Semi-scale trains

You're a good guy Arnold but something is either to scale or it's NOT. Semi-scale is just some huckster's deception.

Simon

I agree that semi-scale is a great choice for people who do not care about running scale trains.  I have seen some huge semi-scale layouts that are excellent.  The owner could have easily fit scale train into their train room.  

Personally, I prefer scale equipment and usually run full length passenger cars and scale engines on  O-72 curves.  In my opinion, O-72 curves are still too sharp for scale O gauge 3-rail to look good.  My HO club has a minimum of O-80 curves (40 inch radius).  NH Joe

Arnold,

As an engineer and someone focused on details, I gravitated to scale trains when I returned to the hobby 22 years ago, and all my trains are "scale." One of my layouts has O-72, O-54 and O-36 loops and the other has O-54. But even the O-36 loop does not preclude running scale-sized engines and cars. They just have to be scale models of small engines such as steam and diesel switchers. And, although I could run scale models of the largest engines on the O-72 loop, I much prefer to run medium-sized engines and small steamers, especially scale-sized 4-6-0s. The other side of the decision is that if one builds a small to medium-sized model railroad such as mine and uses O-54 or larger curves, intricate and interesting track plans such as yours may not be possible. My 12'-by-8' layout only has passing sidings - and no return loops. And the 10'-by-5' layout has just an oval of track. The trade-off is larger, more realistic-looking curves and simple track geometry (loops) versus smaller curves with more complex track plans that have greater potential for interesting operation. The simpler track plans are OK with me because I'm content just to watch a train running through realistic scenery. Having said all that, your trains look good to me running through those O-31 curves and reverse loops.

MELGAR

Some people do not have the space to run large radius curves or the budget to purchase more costly scale-sized trains. Or they just may prefer classic Lionel-sized trains. Their choice to run semi-scale equipment should not be criticized by anyone who chooses to do otherwise.

MELGAR

Thanks for those who have already expressed some of their thoughts, both positive and negative, about this subject.

I posted this topic because my sense is that semi-scale is often described as less desirable than scale,  I did a Forum search and could not find a similar topic, and because, IMO, most of us do not have the space and resources that scale trains require.

I understand O Gauge semi-scale to mean O Gauge that is smaller than scale, and created to run well on 031 track and switches.

Some of the advantages of running semi-scale are mentioned below.

I intentionally built a long and narrow switching layout with reverse loops because of space constraints, because I wanted a lot of switching action, and because I wanted constant running.

My 10 to 15 scale train cars are rarely run because, IMO, they don't look as good and they are more likely to derail than my semi-scale train cars on my layout.

My reverse loops restrict the number of cars my locomotives can pull. The train will hit its tail through the reverse loops if I add too many cars. Running semi-scale enables me to run more cars than running scale cars. I love the look of locomotives pulling long trains, which my semi-scale equipment enables me to do.

Oh, another extremely important advantage of semi-scale is that it tends to be much more economical than scale. I am so happy with MTH Railking, Lionel LC+, Lionel Postwar and the KLine and Williams semi-scale trains that I have, and that are available out there in the market.

Don't get me wrong. I am not putting down the top of the line scale trains at all. Those Lionel Vision Line scale trains are something to behold. However, I cannot run them on my tight curve layout, and cannot afford them.

IMO, semi-scale is different, but not inferior to, scale. Depending on your circumstances, semi-scale might be better for you than scale. I know that semi-scale is better for me.

Arnold

  I like the semi-scale better. I was exposed to both as a kid. I liked the detail of full sized Lionel, but the size of semi-scale was the perfect fit for me. I could handle it easier too. But I really did think some full O looked too girthy, and AF a bit too small (but nice detail)

 I think I ended up with more semi-scale partially because of the gift costs. 😜 Not that I'm complaining. I'm grateful that I had so many 😁  

  But my #1st predated my birth quite a few years as Gramps bought a crap-load of 50s postwar sets for his kids, and future grandkids too. And you only got one vintage-new set; the others were Lionel LSA , work-trains, and mixed freight; and every set semi-scale. I think I had a scale refer, a stock car, and boxcar; that's about it. Even the used, vintage, cast stuff I had was mostly semiscale. I'd "have to" run tall, wide, & draggy head end behind Evens Autoloaders "due to" the semi-scale locos and cabooses,  weight and blunt axle truck drag , width and height, what for a "fluid" look to the consists.   

 I only have 5-6 full sized O out of 150+ cars. 1 engine, 1 caboose, a Pacemaker refer, milkcar, 2-boxcars-2-custom & exploding, and a stockcar.

I do gravitate to scale also.  Until a couple years ago, I never even considered O because I thought everything looked like postwar Lionel.  I wouldn't be in this hobby were it not for scale trains. 

That said, I just purchased some new RailKing heavyweights that I'm very pleased with.  And I have a couple LC+ steamers that I like.  So maybe for me it comes down to level of detail rather than strict sizing.  

MELGAR posted:

Some people do not have the space to run large radius curves or the budget to purchase more costly scale-sized trains. Or they just may prefer classic Lionel-sized trains. Their choice to run semi-scale equipment should not be criticized by anyone who chooses to do otherwise.

MELGAR

Melgar, I totally agree with everything you say in both of your above replies. 

Your gorgrous scale trains look great on your beautifully scenicked layout, as evidenced by the fact that it has been featured on the cover of the wonderful OGR Magazine.  Arnold

I must also admit that another reason I started this topic is that I love being a Contrarian and Dissenting Voice. LOL, Arnold 

Nothing wrong with raising the flag to see who salutes. like Arnold's. My layout is not huge so I drive my rolling stock based on the locomotive. I have several scale diesels and they do look good pulling scale cars. I do have some rail king steamers I love (Allegheny, y6b, mohawk) and it seems to my uneducated eye, I can mix in semi scale and scale for these. Level of detail can be an issue. I do like a real walkway on top of a boxcar.

They should re-define it, and let Lionel keep the original definition.

A 700 was "scale", a 763 was "semi-scale."  Same size, different wheels, trucks, couplers.

You could call this new stuff what it is - "Undersize."

We are having this problem elsewhere - ever heard of the "Euphemism Treadmill?"

In aviation we have adopted confusing terminology.  We used to say "Taxi into position and hold" and if you know nothing about airplanes you still get the picture.  So we replaced it with "Line up and wait" and every day somebody is looking for a line to get into.

We used to say "Waive the wake turbulence" - again you need to know very little about aviation to understand it.  That was replaced with "maintain visual separation".  First time I heard that one I said "waddaya mean?  He is going 120 knots that way and I am going sixty knots this way.  I couldn't catch him if I deliberately tried!"

"Undersize."

Hi Guys 

I mostly buy MTH Railking engines for the reason of cost ! 

Some engines are Railking Scale. 

I do buy some Lionel  LIONCHIEF  & LIONCHIEF Plus engines. 

I use Lionel Fast track in 036,  048 , & 060 curves. 

Most of my train cars are RAILKING or Menards & Lionel traditional size .   

I choose not to have a permanent layout ,   but I am rethinking that idea.   

O scale trains seem huge to me compared to semiscale, traditional size, 027 size. There almost like two different scales. My layout isn't house size but isn't real small either and I only have traditional size cars, I have made it a point to avoid O scale. O scale doesn't look good on my moderate layout. Unpopular to say here but if you have a 4x8 you should be in HO.

I do have F3's, GP's which are said to be scale size.a scale Hudson and a couple of other scale steam

Arnold, everybody knows you're just a big ol' Teddy Bear.  Good Topic, very interesting and as for me, I've got both, and don't care if I mix them whenever I get to run them but I really prefer scale equipment.  I agree with Melgar, I like the larger radius curves, the equipment just looks better on them and seems to run a lot smoother too.  I will buy the older stuff when I can find it at a good price, I like keeping my arms and legs.  The older stuff will be displayed on shelves along side my small amount of scale equipment.  Having no layout, maybe someday but we will be moving in the near future to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and there is a great club in Grapevine with a layout in an old baggage car (I believe).  I plan on joining it so I can run my trains.  Maybe my better half will allow me to build a small layout if we have the room in the new house.  

Happy 4th to everyone,  God Bless America.

I definitely like a lot of things about scale trains. That said, I don't have the budget or the space. I've got 0-42 curves on my layout and even some larger RK cars, and streamlined passenger cars look so-so at best on those 0-42 curves and have made their way off my layout. I'd love to acquire an Allegheny or large steamer, but I know those curves would bug me - so I stick with Berkshires, Hudsons, and Geeps for the most part. 

The one thing that kind of annoys me about O Gauge/semi-scale (less than scale, selectively compressed, whatever you want to call it) is the lack of prototypical paint schemes. Just because it isn't full scale doesn't mean I want every train to look like a rainbow. It's led me to paint and decal alot of whimsical factory paint cars (I probably have 20 Rail King New Years box cars that have been repainted) into very typical 50's paint schemes in boxcar red colors. 

Don't Lionel call them "Traditional". To me there is two types of trains Scale and Toy and I don't have a problem with either I see lots of blokes on this Forum having fun with both but  "Semi Scale" !!!???    Roo

Arnold, upon reading this topic my wife (correctly) pointed out that she is 5'0" and I am 5'4". Since we are not full scale people we have no need for full scale trains. Keep the traditional sized stuff coming.

I’m fortunate to have a full basement for trains so I prefer the scale size. If space was an issue then by all means I would go with traditional or Railking. They too are big, bulky and of course, Ogauge. 

I'm in the middle of closing my garage in and at present making it into my train room and work shop. 16' wide x 13 deep for train layout, and 16' wide x 12 feet deep for work shop area, but that may even change to where it is 16' wide by 25' deep for trains and get a portable barn as they call it 14' x 20' for storage of yard items and work shop. I have up to O72 curve at present but I will be running non-scale items. I do own a few scale freight cars ( about 4) and I think I might have 12 Scale Passenger cars MTH not Rail King the rest of my passenger cars are Rail-King non scale cars. My engines are not even scale, I think the only one I have is close is Lionel Lionmaster semi-scale engine ( the wording on the box ) NYC SD-9 ( I think, just noticed I do not have it in my inventory I'll be so glad when I can get my trainroom done so I can move and unpack my trains which are in 16 large tubs and two closets lol. Wife will be glad also, as she will be getting some closet space. 

I'm considering buying Menards O96 curve track.  

Simon Winter posted:

You're a good guy Arnold but something is either to scale or it's NOT. Semi-scale is just some huckster's deception.

Simon

Ask Donald Duck!

To my mind you almost have to "segregate" full size O and O27. Years ago all I had was O27, but at some point picked up an MPC Reading switcher, which looked huge compared to the milk cars and tankers behind it. They almost appeared to be of different scales. Not long after that I got my first true O scale car (an Atlas boxcar) and it looked more correct, at least in relation to that switcher.

Now I'll run my post-war O27 stuff on one loop, and the bigger scale size on another, so it's all good. 

Mark in Oregon 

Nice topic Arnold.

Simon Winter posted:

You're a good guy Arnold but something is either to scale or it's NOT. Semi-scale is just some huckster's deception.

Simon

Not all of us are huckster's here...Call them scale, tinplate, hi-rail or semi-scale. Each person can decide for themselves. In the end, they're all still toy trains, basically, just separated by different prices. 

Tom 

The history of scale (and gauge) for toy and model trains is described (with pictures) in my e-book on this subject:

http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

Regards

Fred

Fred, nice work on the book!

Arnold's initial post was not to start an argument on semantics, but, a validation for those of us who do not have the space for full O scale layouts. The Great Northeastern Railway is made for trains that are designed as "selectively compressed" (is that a better description) models and we enjoy it immensely.

I had the Locosounds version of that "chuffing" turbine. It was a great puller. Since it is PS2, you do have the option of updating it with the more realistic swoosh sound-file.

Although I generally prefer semi-scale/traditional O Gauge over scale O Gauge, I do have some scale (or close to scale) that I love.

Below is a video of such scale trains. The locomotive is a Williams NY Central F3, and the passenger cars are Lionel Postwar extruded aluminum cars. The F3s are big, but still run very well through my 031 curves. I believe the passenger cars were made to navigate the 031 curves, but i find that they derail more often than my semi-scale/traditionally sized passenger cars.

By the way, I assume those big Postwar passenger cars in the video are scale. Do you agree?

A good thing about running such big passenger cars on O31 tubular track is that it forces you to improve your track work to minimize/eliminate derailments. If your track work is not just right, such big cars will often derail.

Arnold

With respect to everyone who has expressed an opinion, I think all of you are missing a vital point, that being that a train layout is a three dimensional picture, or a work of art. The question should not be, "Do my trains fit some standard of realism?", but, instead, "What effect does my layout have on the viewer?". I love to watch Arnold's videos because of the heart warming feeling I get. The masters who gave us our great two dimensional pictures were not concerned about size or realism as much as they were the effect their paintings had on the viewer. Take, for example, Leonardo DE Vinci's Mona Lisa. It is the most famous image in western civilization. The management of the Louvre Museum, where the Mona Lisa is displayed, says that more people come to see it than any other item in their collection, yet it is only 30 inches by 21 inches in size.   Take another example, again from DE Vinci, his Last Supper. All of the disciples are neatly arranged, six on each side of Christ, seated at a table, all facing the audience. They are all in an uproar after getting to news of the impending crucifixion. The apostle John has the highest position in the painting while Judas is punished with the lowest. The historians tell us that this painting is unrealistic and does not reflect the true dining practices in the middle east during biblical times, yet, it is still a great work of art, loved by millions the world over. There are other examples, but I won't het into them here as this is not really an art forum. My point is that, well done, for lack of a better term, "toy" layouts can move and effect the viewer as much, or more, as layouts that meet standard of everything being exactly 1:48 proportion. Those of us that have these layouts should not feel inferior to our scale counterparts.

Compare the above to the semi-scale/traditional locomotive and passenger cars running through the same O31 curves in the video below:

Arnold

tncentrr posted:

... Those of us that have these layouts should not feel inferior to our scale counterparts.

Louis Hertz basically said the same thing by basically saying just about Tinplate:

"Tinplate and tinplaters, far from being terms of disparagement... are honored words in model railroad phraseology."

Tom 

I like it. I don't think the postwar cars at 15" or so are scale, but I really like the aluminum cars. There are places which require one or the other. Small layouts cannot accommodate scale. I belong to the NJ Hi-Railers. On a layout that size, scale looks best and realism is best. On my home layout, I have areas for scale and areas which aren't scale. No matter how you slice it or dice it, I think the main thing is to have fun.

Gerry 

My layout is only 5x8. To me, semi-scale means "shorter length, but detailed".

semi scale...

For years I ran scale 40' rolling stock behind Imperial steamers and it looked pretty darn good to me.  Although I only run scale equipment now there is nothing wrong with non-scale equipment.  Run what you like and can afford, period. Exclamation point. 

-Greg

If you stop to think about this, during the glory years of Lionel, the trains were simply called "Lionel's." No other names were needed. Anything in the catalog was simply Lionel. No need for all the terms we have today. There was just one single word: Lionel, which described everything.

The only classification Lionel used was "0" and "027," which was more an economic consideration than anything else. The "027" items tended to be smaller with more simplified details: ie: Smaller molds, tooling, less material used in the manufacturing process and quicker to assemble.

And yet when you read the catalog descriptions, words like "realism," "exact model," "just like the real trains" abound throughout. The following is the text from a postwar Lionel catalog describing a 6464 boxcar:

"...this long scale-modelled box car. The Lionel copy is an exact model in every respect." 

Are you done laughing yet? But at one time, that's what it was and it was good enough to make Lionel trains as popular as they were at one time.

Even during the early 1970's, the new line of nearly scale sized cars were called "Standard 0." (Today those cars are considered sub-par by many scale operators.) There was none of this discussion over scale. And if you were concerned with such things, you went to HO.

It was only during the later years of the Kughn-era of Lionel, when TMCC was developed, that the deviations between scale and non-scale trains began. And apologies in advance for those who still pine for US production of Lionel trains, but it was really after Lionel moved off-shore that the real emphasis  into the scale line of trains began in earnest. The lower costs enabled Lionel to put the money into new tooling and product development.

The truth is you would NOT have hardly any of the these new scale models if it weren't for the overseas production. And Lionel gets the brunt of criticism in this department, but folks forget MTH was overseas from the start, and K-Line didn't stay in the US very long. And as with Lionel, K-Line's expansion into scale products began when they went overseas.

And while it's great that there are so many choices of trains today in the 3-rail world, there's still a substantial number of people out there, still running the sorts of pre-scale trains that put Lionel on the map in the first place. If the scale market was as big as some people incorrectly believe it is, then the production runs on those items would be 5,000-10,000 per run and there would be no built to order, which everyone is doing now. As MTH and Lionel have both said about their scale lines, the new emphasis is on product variety and not quantity.

_____________________

Going to Arnold's original post, I agree. It might not be reflected accurately here on this forum, but most people do not have huge layouts. In that case, I agree the normal Lionel trains look better. But that's the beauty of the hobby that there are others who have smaller layouts and still prefer the more scale sized items, albeit smaller prototypes.

There is one problem I see in the hobby today that is not with any manufacturer, but with us participants. People have a tendency to believe what they want and like, is what everyone should want and like. Of course, Arnold admitted he likes being a "Contrarian and Dissenting Voice," but I personally find it ironic that some of us have to defend our preferences for the so-called traditional trains right here on the traditional 3-rail forum sub-category.

5 or 6 years ago when I first started getting into 3-rail O-gauge, I knew that scale size was what I wanted to do.  Had no interest in semi-scale (traditional) or 027 stuff at that time.

However, the past few years have seen me starting to warm up to the semi-scale (traditional) and 027-sizes.  No matter what size though, I am decidedly in the prototype paint scheme club - no Mickey Mouse "rainbow" fantasy toy train colors, themes, and schemes for me.

Actually, I have to thank (blame? ) Arnold for being a major catalyst in getting me interested in the smaller stuff.  He mentioned sometime back about LC+ engines being a good value for the money.  So I took a better look at them, and had to agree.  I went ahead and ordered my first one (an LC+ 4-6-2 Pacific), and have been enameled (maybe even enamored), ever since.  I've even got another after that (an LC+ 2-8-2 Mikado).  Thanks Arnold!

Brian,

I do not think anyone has to defend their choices in regards to 3 rail trains on this forum. For the most part everyone that posts is appreciative of everyone's layouts and models. If you are enjoying it, that is all that matters.

Arnold D. Cribari posted:

I must also admit that another reason I started this topic is that I love being a Contrarian and Dissenting Voice. LOL, Arnold 

Pardon me for straying off topic, but haven't you told us you are a lawyer and aren't those descriptors typical of those choosing that profession?

Getting back on topic, save for the Standard O detail and selection, I would return to Traditional size in a heartbeat ... even with O27 track if I could find single-piece ballast underlay to fit both O27 and O54 curves as well as extra long straights (but we know that never will happen).

What, me worry?

Two other websites if you guys want more reading.

This is from the TCA entitled Scale Or Tinplate:

http://www.tcaetrain.org/artic.../tinplate/index.html

Here was an article I wrote for the Tinplate Times, about my prewar switchers:

https://www.tinplatetimes.com/...iScale/semiscale.htm

I tried to find the earliest use of the term "semi-scale" being used and at least found one article (thanks to our friend Carey Williams) was written with the term back in June 1936. 

Tom