The modular group I once belonged to uses AM code 148 track. 

During one train show, I was running a repainted (and slightly modified) Flyer 293 New Haven Pacific with a train of 7 repainted and relettered Flyer freight cars.  The 293 still was AC, with the whitewalls and smoke unit intact and (rare for me,) I had smoke fluid in it.

One fellow was looking at it as it chugged and puffed away right under his nose.  His comment? "It's too bad you guys can't run Flyer on this layout."

I just smiled...

Rusty

Rusty,

I don’t think your engines changed identity just because you move them from one layout to another.  And that is the whole point of staying with the rail.  The rail, its radius and choice of turnouts/switches define the layout – nothing more.  All the rest of it is much ado about nothin’.

However there were a couple of guys that had comments about layouts the might truly be a bit more grayish.  One was using Gargraves trackage and he felt like it is a Hi-rail layout.  To that I would ask about the turnouts.  If he is using Gargraves turnouts then indeed it would be Hi-rail.  But on the other hand Flyer switches would define the layout as Flyer.

The other concerned sectional SHS/MTH systems.  I would answer first the code of the rail is 138 rather than 125.  But here I would consider the radius.  If it is the 18.55” radius that SHS used, one would be very limited and the layout would point in the direction of Flyer.  That same goes for the switches.  As far as I know, SHS only made a toy train switch meant as a replacement for the standard Flyer switch (good looking, yes, but still meant for the Flyer market) so again the layout would be closer to Flyer following the trackage choice.

And I certainly don’t want to encourage the sour grapes mentality.  I would like to see a consensus reached rather people getting hurt feelings and seeing this good discussion ended without resolution - again - like the thread form last December.  It will only come back if we allow this to happen.

Unfortunately, Jerry, labels are something our species uses.  I am more adamant about the scale crowd calling Hi-rail Am Flyer.  It doesn’t help to have Flyer people refer to their layouts as Hi-rail.  Only adds to the confusion.  We have three different sets of standards for wheels (Hi-rail, Flyer and scale) that more or less require three different standards for trackage.  It’s okay, it’s a positive thing, not a negative to cause bickering.  But we do need to own it, whatever your choice and move on.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I see the post above states that MTH rail is code 138. I am looking at the MTH site as I type this. MTH catalogs their track as code 125. They also refer to it as 155# prototype equivalent. Is MTH wrong about their product? I fully agree that since a wide radius turnout was not made this track is very limited in function even though it looks great and has wide radius sectional curves available. The only solution is to use MTH flex with hand laid turnouts to make this a true hi rail system. My personal opinion is Gargraves track with Gilbert switches is still American Flyer and it makes a really nice operating layout. 

AmFlyer,

MTH bought out SHS and started making the same track.  I know that in their catalog they call it code 125, but it is closer to code 138 with some variation. 

You will find more information about the size issue in this old thread.

Mike A.

The track of that style I have is all the prior SHS production. I recall seeing the thread included in your post. I find it interesting that MTH cannot get something so basic correct. If the MTH track is really greater than code 132 then I understand better Tom Stoltz point of code 125 as a dividing line for scale. 

The actual height of the rail is not of concern to me as long as the American Flyer and American Models equipment operates on it. It works flawlessly for me in that regard. 

Mark, Based on your math, we can see why MTH is using the code 125 number in their catalog.  Here's a part of the old SHS website that refers to the track and you see they use code 131:

S-Trax, Our 155# Rail "S" Gauge Track System

Trackwork, Key to a Railroad

Beautiful trackwork is a critical step to having a beautiful railroad. And no railroad can operate well with inferior track. Many of our customers started with, and still operate, layouts based on American Flyer track. We also have customers who hand-lay their track, including building custom switches. Some of our AF customers would like new, already ballasted sectional track to add to their layouts. Some would like to include flexible track in a portion of their layout, while still keeping AF track in other areas. Many customers run AF or AF-compatible wheelsets, while others use code 110 "scale" wheelsets. Some even run a mix of both.

The goal of the S-Trax system is to allow maximum flexibility to mix and match components, allowing you to create and grow your railroad the way you want it to be.

All rail is code 131, which matches PRR mainline 155 lb. rail. This size was chosen because it cooresponds to a size of rail used on real railroads, yet still allows operation of AF and AF-compatible wheels.

Sectional track has built-in ballast, and comes in multiple lengths and radii. Matching switches, bumpers, uncouplers and other accessories are available, with more coming.

Flex Track has matching ties and rail. Roadbed is available to match the height of the sectional track if required.

"If what you have is exactly 1/64 of the real thing then it is scale. If what you have isn't an exact 1/64 representation then it is not scale. No matter how much you want it to be.

So maybe none of this stuff is truly scale.

It's all just a matter of the degree of realism."

   If what you have is exact scale it's Proto 64, If what you have is common "scale" wheels it's scale simply because that how it's defined and accepted by most modelers. If folks would learn the terms then all this discussion would be a lot easier. The terms are just labels for convenience not descriptors of the measurements of the parts. If anyone has some of that SHS track the simplest way to figure out what code it is  would be measure it's rail height :> .......DaveB

From the earlier thread.  MTH on the left, SHS on the right:

With the exception of the ballast color, (and there were variation's in color with SHS) the track is the same and MTH S-Trax is 100% compatible with old SHS S-Trax.

Rusty

Track I have in abundance, a micrometer I do not. Using an accurately scribed steel rule I could believe it is between .130" and .135", but without a micrometer this is imprecise. My point is that as a large high quality supplier they must provide accurate product information to their buyers. I use the sectional track to build holiday layouts that use wide radius curves so the exact height of the rail was not as important as operability of Gilbert equipment. I find it not suitable for more complex layouts due to the lack of wide radius turnouts and crossings. 

SHS rail by design is 3.45mm in height, the tolerances are -0.00mm and +0.10mm.   That works out to the manufactured rail being anywhere between 0.1358264” and 0.1397634”.  Or in our language; somewhere between code 136 to code 140.  Over my years of working with SHS rail I found it to be 0.138” and only one batch came in at 0.1375”, which to me was pretty close to 0.138”.

I couldn’t agree more about honesty in advertising from our train manufacturers.  I don’t know what the advertised radius of SHS S-Trax was but the design radius was 18.55”.  A far cry from Flyer at approximately 19.125” radius… that is why I put SHS S-Trax in the Flyer category along with their closing frog switches.

Then we have Circle L with a stated radius of 20” for their track system.  However, that 20” radius is to the outside edge of the roadbed, leaving the center line radius around 18.5”.

I don’t know what MTH is claiming, but my guess would be they will follow suit.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Way back in March 2012 I measured the rails both Lionel's S FasTrack and SHS's S-Trax.  Here's what I came up with using my micrometer:

Rail height for both the Lionel & SHS track is .133”
The base of the rail for both is .104” wide
The web of the rail is the only measurable difference.  Lionel is .025”, SHS is .023”.

Now as far as radius or diameter is concerned, my observation is that in the "toy" world (for lack of a better term) geometry is more important than anything else.  As long as you can replace an S-20 (19, 18.5, whatever...) curved or 10" straight section with a turnout section of the same geometry or one oval fits nicely inside another, everything's fine.

And frankly, big locomotives aren't going to be any more glamorous on a curve measuring 20" radius vs. 18.5"...

Rusty

Rusty,

I think the point was more of honesty in advertising rather that accuracy in measuring, but if you would like me to send you a .pdf of the SHS drawing, please let me know – I don’t make this stuff up.  I do agree with interchange ability of the various track components, but what is the harm of labeling them correctly.  When it comes to drawing out a track plan the radius does matter – you should know what you are designing with.

Part of my day job is to work with various manufactures spec drawings and if they want their stuff to be used, they had best supply accurate information.  Also why my numbers appear carried to extremes is because when you play with a CAD system (my day job) that is how the numbers come out.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom and Rusty, thanks for providing the measurements and the specs. In the modern world with CAD systems the precise specifications with tolerances are important. Back in the old toy train days all my dad cared about was the outside dimensions of the track plan so he could size the platform for under the tree, and the fact that turnouts were one for one substitutions for straight and curved tracks. we did not need to know the center to center design radius to build the layout under the tree. The Gilbert stated radius of 20" is not the center. These days the manufacturers and sellers must be more accurate, times are not as simple as they used to be. 

"And frankly, big locomotives aren't going to be any more glamorous on a curve measuring 20" radius vs. 18.5"..."

  But little one's can look fine on it. These first two photos are S scale on 16.875 radius

 ( 90 feet prototype DL&W Harlem Transfer terminal) and the third is the real thing, the outer loop is 105 foot radius BTW. ....DaveB

Love that 3rd photo

Well, Tom, I agree the product description should be accurate, but all I can say is in spite what of the SHS spec sheet says, SHS also advertized the curve radius incorrectly.

In 2000, the smallest curve was advertized as 19" radius.  Close to 18.55" but no cigar.

In 2001, the curve radii grew an inch and maintained that description until the end.

And note in 2001, the description on the right contradicts the listing on the left.

So, an advertized radius of 20" for an 18.55" radius curve is not a new phenomena unique to Lionel or MTH.  Given their penchant for other catalog errors in both graphics and product descriptions, it's unlikely to change anytime soon.

Rusty