Brass vs Diecast

I own a Williams J11 Norfolk and Western Brass engine and I am VERY happy with it. It was upgraded by the shop purchased it from with PS3 and it is a great pulling locomotive. I own diecast engines and feel they are about as fragile as the other.

Do they tend to have more detail ?  Most of my collection is pw and mpc and what I'm looking at seems to be nicer than what I already have.

Well, since a 1:1 locomotive has in its core a die-cast boiler that is wrapped in insulation (Asbestos in the day) and  covered with a sheet metal coat, the brass models look more analogous to my eye. The smoother precise running of my Williams and 3^rd-Rail locomotives on my home tubular track layout is a lot due to their sprung drivers. I used to take them to San Diego to run on the 3-Railers Club layout, and the only part that ever came off was the cab to tender platform on my 3^rd-Rail Mountain.

The Williams brass locomotives are good runners.  They could be considered "budget brass".  The detail will be less than most good quality brass produced in 2R going back almost 50 years or more in some cases. 

I have in 3 rail the following Williams brass locomotives:

1. N&W J class
2. NYC Niagara
3. NYC Hudson
4. PRR K4 (prewar)
5. Southern PS-4 Pacific
6. UP Challenger
7. CNJ 10 wheeler Camelback
8. PRR URSA Mikado
9. PRR T1
10. SP GS4 Daylight

They are decent runners with can motors.  Some run better than others to be fair.  They have simple electronic reversing boards and sueth smoke units.  For the price they are a good buy most of the time.  Brass won't suffer from zinc rot, but yes it can be more fragile.  For what it's worth the Williams units are much less fragile than my Sunset 2 rail locomotives which have a ton of detail, but I came out of HO and N so fragile is a relative term in O scale.

Given a choice I prefer brass.  Beyond Williams a majority of my steam locomotives are brass and my PRR fleet of heavyweight cars is increasingly becoming more brass heavy.  The biggest benefit is in the detail that you can't get in diecast.  However, having said that plastic renders detail better than diecast or brass

The Williams and Weaver brass engines from the early nineties were very well built. Easy to work on.Not loaded with fragile details. The lone exception were the Williams Masterpiece Hudson’s. That probably rivaled today’s offerings minus the command control.  Probably better detailed than Post War and MPC. Not as detailed as today’s Premier or Legacy diecast offerings. Third Rail and the later Weavers are loaded with detail parts and you pay for it.

As far as running. Conventionally the Williams were pretty good runners. I owned at one time a Niagara, Pacific, and a Mikado. Upgraded 2 of them to QSI sound. Nothing ever broke off that was soldered on. Although you don’t want to grab them like a Postwar engine. I think any of the Williams and Weaver engines from that period offer great value if you can find one NIB or lightly run.

My PRR 0-6-0 switcher (1987) and SP Daylight GS-4 (1989) came with electronic reverse boards that were erratic to say the least. Beginning with their 1990 offerings, Williams brass came with bullet proof QSI boards throughout the line.

There isn't much inherently "more detailed" about brass locos, though the thin cross-section possible with sheet brass in the areas of ladders, walkways and the like does give a subtle realistic "crispness" to the piece; most mid- to high-end die cast locos now are encrusted with add-on detail, much of which is brass lost-wax castings. Die-cast steamers are usually more robust than brass, but this is more due to the expectations of their respective traditional customer bases - the die-cast bunch as often as not has a "toy train" background of some kind, so durability and (perceived) value is expected. The brass customers tend to come from a scale model milieu, so the (perceived) superiority of brass is important.

Me, I like them both. Don't care. As a basher, I wish that they were all brass (or even plastic), as it is easier to modify and fix than zinc. But, I do prefer the "feel" of a die-cast steamer over the brass.

And, there is no such thing as "brass pest". It is essentially eternal - but most zinc castings are, too.

My thoughts are buy whatever you like, regardless of it being brass or die-cast construction.

I am currently down to only 5 steam locomotives in my collection.

• Three are brass: (1) Weaver, (1) SGL, and (1) 3rd Rail/Sunset
• Two are diecast: both are scale K-line models

All 5 engines are of adequate detail to keep me happy.

My Weaver and SGL brass models have about the same level of detail as my K-line die-cast models.  My Sunset B&O Mountain has a lot of detail.  So much so, I try not to handle it too much of fear I would break something off.  However, this is not an issue with my other two brass engines.

Aside from fancy electronics, the brass engines will run as well as the die-cast engines.  If you want Lionel's Legacy electronics, that would limit you to whatever engines Lionel has currently (or recently) sold.  Older brass engines may have Lionel TMCC or be upgradable to TMCC.

One of the biggest advantages of brass is that the manufacturers can have much smaller production runs than those needed for brass engines.  This is why die-cast engines are often release several times by a manufacturer while the same engine in brass may only be done once.

Jim

The loco I'm looking at is from around 1984-85 .  Are there issues with the way they ran or are those locos of that time period good runners

Bruce,

I don't know nearly as much about Williams early brass, but you may want to specify which engine it is as this may be useful for the other gents.

Jim

The original brass Pacific from 1985 is probably the one I would avoid.  Unless it has been upgraded, I do not believe it had a reversing board.  Not that you can't add one if the price is right.  The line started in earnest in 1986 and lasted until 1991 or 1992.  I don't remember exactly which year.  There is a story behind that, but not the focus of this thread.

looking at a scale hudson similar to the lionel 773

I’m guessing your looking at an early Williams. My only experience would be the Hudson they offered. I know they they wouldn’t creep and the lack of a flywheel made stopping a heavy train an adventure. They offered a couple of Pacifics also. Unless it’s a must have. I’d look at the later Crown Edition models.

You guys are fast to post. Probably not as good of a runner nor as detailed to a 773. Those Lionel’s commanded a high price back in the day. I believe the Williams could be had for about a 300 new.  If you wanted a scale Hudson they were affordable.

If your looking for a scale Hudson for conventional use that will pull anything. The first run MTH Proto 1 can be had for a reasonable price. Way better detailed than the brass Williams and way better runner.

Thanks Dave C thats good to know, maybe I will keep looking

Dave,

You need to be clear about which brass Hudson from Williams you're referring to.  They made several different models over the course of about 10 years.

In my opinion Williams Crown Edition models (middle of that 10 year span) are nicely detailed and rival the MTH Proto 1 Hudson, while Masterpiece Series models (late in the 10 year span) are quite impressive and easily outclass it.

Mike

Mike, I was commenting on the first Williams Hudson made in the mid 80’s. That’s what the poster mentioned for the build year.  I owned one at one time. Affordable but not a great runner and not that well detailed.  I did buy a Williams Masterpiece Dreyfuss. Beautiful detailed engine and smooth runner. It ended up going back to Williams seeing it was a direct buy back then. Loved that engine but it  had issues with my layout in a few spots where it derailed. Combination of Gargraves track with easement curves, sprung drivers, and narrow drive wheels. If I ran it on true tubular track. I’m sure it would have been fine.

Fair enough.  Williams' early brass were indeed rough.  I have a 4949 Pacific (Undecorated) that comes from that time frame.  It's probably the same model mentioned by Jonathon (@GG1 4877) up above.

Although it has a DC can motor it growls just like an AC Pulmor-powered die cast Lionel steamer.  Details are sparse; those that are there have quite a bit of flash, and more than a few rough edges.

Although I was expecting much more I didn't pay a lot for it.  That may be the saving grace.

Mike

@GG1 4877 posted:

The original brass Pacific from 1985 is probably the one I would avoid.  Unless it has been upgraded, I do not believe it had a reversing board.  Not that you can't add one if the price is right.  The line started in earnest in 1986 and lasted until 1991 or 1992.  I don't remember exactly which year.  There is a story behind that, but not the focus of this thread.

Fall 1990 was the year of the "Williams brass blowout" this the quick demise of Williams scale brass locomotives.

For discussion of this thread, simply put, brass is fixable and can easily be detailed. Die cast is not so easy to fix, may be suceptable to zinc rot over time, and usually has a lot of parts die cast in the mold and maybe overly thick than scale in measurement to hold up to the "manhandeling"

prrhorseshoecurve,

"Demise" is a strong word.  There are a number of fine quality brass models produced by Williams after 1990, in fact at least through the end of 1995.

Former Member Boomer captured what appears to be the entire Williams brass list in this posting from a long time ago:

  https://ogrforum.com/...79#41694217274323879

Some of the dates in it may be slightly off, but based on a more recent review of catalogs and flyers I believe that they're close overall.

Mike

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

prrhorseshoecurve,

"Demise" is a strong word.  There are a number of fine quality brass models produced by Williams after 1990, in fact at least through the end of 1995.

Former Member Boomer captured what appears to be the entire Williams brass list in this posting from a long time ago:

  https://ogrforum.com/...79#41694217274323879

Some of the dates in it may be slightly off, but based on a more recent review of catalogs and flyers I believe that they're close overall.

Mike

Sorry Mike but I'm sticking to my guns. The last Williams Samhongsa brass was the PRRT1 for 1992. The Williams "streamlined K4" on that "list" was a 1985 model NOT A 1995 MODEL. Show me evidence that a Williams K4 was being made in 1995. Williams had a really good thing going at that time with Samhongsa until Jerry Williams went Against Mike Wolf's advice and did the "blowout" ****ing off a Lot of customers [ LIKE ME] who preordered and paid full freight only to find out the same loco in as little as 4 months could be bought at a significant savings. Nothing previous to this scenario in 1990 happened in the O gauge market on such a mass scale.

Brass won't have zinc rot in twenty years for sure.  While most of the zinc rot reports of late have been car frames, or trucks, couplers.  You never know about your steam engine until it begins to show signs.

When asking about Williams brass its best to ask about specific engines as quality and detail varied model by model. You could do a whole thread on Williams NYC hudsons as they did a early J1 and J3 with minimum detail in brass then the later Masterpiece J3 and Dreyfuss plus I have seen what appears to be a Masterpiece J1 with much more detail. Finally the diecast 773 copies with 2426 style tender plus one with a scale NYC standard 12 wheel tender. None are perfect but the best of the bunch are probably the Masterpiece versions. The diecast ones would score higher but the gear ratios are so high it compromises slow running and pulling power.

Pete

Brass wins every time in my book. Most had DC can motors and are easily converted to ERR Cruise or DCS if they have a flywheel.  It is easier to super detail a brass model and that wraparound boiler rivals the real thing whereas die cast has a big slit in the bottom.  Williams stuff from the late 80's - mid '90s is well made, durable and cheap.  It may lack detail but most modelers will add the pieces they want to make the model a signature piece.

@superwarp1 posted:

Brass won't have zinc rot in twenty years for sure.  While most of the zinc rot reports of late have been car frames, or trucks, couplers.  You never know about your steam engine until it begins to show signs.

Way overblown. The main body castings for diecast steamer models are done at the factory under apparently tighter quality control. Virtually all of the zinc pest castings have come from subcontractors who often are little more than garage-sized operations.

The bodies aren’t crumbling, and won’t.

As for brass, I have seen too many models that showed the ravages of age and abuse. Those who are fans generally care for them very well. But brass models don’t stand up to the rigors as well, and many use parts that are custom made. That’s why many repair people who fix other trains refuse to touch brass models. They can be fixed, but it takes more dedication to do so.

Not that parts availability for any of our modern trains is a sure thing anymore.

I prefer brass diesels over plastic bodied diesels, but our segment of the hobby has steered away from that design. I have found satisfaction in N scale, in that regard.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Fair enough.  Williams' early brass were indeed rough.  I have a 4949 Pacific (Undecorated) that comes from that time frame.  It's probably the same model mentioned by Jonathon (@GG1 4877) up above.

Although it has a DC can motor it growls just like an AC Pulmor-powered die cast Lionel steamer.  Details are sparse; those that are there have quite a bit of flash, and more than a few rough edges.

Although I was expecting much more I didn't pay a lot for it.  That may be the saving grace.

Mike

That's the one I recently got; swapped the stock motor for a #555 and it runs really well, super quiet. Only drawback (and it's pretty major) is the zinc rot in the gear housing. Other than that it's a pretty nice engine...

Mark in Oregon

Strummer,

Looking at it inside that motor swap should be fairly simple.  I might try it myself.

When I bought my 4949, sight unseen, I was being inspired by the 3rd Rail B&O P-7E Pacific (in Blue).  I thought that maybe I could work it into a poor man's version of the 3rd Rail model by adding a few details.

Unfortunately after I received it I came to the conclusion that it's going to take much more than that.

Mike

Do not buy a Williams unless you run it at normal speed on a layout and your hearing is in working condition.

Some of their engine and gearbox combinations were either Tortoise slow or cement mixer loud.  All my first engines were Williams and I almost quit the hobby.  Cab  forwards, 3 challengers and one Big Boy.   What a mistake!!.  I actually had experienced 0 scalers sell them to me as a newby.  

Paid full list price then they were blown out the back door for pennies on the dollar.

There are some OK ones but the field has well hidden land mines.

Test it or walk away from it.

My brass Masterpiece hudson with some additional detailing. Runs well.

@Mellow Hudson Mike posted:

Strummer,

Looking at it inside that motor swap should be fairly simple.  I might try it myself.

When I bought my 4949, sight unseen, I was being inspired by the 3rd Rail B&O P-7E Pacific (in Blue).  I thought that maybe I could work it into a poor man's version of the 3rd Rail model by adding a few details.

Unfortunately after I received it I came to the conclusion that it's going to take much more than that.

Mike

It's a super easy conversion: type in "Williams "quick fix" and you'll see what I mean...

Mark in Oregon

@Jim R. posted:

Way overblown. The main body castings for diecast steamer models are done at the factory under apparently tighter quality control. Virtually all of the zinc pest castings have come from subcontractors who often are little more than garage-sized operations.

The bodies aren’t crumbling, and won’t.

As for brass, I have seen too many models that showed the ravages of age and abuse. Those who are fans generally care for them very well. But brass models don’t stand up to the rigors as well, and many use parts that are custom made. That’s why many repair people who fix other trains refuse to touch brass models. They can be fixed, but it takes more dedication to do so.

Not that parts availability for any of our modern trains is a sure thing anymore.

I prefer brass diesels over plastic bodied diesels, but our segment of the hobby has steered away from that design. I have found satisfaction in N scale, in that regard.

I wish you would have told that to both of my classic Hiawatha bodies, then they would have known they can't do that.  I think I'm going to cut out the offending part out and repaint everything.  Hopefully that will cover everything until it shows cracking again.

Gene Anstine

@D500 posted:

And, there is no such thing as "brass pest". It is essentially eternal - but most zinc castings are, too.

However, one issue with brass that you don't see with diecast is deteriorating solder joints, or simply poor solder joints.  Since it's basically all hand made, all the joints are not created equal.  I've upgraded a lot of brass locomotives (almost all steam), and that's a very common issue I run across.

Very true John ... but at least bad solder joints can be fixed; zinc rot, not so much. 😉

Mark in Oregon

@grfd59 posted:

I wish you would have told that to both of my classic Hiawatha bodies, then they would have known they can't do that.  I think I'm going to cut out the offending part out and repaint everything.  Hopefully that will cover everything until it shows cracking again.

Gene Anstine

I assume you are talking about the 1980s reproduction castings for Lionel in Korea? This discussion is about the recent China production, which has maintained decent quality control for the body castings.

@Jim R. posted:

I assume you are talking about the 1980s reproduction castings for Lionel in Korea? This discussion is about the recent China production, which has maintained decent quality control for the body castings.

Well, we really won't know that for another 10-20 years, right?

To re-visit this discussion:

I very recently scored examples of the Williams USRA (I think) Mikado and Pacific. These came from a fellow Forum member who's name I won't reveal, since I didn't ask for his permission to do so. 🙂

Anyway, I have a couple of examples of the earlier #4949 Pacifics; they are okay, but nothing compared to these newer models. These have much better details and vastly improved drive trains; with flywheels, universals and the gear towers are embossed "SAM", so I can only guess that means "Samhongsa".  Both are very smooth runners and the Mike features lit marker lights (both engine and tender) with the first and fourth drivers being sprung.

Tender details are also much, much nicer; the trucks actually look the part, unlike the odd-looking trucks on the #4949 tenders, which really don't look like anything I've ever seen. 🤔

Since these are "used", there was some very minor repairs needed, which, being brass, were easily fixed, which kind of addresses the initial topic of "brass vs. diecast". I like the heft of diecast, but I think I prefer brass...FWIW.  🙂

Mark in Oregon

The early Williams brass production was under the direction of Williams (4949 for example).  By the mid eighties on, Mikes Train House and Nicholas Smith were making production, detail and quality decisions for Williams Samhongsa built brass engines.  They absorbed the production of those items and guaranteed sales.  By 1987 the passenger car trucks were also being produced in Korea and were greatly improved.

Photos, please?

Here you go. 🙂

Mikado:

...and tender:

Pacific:

...and tender:

As always, please forgive the lousy photos; maybe someday I will get an iphone... 🙄

I think these both have the Mabuchi 500(?) motors, but are capable of nice slow speed: quite unlike the #4949, until I put in 555s...

If you're really interested, I'll take some pictures next time I have their innards exposed...

Mark in Oregon