|
DISCLAIMER:
?
This post is long. It discusses in specific terms issues we will all face if we live long enough. If you have no interest, or I am tedious to you, then move along. You have been warned.
?
?
S Scale In View Of The Inevitable:
?
As some of you may recall, I was pursuing an urban switching layout in S scale for a few years. (2006-2010 or so?) The layout was to be scale, not Hi-rail.
?
Also, as you S scale proponents well know, S scale truly is a wonderful size.
?
Unfortunately, my dissatisfaction with S scale came about because of product variety and other elements that detracted to the point I jumped ship and went back to HO.
?
With the advent of having an out building constructed in 2016, that opened up new horizons for me in regards to layout options. I debated whether to stay with my Kansas City Lines urban industrial theme, but merely expanding upon it, or jumping ship to modeling a freelanced Colorado theme via 19th century steam.
?
As I debated my options, my railroad career drew a close and I retired in April of 2018. Now it was time to "poop or get off the pot". After a bit more debate, I crap canned the 19th century idea and returned to my roots: Diesel railroading in the Ozarks. I revived my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme in HO and began to plan in the direction.
?
By July of 2019 I had a 15' x 19' layout up and 100% operational. Since then I've been enjoying my KC&G "Ozark Sub" layout and modeling projects, including hosting friends for op sessions/etc.
?
HOWEVER, there's that inevitable part...
?
I am aging. In about three weeks I'll be 73.
?
I notice my hands aren't as easily accomplishing working with .012" drills, 0000 paint brushes, etc, etc, as they did just a few short years ago.
?
Thus, I intend to enjoy my HO as long as I can, but I am aware that I am not getting younger.
?
THUS...
?
Let's say I live to a ripe old age. As I do, there is the very real possibility that eventually my hands will not be steady enough to do the exacting work that's required for fine art type modeling, thus it becomes too challenging to work with smaller-by-the-year HO sized trains. (Such as the simple act of re-railing them after you knock some over thru less dexterity.)
?
That so... What then?
?
Well, seems that the most logical path is to sell off the HO equipment, dismantle the Ozark Sub (the layout in the out building), then sell the portable building that housed it. Gone. Time to live out my remaining time doing something else.
?
And "something else" is where I'm headed here in this drivelogue.
?
The other night, as I pondered the future (I am a compulsive "life planner" type personality) it hit me that I still have this around-the-wall-and-through-the-closet benchwork still in place.
It's already built. It already has Homasote in place, and with the re-installation of the drop bridge (which would only require less than a dozen dry wall screws), it can even have continuous run capability.
?
So, my life plan is...
?
When HO is too frustrating, instead of letting it languish, liquidate it, and move on.
?
Think: Bigger, more robust, and much simpler trains. Simpler to work on (maintain), simpler to re-rail, more robust features to survive inadvertently being knocked over, etc.
?
Sure, they won't be exacting little scale beauties as can be found in HO or high fidelity S scale modeling, and no, they won't have all the finer details that I currently add, etc, BUT... they WILL be miniature trains moving about and working the wonder that only moving miniature trains can work.
?
Now, what type of "bigger and more robust" trains would go onto the existing bench work? Well, there's 3 rail... OR...
?
There's S Hi-rail.
?
With S Hi-rail, I would get the ability to run 2 rail trains on acceptable looking track that are big enough to handle easier, AND some of the vintage (and newer) American Flyer S stuff is quite nice in a simplistic way.
?
What opened my eyes to S Hi-Rail as viable "Geezer Sized" trains are some photos that appear over at the O Gauge Railroading S scale forum. Take this photo for example (attachment IMG_3224):
?
?
That's a pure AF switcher sitting on code .138" rail among sincere scenery. Not bad at all. Relettered appropriately, very nice indeed.
?
Plus, there are other AF examples that have very pleasing lines, such as these models:
?
IMG_9040:
?
?
IMG_9986:
?
?
The above photos, along with further investigation, indicates to me that there ARE viable options so I can continue to enjoy larger model trains until I'm simply unable to. SO, I now have a plan: This computer room bench work isn't going anywhere.
?
Instead, I now view this existing benchwork as more of a safety net for me now.
?
This computer room benchework can very likely be the place that I can fall back to, and without requiring anything NEAR the exacting labor and fine motor skills and eyesight that scale modeling in HO requires... I can still enjoy the immense pleasure to found in?creating something visually impressionistic, yet interesting within model railroading.
?
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
?
With the above approach, I could easily model a late 1940s/early 1950s Kansas City area look usng BIGGER and more ROBUST trains, and by doing so, I can continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of watching miniature trains move about in my little miniature world.
?
After all, when you really deduce it down to the essentials, isn't that the essence of model railroading?
?
Sincerely,
?
Andre Ming
|
Hi Andre: Interesting that you should show an 0-8-0 in your first picture.? I have been running SHS, AM and flyonel more modern high rail electronic stuff.? The visit of a grandchild from the US and his operation of same, led me to pull out of a storage box a 342 with latch coupler.? He and I cleaned it up, re-oiled/re-greased it, put it on the track (SHS 133 pound equivalent mainline), and after 45-50 years of storage in a?cool but low humidity place, it started up and ran like a champion (with a little sparking from the pick-up wheels).? I must admit I probably should have looked at the problem of lack of smoke, but my grandchild was only here for two days after taking it out of the box so it never got done.
If you want to, send me an email at rvelapoldi@... and we might discuss some other options that might be of interest to you. regards, Rance Velapoldi? (Tranby, Norway)
DISCLAIMER:
?
This post is long. It discusses in specific terms issues we will all face if we live long enough. If you have no interest, or I am tedious to you, then move along. You have been warned.
?
?
S Scale In View Of The Inevitable:
?
As some of you may recall, I was pursuing an urban switching layout in S scale for a few years. (2006-2010 or so?) The layout was to be scale, not Hi-rail.
?
Also, as you S scale proponents well know, S scale truly is a wonderful size.
?
Unfortunately, my dissatisfaction with S scale came about because of product variety and other elements that detracted to the point I jumped ship and went back to HO.
?
With the advent of having an out building constructed in 2016, that opened up new horizons for me in regards to layout options. I debated whether to stay with my Kansas City Lines urban industrial theme, but merely expanding upon it, or jumping ship to modeling a freelanced Colorado theme via 19th century steam.
?
As I debated my options, my railroad career drew a close and I retired in April of 2018. Now it was time to "poop or get off the pot". After a bit more debate, I crap canned the 19th century idea and returned to my roots: Diesel railroading in the Ozarks. I revived my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme in HO and began to plan in the direction.
?
By July of 2019 I had a 15' x 19' layout up and 100% operational. Since then I've been enjoying my KC&G "Ozark Sub" layout and modeling projects, including hosting friends for op sessions/etc.
?
HOWEVER, there's that inevitable part...
?
I am aging. In about three weeks I'll be 73.
?
I notice my hands aren't as easily accomplishing working with .012" drills, 0000 paint brushes, etc, etc, as they did just a few short years ago.
?
Thus, I intend to enjoy my HO as long as I can, but I am aware that I am not getting younger.
?
THUS...
?
Let's say I live to a ripe old age. As I do, there is the very real possibility that eventually my hands will not be steady enough to do the exacting work that's required for fine art type modeling, thus it becomes too challenging to work with smaller-by-the-year HO sized trains. (Such as the simple act of re-railing them after you knock some over thru less dexterity.)
?
That so... What then?
?
Well, seems that the most logical path is to sell off the HO equipment, dismantle the Ozark Sub (the layout in the out building), then sell the portable building that housed it. Gone. Time to live out my remaining time doing something else.
?
And "something else" is where I'm headed here in this drivelogue.
?
The other night, as I pondered the future (I am a compulsive "life planner" type personality) it hit me that I still have this around-the-wall-and-through-the-closet benchwork still in place.
It's already built. It already has Homasote in place, and with the re-installation of the drop bridge (which would only require less than a dozen dry wall screws), it can even have continuous run capability.
?
So, my life plan is...
?
When HO is too frustrating, instead of letting it languish, liquidate it, and move on.
?
Think: Bigger, more robust, and much simpler trains. Simpler to work on (maintain), simpler to re-rail, more robust features to survive inadvertently being knocked over, etc.
?
Sure, they won't be exacting little scale beauties as can be found in HO or high fidelity S scale modeling, and no, they won't have all the finer details that I currently add, etc, BUT... they WILL be miniature trains moving about and working the wonder that only moving miniature trains can work.
?
Now, what type of "bigger and more robust" trains would go onto the existing bench work? Well, there's 3 rail... OR...
?
There's S Hi-rail.
?
With S Hi-rail, I would get the ability to run 2 rail trains on acceptable looking track that are big enough to handle easier, AND some of the vintage (and newer) American Flyer S stuff is quite nice in a simplistic way.
?
What opened my eyes to S Hi-Rail as viable "Geezer Sized" trains are some photos that appear over at the O Gauge Railroading S scale forum. Take this photo for example (attachment IMG_3224):
?
?
That's a pure AF switcher sitting on code .138" rail among sincere scenery. Not bad at all. Relettered appropriately, very nice indeed.
?
Plus, there are other AF examples that have very pleasing lines, such as these models:
?
IMG_9040:
?
?
IMG_9986:
?
?
The above photos, along with further investigation, indicates to me that there ARE viable options so I can continue to enjoy larger model trains until I'm simply unable to. SO, I now have a plan: This computer room bench work isn't going anywhere.
?
Instead, I now view this existing benchwork as more of a safety net for me now.
?
This computer room benchework can very likely be the place that I can fall back to, and without requiring anything NEAR the exacting labor and fine motor skills and eyesight that scale modeling in HO requires... I can still enjoy the immense pleasure to found in?creating something visually impressionistic, yet interesting within model railroading.
?
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
?
With the above approach, I could easily model a late 1940s/early 1950s Kansas City area look usng BIGGER and more ROBUST trains, and by doing so, I can continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of watching miniature trains move about in my little miniature world.
?
After all, when you really deduce it down to the essentials, isn't that the essence of model railroading?
?
Sincerely,
?
Andre Ming
|
Hi Andre,
I like your thought process.? I'm about a decade younger, but catching up to you.
I'm currently building a layout using code 138 shs/mth FlexTrack.? I run Flyer, AM and SHS as you propose to. Currently using the oversized Flyer? Couplers, but plan to switch to kaydees sometime.
? ?Switches for the code 138 rail have been a problem.? I am hand assembling them, but it seems recent changes in the marketplace might alleviate that.
One thing I would strongly recommend, both for ease of use and as a concession to age, is dead rail.? Comes with sound, lights, all the bells and whistles.? We don't need to be crawling around under the layout tracing shorts or cleaning track.? There's good info on the nasg page about dead rail.? I am using Railpro, but I hear good things about Bluenami too.
You can always run wire later if you like, for track and accessories.? I did and it allows me to run original flyer and my modern dead rail engines, on the same track at the same time.
? ?Deadrail also more prototypical if that appeals to you.
Best,
Jack Kelly?
On Feb 12, 2025 11:30 AM, "Rance Velapoldi via groups.io" <rvelapoldi@...> wrote: Hi Andre: Interesting that you should show an 0-8-0 in your first picture.? I have been running SHS, AM and flyonel more modern high rail electronic stuff.? The visit of a grandchild from the US and his operation of same, led me to pull out of a storage box a 342 with latch coupler.? He and I cleaned it up, re-oiled/re-greased it, put it on the track (SHS 133 pound equivalent mainline), and after 45-50 years of storage in a?cool but low humidity place, it started up and ran like a champion (with a little sparking from the pick-up wheels).? I must admit I probably should have looked at the problem of lack of smoke, but my grandchild was only here for two days after taking it out of the box so it never got done.
If you want to, send me an email at rvelapoldi@... and we might discuss some other options that might be of interest to you. regards, Rance Velapoldi? (Tranby, Norway)
DISCLAIMER:
?
This post is long. It discusses in specific terms issues we will all face if we live long enough. If you have no interest, or I am tedious to you, then move along. You have been warned.
?
?
S Scale In View Of The Inevitable:
?
As some of you may recall, I was pursuing an urban switching layout in S scale for a few years. (2006-2010 or so?) The layout was to be scale, not Hi-rail.
?
Also, as you S scale proponents well know, S scale truly is a wonderful size.
?
Unfortunately, my dissatisfaction with S scale came about because of product variety and other elements that detracted to the point I jumped ship and went back to HO.
?
With the advent of having an out building constructed in 2016, that opened up new horizons for me in regards to layout options. I debated whether to stay with my Kansas City Lines urban industrial theme, but merely expanding upon it, or jumping ship to modeling a freelanced Colorado theme via 19th century steam.
?
As I debated my options, my railroad career drew a close and I retired in April of 2018. Now it was time to "poop or get off the pot". After a bit more debate, I crap canned the 19th century idea and returned to my roots: Diesel railroading in the Ozarks. I revived my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme in HO and began to plan in the direction.
?
By July of 2019 I had a 15' x 19' layout up and 100% operational. Since then I've been enjoying my KC&G "Ozark Sub" layout and modeling projects, including hosting friends for op sessions/etc.
?
HOWEVER, there's that inevitable part...
?
I am aging. In about three weeks I'll be 73.
?
I notice my hands aren't as easily accomplishing working with .012" drills, 0000 paint brushes, etc, etc, as they did just a few short years ago.
?
Thus, I intend to enjoy my HO as long as I can, but I am aware that I am not getting younger.
?
THUS...
?
Let's say I live to a ripe old age. As I do, there is the very real possibility that eventually my hands will not be steady enough to do the exacting work that's required for fine art type modeling, thus it becomes too challenging to work with smaller-by-the-year HO sized trains. (Such as the simple act of re-railing them after you knock some over thru less dexterity.)
?
That so... What then?
?
Well, seems that the most logical path is to sell off the HO equipment, dismantle the Ozark Sub (the layout in the out building), then sell the portable building that housed it. Gone. Time to live out my remaining time doing something else.
?
And "something else" is where I'm headed here in this drivelogue.
?
The other night, as I pondered the future (I am a compulsive "life planner" type personality) it hit me that I still have this around-the-wall-and-through-the-closet benchwork still in place.
It's already built. It already has Homasote in place, and with the re-installation of the drop bridge (which would only require less than a dozen dry wall screws), it can even have continuous run capability.
?
So, my life plan is...
?
When HO is too frustrating, instead of letting it languish, liquidate it, and move on.
?
Think: Bigger, more robust, and much simpler trains. Simpler to work on (maintain), simpler to re-rail, more robust features to survive inadvertently being knocked over, etc.
?
Sure, they won't be exacting little scale beauties as can be found in HO or high fidelity S scale modeling, and no, they won't have all the finer details that I currently add, etc, BUT... they WILL be miniature trains moving about and working the wonder that only moving miniature trains can work.
?
Now, what type of "bigger and more robust" trains would go onto the existing bench work? Well, there's 3 rail... OR...
?
There's S Hi-rail.
?
With S Hi-rail, I would get the ability to run 2 rail trains on acceptable looking track that are big enough to handle easier, AND some of the vintage (and newer) American Flyer S stuff is quite nice in a simplistic way.
?
What opened my eyes to S Hi-Rail as viable "Geezer Sized" trains are some photos that appear over at the O Gauge Railroading S scale forum. Take this photo for example (attachment IMG_3224):
?
?
That's a pure AF switcher sitting on code .138" rail among sincere scenery. Not bad at all. Relettered appropriately, very nice indeed.
?
Plus, there are other AF examples that have very pleasing lines, such as these models:
?
IMG_9040:
?
?
IMG_9986:
?
?
The above photos, along with further investigation, indicates to me that there ARE viable options so I can continue to enjoy larger model trains until I'm simply unable to. SO, I now have a plan: This computer room bench work isn't going anywhere.
?
Instead, I now view this existing benchwork as more of a safety net for me now.
?
This computer room benchework can very likely be the place that I can fall back to, and without requiring anything NEAR the exacting labor and fine motor skills and eyesight that scale modeling in HO requires... I can still enjoy the immense pleasure to found in?creating something visually impressionistic, yet interesting within model railroading.
?
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
?
With the above approach, I could easily model a late 1940s/early 1950s Kansas City area look usng BIGGER and more ROBUST trains, and by doing so, I can continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of watching miniature trains move about in my little miniature world.
?
After all, when you really deduce it down to the essentials, isn't that the essence of model railroading?
?
Sincerely,
?
Andre Ming
|
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 07:50 AM, Andre Ming wrote:
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
Just as a reinforcement Andre, a hirail train looks a lot like a scale train...
?
Then there's always this Brooks Stover guy, a fellow of some repute:
?
Rich G(ajnak)
|
Hi Andre, If interested, I currently operate a traditional AF High Rail layout operating Postwar AC Gilbert items as well as American Models and a few S-Helper.? I post videos on all the social media platforms.? If interested please follow this link to youtube:
If you scroll through the video shorts you will see the variety I mentioned in operation. If you care to follow on Facebook, I have a fan page cleverly titled Austin's American Flyer.? Searching on Instagram @americanflyertrainfun and TikTok Americanflyerfun? will connect you to additional content...much of it is common across the different platforms.
I've recently begun planing for a second layout that will use American Models code 148 track and switches.? While this still is a bit tall for the scale world, it will be a step in the right direction from Code 177 original flyer track.
DISCLAIMER:
?
This post is long. It discusses in specific terms issues we will all face if we live long enough. If you have no interest, or I am tedious to you, then move along. You have been warned.
?
?
S Scale In View Of The Inevitable:
?
As some of you may recall, I was pursuing an urban switching layout in S scale for a few years. (2006-2010 or so?) The layout was to be scale, not Hi-rail.
?
Also, as you S scale proponents well know, S scale truly is a wonderful size.
?
Unfortunately, my dissatisfaction with S scale came about because of product variety and other elements that detracted to the point I jumped ship and went back to HO.
?
With the advent of having an out building constructed in 2016, that opened up new horizons for me in regards to layout options. I debated whether to stay with my Kansas City Lines urban industrial theme, but merely expanding upon it, or jumping ship to modeling a freelanced Colorado theme via 19th century steam.
?
As I debated my options, my railroad career drew a close and I retired in April of 2018. Now it was time to "poop or get off the pot". After a bit more debate, I crap canned the 19th century idea and returned to my roots: Diesel railroading in the Ozarks. I revived my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme in HO and began to plan in the direction.
?
By July of 2019 I had a 15' x 19' layout up and 100% operational. Since then I've been enjoying my KC&G "Ozark Sub" layout and modeling projects, including hosting friends for op sessions/etc.
?
HOWEVER, there's that inevitable part...
?
I am aging. In about three weeks I'll be 73.
?
I notice my hands aren't as easily accomplishing working with .012" drills, 0000 paint brushes, etc, etc, as they did just a few short years ago.
?
Thus, I intend to enjoy my HO as long as I can, but I am aware that I am not getting younger.
?
THUS...
?
Let's say I live to a ripe old age. As I do, there is the very real possibility that eventually my hands will not be steady enough to do the exacting work that's required for fine art type modeling, thus it becomes too challenging to work with smaller-by-the-year HO sized trains. (Such as the simple act of re-railing them after you knock some over thru less dexterity.)
?
That so... What then?
?
Well, seems that the most logical path is to sell off the HO equipment, dismantle the Ozark Sub (the layout in the out building), then sell the portable building that housed it. Gone. Time to live out my remaining time doing something else.
?
And "something else" is where I'm headed here in this drivelogue.
?
The other night, as I pondered the future (I am a compulsive "life planner" type personality) it hit me that I still have this around-the-wall-and-through-the-closet benchwork still in place.
It's already built. It already has Homasote in place, and with the re-installation of the drop bridge (which would only require less than a dozen dry wall screws), it can even have continuous run capability.
?
So, my life plan is...
?
When HO is too frustrating, instead of letting it languish, liquidate it, and move on.
?
Think: Bigger, more robust, and much simpler trains. Simpler to work on (maintain), simpler to re-rail, more robust features to survive inadvertently being knocked over, etc.
?
Sure, they won't be exacting little scale beauties as can be found in HO or high fidelity S scale modeling, and no, they won't have all the finer details that I currently add, etc, BUT... they WILL be miniature trains moving about and working the wonder that only moving miniature trains can work.
?
Now, what type of "bigger and more robust" trains would go onto the existing bench work? Well, there's 3 rail... OR...
?
There's S Hi-rail.
?
With S Hi-rail, I would get the ability to run 2 rail trains on acceptable looking track that are big enough to handle easier, AND some of the vintage (and newer) American Flyer S stuff is quite nice in a simplistic way.
?
What opened my eyes to S Hi-Rail as viable "Geezer Sized" trains are some photos that appear over at the O Gauge Railroading S scale forum. Take this photo for example (attachment IMG_3224):
?
?
That's a pure AF switcher sitting on code .138" rail among sincere scenery. Not bad at all. Relettered appropriately, very nice indeed.
?
Plus, there are other AF examples that have very pleasing lines, such as these models:
?
IMG_9040:
?
?
IMG_9986:
?
?
The above photos, along with further investigation, indicates to me that there ARE viable options so I can continue to enjoy larger model trains until I'm simply unable to. SO, I now have a plan: This computer room bench work isn't going anywhere.
?
Instead, I now view this existing benchwork as more of a safety net for me now.
?
This computer room benchework can very likely be the place that I can fall back to, and without requiring anything NEAR the exacting labor and fine motor skills and eyesight that scale modeling in HO requires... I can still enjoy the immense pleasure to found in?creating something visually impressionistic, yet interesting within model railroading.
?
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
?
With the above approach, I could easily model a late 1940s/early 1950s Kansas City area look usng BIGGER and more ROBUST trains, and by doing so, I can continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of watching miniature trains move about in my little miniature world.
?
After all, when you really deduce it down to the essentials, isn't that the essence of model railroading?
?
Sincerely,
?
Andre Ming
|
After getting back into the hobby in the mid 70's, I grabbed a
handrail leading me back into S like a pilgrim on a mission!? Now
at 76, I understand what everybody has been dealing with the
dexterity issue.? Generally this mission has gone fairly well
starting with getting out of my mobile home into a concrete based
home.? Actually a good way would be to buy a second RR trailer but
mobile homes are generally dismissed down here except for low end
situations, unfortunately, not to mention tornados seem to visit
those areas!
About the time I turned 40and in a home, I was still ready and
able to build my own addition (with some hired and volunteered
labor) resulting in a decent space to start my only chance at a
decent layout.? I knew it was going to be a one shot thing and I
well knew I didn't have the cash to have someone else be on the
payroll.
So now, indeed my hands don't work as well as they should, along
with my knees (for crawling and dragging wires) and eyes--meaning
I've started 15 years too late!? Since I've always been in S, I
didn't have to do rubber gauging very much so the original mission
was correct.? The dead rail thing would be nice but it's too
costly at this time and soldering tiny wires is not my favorite
thing to do either.? So I've had some challenges but if the RR
welfare police asked me "are you 'okay'?"? I can honestly say==I'm
doing darn good... but if could spare a young helper who knows
DCC, please send him over!
Bob Werre
PhotoTraxx
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
Thank you for your kind comments Jack.
?
I don't want to over saturate this scale-oriented list with Hi Rail discussuions, but I did think it noteworthy to mention the inevitability of us aging, and what sort of impact that can/wll have on the ability to indulge into, and continue to enjoy, exacting modeling.
?
Thus,?in my case, I may very likely become involved in?S scale again, but for totally different reasons than was the case for me?previously. Gone will be the desire for small scale size rail, fine detail, and such. At that point?in my modeling journey?I will want to leave behind tiny detail parts and tiny drills and tools, instead preferring?a more simplistic approach that has?a pleasing visual presentation without the tinyness or tedium of exacting scale modeling.
?
Until then, I will continue to make progress and pursue my HO endeavor.
?
Andre Ming
|
Hi Rich.
?
Your pics nicely illustrate what I''m coming to realize.
?
As for Brooks Stover:
?
What Brooks has accomplished left me wondering why in the world I beat my brains out trying to pursue what I was pursuing in S scale previously.
?
So, yes, Brooks Stover has been a very important factor in my willingness to make a change later in life if I see the need.
?
Case in point: Should the time come that I re-enter S scale via the approach I've mentioned, AM's Baldwin switcher, complete with the totally wrong trucks and largish handrails, will be just fine and dandy and I'll be glad to have it.
?
?
Andre
|
Hello Andre
I thought I had to switch all my flyer couplers to Kadee!!!!
But have sooo many cars that is all I would be doing.
Sooooo my new restored cars are getting Kadee
And my cars that have flyer couplers are staying flyer
Life is tooo short…age 75….to be that particular now!!!!
One yard has flyer couplers and the other yard has Kadee
Just an idea
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Feb 12, 2025, at 12:27?PM, jack kelly via groups.io <jackfkelly@...> wrote:
?
Hi Andre,
I like your thought process.? I'm about a decade younger, but catching up to you.
I'm currently building a layout using code 138 shs/mth FlexTrack.? I run Flyer, AM and SHS as you propose to.
Currently using the oversized Flyer? Couplers, but plan to switch to kaydees sometime.
? ?Switches for the code 138 rail have been a problem.? I am hand assembling them, but it seems recent changes in the marketplace might alleviate that.
One thing I would strongly recommend, both for ease of use and as a concession to age, is dead rail.? Comes with sound, lights, all the bells and whistles.? We don't need to be crawling around under the layout tracing shorts or cleaning track.?
There's good info on the nasg page about dead rail.? I am using Railpro, but I hear good things about Bluenami too.
You can always run wire later if you like, for track and accessories.? I did and it allows me to run original flyer and my modern dead rail engines, on the same track at the same time.
? ?Deadrail also more prototypical if that appeals to you.
Best,
Jack Kelly?
|
Always liked the AF 0 8 0? s that Brooks Stover converted to 2 8 0? with the small drivers.? ? ?Stan
Hi Andre: Interesting that you should show an 0-8-0 in your first picture.? I have been running SHS, AM and flyonel more modern high rail electronic stuff.? The visit of a grandchild from the US and his operation of same, led me to pull out of a storage box a 342 with latch coupler.? He and I cleaned it up, re-oiled/re-greased it, put it on the track (SHS 133 pound equivalent mainline), and after 45-50 years of storage in a?cool but low humidity place, it started up and ran like a champion (with a little sparking from the pick-up wheels).? I must admit I probably should have looked at the problem of lack of smoke, but my grandchild was only here for two days after taking it out of the box so it never got done.
If you want to, send me an email at rvelapoldi@... and we might discuss some other options that might be of interest to you. regards, Rance Velapoldi? (Tranby, Norway)
DISCLAIMER:
?
This post is long. It discusses in specific terms issues we will all face if we live long enough. If you have no interest, or I am tedious to you, then move along. You have been warned.
?
?
S Scale In View Of The Inevitable:
?
As some of you may recall, I was pursuing an urban switching layout in S scale for a few years. (2006-2010 or so?) The layout was to be scale, not Hi-rail.
?
Also, as you S scale proponents well know, S scale truly is a wonderful size.
?
Unfortunately, my dissatisfaction with S scale came about because of product variety and other elements that detracted to the point I jumped ship and went back to HO.
?
With the advent of having an out building constructed in 2016, that opened up new horizons for me in regards to layout options. I debated whether to stay with my Kansas City Lines urban industrial theme, but merely expanding upon it, or jumping ship to modeling a freelanced Colorado theme via 19th century steam.
?
As I debated my options, my railroad career drew a close and I retired in April of 2018. Now it was time to "poop or get off the pot". After a bit more debate, I crap canned the 19th century idea and returned to my roots: Diesel railroading in the Ozarks. I revived my "Kansas City & Gulf" theme in HO and began to plan in the direction.
?
By July of 2019 I had a 15' x 19' layout up and 100% operational. Since then I've been enjoying my KC&G "Ozark Sub" layout and modeling projects, including hosting friends for op sessions/etc.
?
HOWEVER, there's that inevitable part...
?
I am aging. In about three weeks I'll be 73.
?
I notice my hands aren't as easily accomplishing working with .012" drills, 0000 paint brushes, etc, etc, as they did just a few short years ago.
?
Thus, I intend to enjoy my HO as long as I can, but I am aware that I am not getting younger.
?
THUS...
?
Let's say I live to a ripe old age. As I do, there is the very real possibility that eventually my hands will not be steady enough to do the exacting work that's required for fine art type modeling, thus it becomes too challenging to work with smaller-by-the-year HO sized trains. (Such as the simple act of re-railing them after you knock some over thru less dexterity.)
?
That so... What then?
?
Well, seems that the most logical path is to sell off the HO equipment, dismantle the Ozark Sub (the layout in the out building), then sell the portable building that housed it. Gone. Time to live out my remaining time doing something else.
?
And "something else" is where I'm headed here in this drivelogue.
?
The other night, as I pondered the future (I am a compulsive "life planner" type personality) it hit me that I still have this around-the-wall-and-through-the-closet benchwork still in place.
It's already built. It already has Homasote in place, and with the re-installation of the drop bridge (which would only require less than a dozen dry wall screws), it can even have continuous run capability.
?
So, my life plan is...
?
When HO is too frustrating, instead of letting it languish, liquidate it, and move on.
?
Think: Bigger, more robust, and much simpler trains. Simpler to work on (maintain), simpler to re-rail, more robust features to survive inadvertently being knocked over, etc.
?
Sure, they won't be exacting little scale beauties as can be found in HO or high fidelity S scale modeling, and no, they won't have all the finer details that I currently add, etc, BUT... they WILL be miniature trains moving about and working the wonder that only moving miniature trains can work.
?
Now, what type of "bigger and more robust" trains would go onto the existing bench work? Well, there's 3 rail... OR...
?
There's S Hi-rail.
?
With S Hi-rail, I would get the ability to run 2 rail trains on acceptable looking track that are big enough to handle easier, AND some of the vintage (and newer) American Flyer S stuff is quite nice in a simplistic way.
?
What opened my eyes to S Hi-Rail as viable "Geezer Sized" trains are some photos that appear over at the O Gauge Railroading S scale forum. Take this photo for example (attachment IMG_3224):
?
?
That's a pure AF switcher sitting on code .138" rail among sincere scenery. Not bad at all. Relettered appropriately, very nice indeed.
?
Plus, there are other AF examples that have very pleasing lines, such as these models:
?
IMG_9040:
?
?
IMG_9986:
?
?
The above photos, along with further investigation, indicates to me that there ARE viable options so I can continue to enjoy larger model trains until I'm simply unable to. SO, I now have a plan: This computer room bench work isn't going anywhere.
?
Instead, I now view this existing benchwork as more of a safety net for me now.
?
This computer room benchework can very likely be the place that I can fall back to, and without requiring anything NEAR the exacting labor and fine motor skills and eyesight that scale modeling in HO requires... I can still enjoy the immense pleasure to found in?creating something visually impressionistic, yet interesting within model railroading.
?
After all, this small room would again lend itself well to urban railroading using a mixture of American Flyer, American Models, and possibly some SHS engines and equipment upon code 138 or 148 rail. As for couplers, either stay with the oversized AF knuckles, or if my dexerity and eyesight allow, switch them over to Kadee 802's.
?
With the above approach, I could easily model a late 1940s/early 1950s Kansas City area look usng BIGGER and more ROBUST trains, and by doing so, I can continue to enjoy the simple pleasure of watching miniature trains move about in my little miniature world.
?
After all, when you really deduce it down to the essentials, isn't that the essence of model railroading?
?
Sincerely,
?
Andre Ming
|
I think this is a very valid topic, glad to see it was posted (thanks, Andre) and I hope it gets more input.
?
I wonder if sometimes we put too much emphasis on the height of the rail, therefore labeling it as "high rail".
?
In N scale. a layout that uses code 80 as opposed to 55 is not called "high rail";
?
In HO, code 83 is fine, although 70 looks better; does that mean 83 is "high rail"? I don't believe I've ever heard of such a thing in either of those two smaller scales.
?
With that in mind, I'm perfectly satisfied with using American Models track, with its code 148; it's the same size as what I use for O scale, but it's not so big to look...
?
..."overly oversize".
?
And yes, those old Flyer "toy trains" were certainly built to last...and are easy (and fun!) to work on.
?
It's all good.
?
Mark in Oregon
|
Hello Rance!
?
Thank you for thinking of my situation.
At this point, it is a bit early for me to start considering heavy investments into my S Hi Rail idea, so I would not be
purchasing "en masse" for some time.
?
What I may do at some point in the next year or so, is purchase a target AF engine,?some sticks of?track from suppliers for samples and possibly a switch from each.
?
Thereon I would like to see how well an AF/Gilbert 0-8-0 can be made to run.
?
I expect I amd going to?be pariticipating more in the S scale forum over at OGR (where Hi Rail is more accepted and in the majority). It will be there I am going to ask/learn about the possibility of?adapting AF/Gilber engines?to pure DC. My thinking would be, that if they can be adapted to pure DC, then I would like?to experiement?putting sound/DCC therein. IF that's practical, it would be intention to convert the small amount of AF/Gilbert engines I may have in the future so that I could?enjoy them via?one of my NCE systems. (I have two NCE/RC systems, one out in the layout building and one here in this computer room.)
?
So,?very soon I will be taking my S Hi Rail disccussions over the OGR so as not to become more tedious to those here.
?
Andre Ming
|
Bob Werre
Roger Haag
Mark Mugnai