The definitions of "Semi-Scale"; why are there two?

I don't think the level of detail determines scale. It's purely the dimensions of the real  thing being faithfully reproduced in 1:48 scale. If the model is not reproduced in exact scale dimensions it must be considered not to scale.

To the pedant rivet counters, 1:48 scale of any type is not to scale, if you are assuming the track is standard gauge. 7mm to the foot is true standard gauge O scale.

The term "semi-scale" is an invention of the manufacturers to massage the description of a not to scale model.

All the words used in O gauge by makers, semi, scale, Railking scale, Railking, Premier, Imperial, Lionmaster, are inventions of the makers to confuse and muddy the waters. I don't recall this happening in other scales, it's an American O gauge thing.

The British tinplate market is called coarse scale, also meaning non scale as opposed to finescale.

 

Scale is like being prgnant.  Either you are or not.

Good point Dave!

 

I'd rather have a plain Jane item that is 1/48 scale, than one that is out of scale and fully detailed.  Details can always be added, an item that is 8 scale feet too short is a hopeless hunk of plastic.

 

Every time I look at a gondola I have I shake my head that it was made too narrow.  Knowing why doesn't justify it either.  If I had known I would not have bought it.  That mistake won't happen again.

I would agree with that.  An item is either made to some scale--any scale is okay, depending on what is intended--or it's simply not scale.  The term "semi-scale" really has no relevant meaning or definition because it can be anything the maker desires.

I'm surprised I don't see more scale rulers out there, I have two I take to train shows S and O

I think the definition of what is scale or semi-scale depends on the era and the technology that is/was available at the time.  The famous Lionel prewar "scale" Hudson was an impressive model for its time but cant match up to a current 3rd Rail/Sunset version or even the best of current Lionel or MTH.  To me semi-scale (the British would call it coarse scale as opposed to fine scale) would be a model that is proportionally correct but light on detail, full scale would be a rivet counters delight and also run on 2 rail track that is the correct scale height and have scale sized couplers.  Ultimately if you enjoy your trains whether they are Marx or Kohs at the other end of the scale that is all that matters.  Models like MTH Railking are to me a modern version of tinplate; I have a Railking Y6B, its quite a bit undersize, has mainly cast on detail as opposed to seperately applied parts but is recognizable as a Y6B.    bertiejoa

Precisely what I mean - it's a term that is way too fuzzy. A Lionel/Wms 783 Hudson may be
minimally (or poorly) detailed, but it is assuredly scale. It is not "semi-scale"; it is
"semi-detailed". (The 783's tender, oddly, is truly semi-scale.)

"You're either pregnant or you're not".

Which is why I use it to refer to an item that is not proper (N. American O) 1:48 scale,
but is built to plausible proportions, runs on O-gauge track and at least takes a decent
stab at realism. My RK "Southern" Triplex is exquisite, husky and looks just fine
along side the Big Iron: it's semi-scale.

The term's imprecision is annoying. Or, maybe I just need to get a life again.

"Semi-Scale" is like being ALMOST pregnant. It just isn't possible. It is one of those marketing terms that someone came up with years ago that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

A model - ANY MODEL - is built to some scale of the real thing. There is no such thing as being "semi-scaled." It's like being "semi-tall" or "semi-thin." Say what?

I agree with the original poster, but I choose his first definition, just like Lionel did in 1937.

 

For me, scale is 2-rail,

full size.  I model in 17/64 scale, O Gauge.

 

Opinion.

As I understand it from an OGR article a few years back, the term semi-scale for O-gauge generally means the car or loco scale is compressed more than the track gauge. The OGR article explained that 027 bodies are typically in the range of 1:53 to 1:60 proportions, and also that length-height-width may be proportioned somewhat differently on the same car. Semi-scale O-gauge means smaller than scale equipment that still has reasonably good proportions so that it doesn't look obviously toy-like. And that includes most postwar Lionel. Am I wrong?

Lionel was the first to use the terminology "Semi-Scale" and "Scale Detailed" about 1940. This is what they intended to convey with the terminology.

 

In 1940, Lionel released 4 freight cars built to O scale for use with its already available Scale Hudson (700E)and Scale B-6 (701)Switcher. These cars were in every way scale including dimensions, trucks, couplers, wheel sets and detail level. They were meant to run on the T rail track the company produced at that time as well as 2 rail track used by O gauge hobbyists of the time. 

 

Lionel also offered these cars adapted for use on its tubular track and with versions of the Scale Hudson (763)and Scale Switcher (227)modified to run on tubular track The cars frames,trucks and couplers were modified and Lionel called these cars "Semi-Scale".The 763 and 227 were also considered "Semi-Scale" by Lionel

 

In 1941, Lionel coined the term "Scale Detailed" to describe a new line of Bakelite cars which were in its opinion detailed as a scale car might be but made to a proportion other than 1/48 Scale. The first offering was what Lionel called the "Irvington" cars which were a heavyweight style Pullman car. Most train enthusiasts now refer to these as "Madison" cars. There was a double door box car in metal and the metal N-5 caboose that were considered by Lionel as " Scale Detailed" cars but were undersized as O scale.   

 

Today as we can see from the posts in this thread, Many folks use the terminology "Semi-Scale" to denote a detailed O gauge item made in a scale other than O Scale, generally smaller, an item which Lionel originally described in 1940 as "Scale Detailed" By Lionel's original definition, most O Scale items which are made today and run on 3 rail track would have been considered as "Semi-Scale" by the intent of the terminology as Lionel coined it in 1940.

Yes, it is, but it has always been that way and it's not at all likely to change so long as 3-rail trains are still being made (the roots of this sub-segment of the hobby are in 3-rail toy trains).  And most here probably hope that is for a long time to come!

 

An item--any item--is either made to scale or it is not.  There is no "almost," "near," or "semi" involved.  And scale has no relation to track gauge, aside from the object being made to a scale (1:48 in the U.S. for O) intended to work with a particular gauge.

Neverhteless, the term is very useful because it reflects the continuum that exists between what you are calling "scale" and what most would call toys.  "Is scale or ain't" ain't true (in fact, it's related to a logical fallacy known as the False Dilemma):  ALL of them are series of compromises, and the various terms are designed to at least hint at the nature of the position on that continuum.  Even the finest "scale model" is not true to its real-life counterpart unless it replicates EVERYTHING about that counterpart, which is patently impossible because you can't scale physics.

 

If it ain't 1:1 scale AND generating revenue, it's a toy.  The question is:  how closely does it reflect what it represents?  If the reflection is quite close, the term is "scale."  If less so, either because of relatively crude detailing or being compressed, it's "semi-scale."  If it isn't anything more than a general representation, the term most often used is "toy," but that's not really what "toy" means.

 

Further, "Scale" DOES have a relation to gauge, because one of the most critical measurments a train has to meet is the gauge of it's wheels.  No matter how fine a representation, the train with 1 1/4" gauge is clearly making a serious compromise.

 

The simple fact is that the terms are loose because the whole hobby is loose in that it covers a wide range of possible approaches.  There is no way to refine the terminology without refining--that is limiting--the hobby.

When Lionel started making trains was there even a scale to go by? Most all Lionel's PW stuff was not scale, It was Lionel's version of the real thing.

See? I said that it was a term that had too much "imprecision".

I was going to disagree with the Webmaster, but the more I think about what he said, the more I believe that he is correct ("any model is built to some scale of the real thing")
if we accept the definition of "model" as being a reasonably accurate representation of
another thing, typically a different thing of a different size.

So these "traditional" pieces that are, as a whole, not built to any scale, or more accurately,
built to several different scales, depending upon what had to fit where, are not "models" at
all. They are "emulations" or "abstractions".  So MTH and Lionel should rename their
RK and Traditional lines, and market the "2013 MTH Emulations - coming soon!" or
"See Lionel's Latest Abstractions on our website". I like it.

bob2 - 17/64, eh? I like it, but then you have to get a scale ruler, since in 16/64,
every ruler is a scale ruler. My 1:43.5 Chapelon 2-3-1 is surprisingly large when
compared to the 1:48 KTM J3a displayed right above it on the shelf. But the gauge is
correct.

Some of you folks invariably try to dissect things to the "n"th degree, with the inevitable result of making the simple far more complex than it needs to be.

 

Scale relates to the proportional SIZE of an object when compared to a specific prototype.  It has nothing to do with the level of detail applied, aside from de facto specifying that any such detail would also be scale in size/proportion.

 

If you're in the 3-rail hobby, you're already making and accepting major compromises.  That is not apt to change.  Try not to lose sleep over it.

It's truely amazing how often this subject comes up. Yet, the answer(s) are always the same. How many times must one be reminded that what we play with are just, "T-O-Y-S". Rich is one of the few who can honestly state that he truely plays with a "Scale" choo-choo. If you'll pardon me. I need to play with my, "Toy" trains.

God Bless,

Pappy

TCA TTOS

The definitive answer to what is correct scale in O gauge trains is simple.

We all accept that the O gauge track represents standard gauge. 4'8 1/2"

Therefore the only correct sale, is 7mm to the foot.

1:48, 1:45 etc are all incorrect.

But, who cares, I don't.

It's funny that when I got my first trains as a kid, I loved them but I was drawn to the scale models that were more likely found in HO back then. I wanted realism. I wanted to see the same thing that I saw at the nearby railroad crossings only reduced in size. Now that I've primarily gone back to three-rail, I realize how I don't care so much about absolute accuracy of scale and pay less attention to it. I probably enjoy the "toy train" aspect of it now more than I did when I was younger. I used to be disturbed by three rails, now it's just what I use and it's fine. I guess that's one of the advantages of getting older.  

While something is either scaled or not scaled, this bit of word play was an end run around the issue of "realism"rather than saying their model was compromised, compressed,  or unrealistic.

Not exactly positive descriptions to make a sale, and so I think it's obvious it was to say semi-realistic without being scaled..( O27 diameter limitations) which was seemingly fine for most ( as toys) until HO came along and suddenly that influence made word play an issue. I think it's a non issue, sort of parsing ...personally because I think no model is truly prototypical anyway, especially with three rails ( which I prefer)..it's kind of a silly sort of word game. What is not a compromise in model railroading? It's funny, I can take a Hafner, a Marx, A Unique Arts and a Lionel and none of them are in proportion to one another. I think scale is a sort of post HO concern

Scale is 1:48; everything else (semi-scale) is marketing & product positioning.

 

As for detailing: it is whatever the importer thinks he can sell for a profit at the time the item will hit the delivery truck (regardless of scale/semi) and what you are willing to pay for at the moment.

electroliner-

I enjoyed you comment, well put. In my case, if it is pleasing to my eye as it goes around the track, I'm happy. I appreciate realism but I think my perspective has changed a bit over time.

Ken

The whole thing reminds of the old Frank Zappa Line; "Is that a Pancho or a Sears Pancho? This is not a toy, it's realistic scaled model. I think HO gave a lot of folks a kind of peer pressure of realism that led to hi-rail. If I look at a HO layout and a high rail layout, outside of the third rail, I can't tell the difference. I used to read a certain HO publication and read about prototype minutia and soon got a migraine from one certain author ( TK) who seemed to have an obsession with "realism", duplicating every blade of grass, running by historically accurate timetables etc. I honestly thought he had somewhat lost his mind. If I want rules, I'll come out of retirement and work for the IRS. (not) Different strokes for different folks and so on and so on. I run in circles as it suits me. I think the cost of realism is too high and that is what is pricing a lot of folks out..in effect, shrinking the hobby. Just one person's subjective opinion. I would take a somewhat reasonable model at a lower cost than a whistle that toots smoke fluid at over a grand a pop.

Not quite.

The definition of "semi-" is drifting--the technical term is "generalization"--to include Nearly or Almost.  Such semantic change is common.  It remains to be seen if this drift is cause or effect of the issues such as this one.

Well, the fun of it can be analyzing something to the n-th degree, especially something
that is harmless. Beats endless, endless political reporting.

But Allan Miller is, of course, correct: the term "scale" has nothing to do with the
level of detail applied to an item.

But, also, according to some (dealers and otherwise), Williams still sells two types of
Hudsons:

0-27 (little)
semi-scale (uh, full 1:48, low detail level)

Sigh.

My Lionmaster Challengers and Big Boys looks just as nicely proportioned as my "scale" Challengers and Big Boys but take the O72 curves without as much apparent overhang.  The 7mm to the foot scaling of O track would suggest a width between rails of 33mm or slightly less while O track appears to have a distance of nearly 35mm between outside rails. 

When Lionel started making trains was there even a scale to go by? Most all Lionel's PW stuff was not scale, It was Lionel's version of the real thing.

Toddstick

 

In the late 1930's when Lionel offered the 700E Hudson and 701 B-6 Switcher, the intended buyers of these items in Lionel's plan at the time were O scale modelers . Both were scale all the way down to wheel flanges and couplers . Because they were mass produced, they could be made at a lower cost than hand made locomotive models of the time. The Hudson was even available as a kit or series of 5 kits.Both of these were adapted for tubular rail and toy train cars, hence the term Semi Scale.

 

In the Post war Period, Lionel did not offer full scale versions of these locos again.

 

So the answer to your question is yes it was O scale.

Close only counts in:

 

1.  Gernades.

2.  Horseshoes.

3.  Government work.

4.  Atomic Weapons!

Here's what I found on Thortrains site...

 

"Semi-scale is a 1/64 scale train operating on O trucks, wheels, made to run on O tracks. It may or may not be capable of handling a 27" diameter curve. We may occasionally describe it as O27 because it is semi-scale, even though it may be too long to handle the 27" radius curve.

True O27 is a 1/64 scale train operating on O trucks / wheels, made to run on O track, yet capable of handling a 27" diameter curve. True O27 fits within the definition of semi-scale.

Offscale O27 is a train, smaller than O, made to run on O track, yet capable of handling a 27" diameter curve. Offscale is not semi-scale.

Non-scale O27 is neither true nor offscale, but a train called by manufacturers or users "O27" merely because it can handle an O27 curve. Normally it is from an inexpensive line. Non-scale is not semi-scale. Normally it is the larger O gauge or 1/48 O scale."

 

http://www.thortrains.net/027stand.htm

I thought that once Lionel had standardized the size of their trains with"Standard O" all this talk of semi scale, o-27, etc. would diminish. It is either Standard O or it is something else.

This is the way I see Lionels idea of semi-scale. A steam engine that is, or is close to 1/48 scale, with a tender that is 1/63 scale.