 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / May 2007"O" scale or "HO" scale
What should I build. Which one is realy better? RSC www.schmooseme.net > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSC > www.schmooseme.net You need to decide what you will want to model: - smaller is better for modelling railways. - bigger is better for modelling trains. Your budget may be a factor, but basically model fanatics end up spending about the same amount overall (too much) whatever scale they are in to. Availability: There is far more equipment available in HO than any other scale, whereas there is not very much in O scale. (see my point on hobby budget) If you have a favourite prototype you are more likely to find suitable models in HO. Regards, Greg.P. > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSCwww.schmooseme.net Take a look at the vendor websites for each scale on the web. There are some really nice authentic items in O scale and there are two mainstream vendors who cater to O scale: Atlas and MTH. There aren't quite as many structures available for O but there is a real tradeoff in terms of how easy it is to work with the equipment. I've run trains and detailed items in both scales and find that O offers a lot more mechanical reliability. > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSCwww.schmooseme.net Take a look at the vendor websites for each scale on the web. There are some really nice authentic items in O scale and there are two mainstream vendors who cater to O scale: Atlas and MTH. There aren't quite as many structures available for O but there is a real tradeoff in terms of how easy it is to work with the equipment. I've run trains and detailed items in both scales and find that O offers a lot more mechanical reliability. RSC spake thus: > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSC > www.schmooseme.net If I didn't know better, I'd swear this stranger just wants to stir up some trouble here in Dodge ... (The correct answer, of course, is ... Z scale! Just kidding.)  SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > What should I build. Which one is realy better? How much space do you have available to build in? > RSC > www.schmooseme.net Signature-- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts. Working the rockie road of the G&PX >What should I build. Which one is realy better? Quick answer: Neither one is better. It all depends on what you want to do and how much room you have to do it in. O scale obviously takes up more room than HO. I like O scale since the trains are beefier. You could duct tape eight week old kittens to the boxcars and a good O scale engine can pull them along. With HO, you would be limited to newborns. Note, I don't do this since I don't have a sufficient supply of kittens and I don't want to clean duct tape residue off my cars. For another illustration, lay your head on an O scale mainline and run a Bershire at 22 volts directly into your face. Man, would that hurt! It might even remove a tooth or two. HO? Feh, I could take it. These are, of course, completely insane arguments in favor of O scale, so forget I made them. Spender spake thus: >>What should I build. Which one is realy better? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Note, I don't do this since I don't have a sufficient supply of kittens and > I don't want to clean duct tape residue off my cars. [snip] You notice "Spender" was trying to be funny here. Short version: O scale is very nice if you have two things: 1. Lots of room 2. Lots of money SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Short version: O scale is very nice if you have two things: > > 1. Lots of room > 2. Lots of money Hello, and of course the compromise: S scale/gauge. At 3/16" = 1 ft, it's not too big, not too small. Post WWII A.C. Gilbert American Flyer. Extremely durable high-quality stuff. Sincerely, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 >> Short version: O scale is very nice if you have two things: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >it's not too big, not too small. Post WWII A.C. Gilbert American Flyer. >Extremely durable high-quality stuff. Sincerely, In addition to the space and money concerns, you might want to also consider the electronics capabilities such as sound and command control. Carl SignatureCarl Heinz cfheinz57@charter.net (Remove number) >In addition to the space and money concerns, you might want to also consider >the electronics capabilities such as sound and command control. From what I've been reading, it seems like HO can be far more expensive in the end when it comes to control systems. Plus the headaches from all the vendors who use different boards, making it simpler - but more expensive - to just put in a new board so all the trains are on the same page so to speak. With O scale you have two options, Lionel or MTH. I haven't got one yet, but I'm leaning towards MTH's system now since it seems less expensive to rig it to also run Lionel TMCC locos, whereas Lionel's system is more costly if you want to run MTH PS locos. Though I haven't fully read up on Lionel's second generation control system - maybe they have tried to even the odds in that respect. >> In addition to the space and money concerns, you might want to also consider >> the electronics capabilities such as sound and command control. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lionel's second generation control system - maybe they have tried to even > the odds in that respect. Er, no, in O _scale_ you have a whole lot of options that do not include Lionel and MTH, which are O _gauge_. ( "Tinplate" to use an old and obsolescent term.) All NMRA standard DCC boards work together, regardless of scale. SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) >> In addition to the space and money concerns, you might want to also consider >> the electronics capabilities such as sound and command control. > > From what I've been reading, it seems like HO can be far more expensive in > the end when it comes to control systems. Really? When I look at DCC, the higher-amp decoders and boosters intended for O-scale are almost always more expensive than their HO counterparts. For example, the least-expensive Digitrax large-scale decoder is $48.00, while their HO-scale decoder that comes closest in the number of functions is $25.95 (Tony's prices). And of course, the same number of O-scale locos will require more and/or higher-amp boosters because they just plain draw more motor current per loco. > Plus the headaches from all the > vendors who use different boards, making it simpler - but more expensive - > to just put in a new board so all the trains are on the same page so to > speak. I'm guessing you're talking about DCC. If so, I'm curious as to where you read (or more likely mis-read) that. The beauty of DCC is that there is a common protocol that makes decoders ("boards") from *all* the vendors inter-operable. I have decoders from Digitrax, Lenz, NCE, TCS, and Wangrow in my locos, and they all run perfectly on my Digitrax-equipped layout. And when I take them to a Wangrow/NCE club layout I sometimes visit, they run perfectly there as well. I've *never* had to "put in a new board so all the trains are on the same page." The DCC Standards insure they're already there. > With O scale you have two options, Lionel or MTH. Brands or control systems? If you mean brands, there are many more out there than those two. And if you mean control systems, you're forgetting about at least three others - Straight DC or two-rail DCC, not to mention the AC that Lionel has used for many years. > I haven't got one yet, > but I'm leaning towards MTH's system now since it seems less expensive to > rig it to also run Lionel TMCC locos, whereas Lionel's system is more > costly if you want to run MTH PS locos. Though I haven't fully read up on > Lionel's second generation control system - maybe they have tried to even > the odds in that respect. Hmmm, doesn't "rig it to also run" sound like the same thing you were trying to accuse HO control systems of requiring (and again, I assume you mean DCC, although it isn't scale-specific in any way). It also seems that you're saying you're limited to whatever works with either of the two proprietary systems you choose. Talk about having to get all your trains on the same page! Personally, I don't care which control system someone uses, or what scale they choose. All of them have their good points and their bad. I also realize that what's a good point to one person may be a drawback to another. But please, when someone asks for a comparison, give them accurate facts so they can determine the good and bad points from their perspective. Stevert >> Plus the headaches from all the >> vendors who use different boards, making it simpler - but more expensive - [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >*never* had to "put in a new board so all the trains are on the same >page." The DCC Standards insure they're already there. I may have been misreading it. Or I simply looked at one side. That is, people who were having no luck with a DCC loco and were told to install a different brand of decoder in it. Sometimes the tone of that advice made it sound as if changing the decoder was a virtual necessity unless you stuck to one brand of train. >> With O scale you have two options, Lionel or MTH. > > Brands or control systems? If you mean brands, there are many more >out there than those two. And if you mean control systems, you're >forgetting about at least three others - Straight DC or two-rail DCC, >not to mention the AC that Lionel has used for many years. Again, limited scope. I stated the two most obvious options since I'm partial to three-rail Lionel-esque trains. I need to read more sites that aren't limited only to what I run. >That is, people who were having no luck with a DCC loco and were told to >install a different brand of decoder in it. Sometimes the tone of that >advice made it sound as if changing the decoder was a virtual necessity< There is a brand that is considered sub-standard. It's OEMed by other companies because it's cheap to them. Many people have lots of problems so at times it's recommended to change those decoders. It's the old oats before or after the horse concept. >With O scale you have two options, Lionel or MTH.< Most HO is considered scale equipment. Most Lionel or MTH is considered tinplate (toys vs models). > Most HO is considered scale equipment. Most Lionel or MTH is considered >tinplate (toys vs models). I would disagree with that in theory. Certainly you can say that Lionel and MTH make products that are not to exact scale. However much of what they make are scale models. Tinplate is a whole different concept as far as I know. What Lionel and MTH call tinplate are often quite expensive pieces. It's a very specific era of toy trains. At any rate, I consider all models to be toys. Unless you are modeling something with the intention of creating a full scale version, all you are doing is making toys. Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? If they weren't toys, it wouldn't be so fun. Of course, to be honest and open about the scope of my experience, I just happen to like watching trains go around the track. I play with trains, and I'm not ashamed! ;) Someone who identifies himself as a modeler may see it differently. No problem. There is a lot I can learn from modelers as I create a permanent layout. >> Most HO is considered scale equipment. Most Lionel or MTH is >> considered [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > problem. There is a lot I can learn from modelers as I create a > permanent layout. In a way, calling models "toys" belittles them. That piece of string you found on the ground is a toy. A rattle is a toy. I have put some real effort into building my models, I've drawn plausible track plans, I've observed and watched for details to model, I just can't see use of the word "toy." You cannot plunk down a $20 bill at the LHS and get what I have. I guess calling models "toys" denies the modeler the emotions associated with the model. The modeler has taken the time to choose their models, and by modifying it made it their own. Calling something a toy implies something replaceable. If my toy car breaks, I can get a new one. If my model boxcar breaks, if I get a new one it won't be the same. One thing that is important to realize, however, is that model trains are in many ways toys. They are best enjoyed as you play with them, not as you look at them in their box. This might have been a bit of a rant, but I hope I sufficiently put in to words how I feel about this subject, and maybe have provided some of the less articulate a way to express their feelings. Puckdropper SignatureWise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >In a way, calling models "toys" belittles them. That piece of string you >found on the ground is a toy. A rattle is a toy. I have put some real [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >words how I feel about this subject, and maybe have provided some of the >less articulate a way to express their feelings. I would draw a distinction between "little boy toys" and "big boy toys". (No offense to women, but men do seem to greatly outnumber women in this hobby.) Big boy toys are far more expensive and are usually handled with the greatest of care to assure they are not broken. Yet we still play with them. I consider my Mustang GT to be a big boy toy, with no offense intended towards hard core grease-monkeys who see it as art and technology. In the end it is all a matter of one's own perceptions. Perhaps the word toy is taken the wrong way. Maybe it would be better to distinguish between childs play and adult play. But even then, no matter how serious you get, there is a child-like aspect to it. Well, walking on the moon is quite serious business also. But each of the twelve men who have done it took any time they could to play. Play itself is serious business. It doesn't appear that way when you watch a child play, but the child is learning. Adults also learn via playing. >>In a way, calling models "toys" belittles them. That piece of string >>you found on the ground is a toy. A rattle is a toy. I have put some [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > usually handled with the greatest of care to assure they are not > broken. Yet we still play with them. I admit it, I call Menards "the toy store." > I consider my Mustang GT to be a big boy toy, with no offense intended > towards hard core grease-monkeys who see it as art and technology. Art, technology... hm... sounds like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles television. (Yes, television and not "TV show.") > In the end it is all a matter of one's own perceptions. Perhaps the > word toy is taken the wrong way. Maybe it would be better to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a child play, but the child is learning. Adults also learn via > playing. *singing* I've been playing on the railroad, all the live-long day. I've been playing on the railroad to pass the time away... Puckdropper SignatureWise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm >Spender <Spender@Mars.org> wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I admit it, I call Menards "the toy store." I had better stop doing that. I almost took off my kneecap with a sawzall last winter... >> Most HO is considered scale equipment. Most Lionel or MTH is considered >> tinplate (toys vs models). > > I would disagree with that in theory. Certainly you can say that Lionel and > MTH make products that are not to exact scale. However much of what they > make are scale models. True, but most of what they make for O gauge isn't 1:48 scale. It's adapted to not fall off the tight curves. > Tinplate is a whole different concept as far as I know. What Lionel and MTH > call tinplate are often quite expensive pieces. It's a very specific era of > toy trains. OK, if you want to see it that way. The main criterion is: is it two-rail or three rail? Many scale models are offered in 3-rail versions. > At any rate, I consider all models to be toys. Unless you are modeling > something with the intention of creating a full scale version, all you are > doing is making toys. > > Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? If they > weren't toys, it wouldn't be so fun. I don't object. I just like to be precise. I like tinplate, BTW - those big trains make such a wonderful racket. ;-) But it's not scale modelling. > Of course, to be honest and open about the scope of my experience, I just > happen to like watching trains go around the track. I play with trains, and > I'm not ashamed! ;) Ah, we all play with trains, whether we just watch 'em run or whether we simulate real railroad operation. > Someone who identifies himself as a modeler may see it differently. No > problem. There is a lot I can learn from modelers as I create a permanent > layout. There is a difference between people who build railroad models, and people who model railroads. The former focus on scale, accurate detail, correct paint, etc. The latter focus on running trains, more or less like the real thing. The round'n'round guy is simulating train watching, a premier sport IMO. ;-) Prototype operation is a role playing game. Most people who play with trains locate themselves somewhere in the middle of these various options. They do a little bit of everything, with the aim of having fun. And sharing it. It's the ones at the extremes who cause most of the grief -- they want to believe that theirs is the only true path to enlightenment. SignatureWolf "Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine) >> I would disagree with that in theory. Certainly you can say that Lionel and >> MTH make products that are not to exact scale. However much of what they >> make are scale models. > >True, but most of what they make for O gauge isn't 1:48 scale. It's >adapted to not fall off the tight curves. That's true. However I think someone pointed out a while back that even HO and N layouts have grossly unrealistic curves that no prototype could actually negotiate. I'm not an expert, but from what I understand the compromise with O gauge is in the way the trucks are articulated. The body of a loco may be to scale, and well detailed, but its trucks are articulated to an unrealistic degree which allows them to negotiate an O-27 curve. Sometimes that just isn't possible and a higher curve radius is necessary if the body is built to scale. The really big Lionel and MTH locos require an O-72 curve. That shouldn't be hard to figure out. There are, or were, people here who drive real trains. They might know, for example, what is the smallest scale curve a real SD-40-2 loco could negotiate. I have a couple of MTH 75' Auto Carriers that are 20" long from coupler to coupler. That is almost precisely 1:43 scale. They can negotiate O-36 track which, I believe, is anything but realistic as far as what the prototype would be able to do. Actually it's pretty amusing watching how far the body hangs off the track on a tight curve. I can't help but feel bad for anybody that was just standing at the curve watching the train go by when that car comes along. That's why I bought some 1:43 scale ambulances for the layout. Just because a guy only 1.6" tall is stupid enough to stand that close to the tracks doesn't mean he deserves to die. But you obviously know a lot more than I do about scale. Personally scale isn't that important to me. Nearly scale is close enough since I derive pleasure from operating the trains more than measuring them. I don't mean that to sound as though I believe people who insist on exact scale are anal retentive or anything. If someone wants exact scale, then that's what they want. >> Tinplate is a whole different concept as far as I know. What Lionel and MTH >> call tinplate are often quite expensive pieces. It's a very specific era of >> toy trains. > >OK, if you want to see it that way. The main criterion is: is it >two-rail or three rail? Many scale models are offered in 3-rail versions. I'm not sure what you mean here. When I was talking about tinplate being a specific area, I was still talking about three rail trains. For example. MTH's Tinplate Traditions. They clearly look more toy-like and they are meant to since they are designed in the fashion of early model trains when scale wasn't important to anybody. >> Of course, to be honest and open about the scope of my experience, I just >> happen to like watching trains go around the track. I play with trains, and >> I'm not ashamed! ;) > >Ah, we all play with trains, whether we just watch 'em run or whether we >simulate real railroad operation. I'm not simulating real railroad operations yet. Partly because I haven't built a permanent layout, but mostly because I can't bear taking responsibility for all the scale deaths that would have occurred already. Even if a real railroad had an old beater train they could run, I'm assuming they would not allow a 17 month old to handle the throttle. "Um, honey... I said blow the whistle, not run the train off the tracks." >There is a difference between people who build railroad models, and >people who model railroads. The former focus on scale, accurate detail, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >extremes who cause most of the grief -- they want to believe that theirs >is the only true path to enlightenment. My goal is more towards modeling a railroad, but perhaps not in the manner that any real railroad would. I'd like to have four trains running simultaneously, with switching so I can run any train on any line. And a lot of sidings so I can pull trains off, and pull others out. With 143' being roughly one 1:43 scale mile, it can never be realistic. Unless I happen to have the opportunity to buy an old jumbo jet hanger. But having to use a golf cart to get from one end of your layout to the other might ruin the fun. > That's true. However I think someone pointed out a while back that even HO > and N layouts have grossly unrealistic curves that no prototype could > actually negotiate. That is correct. All model trains go around curves that are enormously tighter than anything the prototype can negotiate. Models are made to take tight curves to allow one to fit a layout into the kind of space most of us have for trains. All HO models are built to get around an 18" radius curve. Classic Lionel models could negotiate 15.5" radius (Lionel O gauge) or 13.5" radius curves (Lionel 027 gauge). >>> Tinplate is a whole different concept as far as I know. What Lionel and MTH >>> call tinplate are often quite expensive pieces. It's a very specific era of >>> toy trains. "Tinplate" is an older word meaning essentially Lionel, or Lionel compatable rolling stock running on three rail track under AC power. A lot of Lionel operators considered the term derogatory and the newer hobby publications tend to use the term "hirail". Lionel used to make a lot of true-to-scale equipment, and an equal amount of "selectively compressed" (i.e. short) equipment. Both sets of equipment were well made and good looking. O scale (as opposed to hirail) had closer to scale wheel flanges, two rail operation, and DC motors to permit reversing without messing with an E-unit. Three rail Lionel equipment won't run on two rail because the conductive metal wheels are mounted on conductive metal axles, which amount to a dead short on two rail track. Plus the stock Lionel wheel flanges are too deep to run on the lower O-scale track. > My goal is more towards modeling a railroad, but perhaps not in the manner > that any real railroad would. I'd like to have four trains running > simultaneously, with switching so I can run any train on any line. And a > lot of sidings so I can pull trains off, and pull others out. Excellent goal. David Starr >>>> Tinplate is a whole different concept as far as I know. What Lionel and MTH >>>> call tinplate are often quite expensive pieces. It's a very specific era of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >compressed" (i.e. short) equipment. Both sets of equipment were well >made and good looking. There must be variable meanings to the term. From what I've seen in Lionel and MTH catalogs, the term tinplate is used to refer specifically to trains intended to be toy-like - harkening back to the days of trains sets produced at a price level most any American family could afford. The couplers are even quite different, and incompatible, than standard O gauge. > O scale (as opposed to hirail) had closer to scale wheel flanges, >two rail operation, and DC motors to permit reversing without messing >with an E-unit. Three rail Lionel equipment won't run on two rail >because the conductive metal wheels are mounted on conductive metal >axles, which amount to a dead short on two rail track. Plus the stock >Lionel wheel flanges are too deep to run on the lower O-scale track. This was quite helpful. I have seen MTH offerings of the same locomotive in both high-rail and scale wheeled versions. I hadn't taken the time to investigate what the difference was. Interestingly, MTH produces some locos that are designed to be user adaptable to either three rail DC or two rail AC operation. Most of the ones I have looked at claim to be faithful 1:43 scale models. >However much of what they make are scale models.< I don't believe that to be true however I have never measured their products so don't know for sure. It does appear in pictures however that their larger engines are not very close to O scale. If they were there is no way they could be made to run on the radius of track they currently run on. >>However much of what they >make are scale models.< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >no way they could be made to run on the radius of track they currently run >on. I may be wrong, but I think the trick is in how the trucks are (unrealistically) articulated. But it would be interesting to find out exactly how tight a curve a prototype SD-40 or 4-6-4 Hudson could actually negotiate. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that no O scale model is realistic in that regard. >I may be wrong, but I think the trick is in how the trucks are (unrealistically) articulated.< Current articulated models (like BLI and PCM, etc) have both the front and rear engine pivot around a center mounting point. Many modelers (myself included) call this the Riverossia(sp) curse <G>. Is also does not allow attaching some of the piping that should be there. > >I may be wrong, but I think the trick is in how the trucks are > (unrealistically) articulated.< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > included) call this the Riverossia(sp) curse <G>. Is also does not allow > attaching some of the piping that should be there. If you're going to demand that 15" long models go around 15" radius curves then something has go to give! A four wheel Big-Boy is going to look even less realistic than pivoting the rear driver frame! ;-) Regards, Greg.P. > At any rate, I consider all models to be toys. Unless you are > modeling something with the intention of creating a full scale > version, all you are doing is making toys. No. A couple of weeks back, I built a big wooden train for my son. I made it from a variety of scrap materials I had on hand, based it on no known prototype, then finished and painted it in a way I think he will find appealing. My son pushes it along the floor and chews it. That is a *toy*. I've also been working on an HO Niigata Kotsu box-motor for my Japanese layout. I made it from styrene, ABS, deal, etched brass, cast brass and nickel silver parts, some bought in, some made by me. I used drawings sourced from the original carbuilders, photos from contacts in Japan, and off the web. It's painted and weathered to accurately represent the prototype car shortly before it's withdrawal in 1991. That is a *model*. > Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? I object to you presenting your opinion about other people's models as unequivocal fact. I object to the idea that I must adopt your definition of my models, and my hobby. On another level, I object to the idea that something I built myself, using all of my skill and talent, is merely a toy. When you yourself have built a model of your own, as opposed to merely buying one, you may be able to understand the distinction. Mark. Mark Newton spake thus: >> At any rate, I consider all models to be toys. Unless you are >> modeling something with the intention of creating a full scale >> version, all you are doing is making toys. [snip] >> Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On another level, I object to the idea that something I built myself, > using all of my skill and talent, is merely a toy. Well, you're both right (see my new firestarter thread below). In the most generic sense, all this stuff falls into the category of "toys", as it's totally inessential to the sustenance of life, or even commerce. On the other hand, it's completely understandable how a guy who's spent umpteen thousand hours laboriously drafting, machining and fabricating a down-to-the-last-rivet 1"=1' scale model of a steam locomotive might object, might even bristle a little, if someone called his creation a "toy". Even if it is ... (By the way, on my recent visit to the Cal. State RR Museum, such models were the high points of what I saw. Gawgeous. You need to see them if you haven't.) SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > > Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? > >I object to you presenting your opinion about other people's models as >unequivocal fact. I object to the idea that I must adopt your >definition of my models, and my hobby. I don't recall me having made any demand that you accept my opinion as fact. >On another level, I object to the idea that something I built myself, >using all of my skill and talent, is merely a toy. "Merely" is the key word. >When you yourself have built a model of your own, as opposed to merely >buying one, you may be able to understand the distinction. I'be built models of my own. Not trains, but cars and airplanes. They were toys, at least in the sense I would push them around or act like they were flying. In my mind, a model with no function is art. >>> Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't recall me having made any demand that you accept my opinion > as fact. You made this statement in a previous post: "Unless you are modeling something with the intention of creating a full scale version, all you are doing is making toys." You did't qualify this by saying it was your opinion, did you? Anyway, what you choose to call your tinplate trains hardly matters in the long run. > >>> Why do some people object to model trains being called toys? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Anyway, what you choose to call your tinplate trains hardly matters in >the long run. Has the concept of using a model as a toy been considered? Is it a model if only the exterior is replicated, or does a model have to have the same sort of internal mechanism? Or is that a miniature? I'd say that it's a model if it externally replicates the original. I'd also say that there's nothing which prevents me from using a model as a toy. (For me, "model" railroading is play.) VBG. I'm not sure, but I think "tinplate" originally referred to the Marx products and was used to describe products made from formed "tin" sheets with pictures of the original printed on them. MTH has a product line which they call tinplate. Some current Lionel products are also called tinplate. The non-1:48 O guage may be called such things as scale, O-27, Lionel's "Lionmaster", and in some cases, "traditional". However, not all "traditional" is at the smaller scale. Because of these variances, I'll generally just check the car lengths. For instance if a passenger car is 15 inches or less, I'll classify that as not being 1:48. There's just too much confusion caused by various manufacturers using different terms to do otherwise. Carl SignatureCarl Heinz cfheinz57@charter.net (Remove number) >Because of these variances, I'll generally just check the car lengths. For >instance if a passenger car is 15 inches or less, I'll classify that as not >being 1:48. There's just too much confusion caused by various manufacturers >using different terms to do otherwise. I've noticed that. MTH seems to mention scale more often when referring to certain models, but it can be a crap shoot with both Lionel and MTH. Different lines, inconsistent labeling of the boxes, etc. I don't pay very close attention unless a car is ridiculously undersized (which often means it is intentionally so.) I have some 1:43 cars, and 1:50 fire trucks. So... the little people on my layout ordered custom fire trucks because their firefighters just happen to be somewhat short. They're still brave. Needless to say I never take a ruler to my layout. >Anyway, what you choose to call your tinplate trains hardly matters in >the long run. I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the meaning of the term. Spender spake thus: >>Anyway, what you choose to call your tinplate trains hardly matters in >>the long run. > > I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the meaning > of the term. Alright, now I'm confused. I thought "tinplate" referred, technically speaking, to old models made out of sheet metal which are no longer made (at least not in mass production). Someone here alluded to this term as a more generic descriptor of certain types of more "toy-like" models. What does this term really mean nowadays? Is there a generally-accepted definition? SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Spender spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speaking, to old models made out of sheet metal which are no longer made > (at least not in mass production). I think it has a more specific meaning in the US - toy designs long past their use-by date which several manufacturers still churn out in small batches to be bought by elders wishing their childhoods would expire. > Someone here alluded to this term as a more generic descriptor of > certain types of more "toy-like" models. What does this term really mean > nowadays? Is there a generally-accepted definition? Model through to toy is a continuum, from models intended to replicate all visible parts of a prototype through to four wheeled plastic "choo choos" that whirr and do loop the loops. I guess the dividing line between the two for most modellers is whether or not the item faithfully reproduces a prototype (or imagined prototype) to a degree that takes little imagination (other than size) to identify said prototype. Regards, Greg.P. Greg Procter spake thus: > David Nebenzahl wrote (asking about "tinplate"): > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reproduces a prototype (or imagined prototype) to a degree that takes > little imagination (other than size) to identify said prototype. Interesting, but doesn't address my question, which was specifically about the term "tinplate". But thanks for playing anyway. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > Greg Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Interesting, but doesn't address my question, which was specifically > about the term "tinplate". But thanks for playing anyway. Tinplate: (rolled) iron plate coated with a very thin layer of tin based compound. >Alright, now I'm confused. I thought "tinplate" referred, technically >speaking, to old models made out of sheet metal which are no longer made [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >certain types of more "toy-like" models. What does this term really mean >nowadays? Is there a generally-accepted definition? I believe there is an accepted definition, and it is the first one you gave. Such trains are still made by Lionel. MTH, and others. They are designed to look like toys, whereas their standard lines are intended to look like scale models. People can argue about whether Lionel or MTH creates truly scale models, down to the last rivet, but there is a great difference between their model trains and tinplate trains. They are all still toys, in my opinion, but tinplate trains look much more toy-like. > I believe there is an accepted definition, and it is the first one > you gave. Such trains are still made by Lionel. MTH, and others. They > are designed to look like toys, whereas their standard lines are > intended to look like scale models. There's no such thing as scale models, according to you - there's only toys. > People can argue about whether Lionel or MTH creates truly scale > models, down to the last rivet, but there is a great difference > between their model trains and tinplate trains. No, there's none. They're all toys, you've repeatedly said so. > They are all still toys, in my opinion, but tinplate trains look much > more toy-like. All of Lionel and MTH's product look toy-like, as they are toys. You said so. What a hoot! On the one hand you claim that all scale models are toys, now you reckon the toys you buy are not toy-like at all, but "intended to look like scale models"... >>Anyway, what you choose to call your tinplate trains hardly matters in >>the long run. > > I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the meaning > of the term. You reckon my models are toys, I reckon your toys are tinplate. Fair's fair. > I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the meaning > of the term. You might want to bone up on the meanings of "toy" and "model", in that case. Last I heard, they weren't interchangeable. Good afternoon Mark; >> I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the meaning >> of the term. > > You might want to bone up on the meanings of "toy" and "model", in that > case. Last I heard, they weren't interchangeable. A toy is something you play with. If you have heard the term "big boys and their toys", it covers a lot more than model trains. Cheers, John >>> I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the >>> meaning [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > John That term does cover a lot however the word toy used by itself most commonly is thought of as an object that a child plays with. Most people I know who possess models don't intentionally leave them out for their kids to get into. JB Jim Bright spake thus: >>>>I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the >>>>meaning [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > possess models don't intentionally leave them out for their kids to get > into. So tell us: at what age do people (children) officially stop "playing with toys", and graduate to "seriously undertaking the realistic simulation of prototype rail transportation environments" (or however else you care to rationalize it)? SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > So tell us: at what age do people (children) officially stop "playing with > toys", and graduate to "seriously undertaking the realistic simulation of > prototype rail transportation environments" (or however else you care to > rationalize it)? There's no particular age. I believe most people experience the changeover once they themselves start paying out of their own pocket for the hobby. {;^) >>> I don't own any tinplate trains. You might want to bone up on the >>> meaning of the term. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A toy is something you play with. Indeed. So, by that definition, something I *don't* play with is *not* a toy. > If you have heard the term "big boys and their toys", it covers a lot > more than model trains. Ah, the argument from catch-phrase. Or is it the argument from bumper stickers? Either way, it doesn't convince me. >>With O scale you have two options, Lionel or MTH.< > Most HO is considered scale equipment. Most Lionel or MTH is considered >tinplate (toys vs models). Can't speak much to MTH since I use TMCC and bypass MTH engines, but, I think folks should review O gauge catalogs for the last several years. Three rail manufacturers usually make clear distinctions. (The exception, for me, was K-Line.) Granted that tinplate might be considered to be more toy like, but much non-tinplate, 1:48 (O gauge/quarter scale) isn't and is big enough for someone to see the amount of detail. My only real problem with Atlas O is that some of their offerings are so detailed that they're a bit fragile. I also tend to remove truck chains from engines since they've been known to come loose and get caught in gears. You also need to be concerned that not all three rail is 1:48. Car length is frequently given. As an example 1:48 intermodal is substantially larger. I believe the smaller items are frequently 1:64. Lionel's JLC steam should warm the heart of any rivet counter---and mine have been excellent runners. I also can't speak to the virtues of HO since I've no experience with it. Mine has been with N scale and O gauge. The O gauge manufacturers I with which I have experience are Lionel and Atlas O for both engines and rolling stock, and MTH, Weaver and Williams for rolling stock. I do have some Weaver motive, but that's a bit limited. My only Williams and MTH motive has been modified for TMCC. I also have several 3rd Rail pieces for CB&Q steam. Golden Gate Madison cars are extremely detailed--and a few do take up a lot of track. Fortunately, I've been able to convert an 18'x30' space to house the layout. It's got about 450' of track. So this does demonstrate that in order to run O gauge, you need a bit of room. Carl SignatureCarl Heinz cfheinz57@charter.net (Remove number) > Hello, and of course the compromise: S scale/gauge. At 3/16" = 1 ft, > it's not too big, not too small. Post WWII A.C. Gilbert American Flyer. > Extremely durable high-quality stuff. While I agree that S scale is a good scale, I disagree on the "extremely durable high-quality" aspect of American Flyer postwar products. At my neighbor's house, I spent a about 4 years operating weekly on an AF layout. Motive power was 4x GP's, 1x EP-5, 1x S-12, 1x 0-8-0, 2x 4-6-2, 1x 4-8-4, 2x PA-1, 1x PB-1, and 1x Track Speeder. There were approx. 20 passenger cars, and over 50 freight cars. Track was a mix of AF and Gar Graves, and power supplies and throttles were all AF originals. In my experience, my modern HO collection is far more durable and of higher quality than any AF stock. For example, I've never broken a coupler in HO scale unless I dropped a loco on the floor and it landed on the Kadee. I have, in fact, broken a couple AF couplers in normal use (knuckles, not the drop hooks). My neighbor also had a weighted stick that he'd use to whack certain locos to get them to change directions as the reverser in these locos needed a little help to turn over. I also rebuilt a couple of these drum switches for him by buying new parts as needed. I've never had to whack a loco with a stick in HO scale to get it to run. These locos needed constant maintenance to continue to run well. I'm sorry, but I just don't see what was "extremely durable" & "high quality" about them. Lionel, yes, I can see that. But AF? Not in my experience. Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven ************* > While I agree that S scale is a good scale, I disagree on the "extremely > durable high-quality" aspect of American Flyer postwar products. At my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In my experience, my modern HO collection is far more durable and of > higher quality than any AF stock. Hello, and one of the reasons AF stock is durable is that a lot of metal vice plastic goes into the locomotive drive mechanisms, cars, and accessories. Did I ever see sloppy solder joints on the underside of an AF automatic crossing gate? Sure. > For example, I've never broken a coupler in HO scale unless I dropped a > loco on the floor and it landed on the Kadee. I have, in fact, broken a > couple AF couplers in normal use (knuckles, not the drop hooks). The only problem I've had with AF knuckle couplers is that they tend to stick when clogged with dust and grime. They do look like their full-size brothers, though. > My neighbor also had a weighted stick that he'd use to whack certain > locos to get them to change directions as the reverser in these locos needed > a little help to turn over. I also rebuilt a couple of these drum switches > for him by buying new parts as needed. I've never had to whack a loco with > a stick in HO scale to get it to run. Yes, a decades-old reversing mechanism (unless you use the unidirectional lockout lever) can be finicky at times. > These locos needed constant maintenance to continue to run well. I'm > sorry, but I just don't see what was "extremely durable" & "high quality" > about them. Lionel, yes, I can see that. But AF? Not in my experience. Well, this stuff is 50+ years old. So if you're going to work with antique gear as I do you have to be prepared to perform some maintenance (It's not all that difficult.) I'm sorry that your experience wasn't more positive but compared to today's Chinese-made throw away items I'm still amazed at AF's durability and quality. Same for all the Gilbert circa 1948-1960 products (still see tons of Erector stuff for auction all the time on ebay.) I will admit that HO and smaller scales generally are better detailed. But unless you do some modifications these smaller scales just don't sound like a real train going over real tracks. S and larger scales out-of-the box seem to capture this clackety-clack quite realistically IMHO. Sincerely, Sincerely, John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337 > Note, I don't do this since I don't have a sufficient supply of kittens and > I don't want to clean duct tape residue off my cars. The tape residue is the least of your worries. SignatureSteve ... while the train is in the station ... > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSC > www.schmooseme.net I have two model railways; HO 1/2":1 foot, which is about four times the size. the 1/2" scale is more relaxing to build, but modelled bolts on the rolling stock look unconvincing without threads and one notices where round and where square washers are used and hexagonal vs square nuts - that sort of thing. RSC <rsceliberti@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1179877002.164846.9540 @p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSC > www.schmooseme.net In this case, it really comes down to what you like best. Do you like the appearance of O scale cars and engines over HO? Go O. If you like the HO appearance better, go HO. The only other argument would be for space. If you want lots of mainline in a small space, go N. If you want some mainline and switching, HO would probably be best. If you want all switching, go O. There is nothing stopping you from doing both. The guys at the LHS don't even bat an eye when I show up with a couple HO items, a couple N items, and maybe a G scale item. Puckdropper SignatureWise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it. To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm > What should I build. Which one is realy better? > > RSC > www.schmooseme.net Excellent model railroads have been done in both scales. The larger scale is easier to see if your eyesight is aging, and easier to work on because the parts are larger, making them sturdier, easier to grip and fit, and tiny errors are less obvious. Larger and heavier trains stay on the track better than smaller ones. Smaller scales allow more railroad in the same space. For a given size of layout, you can pack in more train and track and structures if the scale is smaller. You can run longer trains farther. With care in track work and rolling stock, excellent performance can been obtained in scales as small as N. There is a greater variety of models offered in HO than O, and HO is less expensive. If cost is an object, HO is somewhat lower cost than O. Finally, this is a hobby, and a hobby is a matter of the heart. If one scale appeals strongly to your heart, go with it. David Starr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.