What Looks Better-Scale or Semi-Scale?

Dennis LaGrua posted:

There are scale purists here , semi-scale guys as myself and toy collectors that don't care. While my layout is 1/48 scale;

It one's layout is ALL "1/48 scale", then shouldn't EVERYTHING on the layout be "1/48 scale" also? All rolling stock, buildings, scenery, and vehicles?

from a perspective view semi-scale trains seem to look better to my eyes. With semi-scale I can run longer consists and trains that follow the curves more realistically. The 9 1/2"-10" box cars an 14" passengers cars just look like a better fit.   As the detail is great I run scale 700e's, Tranmasters, F-3's Alco PA's  and R3-3 but for rolling stock semi-scale O gauge does it for me and I doubt that visitors see any difference..  What scale do you like best?

It's a matter of individual preference Dennis. As you've noticed yourself, often the highly detailed semi-scale models visually appear 'better' in our limited spaces of most home  layouts. 1:48 scale equipment requires very large spaces to look prototypical as HW pointed out above.

All about compromises...

My layouts are built to look as realistic as I can make them and are not large. The older one is 12'-by-8' (O-72) and the under-construction one is 10'-by-5' (O-54). Therefore, I prefer to run only scale-sized/scale-detailed locomotives and cars. However, although I do run some large diesels, the steam locomotives on the layouts are limited to smaller types such as 2-8-0, 2-6-4, 4-6-0, 0-4-0, 0-6-0 and 0-8-0. This is a compromise which lets me have scale-sized/scale-detailed locomotives which look better on the curves than larger engines or articulated types. I do run 18-inch and 21-inch passenger cars on the O-72 layout but mostly freight trains on the O-54 layout. Train lengths on the O-72 layout are three passenger cars and freight trains on the O-54 layout are not more than four boxcars and a caboose.

MELGAR 

Scale is nice but jeez the size of the curves make it all but impossible to fit a layout into a given space.  21 inch passenger cars, those Atlas auto carriers, not for me.  However, the Atlas 60 foot trainman passenger cars look just fine.  Most if not all of my freight cars are Weaver or Rail King.  They look fine to me as well.  Almost scale or scale but not too long, short consists, and suddenly the layout is much larger.  Also all of my motive power relatively short diesel, except for my 2 FM train masters.  A Big Boy will never see my rails, just don't have the space and probably never will.

Dennis LaGrua posted:

What scale do you like best?

The question is nonsensical - it's either O scale or it isn't.

As to what looks "best" - totally subjective and within the context of what one's goals are with their layout and hobby.

BTW, I prefer O scale.

1:48 always looks better than sub-1:48 if you are in the O-gauge world.

Shouldn't O-gauge have O-scale trains on it? (Insert the "N. American 1:48 scale makes O-gauge track actually 5 scale feet, not 4 feet 8.5 inches discussion" here).

Having said that, if one is curve- or generally space-challenged, a judicious use of the better RK, Lionmaster and other Traditional O-gauge items, locos (the RK Triplex is an excellent example) and rolling stock, can give you a very engaging and plausible layout with most of the advantages of O-gauge and few visual drawbacks if you stay consistent. Heck, a lot of our structures are under-O anyway - they have to be to get them to fit anywhere.

Or, stick to 1:48 models of smaller prototypes, like the 4-4-2 (not the Oldsmobile), 0-6-0, 2-8-0 steamers and the S-2, 44-ton and even RS-1 diesels. 

Whatever YOU like and enjoy is ALL that matters.

I ran post Lionel and some Williams equipment for years on my old layout. Then MTH showed up and I was hooked on Railing with their sound, smoke and detail. Loved it and bought lots. Next, K-line started selling scale steamers and F units at great prices. MTH offered the Milwaukee electrics I always wanted but never were available. Suddenly I was a scale guy. I have sold all my Rail King and am scale only now. It's an evil thing but someone has to do it. Don

I have to believe a big, scale locomotive would look pretty silly, stuck in the middle of my 36” curves. 

Scrambler81 posted:

I have to believe a big, scale locomotive would look pretty silly, stuck in the middle of my 36” curves. 

Why would it have to a "big, scale" locomotive? How about a SCALE 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 or 2-6-0, or an SW1 diesel?

Interesting question. For me, it's not so much semi-scale vs. scale as it is one of size of layout and curve diameter.

A hobbyist local to me has a huge basement layout. He has giant articulateds and 96" curves in places. His scale items look great. Some even look small. 

In my case, I've using mostly 54", 42" and 34" curves on a 8x12 smallish layout. Christmas layout on carpet has 36",  48" and 60"curves. With these, I've decided to stay with semi-scale. No engine or piece of rolling stock requires more than 31" curves.

These smaller engines look great going around these curves rated for bigger engines. My brother's smaller scale items like his 0-6-0 and 2-8-0 look fine, too, but his mountain looks silly.

Hope that helps.

Agree HW, my K-line scale light Mikados and 0-6-0s would work with 036 curves and look good. The only possible problem would be if they were sitting next to a 027 Hudson. Don

I am as devoted to O-scale as space permits. My layout is 76" by 48", so you can see my constraints are severe. O36 are the curves of my only loop. All switches are O48 (a step in the right direction, but a pretty small one). Most of my buildings are small, but I have spurs with Woodland Scenics Morrison Door Factory and H&H Feed Mill which are on the larger size, plus a Lionel coaling station that might be soon replaced with a more area related structure . Joseph Fauty is building me a Gulf diesel fuel yard. The buildings are all industrial, closely placed and have their own spur. I have one railroad related, moderately sized building, a Lionel switch tower

All of my locomotives are scale and I run them all slow. All diesels are first generation and have B-B wheel arrangement, so they are relatively short. Most all of my freight cars are less than 10" long, though I do have a boxcar and a reefer. Steamers: a Yard Goat and Heavy Mikado.

O Scale of course, as long you have the space.

Scale looks better to me. Semi scale looks better to my wallet.

I like scale locomotives but my layout is restricted to O36. Railking steam locomotives and smaller scale locomotives work for me after some changes like moving the tender closer to the locomotive, using neolube on the chrome rods, adding bell cords on the bell and whistle where needed. 

Using smaller 40', 36' freight cars. 60' passenger cars. 

I also buy things that will go with my layout that fits in, buildings, detail, etc. 

yes, I would love to have unlimited space but I don't and being 71 it is not going to get any better. Time and money is short and this is the best I can do.

what I run is scale to me, or the closest I can come.  

Im still having fun and I will run trains till the end. 

Dave

I started with standard O and stayed with  the scale sizes vs traditional. No big deal, it’s just what I like.

If it looks cool I run it. 99.5% of people don't know the difference anyway.  Or that O is 1/48.   If I HAD to have 1/48 automobiles on my layout I would only have 5 or 8 for the price they bring.  Compared to 2 to 5 dollars for 1/43 that if you don't measure them you wouldn't know anyway.   And you'd have to know the exact length and width of the original car.   Strange that 1/48 people fit in the 1/43 cars nicely.  I reckon that's why I see empty 1/48 cars sitting at RR crossing on some layouts? 

Jim 

Its like I say to my son... do you like a full chocolate chip cookie or 3/4 of a chocolate chip cookie... 

Hard to beat the size and bulk of SCALE.......

I bought semi scale versions of these two before going scale.....for me it's scale only now.  The semi comes out when the grandkids want to play trains. To each his own....

When I built my current layout, I decided that it would be all scale.  The only problem I had was that space limited my curves to 042.  I found, as mentioned above,  that smaller locomotives and 40' cars look best.  I do have several larger locomotives that look kind of goofy going around the 042 curves.  As these larger pieces of equipment traverse the tighter curves, I consider them to be "off stage".  I also made an effort to place scenery and structures near the curves to break up the view.  The idea being to draw the eye from the trains to the vignettes in these areas.  The use of scenery coupled with proper train speed actually makes the layout look larger than it actually is.

Tom

I like it all.  Scale, semi-scale, tinplate, windup, makes no difference to me.  I like toy trains, period.

Pete

I run both, the layout is built around 72 inch curves so scale can run on it without looking too cramped for space and semi-scale is hardly challenged. The only thing I don't do is run them together, there are O scale days and semi-scale days. This isn't thought of as some rule handed down from the ether it's just that they don't look right to my eye when both are on the layout.

Frankly from a visual perspective my layout being big but not huge the semi-scale fits the space better.

For myself I'm not a scale modeler when I sit down to trains I'm an eleven year old kid trapped in an old man's body, I just wanna play with my trains.

Bogie

This seems like a very subjective question.  I personally prefer everything to be scale with the understanding that 1:48 is wide gauge for O scale track.  I have some less than 1:48 O scale, but that is usually for when I run for the public on tight radius track. 

For me the attraction to 1:48 scale is that my main interest in trains is truly 1:1 and I like to replicate that. 

There is no right or wrong answer to this question.

OldBogie posted:

Frankly from a visual perspective my layout being big but not huge the semi-scale fits the space better. 

Bogie

I will agree I was surprised how much I liked my semi-scale on the new layout.....even on a 24 x 36 layout the semi-scale looks more comfortable!  But I'm in too deep now....all these scale locos and cars....

I agree with what Dennis said in the OP: viewed from an angle, like a train approaching down a long straightaway, the shorter-than-scale locos and cars really do look impressive.

I also really like what D500 said about plausibility. Semi-scale / traditional can look pretty good, if everything matches up well. You sort of decide to believe that it's an adequate representation of the real thing, as long as nothing too out-of-place comes along to jar you from your reverie. Of course, you have to make a sacred compact with yourself not to notice just how wide the trucks are compared to the carbody But, after forgiving the third rail, that's not so hard to do.

Of course, I am guilty of running scale and non-scale together. It does hurt the plausibility, though not necessarily the charm. I had an LTI Standard-O steelside caboose parked next to a postwar SP caboose. My sister walked in and said "Awww! It's like a momma and her baby!!!"

Dennis LaGrua posted:

What Looks Better-Scale or Semi-Scale?

How long is a road?

That is a question that has no simple answer, it all depends on your viewpoint.

I prefer mostly prewar semi-scale/tinplate...I understand it is not everyone's "cup of tea," to each, their own. 

Not to make that tea more cloudy, here is a nice TCA discussion, by Joseph Lechner, through the eyes of Louis Hertz, on Scale or Tinplate. 

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

Tom 

No right or wrong answer.  But I like reading others perspectives on this philosophical question

As for me, I run semi-scake RK steam.  Looks great to me on my small display with too tight curves.  

I like both cause some of these cars back in the 70's were small so some of the semi-scale looks fine to me! 

It's your railroad, so run what you like, when you like and how you like.  Having been into large scale for well over twenty-five years, there are some absolutely stunning indoor and outdoor railways where you can count rivets.  There are also plenty of whimsical railways, where what is running is almost unrecognizable as a train.  But in each universe, the modeler is dedicated to his or her way of looking at things.

Personally, now that I am finally building my "O" gauge layout, I have made the decision to run small locos and rolling stock.  With space restrictions I must stick with O31 curves and my available space is three by twelve feet.  

Quite a few years ago, I read an article in Garden Railways magazine.  The author suggested running field type rolling stock if your curves were the typical starter set radius, which is about 26 1/2".  Up to that point I was running full sized freight cars.  I started acquiring field type stock.  It made the garden railway so much more believable.  

The width of the track, 1.25 inches, to quote Donald Duck, is not scale!

I run both scale and under scale items.  They ate not run at the same time.

How much space ya got ? I think that is the cut to the chase question.  If you have enough space O scale Big Boys  and 20" passenger cars look best.  If your stuck with a ten foot square bedroom traditional toy scale Lionel , RailKing etc are best. I would rather run postwar "O" & O-27 than HO or N scale. I  ask myself from time to time."What if there were only one scale ?  I answer "S" too bad high end "S" cost as much or more than "O". So for now I will stick with 3rail scale and near scale.  J

I didn't realize there was no "universal" size standard to O scale when I got into this.  So I have a few "scale" cars which would have to run alongside my mostly "toy scale" (O27 stock) items. Things like 8000 gallon tankers actually fit in well, but I have some Lionel Standard O boxcars which will look silly alongside the O27 rolling stock. I may sell the "more to scale" stuff eventually because I don't see it being run.

For me? I appreciate the scale trains, they're wonders to behold.  I don't need them however,  and I'll gravitate to the less expensive "toy scale".

That big 'O'ld  scale stuff looks silly 

.....on my my 0-27 the semi-scale fits in better 

Deuce posted:

I didn't realize there was no "universal" size standard to O scale when I got into this.  So I have a few "scale" cars which would have to run alongside my mostly "toy scale" (O27 stock) items. Things like 8000 gallon tankers actually fit in well, but I have some Lionel Standard O boxcars which will look silly alongside the O27 rolling stock. I may sell the "more to scale" stuff eventually because I don't see it being run.

For me? I appreciate the scale trains, they're wonders to behold.  I don't need them however,  and I'll gravitate to the less expensive "toy scale".

Deuce,

  "Back in the day" my switchers were considered pretty detailed, so much so that a Lionel catalog, back in 1940, called the #701 (what we call "scale" today), as well as for the #227 and #228 (both of the latter we call "semi-scale") a "scale model switching engine." 

  Most would agree that today's modern, much more detailed offerings really make the prewar models look like toys, but at least for me, these prewar locomotives have a decent mix of realism, fun and dependability. 

Let's Go Mets! 

Tom 

Scale is only relative to the size of the other items on your layout. Scale doesn't always mean more detail, but it can and it depends on how deep your wallet goes.

I run Imperial Steamers and Premier Diesels, and they both look incredibly detailed and beautiful!

On my Model Railroad - Perception is Reality!

MNCW posted:

Let's Go Mets! 

Tom 

Tom;

You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar!!!