Which Engines Look Better Semi-Scale?

I think that's a matter of a person's individual artistic sense, which is surely a subjective matter, and even an abstract matter, which takes into account, I believe, the typical track radii a hobbyist has on-hand, as well as the overall appearance of the layout where the scale or non-scale locomotives and trains may be run. How the model is going to be enjoyed is part of the answer to your questions.

For example, can you discern if these engines are scale or not? To make a judgement, your eye goes to the surroundings, doesn't it, in order to judge what is best for the hobbyist's use and preferences.

Now, I realize you are asking "which looks better" in semi-scale. For me, it depends on how they are to be used. Non-scale shelf-queens may look fine perched on their perches, or held in the hand, but on a scale layout with broad radii curves, non-scale may look too toy-like for some eyes.

Just offered as my perspective.

FrankM.

lionel gp-9s always were scale size......maybe the f-3s too...Jim

I like the look of the Lionel post-war Hudsons, the 2046 being my fave.

You have to remember that not all engines of a certain wheel arrangement were the same size.

Here's a photo of a Williams brass 4-8-4 N&W J, Williams brass USRA 4-6-2, and a Williams by Bachmann USRA 4-6-2:

As you can see, the WbB Pacific is smaller than the Williams USRA brass engine.

But...Seaboard Air Lines P-class Pacifics were small, just so happens the WbB Pacific chassis is very close to the SAL P-class:

All I need is to make the streamlined boiler and tender shell, which I'm working on now.

If you're into trying to get your models to look like your favorite prototype, the model may very well be available, or can be worked into what you want.

I like the scale look best.  This is probably because I operate with scale HO and N gauge equipment on my club's and friend's layouts.  I run scale 3-rail equipment on my home layout.  Non-scale equipment just doesn't look right to me when I study the photos of actual equipment.  

This is just a personal preference.  I do think that the 3-rail hobby is moving toward a more realistic look.   You just need to look at all the scale themed layouts, buildings and models that are shown weekly on Weekend Photo Fun.   Bob B's layout which is featured in OGR Video 11 is also a movement toward scale.  Even my HO friends were impressed with his layout when I showed them the video.

NH Joe

My vote is for the Lionel LionMaster N&W Class A Cab#1234. Frequently the selective compression gets the overall proportions all out of whack. Lionel did this one "right". This is the only non-scale command control locomotive I kept.

It all depends on what you are running with the locomotive. I have both the scale and Rail King MTH Hiawathas and neither would look right with cars sized for the other. The train looks best when everything is in its proper proportion. 

Disclaimer: I never actually saw the massive, powerful PRR GG1

That said, I much preferred the look and proportion of Lionel's PRR GG1.

I love the traditional ones better than the scale ones, the F3's and Vulcan engines ( the only scale pieces I own) all look too big to me.

I have to partially agree with TM Terry on the GG1.  Growing up in Philadelphia, GG1s were IT.   When I bought my first Lionel GG1 in 1978, I was as thrilled as a ten year old boy, but three times the age.  I had seen scale models of the GG1 in "O" gauge two rail.  While they were impressive, the newer production of GG1s from almost any manufacturer are even more impressive.  Even LGB's model, selectively shortened, looks great. 

However, I still prefer the original Lionel shortened design.  It fits better with most all of the traditional rolling stock Lionel has made.  I ran it with the aluminum Congressional set.  With more cars in tow, ten or more, I think it looks good pulling the smaller 0-27 Lionel passenger cars.    

I know this is a perspective thing, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do prefer most of my trains scale, as a matter of fact, but not all.

As for the Lionel F-3's, if you put a postwar style F-3 against a scale F-3, you'd be surprised how much sleeker the windshield looks on the postwar style version. And I do agree about the Lionel Geeps, even with their stamped metal handrails, they still fit in well in a scale enviroment, which is why I have 2.

The term 'semi scale' seems to apply more to steam engines since they are often the ones that have to be smaller, but not all the time, to meet a price point and or fit on smaller layouts.

The Union Pacific Forty Niner for example looks gorgeous in RailKing, and looks good enough to fit in a scale enviroment  for me, and this is coming from a guy who has 5 scale Hudsons from Lionel!

Tough call since the question asks which is better.  Not sure if I'd call these better, but I really think the classic original 726/736 2-8-4 Berkshire is one of the best looking steam loco's ever made, scale or not.

Living near Chicago and nearly after the GG1s were on the rails, I had never seen one. I loved the Lionel models (especially the MPC era 8753) though. About 15 years ago, I saw a real GG1 in upstate New York (Syracuse, perhaps?) and thought it looked odd. It almost looked like it was stretched out to me.  So yes, I prefer my GG1s to be traditional sized.

I also like my 2046 over my 773 (remake). For that matter I like Lionel's SD-18s over their early SD40s as they match 6464 and 9700 boxcars better.

But then again, I don't have much in the line of scale stuff anyway. I probably have more giraffe cars than scale cars.

J White

Do any O-gauge locomotives - or any rolling stock items, either - ever look "better" when not 1:48? Absolutely not (see a wee disclaimer below); O-gauge should always be O-scale, when possible and practical.

That last part is important. I have 072 curves and mostly 1:48 equipment - but I also own some pieces of "traditional", "Railking", "subscale" equipment for various reasons. Price can be a factor, of course - I have the RK 49'er 4-6-2 because I got a used one for a good price and it looks almost as good as the 1:48 - and it was the design that interested me. Same with my Crusader: cheap, handsome. There are a few others. I wish that MTH would produce a RK Imperial version of the PRR Q-1 streamlined 4-6-4-4 Duplex for $600 - it would still be a large loco, well-made and have the "look" I like. My RK Imperial Triplex is so good-looking (I've bragged on it before), with it's compressed length but 1:48 cab, cylinders and other features, that it looks like a scale model of a smaller prototype, not a down-sized replica. 

But, do any of them look better as Juniors? No.

(Disclaimer: I don't own one, but, as an example, pieces like the MTH 1:48 Chessie steam turbine are so long that when in action, on curves, the swing is so large (the Big Boy has nothing on this yellow beast) that it probably would have been more effective as a RK Imperial model. Super-long equipment can look a little silly in action, but the 1:48 versions look better on the shelf.)

The Rubber Ruler is a toy train manufacturer's best friend....

My posting above sounds more "3-Rail Scale" than it was meant to. "Sub-scale" equipment can look great, run great and make a very nice appearance; I like it so far as it goes. When it comes to a layout footprint, the fact that nice RK/Lionmaster/etc equipment/layout can fit in the same space as some HO layouts, yet maintain O-gauge heft and reliability, is certainly a nice option to have.

As important as which locomotive, is who made it, and which version. I had the early Railking Big Boy 30-1129-1, and the details were simply crude compared to the Lionmaster, the proportions were all off, they took at least an inch too much off the tender. I can't comment on later Railking versions, but the one I had flopped miserably in comparison to the Lionmaster model. Lionel simply did a BETTER job selectively compressing their semi-scale line, than MTH did at the time.

In Lionmaster, I have a Big Boy, 4 Challengers a Cab Forward, and a NYC Hudson. Until the Lionel FEF-3's came out, which were a "Must Have" for me, I was content with semi-scale, after those FEF-3's, the Scale Size bug bit me very hard, but I still enjoy my semi-scale locomotives.

Doug

I prefer scale locomotives and rolling stock.  I have a dedicated loop for operating post war non scale items.  To me the scale stuff has more details.  Im not really into super realism, I lack the artistic gift that some have.  That being said, I have to admit if I mix scale and non scale freight cars it does look strange.  I bought a UP Challenger MTH Imperial it is a fine locomotive, but it is semi scale.  It is really noticeable if I sit it next to a third rail northern.  I still operate the challenger, it's too nice not to use.

If the Imperial Challenger is similar to the Imperial Northern, it is a vast improvement over what I had, and is indeed, a very nice locomotive.

Doug

Scale is like being pregnant:  You ARE or ARE NOT.

raising4daughters posted:

Tough call since the question asks which is better.  Not sure if I'd call these better, but I really think the classic original 726/736 2-8-4 Berkshire is one of the best looking steam loco's ever made, scale or not.

The 726 with the better detail on the wheels!

Santa Fe 2900 class Northerns could be one but I really think the 19th century Ten Wheelers look amazing

I agree that it is scale or it isn't. I also believe that scale locomotives and rolling stock look better than semi-scale or traditional equipment. However, Frank (Moonson) makes a great point that the relationship of the trains to their surroundings is also very important.

If the scenery, buildings, etc. are as close to scale as possible and the layout is large, the scale equipment looks magnificient. If you are in a limited space and on a limited budget using plasticville and the smaller Ameritowne buildings, then the traditional sized equipment looks terrific.

So, on a smaller layout with smaller buildings and scenic features, a 2046 Hudson might look more appropriate than a scale Hudson. However, I can't imagine in a side to side comparison of both locomotives on a table without any scenic cues  that many O gaugers could seriously say that the 2046 is comparable in detail, scale fidelity and flat out beauty to, say,  a K-Line scale Hudson. (Boy, was that a missed opportunity!)

When MTH made some of their RailKing modern frameless tankers in 'prototypical' roadnames, I bought some and intermixed them with the Premier 40', Funnel-Flow and 8000-gallon tankers. Despite being physically smaller, they don't stick out as being undersized since I've seen similar size variations in real-life tankers rolling past in numerous YouTube videos.

---PCJ

Dominic gets the quote of the day award.  I sitting here getting a good laugh out of that one...and very true.

In my opinion it's all in the perspective. A scale Big Boy looks like crap if it's hitting every thing near a turn.

I think some of the MTH Imperial Diesels - the ES44 and SD70 look REALLY good. They are just an inch or two shorter then their Premier cousins.

I'm a 99% Railking/027 sized operation. I don't have the room, nor money, and, at times, the desire to have the scale stuff. I do have a few very small Premier scale pieces and have a Premier 44 ton MTH engine on order (although I do wish I ordered the Williams instead).

Despite just having 0-31 and 0-42 curves, I have an MTH Imperial 2-8-8-2 articulated steam engine, several "large" diesels and plenty of small ones.

A friend of mine that, up until very recently, didn't have a home layout only ran on the super wide curves on the club modular layout. He got a small 0-31 loop or two running at home just to test and have a little fun. He said he couldn't believe how bad the 031 curves made the trains look....I kind of had to laugh. I'm very used the 031 curves. I find it a bit strange to run on the wide stuff. The tight stuff looks fine...guess I'm just very used to it.

Mr Union Pacific posted:

Dominic gets the quote of the day award.  I sitting here getting a good laugh out of that one...and very true.

That quote has been uttered on the forum many times. While technically accurate, it ignores the reality is that it's a term used by the industry's major manufacturers. One can see "semi-scale" used on WBB, MTH, and I believe even Lionel's catalogs and websites.

I'm trying to avoid the term "semi-scale" in favor "traditional" but the fact remains that the industry needs a term other than O27 which is worse.  Not all falls-short-scale/not-to-scale/semi-scale/non-scale/near-scale/not-quite-to-scale/nearly-scale/sort-of-scale/partial-scale/less-than-1:48-scale engines and rolling stock will run on 27" curves.

Let's all agree semi-scale is an imperfect term but move on from the overplayed grammar lesson.

"Semi-scale" can mean a whole lot of things. The most common definition, as I understand it, is something like: "Bigger, more realistic, and more detailed than traditional Lionel, but not actually a scale model." You could also apply the term "semi-scale" to a unit that is scale size, but lacking in detail or generic (i.e. not modeled after a specific prototype). 

Some Rail King equipment is scale size or very close to it. Here's a side-by-side comparison of a Rail King 40' hi-cube with a scale size Atlas Trainman car. The RK car is the same length and the roofline is about one scale foot lower, compared to the Atlas car. 

railking cancer es44 and premier es44 -  

My semi scale (lionmaster) big boy looks pretty good on my curves.

Thanks, for bring that to our attention.

I think the price is different  to between the too.

Good luck, John 

Has someone with both Lionel GP9s and MTH GP9s been able to photograph them side by side?

Andrew

I need a cancer ES44ac!

I have the GE Evolution and it looks good in semi-scale.   I have a few NS Heritage diesels that look decent as well.  I love RailKing.  I can get two of them for the price of one Premier.  If Williams would come out with speed control in their semi-scale Bluetooth models I would definitely give them a shot.

O- Scale trains are beautiful things, but look poorly on many layouts because of non-realistic track radii. Thus semi-scale trains such as MTH Rail King look much better, especially the overall appearance of multi-car consists.

falconservice posted:

Has someone with both Lionel GP9s and MTH GP9s been able to photograph them side by side?

Andrew

Andrew,

I have a Lionel and an Atlas GP9 and they both look very close to one another, just minor variations between the two, size-wise they're the same.  I can't comment on the MTH unit though.

I have photos of both, but I'm not on my PC right now.

Now, our 11/4 with TRACK is not to scale, even with scale cars on it!  It is wide, at 60" in O scale!

Dominic Mazoch posted:

Now, our 11/4 with TRACK is not to scale, even with scale cars on it!  It is wide, at 60" in O scale!

I simply can not believe how so many people make such a big deal about less than 1/8" in gauge width, it's not like there isn't a THIRD RAIL in the gauge any way. SERIOUSLY, how many of you would REALLY notice if the rails were less than 1/8" closer together, for cryin out loud it's not like everything is Pink and Blue steamers and diesels with daisies painted on them.

For a HOBBY that is supposed to be FUN, I am just amazed at all the hand wringing that goes on over this subject, sometimes I think that maybe some people should find a different hobby if less than 1/8" brings them so much angst.

Doug