller (in fact any scale modelling) and it is taken from Rich Melvin's definition on the 3 rail scale forum which can easily translate to the S world:-

3-Rail Scale (sub to ‘S&rsquo is an approach to model railroading that strives to achieve the most true-to-prototype realism possible with locomotives, rolling stock, paint schemes, scenery, operation, and other aspects of the hobby within the context of using 3-rail O gauge track (‘S’ track).

Regardless of the scale you choose, be it 1:48 on the North American continent, 1:43.5 for France and the UK, and 1:45 for Germany and Switzerland, the overall idea is to get as close to the prototype as you can in your pursuit of the hobby with the talents you possess.

Now this quite a bit different to meeting just NMRA Standards which you believe makes a scale modeller. If I was going place you somewhere it would be like “NRMA Standards Modeller (S gauge)”

I’m also intrigued when you say that you are in discussion with Lionel to pursue the greater interests for moving towards scale products. When I asked you about volumes of current scale people you didn’t know, which is fine, but how can you go to Lionel asking them to make changes without data to back up your views? If I was Lionel one of the first questions I would ask is for this data and if you could come up with a trend line that indicated a growing segment in the ‘scale’ side, then you are onto a winner and have a good case, but you don’t, bizarre?

Secondly you say that a lot of hi-railers are looking for the next step-change from traditional Flyer, yet again you don’t have any data to support those volumes.  This customer base is probably more important than the scale one, reason being that if you have these people on your side then there is probably a greater chance of making the changes you are seeking as opposed to you trying to make a case based just on representing the ‘scale’ side.  You say you have no interest in the Flyer side but perhaps you need to review that and see what helps you more.

I can’t remember if the OGR forum has the ability for a member to set up a poll but it would be interesting to see what comes out from those ‘S’ people here, you may actually be surprised as to what the data looks like! You can’t beat data to put a good business case forward.

.

The issue that needs correcting is the misleading advertising for the cylindrical hopper which claims to have scale wheels when, in fact, they are AF wheels which will not operate on scale track.

The box says ‘scale’ it doesn’t say ‘Scale-NMRA’ for example.  Easy to see it now but if Lionel had produced wheel sets to NMRA standards then what happens to the 85% market? Do they then become the minority group and have to buy additional wheel sets? Perhaps ‘scale’ is Lionel introducing their own standards now, who knows?

I will work for what interests me. The AF guys and the high-rail guys can work for what interests them.

Isn’t that being a bit selfish?  Better to work together than alone.

Please do not expect me to do everything for everyone.

I never intended to ask L/AF for anything relating to AF or high-rail. Why would you expect me to do that?

See further up, you may actually find an alliance with the AF crowd that helps you, having blinkers on only narrows your scope to succeed. Common ground and vision can work wonders.

What exactly should I be talking to either of these companies about? They are already making life easy for the scale enthusiast. L/AF is where improvement is needed -- not the others.

And that is the point, if you are that committed then it needs to combine the three of them together to set standards etc rather than go their separate ways, but we know the history between two of them at least and it is a large ask.

What have you done for others?

Good question, in fact I have done a lot to support the AF operator in manufacturing a range of spare parts that hundreds of people use to keep their motive power running, that is my lasting legacy to ‘S’, what is yours?

How about one of these:

1. Smoke the peace pipe, or

I didn’t realise we were at war. I have my views and opinions and if they are not in line with yours why can’t I disagree with you. Who says either of us are right?

1. Take an anger management class. 

Not sure what made you think I was angry, I have nothing to be angry about currently.

So, the clashing continues...  Maybe it's time both you guys took your ego's offline.

Three things:

Kadee mounting pads/holes.

DCC Compatibility (SD70's, ES44's, Y3's aftermarket w/wheel conversion.  Presumably future L/AF Legacy equipped loco's from this point on.)

Scale wheels, whether in or out of gauge.

Lionel didn't have to do any of this. 

They don't do any of this for the O gauge market, although there are folks over there who would like to see it.  As far as I know, nobody knocked on Lionel's door and demanded any of the above. 

In fact, serious DCC discussions were initiated by Lionel personnel on this here very board. 

They could have just as easily left DCC, Kadee mountings and scale wheels off the product and targeted everything solely to the Flyer operator, leaving us poor little 15% to sit, p*ss, moan, wail and gnash teeth on how Lionel doesn't love us. 

Lionel people are probably thinking right now: "What have we gotten ourselves into?"

This is still uncharted territory for Lionel and I'm willing to cut Lionel some slack, although it is dismaying at how some things are described(be it vague or non-existent) in the catalog.  But, guess what...  The same thing happens in their O gauge catalogs.

OK, so they've apparently screwed up to a degree with the hopper's wheels. Part of the frustration is it took around two years for these things to finally show up. 

Hopefully we'll see an improvement in the future, although it may take at least two more catalogs to include any change.

By the way: The scale wheel equipped U33's and SD70's run just fine on scale code 100 track, or hasn't anybody noticed?

Rusty

Hi All,

This is a tough one to way in on, but like a fool, I’m going to take a shot at it.  Where to start?

Ukaflyer, there are 3 very different wheel styles in S.  The original American Flyer ones, the Hi-rail ones made by American Models and SHS and lastly the various shades of scale wheels.  It does look to me, based on the pictures provided, that Lionel would have been more correct if they labeled their hopper as having Hi-rail wheels.  Unless the comparison picture is of the American Models wheels are scale wheels.  I can’t tell from the picture and it is not labeled – they look Hi-rail to me.

I find Lionel’s ‘truth in labeling’ to be somewhat lacking, so here I agree with Ed.  They call their Fastrax 20” radius… I think you will find it closer to 18.75” radius when measured to the centerline.  Big deal?  If you are one who draws track plans, it is.  If you think you are going to match it to original Flyer track… think again.  The radius of Flyer is about 19.125” to the centerline.  I think the whole problem started when an ‘expert’ advised SHS that Flyer radius was 18.55”… too bad.

But the train industry seems to have a lot of misstatements when it comes to product.  SHS and their #155 rail comes to mind, Flyer track being 20” radius.  I don’t like misinformation at all.  Can’t wait to hear what MTH will say their track system radius is…

As for Mr Ed…  What can I say?  I’ve been on various Yahoo train lists since about 2001.  I have been aware of Ed almost form day one.  I know he likes a good spirited debate and he likes to be a bit controversial.  He is very good at getting conversations started, though he is also somewhat of a lightening rod.

Who is Ed to speak so much for S scale?  I know he has been a tireless advocate for S scale, he has been a president of the NASG, and he was once a small time passenger coach manufacturer (recycling Flyer coaches into scale).  I believe he was the driving force behind the relatively new S scale SIG website. And also the main force behind getting the Y3 so it could be converted to scale.  I was looking at a book titled Digital Command Control – the comprehensive guide to DCC and Ed Loizeaux is listed as one of the co-authors.  There is probably a lot more that I am not aware of.  But I think Ed has done more to further the S cause than any 3 of the rest of us.  I don’t know when he started in S, but from various posts I gather it was in the early days.  And Ukaflyer, I agree with you that he can be a bit heavy-handed on the scale side.  He can make the 15% seem like the majority.

The 15% vs 85% are numbers we’ve been assuming for quite a while.  I know those figures were given be Don T of SHS and told to be reiterated by Ron B of American Models.  I don’t think they are too far off.  Perhaps the numbers that are not known is the percentage of Flyer vs Hi-rail people of that 85%.  I would like to know that one.  My best guess; we fit the bell curve… Flyer at one end and P64 at the other, the rest in between somewhere.

As for having to regauge wheel sets… I thought that was common practice.  When I see an article in Model Railroader about tuning up your track, the very first thing they say is to check you rolling stock wheel gauge.  Lionel doesn’t seem to have a standard wheel gauge.  I remember writing to Bob B about that once long ago.  I believe you will find that a back to back spacing of 23/32” (a ¾” piece of plywood or a dime will do as a gauge) is a good setting for Flyer and Hi-rail wheel sets.  Ed I do disagree that Flyonel makes their gauge so narrow because of Flyer switch guard rails.  I just don’t think they care… Who’s going to argue with an 800 pound gorilla?

And a question:  why won’t scale wheels operate on Flyer track?  I can see with the roundness of Gargraves why scale wouldn’t operate there, but Flyer track has a much squarer profile.  Apparently not square enough though?

Enough from Maine,

Tom Stoltz

Thanks Ed for the lesson on scale wheels. 

I get it that the scale track is actually wider (inside rail to inside rail).

What I still don't get is why Lionel would want to manufacture a wheel set that would not operate on the very track they hope to sell along with the car that contains that wheel set.

Anyway, keep trying...Lionel may yet offer a "revised" scale wheel set.

I'd still like to know the answer to a question I posed earlier. 

Is there a highrail wheel set offered by anyone to replace these "scale" sets?

Regards,

Mark

The Lionel car looks great <snip> The major visual flaw is the ride height.  Hopefully prototype paint schemes <snip> will become available.

If someone is interested in doing a bit of research, I would suggest they compare all the paint schemes in the L/AF catalog with the various paint schemes on the prototype of this specific cylindrical hopper.  Note that the prototype and the L/AF model have three discharge chutes/hoppers on the bottom.  Let us know what you discover.

Cheers.....Ed L.

Thanks Ed for the lesson on scale wheels.

You are welcome.

What I still don't get is why Lionel would want to manufacture a wheel set that would not operate on the very track they hope to sell along with the car that contains that wheel set.

Earlier messages reported that Will Holt tested this car on AF track and it worked fine.  Assuming that report to be accurate, it would appear that L/AF has made a car that works fine on their own track.

Is there a highrail wheel set offered by anyone to replace these "scale" sets?

Regards,

Mark

I believe the wheels on the cylindrical hopper could be considered a high-rail wheel since they are smaller than original ACG wheels and are also larger than an NMRA-compliant scale wheel.  While labeled "scale", those wheels will not roll smoothly or operate properly through a scale switch built to NMRA specs.  Using the common definition of "scale", they are not really scale wheels.  NMRA-compliance is the most commonly used definition of "scale" even though some folks prefer to use some other definition.  And, we have not yet heard L/AF define what they really mean by "scale".  The lack of terminology and semantics standardization is really confusing to some which is quite unfortunate.

Good luck....Ed L.

Tom, I'm gonna hope to clear things up a little.

Again, I'm handicapped by the fact that my hopper hasn't arrived yet, so I'm trying to make do.

Here's a comparison of an AM scale wheel, AM HiRail wheel (cropped from my files) and the L/AF hopper's wheel(courtesy of Old Goat's photo.)  I plan to do a clear side-by-side when my car finally arrives if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

It's not an ideal photo montage, I realize that.  But, I'm trying to provide some useful analysis using what is currently at my disposal. I hope it at least helps clear the air somewhat.  I'm not declaring the L/AF wheel one way or the other right now.

However, I think it shows the L/AF wheel compares favorably to the AM scale wheel (Whose scale flanges are slightly deeper than SHS's) and is nowhere near the AM HiRail (or anybody else for that matter) flange profile.

Gauge, of course, is another matter.  Previous photo's clearly indicate the wheels are out of gauge per NASG standard.

As you mentioned, MR tune-ups recommend checking the wheels gauge.  There's also a fair selection of HO freight cars that don't receive NMRA Compliance Warrants in the NMRA Bulletin because the gauge is narrow on the product.

Rusty

Since I plan to use NWSL P64 wheelsets, I decided to swap out the Lionel trucks/couplers and use AM RB trucks with a styrene bolster to arrive at the correct height for the Kadee couplers: 

I also managed to disassemble the car for paint removal and modifications.  The Lionel trucks/couplers/pads/screws/washers are now you know where.

Hey OG...

Finally, a solution!

I'm guessing this also pretty much brings the car height down to where it should be.   Looks like it sure beats messing with the Lionel truck. 

I noticed some black spacers in an earlier photo between the coupler and the frame, did Lionel include those to compensate for the excess height?

Rusty

If I was not using P64 wheelsets, I could modify the Lionel trucks so the ride height would be correct and the Kadee coupler pads not needed.

The Kadee coupler mounting pads are supplied with the car and work perfectly.  It's just that the car sits entirely too high compared to the prototype.

Thanks.  It's what I suspected.

Looks like building a new bolster would be the solution to salvaging the Lionel trucks.  I'll probably eventually take the path of least resistance and use AM trucks myself.

Rusty

Here's what I did...(subject to change):

However, I think it shows the L/AF wheel compares favorably to the AM scale wheel (Whose scale flanges are slightly deeper than SHS's) and is nowhere near the AM HiRail (or anybody else for that matter) flange profile.

Thanks Rusty, that does clear it up for me.  So the L/AF scale and the AM scale wheel are very close going back to the earlier truck comparison.  Then if the L/AF wheelset can be gauged it should perform equal to the AM wheelsets through scale turnouts -- right?

And again, as far as labeling the product scale, that would actually be true at least for the wheels.  I don't recall anyone complaining about AM scale wheelsets not being scale.  But then again, I'm probably missing something.

You know, it's a funny thing.  There is this great debate about a slight difference in the flange of the scale wheelset and the labeling of the product.  Yet no one seems to care about the gross error in regard to the labeling of the track radius.

Strange world,

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Thanks, OG.

You've provided some very useful information.

Rusty

Hi again Ed, in the words of that great detective "Columbo"

...."Just one more thing..."

I know the new L/AF "scale" wheel sets operate on the new AF Fastrack. Not sure about Gilbert tubular but I don't use that anyway.

My question was why L/AF would want to manufacture a wheel set that conforms to NASG specs that would run on your scale track ...but right out of the boxnot run on the very L/AF Fastrack they hope to sell?

I'm hoping for you and all the other "scale" operators that L/AF eventually makes a wheel set that conforms to NASG specs. And sell it as a replacement part. Or maybe include it in the "scale car" box as S-Helper-Service used to do.

(Looks like MTH has abandoned this approach...see their latest S gauge catalog.)

However, I feel pretty sure L/AF will never sell NASG compliant wheel sets installed on the car.

The market for that version might be too small to warrant that kind of packaging.

I'm guessing economies of scale still apply to model trains.

Good luck!

Mark

The close-up photo of the truck by Old Goat shows three metal coil springs in the sideframe.  I think this is an extra nice touch by L/AF instead of merely molding the springs in plastic.  Very nice indeed.  Good pix for those of us whose cars have not yet arrived.  Ed L.

>> My question was why L/AF would want to manufacture a wheel set that conforms to NASG specs that would run on your scale track ...but right out of the box not run on the very L/AF Fastrack they hope to sell?

I can only assume that L/AF was not attempting to have a wheelset that was compliant with NASG/NMRA specs.  I assume (dangerous, I know) that L/AF made a wheel which was more realistic than the original ACG wheels and would also run on Flyer track.  Another assumption is that L/AF considers this to be a "scale" wheel even though it cannot operate properly on scale track as defined by the NMRA/NASG.  I would guess the L/AF intent was to make a more realistic wheelset for use on L/AF track only.  And that would make perfect logical sense from a business perspective. 

My gripe is that by calling it a "scale" wheel, it is misleading and not consistent with the most common meaning of the word "scale".  It is a labeling error in my mind, but not a labeling error to L/AF because their definition of "scale" is different and apparently has little to do with NMRA/NASG dimensions -- except in the case of the SD70 scale wheels which do comply.

>> I'm hoping for you and all the other "scale" operators that L/AF eventually makes a wheel set that conforms to NASG specs.

It appears that Old Goat (a GN enthusiast?) has a solution that will work for most of us scale guys as long as NWSL and/or SSL&S scale wheels are available.  It really is not a huge problem for a skilled modeler if the raw materials are on the market.  It might even be possible to spread the L/AF wheels apart a bit and use them if the flange is small enough.  (Jury is still out on that particular point.)  If this had happened on a locomotive of some kind, there would be a lot of unhappy scale campers out there.  And, I assume, folks that need/want an RTR scale product will be disappointed after depending on the label.

>> However, I feel pretty sure L/AF will never sell NASG compliant wheel sets installed on the car.

Yes, you are probably correct with that feeling.  But the scale guys are very content with replacement/swappable wheels at reasonable extra cost.  Swappable wheels, coupler brackets for Kadee, DCC and realistic paint schemes are all we are asking for.  Not that hard when given sufficient thought at the time of original design.  Note that asking for these four basic things does not hinder or restrict any AF or high-rail enthusiast from doing what they wish.

>> Good luck!

Thanks to Old Goat, a workable solution appears to be within our grasp.  At the risk of repeating myself, it is a shame there are so many different interpretations of the word "scale".  This confusion is really unnecessary.

Cheers....Ed L.

I wouldn't necessarily say content, Ed.  Resigned to the fact, maybe.., but content, not so much.

But then, I knew the scale was dangerous when I entered it...

Rusty

Well.........let's say "more content" compared to not having swappable wheels.  Would that be a fair characterization?  "S"miles.....Ed L.

Good 'nuff.

Rusty

I have code 100 hand-laid track, and Shinohara and Tomalco both track and switches I took a chance and ordered a hopper and I'll post a review when I get it and run it.

BTW, since I'm a scaler that subsribes to the "good-enough" theory for my running equipment and put scenery first and foremost, I understand the various sides of the debate. To some extent, we need input from the scale purists, but we have to remember that we scalers are few in number and have to ride the coattails of the highrail,AF folks to get needed stuff.

Peace to all,

Roy Hoffman  

Lionel's American Flyer catalogue describes how Lionel interprets "scale." Lionel divides their American Flyer offerings into the traditional group of AF reruns or modified versions of what Gilbert offered and into the S scale group, which includes the Challenger, Y3, SD70, ES44, and the cylindrical hoppers.

"In the American Flyer S Scale line, locos and cars are made to be as exact as possible to 1:64 scale, and they may require a minimum track curve because of their larger size...Generally the difference [between traditional and scale] is a matter of size and the level of accurate detail. Scale locos and cars are often larger in size and more highly detailed in comparison to Traditional ones."

When Lionel offered the hoppers with "scale" wheels, they merely meant "more realistic" wheels that would still run on their track as well as American Flyer track. They did not mean that the wheels conformed to NASG standards, although to many S scale modelers, that is what "scale" means. Adding to the confusion was that Lionel did offer NASG wheelsets for the SD70 and a means to convert the Y3 to true NASG wheels.

Unfortunately, Lionel's "definition" is suffuiciently vague as to be practically useless. 

Substitute "Standard O Gauge" and "1:48" for "American Flyer S Scale Line" and "1:64" and it could just as easily be applied to their O products. 

But, I won't belabor the point.  Lionel's copywriters and illustrators are also known miss the mark on the O gauge side occasionally. 

I think at this point, it's pretty obvious that those of us wanting to use the hopper in a scale environment are willing to see what adjustments or replacements to the truck/wheels need to be done... when our cars finally arrive.  My friendly LHS still hasn't called to say "come and get it..."

I'm still curious to see IF the trucks actually run through my turnouts unmodified and if any modifications can be made if they don't.  By the photo's presented thus far, it appears they can be reworked if needed.

I'll worry about lowering the car height after that, but frankly, Old Goat's solution appears to be the simplest overall.

Rusty