What are your motivations for choosing either Course or Fine Scale? (Contributions welcome!)

Defining the terms course scale and fine scale might be appropriate.   Though the terms are somewhat intuitive, not sure that I fully understand them.

ogaugenut posted:

Defining the terms course scale and fine scale might be appropriate.   Though the terms are somewhat intuitive, not sure that I fully understand them.

Whoops! I completely forgot to describe them. I guess I just assumed people here would know what they were

"Coarse Scale" refers to engines that aren't scale models, and have a "coarse" look to them. I think that might describe it

"Fine Scale" refers to model trains that are perfect or near-perfect models of real life engines, scaled down to fit on a layout. O Scale is one of them

Edit: Let me get some pictures to illustrate. The models might not be perfectly scale, but the two items were differently made, one as a "Toy", and one as a "Model"



All of these were made by Märklín, the only differences being THe fact that one was made and marketed as a toy, and the other as a model

Edit: Source of the photos: http://www.altemodellbahnen.de...odell.html#msg490930

I sometimes do, but sadly my camera lens is broken resulting in extremely low quality images. 
Yes, I do try to post original content, though the pictures I may use to express things are not mine. I do have a scale model hopper and a coarse scale hopper at my house, and i would take a picture of them side by side, but Iḿ not currently in my house. When I get there, I will gladly take the photos for you.

Thanks for the advice, I'll be sure to take it into consideration for the future!

Berkshire, I prefer course trains though I would call them traditional, post war size 3 rail O gauge but I'm not into post war trains. I prefer modern post war type trains with sounds and wireless remote control. I'm not a big fan of 3 rail scale trains. I think they are wonderful for those that like them but they aren't for me. Here are the reasons that I can think of off the top of my head:

My layout is purposely a mix of hi-rail and toy train. This is just what appeals to me. I was into HO and N scale for many years where scale fidelity was very important. I enjoyed it at the time but now prefer a less rigid approach.

Traditional type trains connect the Lionel of my youth with today. 3 rail scale doesn't do that for me.

Price plays a role but isn't the deciding factor. I don't want to pay over a thousand dollars for a scale steam engine.

My layout uses O31 and O36 curves. I can have a more satisfying layout using tighter curves. 

While I like post war size trains I don't run trains from the post war era. I prefer modern trains like Railking with PS3 and LionChief Plus. I hate being tied to a transformer so I don't run conventional. I like modern sound systems and constant speed control.

And more reasons that I can't think of right now.

Well, if we are going to talk about course trains - how many courses are we talking about - personally I like a 3 course train just like I like a three course meal.   Sorry, I just couldn't resist and no, I'm no spelling Nazi.

  Seriously, I like both. I really enjoy the caricature aspect of the toy trains (coarse trains) and I also appreciate the detail and realism of the model trains (fine scale).  For me, the caricature aspect of the toys is very interesting on many levels.  For example, consider Marx - about as toy train as you can get and yet, probably the first toy train manufacturer to turn out a given litho treatment of a car with multiple car reporting numbers ( FGEX, Pacemaker, State Of Maine, Pennsylvania Merchandise, etc). 

  Then there's American Flyer's dual sided Morris reefers cars.  Obviously a toy - 4 wheel frame - no prototypical dimensions to speak of, and yet - a toy that highlights a forgotten practice back in the day when billboard reefers roamed the rails - cars with different advertising on opposite sides of the car.  This was a practice that was unknown to many scale modelers and it wasn't until Atlas started producing their outstanding series of 40' and 36' billboard reefers that most people were made aware of this practice.

  And then there was Bing who took their litho treatment straight from the AC&F 1902 catalog and copied the picture right down to the car reporting marks and on and on.

  As for fine scale - I'll never forget the first time Williams offered an actual brass scale model of a PRR E6 in 3 rail.  It wasn't as detailed as its 2 rail brass counterparts but it was a scale model of the real thing that I could run on my 3 rail train layout and over the years I've added a few of these engines and cars from the various manufacturers. It is a lot of fun to see one of these detailed engines coming down the mainline with all of the electronics working and giving every impression of the real thing underway.  As for running, I take great pleasure in running fine and coarse right along side each other.

Big Jim posted:

sncf231e posted:

Do you ever post something original here on the forum? I have not seen anything but pictures from eBay and now this thread which is a copy from here: http://www.altemodellbahnen.de...odell.html#msg490930

Regards

Fred

Fred,
That was very snotty and inappropriate!

I do agree with you Jim, but I won't get mad at him. I'm not that kind of person to get mad easily. Yes, it was rude and an apology would be nice, but I do often use other peoples photos in my posts. That is due to the fact that I often only post here on a laptop of mine when away from my home, where I do not have access to my photos from home. I could take the photos and then go somewhere with wifi and upload them, but that seems like a long process. So I use the photos of others, but never claim them as my photos.

From now on, I'll try to take my own photos, and when I do use photos from others, I'll be sure to post the source of the photos in the form of a link. I'm sorry for doing this, but it was an honest mistake. Next time, just please deliver the information in the form of some kind advice. I hope others here can learn from this.

Edit: I noticed your comment was deleted, Jim, was it removed by the admins?

When I first read this, I thought you were asking about the choice between typical O Scale (1 1/4" gauge) and true O "Scale", as in Proto:48. I guess not.

In OO gauge, you have kind of the same thing going on: most OO (1/72 scale) runs on HO gauge track. There is a sub-group who run "Fine Scale", which are the same size trains, gauged to the correct 1/76 track gauge.

Like some of the others who have already commented, I like both. The "scale side" of me prefers the newer, more detailed stuff; by the same token, I equally love the rugged charm of Post War, especially American Flyer S.

Of course, one could make the argument that "Fine Scale" is not possible with that third rail...but you won't get that from me... 

Mark in Oregon

Strummer posted:

In OO gauge, you have kind of the same thing going on: most OO (1/76 scale) runs on HO gauge track. There is a sub-group who run "Fine Scale", which are the same size trains, gauged to the correct 1/76 track gauge.

 

OO and HO are the same Gauge, and will run on the same track. But the scale of the trains are different. I believe OO Scale is a bit larger than HO Scale, just don't quote me on that.

 

Of course, one could make the argument that "Fine Scale" is not possible with that third rail...but you won't get that from me... 

Mark in Oregon

What if they're basing a layout on a railway which utilizes a third rail for their electric locomotives in real life?Are they just gonna use a two rail train on two rail tracks, which a dummy third rail in the middle?
A laughable concept because I can see this being a real thing someone has done

I prefer the detail with the scale products over the traditional items.  While I have some traditional rolling stock (features that grandchildren like with flashing lights, operating signalman) I am careful of how I build the consists so that they do not stick out too much.  I have some operating traditional cars interspersed with 36 and 40 foot reefers so that they do not stick out.  I have given away my 5 traditionally sized engines and all my remaining engines are scale.  I am still attached to my accessories that I got from my dad in the early 50's (culvert loader/unloader, operating freight station etc.) that I am integrating with my layout.  In the alps I remember seeing the cog rail so the 3rd rail on my layout does not bother me. 

I am with Mark.

There are way too many definitions drifting around.  In 1940 what you are talking about was "semi-scale" vs. "tinplate".  I am not sure what today's general nomenclature is, but before this I had never heard of either course scale or coarse scale.

Three rail scale might cover what you want to discuss - fine scale, as Mark suggests, was applied to accurate wheels and track as early as the 1960s, and is now called "Proto-48".

And I did not know that OO ran on HO track.  Not that I care, but I guess I shall check.

Coarse (not course) is what the Brits refer to when discussing wheel flanges.

I believe most of us think of "traditional" vs "scale", regardless of flange size.

Anyway, I favor scale, 3R because I can bend big locos around O-72 curves. I do have a fair amount of "traditional" equipment for when my younger relatives come to call. This equipment is as close to bullet-proof as one can get.

I like scale sized equipment because it all looks like it fits together. So I can run Postwar style scale size diesels (F3s, GP7/GP9s, FMs) next to Premier MTH steam locomotives and it looks fine.

It all depends on what you like. There is no right and wrong. 

bob2 posted:

And I did not know that OO ran on HO track.  Not that I care, but I guess I shall check.

Oh of course you do...("care", I mean). 

Most OO size (1/72) is gauged to run on HO scale track...like this, for example:

...a Hornby "Princess Class". Tender-driven, with a vertical "pancake" type 3 pole motor. Bachmann is also a big player in the field...not that this has anything to do with 0 scale "fine" or "course"... 

Mark in Oregon

   I don't know what section I'm posting in.  New browser update no longer shows that info; so if this is a scale section's topic, let me know please.

  The oversized flanges don't bother me, I like the fact they stay on the rails better and are more tolerant to being a bit out of gauge. I dont look at trucks or wheels much except on steam or articuled trucks. (although heavy plate, like on Fox trucks always catch my eye)

  I also prefer more details in number, over the accuracy of some detail I feel is less compairable. E,g., like lengths of a 80' car being four scale inches undersized.  I.e., if you need a ruler to check accuracy your eyes can't perceive alone, why bother. At least rivet spacing is readily comparable by eye

In the pictures shown, I much prefered the liberally decorated look of the toy... (funny they are on the "left" with the more conservative "model"; the right for each shot 🤣)(yea, I focus on the "center rail" so I'm easily amused and poke at the view off both sides )   

I think maybe the fact that NO model passes my scrutiny 100% allows me to enjoy the freedom that the toys present. That is to say; they are either real trains or toys ....I like toys.. be they accurate or just for fun....they are all just for fun, so accuracy isn't as important  (to ME).  (I counted more rivets as a kid than as an adult.

  I'll tell you all right now, if you can do it somewhat respectfully (i.e. "creative critism" vs "a personal bashing" ); and if it isn't for profit, use my photos "wherever"; I don't mind. Atributes are nice, but as long as you don't claim work that isnt yours, often trivial imo.

  I ponder to no avail why common folk (vs a pro) would get upset over these things; but then again I was never very comfortable in any limelight, and never saw the same value in my art others seemed to.   To have it appreciated was enough; the pay was just a bonus. 

   I.e., I only "worry" if it obviously and somewhat significantly will mess with someones daily bread & butter.  

  I find you and Jim to both be "originals" in your own lights .   I'd hate to see too much change in either TTTT  ....I scratched my lens too, so slightly fuzzy focus is a given again. (I even chose this one for the 15mpx and manual controls because autofocus doesn't work well on small stuff....so it figures its lens isnt glass like the others)

  The Automatic "Spellwreck-Gang" has rendered the spelling police's footpatrol efforts quite impotant in the last couple of years. Their robo-chief even changes correct spellings to a different word if it's beyond the computers vocabulary or grammer skills based on the amount of times it's used more so than the correctness...  I'm "threw" fighting it & just hope you folks manage any word puzzles ok

Lou1985 posted:

I like scale sized equipment because it all looks like it fits together. So I can run Postwar style scale size diesels (F3s, GP7/GP9s, FMs) next to Premier MTH steam locomotives and it looks fine.

Honestly, this is probably the most reasonable explanation out of all the ones I've read. and one that I agree with the most.
"Honestly it just all fits together"
No need for detailed explanation, straight to the point. (And a good point too) that trains from multiple companies can be used together with no problem related to differing style or aesthetic of the trains.

Adriatic posted:

   I think maybe the fact that NO model passes my scrutiny 100% allows me to enjoy the freedom that the toys present. That is to say; they are either real trains or toys ....I like toys.. be they accurate or just for fun....they are all just for fun, so accuracy isn't as important  (to ME).  (I counted more rivets as a kid than as an adult.

 

Yeah, this is a good ideology (In my opinion), that these are just for fun, and honestly nitpicking about rivet count or flange size is just nitpicking. Unless your own life depends on a 0.1mm difference the size of your trains, I recommend just keeping quiet. They don't have to perfectly represent real trains because they aren't.

Adriatic posted:

 

  I'll tell you all right now, if you can do it somewhat respectfully (i.e. "creative critism" vs "a personal bashing" ); and if it isn't for profit, use my photos "wherever"; I don't mind. Atributes are nice, but as long as you don't claim work that isnt yours, often trivial imo.

  I ponder to no avail why common folk (vs a pro) would get upset over these things; but then again I was never very comfortable in any limelight, and never saw the same value in my art others seemed to.   To have it appreciated was enough; the pay was just a bonus. 

   I.e., I only "worry" if it obviously and somewhat significantly will mess with someones daily bread & butter.  

  I find you and Jim to both be "originals" in your own lights .   I'd hate to see too much change in either TTTT  ....I scratched my lens too, so slightly fuzzy focus is a given again. (I even chose this one for the 15mpx and manual controls because autofocus doesn't work well on small stuff....so it figures its lens isnt glass like the others)

Thanks bud for backing me up. It means a lot, especially that you've taken such a new member under your wing
Here are my last thoughts on the subject before dropping it completely. I feel like people need to remember that, unlike some people, most collectors don't own every engine under the sun, and using online photos is quite helpful when conveying ideas or talking about subjects. I can't travel to Germany and personally visit ten different collectors to take pictures of their trains, and that's okay. I just want to be here, and start conversations between people, bringing up subjects that might even lead to conversations about other things (An example is the short, but still loved in my heart discussion about HO/OO Gauge compatibility. Stuff like that warms my heart for reasons I have yet to learn) that help bring people close together.

If any of you find something about me (or anyone else for that matter) a problem, maybe offer some nice advice. I know I'm not perfect, no one is, but that isn't a reason to be rude to people. Fred, if you're reading this, an apology from you would be nice, I'm willing to forget and forgive.

I like scale engines and cars, but add "coarse" or non scale items on my layout (Marx and Lionel lighting, Plasticville buildings, etc),because, I like the looks and to remind me that these are still toys and to enjoy them just running, switching, etc. But several times a year I run my Marx Battery operated 027 set on the layout to remember a Christmas long ago that Santa (mom and Dad) brought me. Also run my brothers Allstate (electric)  027 freight set on the layout to remember a time. The layout is for me a time to relax, enjoy, and not be finicky because it doesn't meet certain standards.

I beg to differ. A model train has a "coarse" look if it has a lousy paint job or a lot of dents. Semi scale means it's not scale. It does not have a "negative" word attached to it.

I, of course, like "fine scale".  If there's not a prototype that looks pretty close to the model, it's not for me.  Case in point...

Don't laugh, there is a prototype, even if it doesn't ride the rails.

You can probably tell, I don't take this thread seriously.  Is this really something we want to "argue" about?  Everyone enjoys the hobby in their own unique way.  One man's meat is another man's poison.  Let's all go out and have fun!

bob2 posted:

<snip>

And I did not know that OO ran on HO track.  Not that I care, but I guess I shall check.

It's true. Goes back to the days when motors were too big to fit into 3.5mm scale locos, so the Brits adopted 4mm, or OO, scale running on HO track. The beauty of this kluge is that the slightly narrow track gauge for the scale allows the typically oversize running gear to be tucked under a bit for improved looks. And, of course, there is an offshoot using true-scale track for 4mm equipment, like unto our P48 O scale.

My OO scale Brit locos look a bit "better" next to US HO locos, given the smaller size of British equipment. Opinion, of course.

I really don't care - HO and OO interest me less than doll houses or stamp collecting.  However, with the universe at my fingertips, and not ready to get off the couch, I submit the following Wikipedia excerpt:

In the United States, Lionel Corporation introduced a range of OO models in 1938. Soon other companies followed but it did not prove popular and remained on the market only until 1942. OO gauge was quickly eclipsed by HO scale. The Lionel range of OO used 19 mm/¾" track gauge, a scale 57", a track width that was more to scale. There is a small following of American OO scale/gauge today.

I also don't care if folks want to have sixteen different sets of nomenclature.  I see nothing wrong with four categories of O size trains -

Traditional or O-27, Three Rail Scale, Two Rail Scale, and Proto-48.

But if it is more fun for everyone to name them differently, have at it.  Makes an interesting discussion.

Berkshire posted:

OO and HO are the same Gauge, and will run on the same track. But the scale of the trains are different. I believe OO Scale is a bit larger than HO Scale, just don't quote me on that.

Not true in the US:  US OO runs on track gauged correctly for the scale. 

I haven't chosen one over the other:  I dabble in both--well, all three, perhaps:  O3R Traditional, O3R scale, and O2R (narrow and standard gauge).

One unfortunate development of scale-sized equipment in O3R is that, for manufacturing economies, it has been inextricably meshed with the electronic revolution:  CC, sounds, smoke pouring from every orifice, and so forth.  It is an unrealized wish of some of us that we could have the scale size without all the electronic felgercarb that clutters up their insides.

rex desilets posted:

My OO scale Brit locos look a bit "better" next to US HO locos, given the smaller size of British equipment. Opinion, of course.

A Bachmann Branchline OO class 66 with some US HO SD-somethings:

palallin posted:

I haven't chosen one over the other:  I dabble in both--well, all three, perhaps:  O3R Traditional, O3R scale, and O2R (narrow and standard gauge).

One unfortunate development of scale-sized equipment in O3R is that, for manufacturing economies, it has been inextricably meshed with the electronic revolution:  CC, sounds, smoke pouring from every orifice, and so forth.  It is an unrealized wish of some of us that we could have the scale size without all the electronic felgercarb that clutters up their insides.

felgercarb..I like that and must steal it!

Otherwise, command control is fine with me. Sort of like sound..simple, loco sound. Don't need to hear somebody bellowing out what they are electronically going to do next. Smoke on weathered equipment ist verboten...