"O" scale or "HO" scale

Spender wrote:
> 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"...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spender wrote:

You reckon my models are toys, I reckon your toys are tinplate.
Fair's fair.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Spender wrote:

You might want to bone up on the meanings of "toy" and "model", in that case. Last I heard, they weren't interchangeable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Good afternoon Mark;

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Bright spake thus:

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)?
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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. {;^)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Fraser wrote:
>>> 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.
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
--
Carl Heinz
snipped-for-privacy@charter.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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 *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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.

Yes, a decades-old reversing mechanism (unless you use the unidirectional lockout lever) can be finicky at times.

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: snipped-for-privacy@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 23 May 2007 03:44:28 GMT, Spender wrote:

The tape residue is the least of your worries.
--
Steve

... while the train is in the station ...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RSC wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RSC wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.