"O" scale or "HO" scale

Spender spake thus:

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?

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.

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:

Interesting, but doesn't address my question, which was specifically about the term "tinplate". But thanks for playing anyway.

You reckon my models are toys, I reckon your toys are tinplate.

Fair's fair.

You might want to bone up on the meanings of "toy" and "model", in that case. Last I heard, they weren't interchangeable.

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.

Tinplate: (rolled) iron plate coated with a very thin layer of tin based compound.

There's no such thing as scale models, according to you - there's only toys.

No, there's none. They're all toys, you've repeatedly said so.

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"...

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

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:

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. {;^)

Indeed. So, by that definition, something I *don't* play with is *not* a toy.

Ah, the argument from catch-phrase. Or is it the argument from bumper stickers? Either way, it doesn't convince me.

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

Sincerely,

John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: snipped-for-privacy@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory