I think Bob is on the right "track" here. What detail you put on the model, or the scenery you build for it run through or using accessories like log loaders are more a matter of personal taste. The key issues seperating Hi-rial and Scale would seem to be:
1. Hi-rail and scale wheels will not both run through the same turnouts - with certain exceptions. Closed frog trunouts can handle both, as can another brand mentioned on this list in the past. Unless you pre-plan and use those types of turnouts, scale and Hi- rail models are not going to work on the same layout. 2. Hi-rail wheels will not run on rail smaller than code 148/125/100 (depending on the exact flanges). 3. Cars with body mounted scale couplers may not negotiate the curves or turnouts on AF or other brands of sectional track. 4. Longer locomotives and cars cannot pass the diverging route on AF turnouts even with hHi-rail wheels and couplers because the overhang hits the AF "signal" box. Number 1 is the real show-stopper for most folks. Pretty much anything else is aesthetics - you can run perfectly scaled models with scale couplers on code 70 rail right up to the barrel loader on the bright green grass paper if you choose; or old, stamped tin, hook-coupler AF through perfectly detailed scenery and structures. As far as HO scale is concerned; it is true that before about 1985 or so there were popular brands of model trains that had larger than standard flanges and would not run on small rail. AHM is probably best known, especially since they imported a number of large steam locomotives that many modeler's wanted. Since that time nearly all the available models have switched to the standard RP-25 wheels, and even before that the standard "scale" wheels would operate on layouts built to handle the large flange models. The other big change in HO is that since the mid 1990's nearly all equipment comes with Kadee-compatible couplers, the old horn-hook is a thing of the past. While some modelers prefer an even more scale-sized couler design available from Kadee and compeditors but even those couplers inter-operate with the standard Kadee #5 design and its immitators. The sectional track provided in most sets in HO is now code 83 nickle silver instead of the old code 100 brass, code 83 was considered "scale" in HO just a few years before. I think it is really hard to argue that there is the same division between Hi-rail HO and scale in HO as existis in S and O scales. It is also worth noting that the HO standards of code 100 track and RP-25 wheels that everybody in HO now uses are almost identical (except for gauge) with "scale" S. So why is "scale" in S assumed to be too difficult to use? Pieter Roos --- In [email protected], Bob Werre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gentlemen, Guess it's my turn to speak on this issue. Let me start > rambling! Way back when...I bought that little book that AF produced > written by Marshall McClintoff (might have that spelled wrong). In the > front chapters the case is made for the AF trains being better > proportioned than the zero guys trains. In that conversation the term > Hi-rail is mentioned in regards to AF trains. > Thus in my mind if we eliminate the narrow gauge for now, we have > two divisions hi-rail and smaller.. I suppose the division would be at > code 126. If the rail is code 126 or above they are running on hi- rail. > If the rail is 126 or smaller we default to what is commonly called > 'scale' although it is a terrible term. Of course, the wheels that will > run on so called scale rail could be code 125, 110 or 88. I don't have > a clue what the code designation would be for running on hi-rail > trackage, but in my youth I did run the old Miller code 125 wheels > (along with AF flanges) on Gargraves track and turnouts with some luck. > In my opinion we have set up an artificial barrier when it comes to > dividing things into more than two designations. Just because the AF > X-29 is much more basic than Bill Lane's X-29 doesn't mean they can't > run on the same layout in the same train! > My AF X-29 along with a couple of AF flat cars have been modified and > detailed to where they fit in to the level of detail I like. The same > examples can be found in many HO gauge layouts where the owner will have > some cheepie Tyco boxcar, running behind a Atheran boxcar followed by a > Westerfield boxcar. The level of detail and prototype fidelity might be > vastly different but hardly anybody will separate them into different > classes and make them attend different conventions or meets. The > differences are generally by the quality of modeling one does. > I don't know exactly how to fit this into a marketing scheme to > sell the public on the variety of possibilities we offer. However, very > soon most casual observers at a train show will only think of AF as > total antiques, thus a name we should not cling to. I think all the > people with AF in the closets have been found and we must concentrate in > finding the guys from the other scales to hang with. In my business the > name Kodak has almost passed into history in five to ten short years! > remember at one time everybody got out their Kodak's for the vacation > and family shots! Currently we spend our money on names like Lexar, > Epson and LaCie in the photo business--what names are modelers going to > spend their money on? > > Bob Werre > > Roy Hoffman wrote: > > >Tom, > > > >This would be a good time to once and for all define the sectors of S > >scale in a way that we can educate the general public. "S Curves" is > >meant to cover all of S. MRN is set up that way in that it covers all > >aspects of model trains from toy to finescale. If the column was in MR > >or CTT, it would of course, be slanted towards the intent of those > >pubs. This does present the problem of mixing announcements of AF, > >hi-rail and scale. From time to time I've tried to explain some of the > >differences, but I'm not sure how well I'm doing. As this thread has > >shown, it ain't easy. I would welcome any suggestions. Thinking beyond > >MRN, it would be nice to have a good basic definition to use in > >general. S will benefit greatly if we can pull it off. > > > >As for your comment that there is more relative animosity & > >polarization in "O" because of the center 3rd rail. It's nice to hear > >such an observation, because in the past we've had contention at > >times. We're more on the same page now and realize that we have a > >common purpose. > > > >Roy > > > > > > > > To REPLY to the list, use REPLY ALL; to reply to the sender, use REPLY. For those of you on DIGEST mode, all REPLY messages go to the list (remember to edit the SUBJECT of your message). Change message settings, use our CALENDAR or LINKS, view shared files or photos, view the list archives, GO TO http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
