"Traditional Scale"...(?)

"Traditional scale" is a rubber scale.

Most pieces are not to a true Length/Width/Height proportion ratio, meaning the "scale" used for each dimension may or may not be the same on an individual item.  It also isn't consistent across the product line.  While most of the rolling stock is undersized, things like the postwar General and 44 tonner are oversized.

Lionel has always been a master at this selective compressing for the most part while retaining "eye appeal."

Rusty

'Traditional' does not have a single definition.  As pointed out it can vary from the tiny 'Baby Ruth' box car to giants like the 44 tonner and 4-4-0 General which is closer to G. When I first moved from HO to O I got burned a number of times. Even today it's hard to tell what 'size' some Lionel are.

It’s certainly larger than “S”. Definitely smaller than O “scale”. If you are going with lionchief or lionchief plus then stick with traditional. 

Strummer posted:

When Lionel calls a newer release item "traditional scale", does this mean it's not true O scale, but rather the almost S scale size of the post-war stuff?

Thanks!

Mark in Oregon

Post War Lionel "traditional" equipment (sub-1:48) was much larger than S scale. Probably a nominal 1:56, in many cases.

Scale means only one thing: it is a model's size in proportion to that model's "prototype" - the subject of its representation. It is a mathmatical relationship. There can be no "traditional scale" - a thing is a scale model or it is not. The scale, of course, is up to the builder.

"Traditional" items may approximate a scale, but, as said above, rubber (compression) is involved. If no compression/expansion is involved, it's a scale (1:XX) model, intentionally or not.

("Scale", also, has nothing to do with the level of detail. This idea just leads to the unfortunate term "semi-scale".) 

Hmmm, never really thought of postwar Lionel as "S" scale before.  I would imagine the size of some details on the "scale" cars are a little off, like the heads of rivets or the grain of the wood, grab irons or lettering. 

They all look pretty good to me when they are running.

aussteve posted:

Hmmm, never really thought of postwar Lionel as "S" scale before.  I would imagine the size of some details on the "scale" cars are a little off, like the heads of rivets or the grain of the wood, grab irons or lettering. 

They all look pretty good to me when they are running.

Pretty much the only thing that is close to 'S' is the postwar 027 boxcar. K-Line for a time marketed it's version of this car with 'S' gauge trucks. More recently, Lionel has attempted to offer its 027-sized spine cars in this manner.

Everything else is spot-on--postwar Lionel products were marketed as toys and as such did not adhere to a consistent degree of reduction from prototype across the product line (and in the case of steam locomotives, many did not even adhere to a particular real-life locomotive). Even for modern interpretations such as MTH RailKing, the degree of reduction depends on the size of the prototype, with the primary consideration largely being the resulting models' ability to negotiate typical starter-set curves.

---PCJ

Please note  I said "almost S"... 

So, I guess the real question here is: if a steam engine from the late 1990's is listed as being "Traditional Scale", does that mean it's closer to full 1:48 (like the 2001 model in the front) or closer to PW, like the much smaller 1666?... (see photo).

Here's a comparison shot (left to right) of the 2001 Consol, a Post War 2026 2-6-2 and an American Flyer 310:

This is why I said "almost S": the "mass" of the PW engines is pretty much the same.

Not that any of this matters, but I did feel the need to explain myself... 

Mark in Oregon

Apples and oranges.  River Raisin S Scale Berkshire vs RailKing ("traditional," more or less) Berkshire:

Rusty

RailRide posted:

aussteve posted:

Hmmm, never really thought of postwar Lionel as "S" scale before.  I would imagine the size of some details on the "scale" cars are a little off, like the heads of rivets or the grain of the wood, grab irons or lettering. 

They all look pretty good to me when they are running.

Pretty much the only thing that is close to 'S' is the postwar 027 boxcar. K-Line for a time marketed it's version of this car with 'S' gauge trucks. More recently, Lionel has attempted to offer its 027-sized spine cars in this manner.

 

---PCJ

The postwar O27 boxcar is spot on for S dimensionally.  Detail wise, it's a little clunky.  But it does clean up nicely with a little work.

Here's my "scalified" car compared to Flyer:

Compared to American Models:

Compared to Pacific Rail Shops, now S Scale America:

Compared to SHS, now MTH:

K-line never had this tooling, but offered the former Marx 3/16" plastic cars.  They were a little cruder that the Lionel car.

Lionel's offered some of the other small O27 cars with Flyer trucks over the years, the latest is the O27 auto-racks.  Most of them are wider than a typical S Scale car.

Industrial Rail also offered a caboose that was just about perfect S Scale with somewhat simplified detailing.  Here it is vs a Southwind Models brass caboose:

Before w/O gauge trucks:

Rusty

 

Question: the "RailKing" in your photo: is that supposed to be O or S? I'm guessing O (as in "027")...

The point of this whole thread was to determine if a model with the word "traditional" attached to it meant true O scale size, or the smaller PW size.

Another example: Lionel #671 vs. a "full size" O scale model of the same engine: both are O gauge, but not O scale.

To my mind (such as it is) "traditional" sounds more like the post-war size...but I'm pretty new to this whole thing... 

Mark in Oregon

PS: Thanks for all the nice photos....

Strummer posted:

Question: the "RailKing" in your photo: is that supposed to be O or S? I'm guessing O (as in "027")...

The point of this whole thread was to determine if a model with the word "traditional" attached to it meant true O scale size, or the smaller PW size.

Another example: Lionel #671 vs. a "full size" O scale model of the same engine: both are O gauge, but not O scale.

To my mind (such as it is) "traditional" sounds more like the post-war size...but I'm pretty new to this whole thing... 

Mark in Oregon

It's O gauge.  I'm not sure if it will run on O27, but it will run on O31 and it is smaller that MTH's Premier Line Berk.  MTH's "traditional" is also generally slightly larger than Lionel's. 

Plus, MTH is now branding some of the less detailed older O scale locomotives as Railking "Scale" and some O scale freight cars are also being sold in the Railking line.

So, unless it's Lionel's Signature Line or MTH's Premier Line, scale proportions can be cast to the winds.

Simple, no?

Rusty

Strummer posted:

 

To my mind (such as it is) "traditional" sounds more like the post-war size...but I'm pretty new to this whole thing... 

 

I think that's the simplest way to summarize this on-going discussion.

The post-war era had very few, if any, scale-sized items let along full scale models (with scale-level details, etc.). Modern traditional products adhere more to post-war era sizes and shapes which, as many have pointed out, have no consistent scale. Most tend to be smaller than 1:48 but not, say, 1:58 across the board like the K-line Allegheny. Some are close to scale-size like the F3s and NW-2s but others are over-sized like the 4-4-0 General and 44 Tonner. 

Post-war products also took other liberties. For example, I believe the 2046/2056 4-6-4 steam engines used the same boiler as the 726/736 2-8-4.  Why? My guess is to keep tooling and production costs down.  Neither is a scale model of a Hudson or Berkshire but were great products in their day and are still prized possessions for post-war operators.

A great link here:

http://www.thortrains.net/carsize1.html

That is a great link, and mentions that "O27" is indeed 1/64, which is kinda what I had said earlier about some Lionel being (almost) "S" scale... 

Anyway, the reason I brought this topic up in the first place is this: the Long Island 2-8-0 I have is listed on the Lionel website as "Standard O Scale"; the PRR Atlantic I now have is listed there as "Traditional O Gauge", yet is the same "size" and they share the same tender!

When I was first considering buying the E6, the wording "Traditional" had me concerned that it might be of the smaller size: why the difference in Lionel's own choice of wording?  

I hope you can see where one (me!) might be confused by this odd wording...

Mark in Oregon

 

Strummer posted:

That is a great link, and mentions that "O27" is indeed 1/64, which is kinda what I had said earlier about some Lionel being (almost) "S" scale... 

 

Just because someone with a web page mentions that "O27 is 1/64" doesn't make it so.  The Lionel 2046 or 2065 (marketed as O27 Hudson's) are nowhere near S Scale in size or proportion.  That's also true for any other Lionel locomotive offered in O27 sets of the past.

Most O27 trains are rubber scale and may not be to the modeled in the same scale with relation to height, width or length.  Lionel was and is a master at this.  Many of Lionel's O27 cars are just plain too wide to be the standard 10' freight car width in S Scale.

Placing Flyer tucks on an O27 car may make it S Gauge, but it won't automatically make S Scale.

"Almost" may count in hand grenades and horseshoes, but not when it come to S Scale.  If it's not 1/64 in all three dimensions, it's not S Scale.

Rusty

Rusty

Not gonna argue with you, as you know way more about this stuff than I do.

Having said that (), once again I refer you to the photo I took of these (3) engines:

Left to right: "O scale" Lionel 2-8-0, Lionel "O27" 2-6-2, and American Flyer "S Scale" 4-6-2. I based my observation strictly on the "fact" that the "O27" and the "S scale" engines are almost (key word here) the same in terms of size and over all mass.

That's all I was saying; you are of course correct. 

Mark in Oregon

 

Ah yes, the eternal "what is traditional size?" question. Sort of like the eternal question: "What Is HIP?"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDByljOvtUo

But, I digress.

IF you were one of those kids that liked for all your toy cars and trucks to be close to comparative in size among themselves (i.e. you wouldn't play with a big honkin' Tonka Toy truck beside a tiny Matchbox car)... then this IS a valid question.

I was one of those kids. (The above Tonka vs Matchbox would be considered total sacrilege to me as a kid.)

So, to me, back when I was trying to do traditional sized 3-rail this WAS one of my stumbling points. (Example: The Lionel F3 simply OVERPOWERED the little Lionel cast-frame Alco FA as well as towered above 6464 boxcars. Same with the NW2, and other Lionel locomotives.) AND, if I return to 3-rail... it will be with traditional sized trains... so it's STILL a valid question to me.

For myself, should I end up back in 3-rail, I decided I would use the 6464 boxcar as the "litmus test". That is, does the engine and other rolling stock look "close enough" so that the general proportions between all the equipment looks congruent? If the answer is "yes", then that piece of equipment is good to go.

This will mean there will be NO Lionel F3's or NW2's (or the like) on my 3-rail traditional sized layout. Instead, I would use steam engines from the Berk on down. And the little cast-frame Alco FA would be my go-to road power. (Might would use an RMT "Bang" for switchers.)  There would also be no Rail King boxcars, and such as that. Simply put, anything that makes the 6464 boxcar look "small"... would be out.

So, there you have it. That's my story an' I'm stickin' to it.

(Obviously, one's mileage may vary.)

Mark in Oregon:

That is a rather revealing picture. I suspect the little 2-6-2/2-6-4 steam engine is about the only diecast metal steam engine that compares favorably with the nice looking AF Pacific. Makes me wonder how that Lionel 027 engine would look converted into a AF-type 2-8-0.

All fer now.

Andre

The thing about comparisons: They really should be made with similar items.  The foreground locomotive is S Scale.

RailKing occasionally gets tarred with the "S Scale" brush, although not as much as Postwar Lionel.   Almost but not almost enough.

Now, the case could be made that the RK Berk isn't truly "Traditional," but it is in spirit.  It sure isn't 1/48 or 1/64 and was designed to careen around O31 curves.

Rusty

Well now... that RK engine looks very detailed for a "tradtional" sized offering. Wonder how it compares in size to a 736 Berk?

(Nice post, Rusty.)

Andre

laming posted:

 Makes me wonder how that Lionel 027 engine would look converted into a AF-type 2-8-0.

All fer now.

Andre

Kind of along those same lines, I had wondered if the Atlas Industrial Rail Atlantic could be wedded to an AF 4-4-2 chassis...

Mark in Oregon

Like the F3 and NW-2, the postwar GP-7/9 and Fairbanks Morse Trainmaster are also very close to 1/48 scale.

ed h posted:

Like the F3 and NW-2, the postwar GP-7/9 and Fairbanks Morse Trainmaster are also very close to 1/48 scale.

Your comment and Laming's above hit close to home with me.

I have O27 tubular track but with mostly 42" and 54" curves. I've got a nice assortment of semi-scale/traditional steam and diesel engines. I have two complaints that you both have echoed.

1. My Alco FAs look better with all my rolling stock and on the layout with other engines.  My modern FTs (from a supposed O27 set), modern PWC F3s, and modern PWC GPs look too big.  I don't mind the NW2s because no visitors realize that they would be, in the real world, much smaller relative to my rolling stock.

2. Even within the steam roster, I hate that my Jr. Berkshires are smaller than my traditional-sized Pacifics. At the same time, the Jr. Berk looks more like a real Berk than the classic 726 and clones. In addition, in the traditional line, it appears Lionel has used the same boiler for the Pacific and Hudson when the Pacific should be noticeably shorter and smaller (I think). 

One of my friends would call these classic First World problems, but clearly indications that the not-too-scale world is truly not-to-scale.

I like when the trains go round and round the Christmas Tree, Traditional, Postwar,Prewar, MPC, Modern, Not Modern, Lionel, MTH, KLINE, American Flyer, etc. what have you!

R4D:

You mention an Alco FA... are you talking the Lionel's Postwar-type Alco FA (cast or stamped frame), or some more recently tooled FA offering?

I can't help you with the issue, but if it bugs you bad enough, seems to me you've got four options (in no particular order):

1. Choose traditional and dispense with anything that's too big to look "right" among it.

2. Choose scale and dispense with your traditional stuff that doesn't look "right" among it.

3. Run one type of persuasion for an extended period, (clearing the layout of the other persuasion), then swap out and go with the other persuasion. i.e. Scale for a month or two, traditional for a month or two, etc.

4. Make peace with the disparities and train-on!

Best of luck!

Andre

laming posted:

Well now... that RK engine looks very detailed for a "tradtional" sized offering. Wonder how it compares in size to a 736 Berk?

(Nice post, Rusty.)

Andre

I no longer have a 736 to compare against, but I believe the RK Berk is a little longer than the 736.  The RK locomotive almost seems a tad too long, but it might be the RK NYC tender throwing my perception off.

Strummer posted:

laming posted:

 Makes me wonder how that Lionel 027 engine would look converted into a AF-type 2-8-0.

All fer now.

Andre

Kind of along those same lines, I had wondered if the Atlas Industrial Rail Atlantic could be wedded to an AF 4-4-2 chassis...

Mark in Oregon

I recall one or two folks doing conversions of the IR Atlantic to S Gauge.

Rusty

laming posted:

R4D:

You mention an Alco FA... are you talking the Lionel's Postwar-type Alco FA (cast or stamped frame), or some more recently tooled FA offering?

I can't help you with the issue, but if it bugs you bad enough, seems to me you've got four options (in no particular order):

1. Choose traditional and dispense with anything that's too big to look "right" among it.

2. Choose scale and dispense with your traditional stuff that doesn't look "right" among it.

3. Run one type of persuasion for an extended period, (clearing the layout of the other persuasion), then swap out and go with the other persuasion. i.e. Scale for a month or two, traditional for a month or two, etc.

4. Make peace with the disparities and train-on!

Best of luck!

Andre

Postwar Alco FA (the smaller 10"-11" ones, not the bigger/longer modern ones)

Thanks for outlining the options. I'll probably end up keeping them all, make peace with the disparities, and then give the out-of-place items to my kids as starter sets once they start their own families. 

This discussion pops up fairly regularly, the last time about maybe two months ago. Lionel didn't make all that many small 0-27 engines. The little 2026 Prairie (the same body as the 1666) was marketed as an 0-27, and is one of the smaller steamers. In fact, the tender that came with it, which is a "traditional" sized one, looks too large for the engine. Most of the Postwar traditional steamers, such as the Hudsons and Berkshires, were larger, and are significantly bigger than S gauge steamers. 

"Traditional" Lionel cars, such as the boxcars, are considerably larger than S gauge as well. The thread a couple months ago had comparison pictures for reference, if the OP is interested. Lionel also made some smaller O-27 cars, including boxcars and tank cars, but not many. Most of what Lionel made were the larger traditional Lionel cars, the "standard" Lionel cars that people associate with Lionel in the Postwar period and beyond. 

While traditional boxcars are smaller than scale, some so-called traditional cars, such as the single dome tank cars, are in fact scale 8000 gallon cars. Traditional reefers are somewhat longer than the boxcars, and again, much larger than S gauge. As far as diesels, "traditional" F-3s, Geeps, and NW switchers, for example, are O scale in size. Some non-steamers, such as the EP-5s, are smaller than scale, but still much larger than S gauge. Lionel's renditions of the "traditional" ALCo FAs are one of the smallest of the diesels that came out of the Postwar era. Most of the Postwar style steamers, other than the scale Hudsons, are smaller than O scale, but still significantly larger than S gauge stream engines.

So size-wise it's a varied landscape with "traditional" Lionel. However, with relatively few exceptions, the engines and cars are significantly larger than S gauge versions.

@AMCDAVE "The 4-4-0 General is closer to G" .....? I don't know for sure because I don't have measurements, but... The Lionel General is nearly identical in size within 1/16" cab height on the rails, and eyeballed to within 1/8" length, set next to the 1/4" scale AHM ICRR 382 4-6-0 of the same proto era. If the General is overscale at all, I'd not guess it to be 1:45 but not over 1:43.5 (Euro-O scale) unless I've grossly mistaken the size difference between the locos. Still not even close to the very smallest of G at 1:38. I've read the Marx 4-4-0 American is closer to scale though and I think it is a tad smaller. Basically, next to the 382 the General looks "right", even if it's off a little.. Likely from so many years of my pulling semi scale cars, but it looks almost too small with a scale woodside kit boxcar right behind either engine. Same car looks great behind a PW diesel switcher

ed h posted:

Like the F3 and NW-2, the postwar GP-7/9 and Fairbanks Morse Trainmaster are also very close to 1/48 scale.

I have Postwar F3s, GP7s, and modern Lionel F3s, GP7s and FM Train Masters made using the Postwar tooling. In addition I have Williams scale size Alco PAs and an MTH Premier Baldwin AS616. All of these locomotives look correct together because they are all scale sized. I had a Rail King steamer (Southern Pacific GS2) and sold it because it looked too tiny next to the scale size diesels. I replaced the GS2 with Premier steam locomotives (Southern Pacific GS4 and a Santa Fe 3460 class Hudson), both of which visually look correct with the scale size "traditional" diesels. 

Adriatic posted:

@AMCDAVE "The 4-4-0 General is closer to G" .....? I don't know for sure because I don't have measurements, but... The Lionel General is nearly identical in size within 1/16" cab height on the rails, and eyeballed to within 1/8" length, set next to the 1/4" scale AHM ICRR 382 4-6-0 of the same proto era. If the General is overscale at all, I'd not guess it to be 1:45 but not over 1:43.5 (Euro-O scale) unless I've grossly mistaken the size difference between the locos. Still not even close to the very smallest of G at 1:38. I've read the Marx 4-4-0 American is closer to scale though and I think it is a tad smaller. Basically, next to the 382 the General looks "right", even if it's off a little.. Likely from so many years of my pulling semi scale cars, but it looks almost too small with a scale woodside kit boxcar right behind either engine. Same car looks great behind a PW diesel switcher

Comparison to an AHM 4-6-0 is not a valid one.  Comparisons must be drawn with similar objects, otherwise it's apples and potatoes.  The AHM 4-6-0 is a later, larger locomotive than the General. 

A fair comparison is with the SMR General, a true 1/4" scale model.  I found these photos with Google:

The Lionel General's over-scale become very apparent with this comparison.  Even though Lionel's model represents the L&N rebuild, the basic dimensions of the prototype would not have changed.

This was the only photo I could find of the prototype General next to a contemporary diesel.  It's dwarfed by the GP30 next to it:

Rusty

The best description of "traditional scale" was anything that was was similar in proportion to the 64xx rolling stock.

Strummer posted:

Anyway, the reason I brought this topic up in the first place is this: the Long Island 2-8-0 I have is listed on the Lionel website as "Standard O Scale"; the PRR Atlantic I now have is listed there as "Traditional O Gauge", yet is the same "size" and they share the same tender!

When I was first considering buying the E6, the wording "Traditional" had me concerned that it might be of the smaller size: why the difference in Lionel's own choice of wording?  

I hope you can see where one (me!) might be confused by this odd wording...

Mark in Oregon

 

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this topic ( I really do!)  but am still wondering about the difference in wording from the manufacturer; please re-read one of my earlier posts...

Mark in Oregon

 

I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this topic ( I really do!)  but am still wondering about the difference in wording from the manufacturer; please re-read one of my earlier posts...

Mark in Oregon

I think you'll find that Scale and Standard O will be the same in size with Scale having more realistic detailing. For example, a Scale flat car and Standard O flat car will (I think) be the same dimensionally with the Scale version having more realistic detailing.  Both will be 1:48 in scale.

Traditional is a crap shoot with no consistent numeric scale adhered to.  Traditional is the new catch-all term for anything not-to-1:48-scale.

Here's how I think this evolved. Back in the PW era, Lionel and others marketed O-Gauge and O27.  Some of this had to do with quality of the O Gauge track, some had to do with pricing and cost, etc. They were both technically 3-rail O Gauge, and there were a lot of cross-overs. A 646 Hudson was O Gauge but the same item numbered 2046/2056 was O27. No real difference. Neither were scale in size or detail.

F3s with 2 motors were O Gauge initially but, later, you could buy a single-motor F3 as O27. Not sure that the reduction in power let the F3 go around 27" curves or not. I think it was more about cheapening the product for more cost-conscious O27 operators. And, further, F3s (near scale size) were often sold with small, O27 freight cars. NW2 switchers (near scale size) were marketed as both O Gauge and O27. So, even then, the lines were blurred, inconsistent, and confusing, and this was before the industry adopted the term Scale.

My understand is that the advent of Scale caused O and O27 to be lumped together as traditional since 99% were not true 1:48 scale with scale details. So, traditional includes some near 1:48 scale-sized items with many that are "selectively compressed."  

Long-winded, especially through my own personal experience across multiple brands, it's buyer-beware today.  Traditional means different things to different brands. It means not-to-scale.

raising4daughters posted:

Traditional is a crap shoot with no consistent numeric scale adhered to.  Traditional is the new catch-all term for anything not-to-1:48-scale.

So, traditional includes some near 1:48 scale-sized items with many that are "selectively compressed."  

Long-winded, especially through my own personal experience across multiple brands, it's buyer-beware today.  Traditional means different things to different brands. It means not-to-scale.

That's what I was thinking while considering the purchase of the E6; the "selectively compressed" issue. Yet it is full-on 1:48.

What else I find interesting is the usage of the word "Gauge" in the E6 description: regardless of "size", it's all "O Gauge", right? 1 1/4" between the rails...  

Mark in Oregon

Correct...  It'a all O Gauge, but not necessarily O Scale.

The only thing consistent about "Traditional O" is it's not consistent.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Correct...  It'a all O Gauge, but not necessarily O Scale.

The only thing consistent about "Traditional O" is it's not consistent.

Rusty

...    ...

You got that right!

Mark in Oregon

Rusty Traque posted:

Correct...  It'a all O Gauge, but not necessarily O Scale.

The only thing consistent about "Traditional O" is it's not consistent.

Rusty

Made me think about the NFL referees calling roughing the passer these days. Like them, Traditional is consistently inconsistent. Maybe that's why they adopted the term Traditional since Lionel and others have been consistently inconsistent (in O and O27) since the postwar era. It's a tradition.

I learned this the hard way when I bought some MTH O27 (explicitly labeled O27) passenger cars to match up with a Lionel O27 Jr. Berkshire. Same terms, different manufacturers = problem.

If this is the worst problem we face, things are pretty good.    

Lol. My apples and potatoes are ready for the oven 🦃

Ok. You could argue Lionel never made a General compared to that. But I was wrong in my numurical guess as well. It's bigger 1:43.5; but not by much except height, which is the main offender really....the most comparable data was 1:42.5.

I couldn't find too much on proto dimensions but...

The Lionel General came in at 1:42.5 on wheelbase, driver spacing, wheel dia.  (I might have done the wheels at 1:48?? 1-3/8"=60"...whatever..if I check now, I'll have to rewrite .)  

Cab, 13' to the roof; so, taller than it shoud be, not as big as other similar shaped 4-4-0.( If it were a 19th Cent. K class would bring it all in at 1:43.5. overall)

  There is 2" headroom in the cab¿? It seems short.  The cab length might as well be 2 General cabs. Too long, wrong cab. Chop it off at the first window. Scale height?  Is 6ft too much?..1:48 ?

How about "rubber scale"

   It's boiler and cab likely sits too high...kinda like it was lifted to meet up to the tender sitting on those tall trucks.

 

Happy Thanksgiving. Dave

 

RailKing is not like Lionel "Traditional" size items. RailKing is actually O scale compressed. 

Lionel "Traditional" is 1:64th scale widened. 

They started at the opposite ends. 

Andrew