"SCALE" definition

The answer to all your questions, unfortunately, is "no".

The toy-train roots of this S stuff has doomed it to non-standardization and constant bickering.

"Oh look! A box marked 'Property of Pandora!'  Let's open it and see what's inside..."

Anything built to 3/16" to a foot is S Scale. 

The difference is in resolution.  A Gilbert Flyer boxcar is of a lower resolution than a Pacific Rail Shops (or SSA) boxcar, yet both are built to the same scale.  However, neither are perfect representations of their respective prototypes.

Rusty

Also, when the question of "what is scale" comes up in the 3-rail forum, you invariably have a group of responders that insist that the level of detail helps determine whether something is scale or "traditional", while others insist that proportion alone determines "scale" versus not.

Same problem here.

"Is it just the wheels and/or track?  Should couplers be included in the definition?  What about scenery?  And electrical/electronic control systems?  Fantasy paint schemes?  Plausible freelanced paint schemes?  Is it subjective and a matter of opinion?  Or is it measurable and able to be precisely defined?  Would a Flyer Guy define it differently from a Scale Guy?  And so forth......."

  Hi Ed, Scale has many meanings but in the context of scale or hi-rail I go with the definition the manufacturers use when they check one of the squares on the end of a box. "scale" wheels and body mounted kadee or similar couplers.   The fidelity to the prototype or quality of the modeling can't really be a factor as we all differ in our experience and ability, the intent of the modeler is all that matters in the quality aspect.....DaveB

Doesn't the NASG exist to answer all the OP's question?  Why would a handful of guys posting on a minor s-gauge forum be a good candidate for setting these standards?

Most of the s-gauge world exists outside of the fine OGR forums.

>> Doesn't the NASG exist to answer all the OP's question?

NASG is a collection of S enthusiasts of all types just like the folks on this OGR forum.  If you asked "them" (whoever?) to define "scale", the variety of answers would not be much different from the responses right here.  Try it and you will see.

>> Why would a handful of guys posting on a minor s-gauge forum be a good candidate for setting these standards?

Having a conversation is not the same as setting standards.  The difficulty in establishing a commonly accepted definition of "scale" is the point being made here at this time.  As we are seeing, it ain't easy.  Merely attempting it has caused a few folks to take up finger-pointing as a secondary hobby.

Want a bigger challenge?  Try defining "HIGH-RAIL". 

Cheers.......Ed L.

 "Try defining "HIGH-RAIL"."

  Those are the cars with the other box checked on the end flap, they're the one's that you have to throw away the wheels and install scale wheels.....DaveB 

Better yet, try defining "G Scale." 

There's gotta be 5-6 scale proportions running around on the same track and good portion of the G Gaugers don't seem to be worried about throwing them all in the same train.

At least, with a few exceptions from AC Gilbert Co's last years, everything is properly proportioned.

Oh, and by the way.  HO has its dark side, too.  This little gem is still available in HO "scale" under the Model Power flag:

as is some other stuff evolved from old Marx tooling.

Rusty

>> Those are the cars with the other box checked on the end flap, they're the one's that you have to throw away the wheels and install scale wheels.....DaveB 

So DaveB............If'n I understand your concept of definitions, if Lionel produced a Casey Jones replica of a 1950 steam engine complete with link couplers and a factory worker accidentally checked the "scale" box on the end flap, then you would consider it to be an S scale model.  In other words, it is "scale"  because the box says so.  Right?

I am not sure many would agree with that definition, but we are all entitled to our opinions.   (Grinning in case you did not notice.) 

Keep in mind that L/AF considered the cylindrical hoppers to be "scale" models and labeled them as such.  Large flanges and huge couplers were not relevant to the labeling in this instance. 

Keep trying......Ed L.

Thank you, Ed for starting this thread.  It has been fun watching, in a cynical bemused kind of way, the way the thread has evolved. It is great when we can disagree without being disagreeable.

In my field of endeavor, someone in a position of authority defines a word in a certain way and then, for purposes of discussion, that definition is what is used, no matter how stupid or unrealistic the word might seem to someone outside the field.  That way, whenever the word is used, everyone in the field knows exactly what it means.

I was shocked a few years ago, when, on this forum, someone disagreed with how the word "scale" was to be used.  After 30+ years of reading "S Gaugian"and the NASG Dispatch, I was shocked that there was anyone actively modeling in S who didn't use the word in the same way that it was used in those publications.  I guess I should get out more. 

As to the word "Hi Rail" I believe I first saw the word in a book from the 1940's called "Riding the Hi Rail Route" or something like that.  It told the story of a man and his sons who tried to build a realistic railroad in the early post WW II period, but because of the prohibitive cost of "Scale" O gauge locomotives, he chose to use Lionel trains and track, but he detailed and painted the engines and rolling stock to look less toy like, built "scale" rolling stock from kits and put Lionel trucks on them, and built what was at the time realistic scenery (which consisted of cardstock buildings, landforms made of plaster and dusted with colored saw dust and lichen trees and bushes-which was the norm for the best "serious" layouts that appeared in Model Railroader and RMC at the time.)  He coined the term "Hi Rail" because the rails on his stock Lionel track with extra ties added were so much larger than what "Serious O Gaugers" used at the time.   At that time, when the term originated, it meant using toy trains in some combination with "Scale" elements to achieve a less toy like and more realistic appearance.  

Personally, I prefer the terms "AF Compatible" and "Scale", with the understanding that anything that is marked "AF Compatible"will run through Gilbert switches and negotiate 20"" radius curves or if track, it will accommodate Gilbert AF original  rolling stock and engines  and anything marked "Scale" will negotiate "scale" switches or, if track, will accommodate scale flanges.  

At least, then you know what you are buying will work on whatever kind of track that you have, or the track will accommodate the rolling stock that you have.

My personal bias is that if a definition does not have "operational utility", it is a bad definition. Just my opinion.

Little Tommy

"Keep in mind that L/AF considered the cylindrical hoppers to be "scale" models and labeled them as such."

  Hi Ed, but also keep in mind that Lionel/Flyer doesn't know much about model railroading as they are basically a toy company :>  O when thru the hi-rail problem about three quarters of a century  ago when they switched form outside 3rd rail to 2 rail so it appears S is kinda slow on the uptake?  ( BTW did you get your staging tracks in the adjacent room going?)....DaveB

"Personally, I prefer the terms "AF Compatible" and "Scale", with the understanding that anything that is marked "AF Compatible"will run through Gilbert switches and negotiate 20"" radius curves or if track, it will accommodate Gilbert AF original  rolling stock and engines  and anything marked "Scale" will negotiate "scale" switches or, if track, will accommodate scale flanges. "

 Hi Tommy, I think the only problem with that definition is it leaves out hirail equipment that might be too long to run on 20 inch radius ?  I can visualize some large hirail locos that need more than 20 inch to look and operate good? After all 20 inch radius is considered tight even in HO scale.......DaveB 

A starting point....

Might want to also get a copy of all of the existing NMRA standard and recommended practices.

http://www.nmra.org/index-nmra...ecommended-practices

What?  You mean the Y3 doesn't look good on a 20" radius curves?

Rusty

>> You mean the Y3 doesn't look good on a 20" radius curves?

Wellsir........the coal load looks pretty darn good to me.  Ed L.

>>  Hi Ed, <snip> ( BTW did you get your staging tracks in the adjacent room going?)....DaveB

I now have two modular staging yards more or less operational in the adjacent rooms (plural).  Five tracks on one, seven tracks on the other.  Each track holds an entire train of about 25 freight cars.  Turnouts controlled via wireless handheld DCC throttle (NCE).  Works quite well without complaints.  I am planning an open house for the evenings of Feb. 6 & 7.  I was contemplating inviting anyone on this forum to come over and help run trains if they like.  Or just watch and kibitz if that is preferred.  How many folks live near San Francisco?  Anyone interested?

Cheers.....Ed L.

>> I was shocked a few years ago, when, on this forum, someone disagreed with how the word "scale" was to be used.

I too was shocked when someone on this forum explained that a "scale layout" is one that "looks better".  But I got over that after a while.  It is truly amazing how our differing experiences and backgrounds all combine to form something similar to the "S Tower of Babel". 

However, S life goes on even with bumps in the road. 

Far more interesting than passively watching TV.

Cheers.....Ed L.

>> A starting point....

>> Might want to also get a copy of all of the existing NMRA standard and recommended practices. 

http://www.nmra.org/index-nmra...ecommended-practices

This is exactly the approach taken by the S SIG as can be seen here:

http://sscale.org/about-s-scale/what-is-scale/

and here:

http://sscale.org/about-the-s-...s-scale-sig-mission/

and here:

http://sscale.org/s-scale-resources/standards/

The concept used over at the S SIG is that interoperability is the key.  One scale model should be compatible with all other scale models.  Thus, the wheels, track and coupler height are the only things specified with precise dimensions.  All the appearance factors are considered irrelevant since they do not directly affect interoperability. 

Note that scenery, paint jobs, level of detailing, curve radius, height of rail, etc. are sort-of ignored in this definition of "scale".  Food for thought, eh?

Cheers.....Ed L.

So if you have a layout devoid of scenery etc and just have a board with track on it then this constitutes as being scale modelling, not sure I can buy into that concept. Sounds like the SIG group is a standard lot rather than a modelling group.

The definition for me of someone being a scale modeller is that it is down to the individual and what they perceive the level of detail they can achieve with their own skills in relevant areas like engineering, painting, building line side structures, scenery etc etc. If they are skilled in multi areas then the more realistic and prototypical the end result will be. The aim should be that the end result will mirror a prototype scene that would be indistinguishable from that reality, (OK a little imagination may be needed as well), this for me is realism in miniature and not just track and wheels. Sounds like scale modelling has different meanings each side of the pond.

Well, we seem to have a problem here...

The box end flap clearly indicates an S Scale model resides within.

Even on the box top:

But what's this?  A contradiction appears:  1:64 "S Gauge" thus say the box, along with S Scale.  I'm sooooo confused now.

And once we open up the box revealing the contents:

HIRAIL!  My heavens it's a HIRAIL car, deep flange wheels, claw coupler, not an S Scale at all!  This won't run on my scale track...  It won't couple with my scale cars...  Nothing on the box says Hirail.  This is most unsuitable.  I've been defrauded!  I feel faint...

Oh, wait, there's something in the bag.  Looks like maybe scale wheels.  And, it also looks like something on the box's bottom(seriously, who looks at the box bottoms...)

WHAT????  You mean I'm actually going to have to do some physical labor to make this HIRAIL car a SCALE CAR of my dreams?  And I have to supply my own couplers too?  How can it be truly Ready-to-Run when I have to do these modifications?  All that should have been done at the factory...

Egads, what a swindle. No wonder the company went out of business...

Of course, the red text above is over the top drama, but that's what seems to be happening as we try to define to the "n"th (or should that be "s"th) degree the multiple forms that S takes on. 

If we try to shoot for "scale" purity, the only SHS product that was "true" S scale were the 2-8-0's with the scale wheels installed, as they had to be ordered that way. 

We can't pigeonhole the stuff like this as Hirail simply because of the installed wheels and couplers. I think few would say that all the other SHS products weren't "scale" products.

Rusty

"If we try to shoot for "scale" purity, the only SHS product that was "true" S scale were the 2-8-0's with the scale wheels installed, as they had to be ordered that way. 

  We can't pigeonhole the stuff like this as Hirail simply because of the installed wheels and couplers. I think few would say that all the other SHS products weren't "scale" products."

  You are mixing up what it is with what it can be. With the hi rail wheels it's a hi rail car, with the scale wheels it's a scale car. I convert many hi rail cars to scale cars , some are even O scale hi rail that become S scale cars. Someone was worried about the scale of the scenery and quality of modeling but that is not relevant in this particular definition of the word scale. It's a narrow use pertaining only to the wheel/ turnout frog-guardrail standards required to keep scale cars reliably on their rails. The other uses of the word scale are topics for another day :>  ......DaveB

You mean the Y3 doesn't look good on a 20" radius curves?

Well, at least it can run on AF track and go through the switches.  If I plunked down $1000.00 on a locomotive and then I couldn't run it on my layout without tearing down all the curves and adjacent scenery and rebuilding them, not to mention replacing all the switches, I would be mightily peeved. 

Rusty, I feel your pain about the conversion of SHS products to "scale",  When the first American Models Boxcars hit the market in 1983 they were only "scale". I wound up making my own "pizza cutter" wheels and replacing them on the AM axles and fabricating a way to attach Flyer couplers talgo fashion in order to make them compatible with my existing rolling stock and run on my Gargraves track and negotiate my Flyer switches.  All I will say is that I probably would only have one or two AM boxcars on my layout instead of the 40 that I currently operate(not to mention all the flatcars, hoppers, gondolas, "cabeese" and locos) if I had to do that kind of conversions still.  My roster expanded exponentially when AM and, later, SHS made "AF compatible" items.  

I do think that most AF operators are not as likely as "scale" operators to know what material is out there to enable them to convert "scale" items to "AF compatible" than the other way around.    

Little Tommy

"What?  You mean the Y3 doesn't look good on a 20" radius curves?"

   That reminds me of a  loop I made to test the feasibility of an S scale version of the Harlem Transfer facility in the Bronx. It had 90 foot minimum radius which is 16.875 inch radius in S scale. I found that S scale cars would go around it about as well as the prototype cars did at scale speed. Here's a high level shot showing the curve effect on the cars and a lower level view of how an operators view might look like. If I end up with a smaller train space I might build the layout some day. ...DaveB 

>> So if you have a layout devoid of scenery etc and just have a board with track on it then this constitutes as being scale modelling,

Well, it could be said that what you have so far is scale modeling.  It is just not finished yet.  But what is there is scale if it adheres to the NMRA specifications.  At least according to the S SIG.

not sure I can buy into that concept.

You can use any concept you want for your layout.  After all, it is your layout.  The S SIG has at least defined what it means by "S scale" which is more than most anyone else has done.

Sounds like the SIG group is a standard lot rather than a modelling group

Actually, the messages over there include a lot more genuine modeling information than either this forum or the various Yahoo Groups have.  They have actually defined what "S scale" means -- to them, at least. 

Can you define exactly what "S scale" means to you and have a few hundred other guys accept that definition (more or less)?  This is not easy to do as we are all seeing.

Cheers......Ed L.

The following definition is not mine but is a generic statement on what is regarded as a scale model, something else to throw into this pot........

"A three-dimensional representation of an object or structure having all parts in the same proportion of their true size."

The emphasis here is on 'all' not just a part of.

If you take an old AF 639 box car as built from the time, I see a toy item that is a fair representation for its day and the market it was aimed for. Now using Daveb's view, if we now convert it to run on scale wheels, does the same item then takes on a new identity and can we all call it a scale box car?  Does it meet the criteria in the above statement?

Ultimately, it's ALL S Scale.

Traditional Flyer:

Gussied up traditional Flyer:

Hirail wheels, Flyer compatible couplers:

Scale wheels, Kadee couplers:

(Plus, if I owned an example with P:64 wheels and Sergent couplers, I'd post it.)

This is, of course, illustrating S Scale in the general sense.  The only real difference is the level and fidelity of detail to a prototype,(which includes wheels, trucks and couplers) and that's where we really go off into the weeds.

Where we get into trouble is when an individual proclaims that "his way" is the only true S Scale path to follow and all others are just toys.

And never the trains shall meet?

Rusty

Great photos,Rusty,and your points are well made.

  I've been in this hobby since the late 60's,and worked in every "scale" except for G and Z,and the task of changing trucks/wheels and couplers has always been just part of the game,regardless of what scale I happened to be in at the time.

  So I don't get what "all the fuss is about"

Mark in Oregon

You know, as much as I hate to throw a "wet blanket" on this lively discussion, the real reason for the apparent disagreement is that condition of modern life, THE INTERNET HAS NO EDITOR.

30 years ago, if you tried to submit a "letter to the editor" to any  published forum on any subject and your premise was an unusual definition of a commonly used term, the editor would either ignore your effort or send it back to you with an instruction that if you wanted your opinion to see the light of day, you had better use the term the way the editorial board thought it should be used.

I look at the all the submissions in the thread and I am reminded of having a discussion about the greatest football quarterback of all time at my local bar.  It is fun, is is lively, there is always someone who has an opinion that seems to be coming from "left field" and it settles nothing.  Still, it is great fun!! 

I'd really love to have you all at my local bar to discuss this topic. After about 3 rounds, I think it might get very interesting.  I'll buy the first round (of Flying Bison Blizzard Bock-guess where I live). 

Little Tommy

I was going to guess Brooklyn, but then I looked it up.  If Buffalo were closer, I’d be right there checking out their IPA.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Ah yes, the little Marx F unit, also sold under the Sears "Allstate" brand.  I have some experiences/observations about the HO "toy train" niche from a first hand point of view I intend to share. Out of time for now, I shall return.

A good editor allows a voice to all points of view, regardless of his own personal bias.  Otherwise, he's not acting as an editor, but as a censor.  I've seen "disagreements" with the "standard line" published in all the model magazines at on time or another.

Kalmbach took a beating from the railfan and railroad community in the letters section of Trains Magazine when they decided to stop using the Whyte classification and put use a "+" in an articulated locomotive (2-8+8-2 vs. 2-8-8-2) description.  Why?  Because one of their authors presented an article indicating the Whyte system used by locomotive builders and railroads for decades wasn't good enough.  It actually cost them some subscribers.

There's still a few folks out there that use the "+", but not very often.

Interestingly enough, the "+" didn't cross over to Model Railroader magazine.  Trains also eventually returned to using the standard Whyte classification when describing articulateds.

Back to the original thought:  The only thing that would have been rejected is a totally one sided rant or manifesto that lacked any kind of objectivity.  I really haven't seen that here in this thread.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled broo-ha-ha...

Rusty

I would just build your layout the way you want it to be, scale, hirail or toy. End of discussion. 

"If you take an old AF 639 box car as built from the time, I see a toy item that is a fair representation for its day and the market it was aimed for. Now using Daveb's view, if we now convert it to run on scale wheels, does the same item then takes on a new identity and can we all call it a scale box car?  Does it meet the criteria in the above statement?"

   It would meet the criteria for scale wheels versus hi rail wheels. It would just be a poor job of modeling a scale car. You check it's dimensions with a scale (ruler), weigh it with a scale (balance or spring) rate it on a scale( 1 to 10 perhaps ), scrape the scale off it's wheels , tune it to C scale, drink some SCale(Santa Cruz aleworks ale) , scale back your involvement in hi-rail , and finally you've got a scale car :> .........DaveB

According to the NMRA, the flange for an S scale wheel is 1.92”; for H0 it is 2.438” and for N, 3.5”.  If you compare these dimensions to the size of a prototype wheel flange, which is 1”, they are all pizza cutters… not one is scale.  And this is the NMRA.  I will say that the proto scales are a bit closer, but still not perfect.

For me (and apparently for me only), I cringe when a scale guy lumps Hi-rail in with Am Flyer and refers to the pizza cutter wheel flanges and yet will say N is scale.  We have a continuum with a definite line separating them impossible to draw.  Broad definitions, yes, but pigeon holes… probably only for the Flyer purest.  Even P64 is not 100% scale.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Ukaflyer gave you the answer: In this case, scale being 1/64.

If you guys want a real mess, go on over to "O".

If you toss out everything that is not perfect, you will end up with nothing. Find that which you can live with and don't agonize too much!

Cheers,

Simon

"I cringe when a scale guy lumps Hi-rail in with Am Flyer and refers to the pizza cutter wheel flanges and yet will say N is scale."

  Hi Tom, I think one needs to just view each scale in it's own particular light. N is much smaller and designed to be viewed from a farther apparent distance so "scale" flanges can be bigger than "scale" flanges in S scale where the apparent view is closer. Low profile N wheels are considered scale, even though they are larger than prototype they are still much smaller than N pizza cutter wheels. O has "scale" and 3 rail. S has scale, hi-rail and flyer.HO seems to be the only scale without a widespread "scale" versus Hirail problem( wonder if that's also why it's the most popular scale?) ......DaveB

I have the answer and I don't understand why no one else has come up with it.

We simply get all the railroads to make their track to a standard of 12" high, increase flange size to 3" so that modellers in all scales can have track and wheels built to a single simple proportion.

>> If you compare these dimensions to the size of a prototype wheel flange, which is 1”, they are all pizza cutters… not one is scale. 

Dimensionally speaking, the above comment is true.  However, the NMRA standards are intended to provide good operation as well as good appearance.  The reason for larger-than-prototype flanges is that the weight of the prototype is not reflected in our plastic models.  If the true weight of the prototype was proportioned down to S, then smaller flanges would permit good operation and the models would move a bit closer to being true replicas.  The next step after that would be using compressed air via long hoses to slow the trains.  It never ends..........Ed L.