Lionel & MTH: How to max S sales

That's the funny thing about S. There are at least 2 or 3 separate camps involved. You are right Bill, if I was a Flyer guy I would probably be happy. Unfortunately for me I don't like Flyer and what I really wanted S to be is a larger version of HO or a smaller version of O scale. I also am very interested in certain prototypes and not others so the lack of products, specifically on the scale steam side is quite disappointing. I'll stop beating a dead horse as I have decided to move on. I hope it works out for all my friends still in S.

So that is why we are not getting new stuff.  It is all your fault!  LOL

I understand, similar things happened with me.  But I have been making lots of fantasy cars and accessories (so far the only thing duplicated is when Lionel made an American Flyer operating Christmas billboard a year after I made mine).  I have also made several prototypical cars such as pulpwood cars from Bachmann On30 flat cars, AF flatcars, etc., and steel coil cars from Rex flat cars, AF and Lionel gondolas etc.  I'm still working with those.  I have two Lionel coil covers left to use on something.  I scratch built some of the covers.  No one has produced any of those cars except the SHS pulpwood cars which are too modern for my roads; and my individually cut pulpwood looks better than resin cast.  I also made decals for Southern streamline passenger cars and have a complete train set now.  I love this part of the hobby.  The only modern stuff I have bought were some Lionel cylindrical hoppers and they didn't run worth a c****, until I spent $25 more on highrail trucks.  I won't do that again.

And Bill, I am one of those few DC highrailers.  I used to buy all the Lionel and SHS sound stuff in AC but got tired of it running for two months and then breaking down.  So I removed all the sound boards, or threw switches and now run them DC.  I also removed all of the AC electronic reverse boards from my Lionel, and AM engines and they run much better now.  All new stuff I am buying from AM is strictly DC.  I don't have that choice from Lionel or MTH so I am not buying their stuff.

Wayne

I finally got my copy of the S Gaugian and read the article. It is not encouraging for those of us in S but it is not a surprise. I am sure Lionel will make a minimum investment in S to keep the line viable but no more. Why would any for profit corporation invest incremental capital in new products that would have 1/10 the sales potential of an alternate investment.

The new LCS system shows their intent. There are no plans for IR equipped S engines nor S sensor tracks. New engines will be the FlyerChief system.

American Models has made some great engines and cars. I have many of them and have converted many of the engines to TMCC. I realize I am in the minority but I think the best thing Lionel could do is offer Legacy boards and Railsounds for retrofits. Or license third parties to offer them.

There is a variety of good track produced for hi rail use, but only AM offers enough pieces to build an elaborate sectional track layout plus a wide radius turnout. The MTH/SHS track is very nice but every layout I built with it required cutting sections to 7.5". There are no crossings or wide radius turnouts. For the "permanent" layout I decided to use MTH flex track with handlaid turnouts. It was a tough decision between that and the AM system.

While it would be nice to have more new products I own far more already than I can find time to operate so collecting and operating in S is remains most enjoyable.

Tom:  You wrote, " New engines will be the FlyerChief system."

The interview did not say that.  That was asked in part of a question. but not answered Yes or no. Matt really said, "2015 was a good year to regroup to make sure their next scale offering is a strong one." Also he said Lionel was considering an upgraded Berkshire with Legacy but it would be a few years away.  He also felt Lionel would see what the reception was on the Berkshire coming out this year.

Remember that Lionel's perception of "Scale" is based on the proportions of an engine and not the wheel flanges.  They consider the Berks as scale. 

I really feel we will have Legacy in the Flyer future.

That will be great if some new Legacy engines are released. 

The AC vs DC vs DCC vs other is an interesting topic in itself.  Does anyone really know the break down in S for the different systems? 

I long been under the impression that DC is by far the most common thread for Hi-rail followed by DCC.  For scale DCC followed by DC is the choice and then the Flyer guys use AC for the most part with some using the various AC components that Lionel has to offer.

What say you…

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Well, I can tell you it's about 80% DC and 20% DCC on my scale railroad.  And my DC locomotives still log the most mileage.

Couldn't tell you off the top of my head for my Hirail stuff, (usually only comes out at Christmastime) but it's a mix of conventional AC and TMCC.

Rusty

All of the Hi-Railers I know are not DC or DCC.  AC has got to be the most used type of mode of power.  Flyer guys all use AC and note most new production only has DC & DCC as an option.  Remember how short a time Gilbert tried to sell DC because it not accepted. Flyer guys are the great majority of Hi-Railers. 

All the Hi-Railers I know use AC with a smattering of TMCC in addition, but let's not open up the whole ball of wax as to what, exactly, is a "Hi-Railer". I'm using it to refer to those who use rolling stock (some of which may consist of Toy equipment) with larger flanges than those defined by NASG as "scale") to approximate a less toy-like appearance that "pure" American Flyer.

I thought the reason the Gilbert gave up on DC for S gauge was the Korean War with the restrictions on the Alnico Magnets that were needed for DC motors at that time as well as the fact that large capacity diodes needed for polarity reversing were also not available.  I have also heard this given as the reason that there was no Gilbert HO from 1951-1954.  

LitttleTommy

Hey Bill,

I think it comes down to definitions.  AM has offered nothing but AC or DC for well over twenty years (could it really be closer to thirty?).  SHS was in the same boat until they tried Locomatic or whatever it was.  If I remember correctly, Gilbert’s problem with their DC experiment was the expense of the germanium rectifiers available at the time.  DC at that time was for the serious modeler not the kids with their toy trains.

When I got back into S almost 30 years ago, the thing I noticed as the move to DC operation if one was moving toward more realism than straight Flyer.  It was almost automatic, if the modeler went to Gargraves trackage, then you could bet he was running DC.  Only the traditional Flyer layout guys (and of course collectors) stayed with AC and the finicky e-units.  Flyonel only offered AC.

Then the explosion of DCC happened and Neil Young got into electronics because of his handy-capped son.  Neil is a big time Lionel collector and he got involved with them exploring new ways to control AC operating trains rather than converting them to DC/DCC (which would have been by far the easiest).  Thus the advent of Lionel’s systems

So now we have this proprietary system oriented toy train company competing with another proprietary system oriented toy company and they are the new main stays of S (though I think if AM had the capital it would be a whole other story).  And for the newer generation of toy train operators, they are just about the only game in town.

But I digress… I would think you probably know a lot of Flyer/Flyonel guys who are using AC or the Flyonel multiple systems, most probably running on Flyer trackage, but I doubt you know few, if any, Hi-railers (rail smaller the code 172) who use AC and certainly no scalers.  However I do know Carl Tuveson has embraced the Flyonel systems and he is most certainly Hi-rail.

Anyway, that’s part of my 2¢

Tom Stoltz

in rainy Maine

I know that years ago many AF operators were changing over to DC so they could eliminate the reverse unit. Then TMCC and Legacy showed up. Now AF operators are using either original Flyer transformers or modern phase angle controlled power supplies to run the TMCC and Legacy engines. All of these engines will operate on original Gilbert track and turnouts, providing the advantage that no one need rebuild their track to use any new Lionel, AM or MTH engine. Of course nearby scenery could be another issue. 

Tom: Yes, definitions matter.  To me a Hi-Railer is anyone who's trackage is like Gilbert's and who's rolling stock and engines have non scale wheels.  I use Gilbert track, original Gilbert locomotives and cars, Flyonel from 81 to current, some American Models AC, Legacy and no SHS or DC engines. By my definition I am Hi-Rail.  

Bill,

From American Models website:

What is the difference between hi-rail and scale?

90% of our orders are for HR (hi-rail). This is compatible with AF (American Flyer), and will run on AF track or our track.

Scale

An attempt to model as realistic as possible, usually operated with dc current power supply and has wheel flanges made the smallest possible, but large enough to stay on the track, usually operated on .100 .125 " or .148" high rail track. Couplers are prototype size or close to it, usually "Kadee" couplers or our scale Snap-lock couplers are used.

Tinplate

Usually meant to be American Flyer type railroading with the large flanged wheels and couplers. AC transformers always used. Track is the American Flyer "hollow steel rail" .220" in height, (WWII design).

Hi-rail

An attempt to use the best of both worlds, using the larger hi-rail flanged wheels and American Flyer or sometimes scale type couplers with more realistic track.

AC power has some advantage in that an economical electronic sound system can be made without a battery back-up. (DC sound systems usually cost twice and much). A disadvantage is that AC powered locomotives cannot change directions simply by throwing a switch, and features such as "momentum throttles are not available. A three position reverse unit must be used and requires the power to be turned on and off and on and off again to reverse direction. We often call these AC Flyer.

Traditional Flyer track is a far cry from Hi-rail.  I believe this is where the scale guys confuse Flyer and Hi-rail and I also think is what causes so much confusion on the part of the newcomer.  Newcomer???  Hey I’m confused on how a traditional Flyer layout suddenly becomes Hi-rail just with the introduction of some new equipment?

Brooks Stover is Hi-rail, so is Carl Tuveson and the picture recently posted by richabr are Hi-rail as well.  Flyer track and switches are just that…Flyer.  That is not meant to be a judgement call, Flyer is great, but it is not Hi-rail nor is it scale.  TrainRMe appears to be traditional Flyer with the exception of the Gargraves trackage.

Bill, if your layout is Hi-rail, then what is a Flyer layout?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

For the record, AM started out by offering only scale wheels and DC.  Here's the earliest ad I could locate from the June 1982 Model Railroader:

No mention of being "Flyer compatible" other than being able to run on "all S track code 100 to tinplate."

I don't recall when it happened, (sometime during the late 80's, I think...  certainly by the time SHS "helped" with the RS3's) but they had to eventually offer deep flanged wheels, big couplers and AC electronic reverse units for the Flyer market.

The definitions on AM's website are good for a generic introduction, but today there are so many shades of gray in the S universe they're hardly comprehensive.

Besides, I think we beat the definitions to death in a thread back last December.

Rusty

Bill, if your layout is Hi-rail, then what is a Flyer layout?

Bills layout is Hi-rail just like mine which uses Gilbert Flyer trackage.

Ray

Vigorously discussed, I agree.  But beat to death?  If it were dead it wouldn’t be here now.  That discussion last December appears to be from the scale side calling Hi-rail Flyer.  Which, by the way, gets my hackles up as much as a Flyer guy claiming to be Hi-rail.  Hence, the 50 shades of gray.

To me the shades of gray come in after the definition. It all comes down to track choices, after that you can do anything you feel like doing… make it as gray as you like.  But your track (including radius) and turnouts defines your layout.  Not your couplers, not your scenery, not your benchwork though granted, they do reflect your intent.

It’s all too easy,

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom,

A really good point you mentioned was " It all comes down to track choices....." and this is where I also find it difficult to get a true accurate understanding of definition, so here are some that I would like to see what people belive they should be defined.

What do you call someone running Flyer on original Flyer track?

What do you call someone running Flyer on AM track?

What do you call someone running Flyer on SHS flexi track?

Flyer on the whole for most production will run on all of the above.

With regards to NASG scale definition, which aligns I believe to NMRA standards, and has been mentioned before in the past that it isn't actually scale in prototype dimensions, is as close to scale as possible as AM possibly elludes to, so what do you call these criteria when they are run on code 100, 125 and possibly 148?

It seems then that the track issue is what divides the S community as to what they perceive others to be and causes a great deal of contention. 

RayinS,

Would you mind explaining how you came to that conclusion?  I’m still confused as to what a Flyer layout would be, if someone using Flyer track is not Flyer…

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

From all this discussion I can read that there is almost as many definitions as there are writers.  I guess we all should be happy just using our own definition and enjoy the hobby and conversation.

Aye, there's the rub...

Flyer that can't run on code 100:

and Flyer that can run on code 100:

No SD70's were harmed in making this comparison...

Rusty

thanks Tom for the reply,

Your responses basically ticked all the boxes as to how I was thinking as well from a trackage point, so is this a good start point for everyone? Re Flyer on Flyer I was thinking as you mentioned as being a traditionalist type as just a Flyer type, but that is a minor difference.

Then the second issue that seems to cloud how we perceive each other are the locos's and rolling stock vs track. As in the past I have mentioned that if we take a stock AF CJ engine and convert it to NASG/NMRA profile for wheel standards,KD couplers etc what do we have? 

To me all I see is a toy engine that is capable to be run on code 100 track which is defined as scale track, but I could never say that I, personally, was operating a scale engine, perhaps this is just me and how I see things which again further muddies the waters that we are all common to.

You can now see how the manufactures are confused as to which direction they should be supporting S in, as we can't agree amongst ourselves which camp we all sit in.

Well, here's one that I've wondered about:

Scale wheels, scale couplers, on Carl Tuevson/richabr type of track and layout scenery approach. (If the switches wouldn't accommodate scale wheels, then AF type wheels?)

IF I had it to do over again, I think the above mix would have been more enjoyable than what I tried to do.

You wind up with something like this from the land of gray, muddy waters:

As seen at S Fest 2012...

Rusty

Rusty,

As in my last post, if you took a number of stock Flyer engines and rolling stock and converted them to NASG wheels, couplings etc, what do we have?

Would you say they are scale rolling stock on scale track even though the detail of the castings/ injection mouldings that are possibly 60 plus years old, which in another category as Tom mentioned would be perceived to be Flyer/Traditional. 

Again this concept, taking it to an extreme, at to what we do to with individual items as to how we make changes to them, can put them into an area that makes them lose any real identity, and technicalities are then used to make a decision which then makes it even more confusing, if only life could be made simple!!!!!

 You mean like these?

I consider them as scale, just lower resolution.

Flyer conversions to "scale" were pretty prevalent in the real old days.  I'd be willing to bet there's still a fair amount of them lurking on railroads of the real long timers.  And frankly, most of the Gilbert freight cars are that good with detail and decoration to just change truck and couplers and place on a scale railroad.  There were cottage industries back then providing the stuff to do the conversions.

And the late Frank Titman did wondrous things to Reading 4-4-2's...

A friend of mine has a Flyer 0-8-0 with Nixon drivers and Kadee's (No 5's) for operation on code 100 track.  I once passed on a likewise converted 21085 Pacific estate locomotive mainly because my mind couldn't reconcile itself with the "lower resolution" of the boiler.  Even I have my limits, but doubtless it gave the original owner pleasure.

Rusty

Stay with the rail... it's not gray.  You can make everything else as gray as you like.  I have that same K5 (painted by our own Jerry P) on a Flyer layout, it would be Flyer (just check the wheels), however on a Hi-rail layout it would be Hi-rail (mine has Kadee #5s)

Tom

Rusty,

and what you have done is really good stuff in upgrading stock Flyer items, but to be fair you have done a bit more than just change wheels and couplers, especially on the caboose.

Isn't this a brilliant testament to ACG on what he produced back then as to what can be achieved now and the potential he could have reached if he survived past the 60's/70's? 

I also like your term 'lower resolution' regarding scale for the ACG stuff and I wonder if this is also where a lot of confusion, differentials arise amongst the S fraternity. 

So, as you mentioned, a lot of Flyer freight cars are that good that they can be placed on a scale layout with just a few changes, so are we maligning ACG products to be a lot more inferior by calling them tinplate, Flyer or traditionalist? 

What a minefield we live in.

I'm wondering where my layout fits in this discussion, since it uses code 148 rail, hand spiked to individual basswood ties, and Eshelman closed frog turnouts (I believe they were #5's). While most of my trains run on wheels with NASG flanges, including American Models, SHS, and even a couple of brass pieces from Omnicon & River Raisin, I do have a small number of locos with Hi-Rail wheelsets from AM, SHS and Gilbert. Most of my rolling stock uses Kadee S scale couplers, except for the few trains that have AF style deep flanges. All of the units that have deep flanges and lobster claws will someday be converted to fine flanges and Kadees, with the exception of the AF pieces that would just be too much trouble to convert. So far, I've only ever run any of it on DC, except for a couple of pieces that were set up in the mid 1990's with Digitrax decoders! but they also run on straight DC. I haven't exactly given up on DCC, it's just that so far, using the conventional DC has been easier (call me lazy!).

Bill in FtL

When I build a layout using Gilbert track, switches, accessories and plasticvile it is something that could have existed in the '50's. I just call it original American Flyer. Sometimes I cheat and use some Snow Village. I really struggle with calling it tinplate, I consider Marx to be tinplate and Gilbert is something different. When I build a layout using SHS/MTH sectional track (code 125) with more detailed scenery I think of it as hi-rail. To me it is about intent and state of mind. I am still just playing with trains, almost all of them Gilbert or Lionel AF despite the appearance of the layout. When I see what S scale modelers achieve with details, operating accuracy and their approach to the hobby it is truly great stuff and I would never put myself at a scale level. 

"I'm wondering where my layout fits in this discussion, since it uses code 148 rail, hand spiked to individual basswood ties, and Eshelman closed frog turnouts (I believe they were #5's). While most of my trains run on wheels with NASG flanges, including American Models, SHS, and even a couple of brass pieces from Omnicon & River Raisin, I do have a small number of locos with Hi-Rail wheelsets from AM, SHS and Gilbert."

   I think that fits in the classic Hi-Rail category. this is not just an S scale phenomenon, when I was modeling in O scale I bought quite a few older O cars that had large flanges with scale couplers. They were holdovers from the outside 3rd rail days......DaveB

Transgender? Seriously, I would tend to classify Gargraves as hi-rail trackage and original Gilbert tubular as tinplate/flyer. Basicly anything that runs on other than original Gilbert track is considered hi-rail until you get down to the scale size codes which do not support the Gilbert flanges. No?

Gee, I'm glad we didn't open up that whole ball of wax!!

LittleTommy

FWIW... Here is what Wikipedia says:

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.

That's what I have always understood Hi-Rail to be... Toy trains on higher than scale track running on a layout with realistic scenery. If you take away the realistic scenery then you just have traditional S or O. The term Hi-Rail has always been targeted at the realism of the layout, not the track or trains in O.

The term "Scale" is what the dimensions of the model measure out to. That's what's funny about S... The only folks truly doing "scale" are the Poto 64 folks.

I agree that the rift between Traditional Flyer, Hi-Rail, Scale, and Proto 64 is most likely the cause of stagnation in this niche scale. Too many fractions of a fraction.

Here's a little more fuel for the fire.

This ICG locomotive and caboose woke up Sunday morning as hirail.  Couldn't run it on my railroad even though I've owned it for 14 years.  Big flanges, big couplers. 

Or seeing the SW9 also had a 3-position electronic reverse unit inside, was it a toy?

I decided it might be nice to be able to run them on the Great Plywood Glacier, so after an hour or so "under the knife" so to speak, did they suddenly become scale models?

Or were they for 14 years always scale models that were operationally compatible with traditional American Flyer?

Rusty

I guess I have to agree with Bill, besides, IMRR, Its My Rail Road.

Ray

Aw Rich.  You make it too easy! 

So, what's this?  Tom referenced it a few posts ago.  A custom painted Gilbert K5 with Flyer flanges on the drivers (which aren't as deep as the pilot wheels), can motor for DC operation. but a convenient switch under the tender for usage with AC, and LED headlight.  I ran it on my old Flyer tracked layout and on my newer SHS flextrack layout.  

Hirail light?  Scalified?  Flyer updated?  But frankly, I don't care about any label.  To me it's a toy that I enjoy playing with.  Hey, I can add more grey to the mix!  But in this case, I prefer Brunswick Green and Tuscan...

By the way, the first time I ran this on my club's layout, one person thought it was a "scale item".  He was not only surprised, but pleased that a Flyer item could be made to look so nice.  Maybe it was the valve gearing?  Let's face it. for its time, Gilbert trains were VERY nicely done.

"Or were they for 14 years always scale models that were operationally compatible with traditional American Flyer?"

   Scale models with HiRail wheels, or HiRail models with scale like details? I don't think the level of detail matters as much as the type of wheels when it comes to hiRail versus scale label. I can imagine a Flyer car modified with scale wheels that could be more detailed than a stripped down scale model. These boxcars are actually O HiRail(O-27) but they have S scale wheels and couplers which changes the label in most folks minds...DaveB