Interestingly enough the Marx William Crooks loco was fairly close to 1/48 scale size (at least when compared with plans in my copy or "Civil War Railroads and thier Models" by E. P. Alexander) and visually appears to be smallish compared with to more "modern" style 1/48 scale cars (although it does match-up well with the Lionel General set passenger cars). Oddly enough, Marx's passenger cars were actually more like 3/16" scale (i.e. 1/64 or "S" scale), so the Crooks was even more visually larger compared to its cars as the Lionel General was to its matching cars!
Iam sure Becky had it right, that is that 1:43 was the next scale up that was big enouph to get a motor in, in the 1950's.
thank you MONK
I have two sets of the Railking 4-6-0's, AT&SF & D&RGW, that are great little runners. My only complaint is not being able to find some period appropriate passengers. The Overton cars are a bit undersized so it would be a tight fit unless there were some in S scale.
Remember the Veterans. Past, present and future.
www.sd3r.org
Proud New Member Of The NRA
Good to know!
Personally I like the Columbia.
Becky
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
The notion that Gilbert originally called the 4-8-4 a Challenger comes from the names of two of the 6 Union Pacific train sets offered in 1941. The least expensive train sets headed by a UP 4-8-4 were "The Challenger Freight Set" and "The Challenger Passenger Set" they consisted of a basic UP 4-8-4 (which was identified in the catalog text as "A Northern Type") and either sheet metal freight or passenger cars - the cars were basic and non-operating. Set prices were $25.50
The explanation to this may be that the sets were named after the Union Pacific TRAIN "The Challenger, and not the Locomotive type. The UP did have a Passenger train named The Challenger, which IIRC, was pulled by 4-8-4s and 4-6-6-4s as well as possibly some others
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Ah yes, the old "Challenger" myth - I don't know anything about the post war period but in the pre-war period A.C. Glibert never identified the Union Pacific 4-8-4 as a Challenger. It was referred to as the"Mighty Power of the Union Pacific" and it was referred to as a 4-8-4 and as a "Northern Type" and nothing else.
The notion that Gilbert originally called the 4-8-4 a Challenger comes from the names of two of the 6 Union Pacific train sets offered in 1941. The least expensive train sets headed by a UP 4-8-4 were "The Challenger Freight Set" and "The Challenger Passenger Set" they consisted of a basic UP 4-8-4 (which was identified in the catalog text as "A Northern Type") and either sheet metal freight or passenger cars - the cars were basic and non-operating. Set prices were $25.50.
The next two sets were called "The Northern Freight Set" and "The Northern Passenger Set". The UP 4-8-4 in these sets came with a "Choo-Choo" mechanism and the cars were sheet metal and included operating cars - freight had the armored car flat car and the passenger had the operating baggage. Set prices were $32.95.
The last two were "The Union Pacific Freight Set" and "The Union Pacific Passenger Set". The engines had "Choo-Choo" mechanisms and the cars were die-cast. Set prices were $44.50.
As for O gauge models of a Challenger - in 1941 Lobaugh offered the D&H 4-6-6-4 (ready to run was $237.50 and there were three levels of kits with prices ranging from $172.50 to $76.00 - priced depending on how much prefabrication work was done at the factory). They also offered a UP 4-6-6-4 Challenger and an NP class Z-6 with the same price ranges.
As for making 4-4-0 engines oversize - only in the toy train world. Lobaugh, Max Gray, Great Western and Thomas offered scale 4-4-0's with engines either in the tender or in the locomotive body. When mounted in the body the motor took up all of the cab space so there was no possibility of putting in a detailed backhead.
challenger3980 Becky, Just an FYI, a Challenger is a 4-6-6-4 type, a 4-8-4 is most commonly known as a "Northern" but is also known as Golden State, Niagara, Greenbrier, Wyoming, Dixie and others, the 4-8-4 type probably has more "names" than any other wheel arrangement. Doug
Becky,
Just an FYI, a Challenger is a 4-6-6-4 type, a 4-8-4 is most commonly known as a "Northern" but is also known as Golden State, Niagara, Greenbrier, Wyoming, Dixie and others, the 4-8-4 type probably has more "names" than any other wheel arrangement.
Oh I know, it's a misnomer.
I don't exactly know the full story of why Flyer named that particular 4-8-4 "The Challenger" but I suspect it had something to do with the UP shield on the tender. Besides, a TRUE model of a Challenger, Big Boy, Allegheny, Y6B or Yellowstone would have been only a dream in those days. Can you imagine the pricetag one of those would have had in nineteen fifty-something? And they thought the scale Hudsons were expensive! lol
My very first train set was the Franklin set with my dad the next year giving me all the other American Flyer trains that he had to include a # 336 Northern a Pennsy K5 two PA1's and a GP7. The franklin and associated cars are closer to O scale narrow guage than S scale. I also have O scale now and the franklin looks great next to them. Besides being larger than S-Scale Gilbert also took other liberties to keep costs down. The trucks on the "old time" passenger cars are the same trucks used on the modern streamline passenger cars. They are just painted black. The smoke stack on the Franklin towers over every piece of S-Scale rolling stock. Gilbert made a cut out tunnel and pass set to raise the track higher than the standard trestles just so the Franklin could run safely in a over under figure 8 without snagging the track above on the smoke stack.
I've never seen Marklin O in person, but I do have an unmarked, unboxed set that's labeled as "Made in Western Germany" that I have as yet to fully identify. It's an 0-4-0 germanic steamer with tender and 2 round roof passenger cars. That particular set is much closer to American S-gauge in size yet it operates on O-gauge track. Needless to say the wheelbase is more than a little out of scale to the rest of the parts. I've also noticed this phenomenon with Hornby, both pre and post-war. So it seems to me that the tradition of playing fast and loose with scale probably started in europe. However I'd say there's good evidence that Lionel (especially) adopted 1:48 so that consumers wouldn't have to buy new track. 1:48 was simply as big as they could go. But I am curious what Atlas was up to when they brought out the 4-4-2 Atlantics.
As far as 4-4-0 American type 19th century steamers go, I suspect they're most often larger to avoid putting the motor in the tender. In HO engines of that type the motors often have to be in the tender. However SMR uses the tender power option on their brass 4-4-0's in O (see review in the December CTT). It's also easier to make fine details like handrails out of plastic if you go a step bigger. A prime example would be the handrails and bell on the Lionel General.
But the thought also strikes me that the size may have more to do with "play" than it does with scale.
The Lionel General set had a lot of play value and it has become the benchmark. It would be natural to assume that parents would have provided some cowboys and indians for the kids who had the Lionel General. The Marx army-type figures of the 50's and 60's were 54mm or roughly 2 1/4 inches high, so maybe the larger scale has become traditional so they look better along side western toys. How many layouts have you seen that have the General posed next to the Marx Fort Apache? Durability and "Ruggedness" were huge selling points also. That makes thicker parts important, especially if you were trying to maximize profits at the lowest price point possible. The thick plastic handrails of the General wouldn't have worked very well on a smaller boiler. (And it seems obvious that Lionel didn't want to use metal handrails since that would have added to the production time and costs.)
I guess the question I would ask is whether the General, both the original version and all subsequent color schemes using the same parts as the original, look better in a toy environment or a scale environment?
My answer would be if I had a General, I'd run it with toys rather than on a scale oriented layout. (I'd probably even have reservations about pairing it with Plasticville buildings.) But I wouldn't have those reservations about the MTH 19th century steamers since they have a higher level of separately applied details. The 999 Empire State Express engine comes to mind, and if I had one of those I'd have no problem running it along side a big Hudson.
I'm also interrested in what the Flyers guys think about this, especially those of you who own the Franklin set. I've never seen one of those next to a "Challenger" (4-8-4) in person either so I'm curious whether the same problem exists in S.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Engs." Engines? The various varieties of O scale (1/48, 1/45, 1/43.5 1/43) developed from attempts to match the scale of the trains to the Maerklin number 0 (or D) track gauge. Then multiple O gauges (1 1/4 inch, 32 millimeters, 33 millimeters, 1 3/16 inch, 1.177 inch) developed from attempts to match the gauge to the chosen scales. It's a jungle out there.
Bob Nelson
Thank you, so true O scale is 1/43. Then why are the Engs. other than the 19th century ones not done in 1/43?
The scale of 1/43.5 comes from the method favored (favoured?) by the British for defining a scale as the length in millimeters in the model per foot in the prototype. "Seven-millimeter scale" is equivalent to 1/43.542857. This is the O scale that HO is half of.
Why is it that all Lionel & MTH new & old 19th century Engs. are 1:43 scale? Is it becouse the older ones had to be that big to get a motor in them?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month