O Scale, Traditional Size and S Scale

[rockershovel]

I've acquired the stripped remains of an American Flyer S Gauge loco in a job lot of Lionel items. Since it's often said that Lionel "O27" consists of S Scale bodies on O Gauge running gear, I thought this might be an interesting comparison. 

 

The three locos are, left to right, a K Line "semi-scale" Hudson, nominally 1:48 scale but actually significantly under length and with undersize drivers; a Lionel "Traditional Size" (labelled O27) 2-6-2, nominally based on a PRR K4, and an American Flyer S Scale Reading 4-4-2.

 

The K4 should be a comparable loading gauge to the Hudson, with the older 4-4-2 slightly smaller, but only inches. The Hudson, to scale, would be about 12% longer than the K4 (54'1" as opposed to 48'2") while the differential K4 to 4-4-2 would be about 14%, 48'2" vs 41'3". On that basis, I'd say that the Lionel 2-6-2 was S Scale for all practical purposes, running on O Gauge track. The Hudson is substantially under length, but something like 1:48 (American O Gauge) in height and width. 

 

 

.... which is why, I would say, S Scale never took off as a commercial scale. Lionel demonstrated that O27 could be made to run in the same "table top" or "carpet" spaces, while retaining interchangeability with O, while S Scale couldn't approach the space saving possible with HO. So O27 might be bad modelling, but it was great marketing!

 

 

Edited December 17, 2020 by rockershovel

[nsl714]

To confuse the matter even further (and perhaps even explaining where the theory came from), American Flyer marketed an extensive range of 3/16" scale trains running on O gauge track immediately before WWII. Many of those models' bodies were reused in their S gauge line after the war.

 

Lots of good info on these trains can be found here: https://gilbertogauge.blogspot.com/

 

-Zach

[sncf231e]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

.... which is why, I would say, S Scale never took off as a commercial scale. 

 

As far as I know S is a gauge and not a scale:
http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

Regards

Fred

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, sncf231e said:

As far as I know S is a gauge and not a scale:
http://sncf231e.nl/gauge-and-scale/

Regards

Fred

 

Well, that’s true, as far as it goes. It’s an issue like OO/HO; American manufacturers wanted to produce model trains smaller than O scale, but keep using the commercially established O Gauge track and (particularly in the case of Lionel and Marx) accommodate curves in radii around 13-14”. 

 

Just as British outline designs tend to favour models being somewhat under-Gauge relative to their scale (ie, OO), American outline designs favour being under-Scale relative to the track gauge employed. So manufacturers experimented with building stock to scales in the 1:55 to 1:60 range on 32mm gauge track. 

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, sncf231e said:

As far as I know S is a gauge and not a scale:

 

I don't think the S-scale Society would agree with that. http://www.s-scale.org.uk/main.htm

 

My understanding, which may of course be wrong, or at least be confined to the British case, is that it is one of the few combinations where the scale came first, and the gauge was properly derived from that.

 

PS: The history section on the S-scale Society site is really interesting!

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Florence Locomotive Works]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I've acquired the stripped remains of an American Flyer S Gauge loco in a job lot of Lionel items. Since it's often said that Lionel "O27" consists of S Scale bodies on O Gauge running gear, I thought this might be an interesting comparison. 

 

The three locos are, left to right, a K Line "semi-scale" Hudson, nominally 1:48 scale but actually significantly under length and with undersize drivers; a Lionel "Traditional Size" (labelled O27) 2-6-2, nominally based on a PRR K4, and an American Flyer S Scale Reading 4-4-2.

 

The K4 should be a comparable loading gauge to the Hudson, with the older 4-4-2 slightly smaller, but only inches. The Hudson, to scale, would be about 12% longer than the K4 (54'1" as opposed to 48'2") while the differential K4 to 4-4-2 would be about 14%, 48'2" vs 41'3". On that basis, I'd say that the Lionel 2-6-2 was S Scale for all practical purposes, running on O Gauge track. The Hudson is substantially under length, but something like 1:48 (American O Gauge) in height and width. 

 

 

.... which is why, I would say, S Scale never took off as a commercial scale. Lionel demonstrated that O27 could be made to run in the same "table top" or "carpet" spaces, while retaining interchangeability with O, while S Scale couldn't approach the space saving possible with HO. So O27 might be bad modelling, but it was great marketing!

 

 

Is the K-Line Hudson a direct copy of the body molding for the Lionel 700/763e? I ask as it looks as you said much under prototypical length. 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Florence Locomotive Works

[BR60103]

S is a scale and a gauge. The gauge is only 1/2" (scale) off.

The name S was suggested by Al Kalmbach (of Model Railroader) as it starts Seven-eighths, three Sixteenths and one Sixty-fourth. 

 

However, following Youngs's Principle, the size was not one-half of the existing size and didn't offer the advantage that HO did.

 

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, Florence Locomotive Works said:

Is the K-Line Hudson a direct copy of the body molding for the Lionel 700/763e? I ask as it looks as you said much under prototypical length. 

 

Long story short, no it isn’t. 

 

This shaggiest of dogs tells its story between my American Coarse O thread, and the various US web forums. Bring a comfy chair and aspirin. 

[flubrush]

6 hours ago, BR60103 said:

S is a scale and a gauge. The gauge is only 1/2" (scale) off.

 

 

 

The gauge is now accurate to scale on both sides of the Atlantic although we disagree by one thou.  0.884" in the UK and 0.883" in the US.  The UK S scale society drew up the  accurate standards in the 1960s and members were using the standards from the 1970s.     The US moved from the original 7/8" gauge to 0.883" some years later.

 

Jim.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by flubrush

[rockershovel]

I rather like S Scale. There is definitely a “step change” in detailing and overall “presence” between O and OO/HO, and S is definitely on the O side of that step. 

 

I suppose the development of O as the “smallest technically feasible scale” set the pace for the development of what followed, offering reliable motors in the then-current mainstream of clockwork, live steam and A.C. electric power, commercially attractive tubular tinplate track in two-Rail and three-Rail configurations and the option to reduce the size of models to something effectively equivalent to S, combined with radii which are still effectively the minimum for HO and OO in the toy and RTR modelling market. 

[Nearholmer]

Even way back in the ‘very definitely toy’ beginnings of our hobby, makers were often supplying in two sizes ‘small and cheap’ and ‘big and expensive’ on the same track gauge, and it’s a marketing approach that seems to have been widespread and long-lasting, Hornby had ‘M’ and the numbered series, JEP provided what amount to a toy range and a scale-ish range, etc.

 

The little toy ones usually had much smaller clockwork, often lacked reversibility etc., and  most of them never transitioned to electricity in Britain and Europe.

 

 

[sncf231e]

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

I don't think the S-scale Society would agree with that. http://www.s-scale.org.uk/main.htm

 

PS: The history section on the S-scale Society site is really interesting!

 

Thank you for this link. A very interesting history which I had not  read before which also mention the American connection. Not mentioned at all however are the Continental S gauge efforts, which were much larger than the British ones. In West Germany BUB made a complete system of S gauge (Spur S) and Stadtilm did the same in East Germany. Also the French company JEP made a complete S gauge system (Ecartement S) in the fifties in electric and clockwork. Note that they did not use the word "scale' but did use "gauge (Spur/écartement)" and most of what they made was not 1:64.

 

Regards

Fred

 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by sncf231e

[J. S. Bach]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

 ...snip... Bring a comfy chair and aspirin. 

Especially on one particular forum!!

[rockershovel]

9 hours ago, sncf231e said:

Thank you for this link. A very interesting history which I had not  read before which also mention the American connection. Not mentioned at all however are the Continental S gauge efforts, which were much larger than the British ones. In West Germany BUB made a complete system of S gauge (Spur S) and Stadtilm did the same in East Germany. Also the French company JEP made a complete S gauge system (Ecartement S) in the fifties in electric and clockwork. Note that they did not use the word "scale' but did use "gauge (Spur/écartement)" and most of what they made was not 1:64.

 

Regards

Fred

 

 

 

A British Society is acquainted with events in the USA but not with events in Europe... sounds familiar... 

[PatB]

Dunno about the Hudson, specifically, but a lot of K-Line's earlier output derived from Marx tooling. Marx, being primarily a toy (as opposed to model) manufacturer, appear to have had an even more elastic scale rule than Lionel, but I believe their later, moulded plastic, stock was reasonably close to 3/16" scale. 

[flubrush]

11 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

A British Society is acquainted with events in the USA but not with events in Europe... sounds familiar... 

 

 

That's a cheap shot and not true.  The S Scale Society in the UK is probably one of the smallest with about a hundred members.  The majority of members model British and Irish prototypes but I know of several who model other railway prototypes from Europe and around the world.  One of our members posted a message about his DB layout just over a week ago in RMWEB.

 

And back in the 50s and 60s,  where would a modeller in the UK find out about railways and model railway systems in other parts of the world.   The British model railway magazines concentrated on the UK and there would have been no mention of European models other than the best known makes being imported by a few retailers.   In the days of the Berlin wall,  products from East Germany would have been very difficult to obtain.   And at the same time we had several very good importers of US models - like Bernie Victor and Bill Eaglesham.  So access to US models and literature was relatively easy.  That's how I started an interest in US modelling and I could get S scale RTR as well.

 

Jim.

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, flubrush said:

 

 

That's a cheap shot and not true.  The S Scale Society in the UK is probably one of the smallest with about a hundred members.  The majority of members model British and Irish prototypes but I know of several who model other railway prototypes from Europe and around the world.  One of our members posted a message about his DB layout just over a week ago in RMWEB.

 

And back in the 50s and 60s,  where would a modeller in the UK find out about railways and model railway systems in other parts of the world.   The British model railway magazines concentrated on the UK and there would have been no mention of European models other than the best known makes being imported by a few retailers.   In the days of the Berlin wall,  products from East Germany would have been very difficult to obtain.   And at the same time we had several very good importers of US models - like Bernie Victor and Bill Eaglesham.  So access to US models and literature was relatively easy.  That's how I started an interest in US modelling and I could get S scale RTR as well.

 

Jim.

 

Cheap shot? Not at all. The “brain drain” of the 1960s and 1970s didn’t involve Europe; it consisted of British emigrants to other English speaking countries, most of which had long traditions of migration from the U.K. Britain was a nett exporter of population for two hundred years, and almost none of that went to Europe; the immigration of the 1950s onwards, came from Commonwealth countries, not Europe. 

 

I’ve worked for European companies and companies with European parents and I’ll be quite frank, the opportunities aren’t there. The doors are tightly closed, and I don’t find that with American companies. My younger son is examining his options at present, and he is looking at Martin Lockheed, not VW or BMW. When my niece’s husband emigrated a few years ago, it was because despite experience with a European employer, his opportunities were in the USA. I’ve been openly told, in as many words, that “English isn’t a European language” for employment purposes, and given the English neglect of language skills generally, that’s a major barrier. 

 

Looking at the rail front, when British companies exported locos and stock they went to everywhere except Europe. Gresley and others were much influenced by US practice, but (with the notable exception of Chapelon’s work in compounding) much less so by European practice. 

 

You say that the British press concentrated on the U.K., and that’s true; but it was a symptom, not a cause. The British simply weren’t interested in Europe, and still aren’t. Their horizons lay elsewhere; they don’t speak the languages, and their connections are over the seas. America and Australia are easier for them to understand.  

Edited December 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

31 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

The British simply weren’t interested in Europe, and still aren’t. Their horizons lay elsewhere;

If true, and I think it is to a fair extent, one of the biggest mass-follies of all time IMO.

 

Still, I find all sorts of toy trains interesting, although I still struggle to cross the cultural divide and get my head round these American ones. The entire approach is just so unfamiliar.

[rockershovel]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If true, and I think it is to a fair extent, one of the biggest mass-follies of all time IMO.

 

Still, I find all sorts of toy trains interesting, although I still struggle to cross the cultural divide and get my head round these American ones. The entire approach is just so unfamiliar.

 

It’s my experience over a long period of time, that lack of a common language is a profound barrier to communication. I’ve found, over and over again, that multi-national project teams tend to subdivide into linguistic groups. Add in the purely practical difficulties of mismatched, incompatible systems of vocational and professional training, tax and pensions and expectations of earnings, and the problem is obvious. 

 

No 1 Son started an apprenticeship with VW, but left when it became obvious that without being functionally fluent in German (this, with an employer which provided English lessons for German speakers, but not German lessons for English speakers - a widespread situation, in my experience) and without specifically German vocational training (which, not having done it at school, he could not achieve) he could not progress. Not one of his intake completed their apprenticeships, and both their British Line managers were German speakers, born in Germany to BAOR personnel. 

 

Ive had the same experience with Dutch, French and Italian companies over time. 

 

I don’t think it’s a “mass folly”, rather an absence of points of contact. I always felt that to reconcile the British, and especially the English to Europe, the situation needed to be created by which John Bull regarded Europe as somewhere he might usefully, and profitably travel, live and work in the expectation of a measure of success. Over time, a general consensus would develop that this was worth pursuing, and the rest would follow. That transformation was never begun, far less progressed, and here we are. 

[rockershovel]

43 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

If true, and I think it is to a fair extent, one of the biggest mass-follies of all time IMO.

 

Still, I find all sorts of toy trains interesting, although I still struggle to cross the cultural divide and get my head round these American ones. The entire approach is just so unfamiliar.

 

I wouldn’t be too starry-eyed about America, though. American toy trains are definitely American, including the American habit of insufficiently developed ingenuity, leading to complexity for its own sake. 

 

There’s a discussion over on the American Coarse O thread, just now, about couplings. Lionel developed a complex system of electrically operated couplers, with various inherent problems which were beyond the technology of the time to resolve. MTH followed this with the complex, and at times highly unreliable Protosound system, which included a facility to, supposedly, automatically uncouple anywhere. 

 

Tri-Ang developed the quite brilliant “tension-lock” coupler, with no electronics or electrics, just a piece of plastic in the track. It works very well, doesn’t conflict with the basic concept of 2-rail operation, was and is cheap to produce, and is still in widespread production and use. It hinges on the correct identification of the point that provided the operator can uncoupler at some required location, the rest just isn’t important. Kadee basically use the same concept - a simple fixed magnet, in their case. Why didn’t Lionel do this, sixty-odd years ago? Good question.

 

Edited December 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[flubrush]

4 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Cheap shot? Not at all.

 

 I think - yes.  You insinuated that the SSMRS was insular with regard to Europe when it patently is not.

 

I've researched the German and French model railway systems mentioned.    The BUB system was not S gauge,  but 24mm gauge.   The  models were produced from 1945 for ten years.   The quality of the system was comparable to the cheaper Hornby clockwork system.

 

The Stadfilm system was produced for an even shorter time in the early 60s and a steam loco and a two coach railbus was all that was produced.   Arguably the quality was a bit better than BUB,  but still very much childrens toy quality.

 

The French JEP Ecartement S lasted for a very much longer time,  but at best you could only term it a children's toy from pictures of stock seen on the Internet.

 

The history on the S scale web site is about the development of the scale to cater for railway modellers,  with a good, scale representation of prototypes.

 

Jim.

Edited December 19, 2020 by flubrush

[sncf231e]

43 minutes ago, flubrush said:

 

 

The Stadfilm system was produced for an even shorter time in the early 60s and a steam loco and a two coach railbus was all that was produced.  

 

Jim.

Stadtilm (not Stadfilm) made S trains from 1956 till 1964. They made a complete range and not just what you mentioned. Catalogs can be looked into here: http://www.ddr-modellbahnkataloge.de/spur s.html

 

Regards

Fred

[rockershovel]

.... which all seems to support the idea that there was a general perception of the usefulness of a scale somewhat smaller than O, but no overall agreement as to exactly what it might be... hence the success of HO and OO, because they were a step change from O, in the desired direction 

 

If S had appeared before O became established, I don’t doubt that it would have been a success as H1 and most likely, paved the way for TT as a scale between 1:100 and 1:120 on 11mm or 10.5mm gauge track 

Edited December 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

If S had appeared before O became established,

 

I agree with the hypothesis, but it couldn't have, because it was serious challenge to get worthwhile mechanisms into 0 when it first emerged, let alone anything smaller.

 

In fact, I might argue that clockwork mechanisms in 0 outline were only ever "sort of alright"*, never really satisfactory, because of the lack of space for spring and down-gearing, likewise steam die to the limits imposed by physics, which is why people were so keen to move on to electricity, thereby attacking the "miniarurisation challenge" all over again.

 

*With the honourable exceptions of the late-arriving, well-governed Walker-Fenn, and well-controlled Riemsdijk, but the latter particularly was far too late to be useful.

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, rockershovel said:

hence the success of HO and OO, because they were a step change from O, in the desired direction 

This does ring true - any new, smaller scale has had to be significantly smaller than the previously 'smallest' scale to prosper. Hence HO/OO took off, and N gauge later on, but the 'in between' scales like S & TT have remained niche scales. Now I for one quite like niche scales, and not being in the mainstream, having had a dabble in British HO at one time. If there was more R-T-R US-outline S available I could be tempted; fortunately US 2-rail O is still niche enough for me, but the recent boom in UK O, whilst providing some wonderful models recently at more affordable prices, has pushed the scale more & more towards the mainstream, and I'm finding my interest in it waning.

 

Back to the relative size of different scales, I'm sure I saw a comment on RMweb recently about how for UK outline, T scale seems to be making more headway than Z ever did. Maybe the appeal for those who can see such tiny models is partly that it is significantly smaller than N, rather than just slightly smaller?