Has Toy Train Quality Improved Over The Years?

Improvement is something we should always be striving for, not only with toy trains but in our personal lives as well.

AS for the quality of todays products I think they are pretty good. Of course the high tech aspects of them causes many problems the post war people never had to deal with, but all said and done I think what we have today is far better then what was offered fifty years ago.

I agree

Bob C.

"Has Toy Train Quality Improved Over The Years?"

I have several old O-gauge locomotives from 50 to 85 years old which are still in good running condition. How many of today's "electronically enhanced" locomotives will match that performance?

If they are of good mechanical design they'll last as long as Lionel post war stuff.  Electronics it they fail can be replaced with better electronics with more bells and whistles

Uh-oh..... you'e opened Pandora's box with this one.    

I hope there will be constructive replies. I did not mean to start a controversy

Bob C.

"Has Toy Train Quality Improved Over The Years?"

Yes and no.  It's had its ups and downs.

Pete

I would say yes. They are certainly much better than an old set of my daughters from 1982 we still have. No comparison to today's products.

I doubt today's locos will be running without intervention in 70 years like the Lionel locos of my father-in-laws do.  There is a price for all this 'stuff' in them today. Oil the 70 year old and off she goes.

I agree with GG1man and Ace.

 I'm not sure that today's trains with all of the electronics will be able to stand the test of time.  Gary mentioned electronics being upgraded.  Personally, I can't see it.  Of course I don't know enough about upgrading the electronics in an existing locomotive to say that my statement is fact.  

With non-electronically equipped trains, repairs are straight forward.  

Now, on the question of, Have trains improved over the years, Pete hit the nail on the proverbial head.  After the war, there were some, what I think, really nicely built trains.  Lionel's F3s are among the list.  Steam locos with nickel rimmed wheels ran quieter than the later mane-traction equipped variety.  Toward the end of the fifties, quality suffered slightly, in my opinion.  By the end of the sixties, forget about it, with the exception of maybe a couple higher priced sets.  When General Mills took over, quality improved ever so slightly.  It wasn't until the very late seventies that things improved with the re-releasing of items like the GG1s, Berkshires, just to name two.    

As an example of better quality, compare a 2014-2016 N5C Lionel caboose(PRR Flyer, eg.) to a 1974-1976 model.

The tooling is much more crisp, the couplers(and there are two, not just one) work better, the lights do not flicker(wipers & rollers on both trucks) and the body is mounted much more firmly to the trucks eliminating the sway/tilt of the MPC model. The marker lights, however, are gone.

A similar comparison can be made between 1970s baby Madison cars(Milwaukee, PRR, B&O) and the modern PE cars.

I don't think so, they look about the same to me. Don

Railking cars I think are better.  RK 2-8-0 is close.  Rest of modern stuff is hit and miss.

ADCX Rob posted:

...and the body is mounted much more firmly to the trucks eliminating the sway/tilt of the MPC model."

Not disagreeing with you Rob, but as kids we loved that sway and tilt.  Let's just say we subjected our scale conductor to some serious g's on O27 curves!

As for the original poster's question, I kind of agree with Gary (Superwarp1.)  Sound mechanical designs will endure, even if you have to replace the electronics or run them on straight DC.  

Regarding the 262E in Ace's photo- it looks like the original "tinplate" style wheels have been replaced with one-piece die cast wheels of 1940s vintage.  This is a major failure in the original design (metallurgy) but someone cared enough about the train to repair it, making it cosmetically and mechanically acceptable.  I have a lot of respect for the old trains, but mostly for the sheer quantity of them, and its implications for parts availability.  That's the #1 thing that threatens the longevity of trains made today.  Production volumes are so low (by comparison to postwar/MPC, etc.) that if a wheel crumbles, you might have to find two or three alike to have enough parts to make a good one.  Perhaps 3D printing will provide some reassurance on this front as time goes on.

For me the biggest issue with the "quality" of modern trains are DOA's (dead on arrival), broken features, and locos which don't perform as advertised, causing disappointment to those who spent good money on them.  This can be a real turn-off:  instead of drawing more people into the hobby, someone's first purchase ends up being their last.  This is the scenario companies like Lionel and MTH need to address, in both their "starter" products, and their high-end stuff.  My $.02.

"Quality" if you infer to mean features, then of course.  All the new details and features not considered years ago are definitely better.

"Quality" in terms of getting it right, I'd say not necessarily.  Hit and miss. (and I don't even mean physical detail placement, or proper color matching, or other details like that such as others will likely comment on)

I'd define quality as the designed item is: a) producible without significant flaws (lack of broken parts or other cosmetic defects as part of manufacturing process should be the norm, not the exception) and b) will survive the shipment and delivery to customer without taking damage (including even damage from placement/removal from it's shipping box/foam).  I could probably add a bunch of other criteria to bore people, but I won't.

Some "basics" have had recent examples over the last few years (some isolated, some widespread) that should not be happening.

Ted Sowirka posted:

 ... Regarding the 262E in Ace's photo- it looks like the original "tinplate" style wheels have been replaced with one-piece die cast wheels of 1940s vintage.  This is a major failure in the original design (metallurgy) but someone cared enough about the train to repair it, making it cosmetically and mechanically acceptable ...

The loco is a #262 from 1931 that my grandfather bought new for my father. It has the original wheels.

The pilot is not original due to accident damage several decades ago.

Postwar style Lionel smoke units are much more robust than the ones being made today.

When talking quality of toy trains we always seem to look at Lionel.

I have several Marx locos from the late 40's to late 50's. The motors are simple, but all of the ones I have have bronze bearings. So far I have been able to get any I have found to run (and some run exceptionally well) without needing to buy new parts. Marx was the low end of the toy train spectrum. Will the low buck sets made today be running in 60 or so years without any more maintenance than cleaning and lube?

Even Marx's cheap 4 wheel plastic sets from the 70's are usually still intact and running when you find one. I recently came across a Marx 4 wheel plastic battery powered train set. I needed to fix the on/off switch, but the train ran just fine after that. Think about all those New Bright and other plastic trains sold at Christmas these days. Some of those don't last until New Years.

Definition of Quality is important.  If you were just comparing items that where common on the models being compared the answer is yes.  The detail, precision and quality of things like chassis and shells, the answer is yes.  Trying to compare an E-Unit to an electronic reverse unit is a whole different issue.

Given a given period of time to compare quality has it peaked?  For example just sticking to the Lionel PW period, were those trains made in the late 40s and early 50 better quality than the late 60s when money became tight and cost factored in. 

Trying to compare conventional PW trains to Modern trains, under a quality term is useless without a very specific definition of quality.  Can you turn that PW smoke unit on and off remotely.  Can you make if have different levels of output remotely.  Can it blow smoke out the whistle?   G

Improvements in tech, yes. Quality? heck no.

Shops in Japan were just getting pretty good at building our trains when everybody moved to China for cheaper labor. I don't see any savings on the offerings, do you?

Yes, define quality. Is it durability? Quantity of flashing noisy thingies? Speed? What exactly are we talking about when it comes to quality?

I was an industrial engineer and during the 80s, there was a big push to figure out what quality was and to improve it.

One of the GURUS, (I can't remember if it was DR. Demming or not) provided this definition, paraphrased:

Quality is saying what  you are going to do and then doing what you say.     And the corollary was, do it the same way every time without fail.  

A lot of people equate features such as smoke, lights, electronic stuff, with quality.   All those goodies are features.    If they are there, the above statements should apply to them.

Based on that, I think quality is not as good in some instances, especially with the electronics.     The mfgs say that it will do something, and when you get it, it does not do all they say.

Another quality issue is scale.   the mfgs say something is scale, and when you get it, you find it is an inch too short or an inch too high.    Those would not matter from a quality point, if they did not state "scale" up front.

I think the recently closed Weaver line of cars built in the states was high quality.    They did not have much add on detail, but they were consistent.    The couplers were always the right height, the cars did not rock and roll etc.   Basically they cars did what they said they would, and every one almost seemed to meet the requirements.

Using your definition, I would have to say that the older Pre and Post war models were of higher quality. All pieces, modern and old, seem to have had a similar failure rate, but older trains were understood to be toys, and as such had out of scale details that were more durable, resulting in a high quality since they functioned extremely well as toys. Modern trains, especially those thought to be scale, have a lower quality because they aren't always scale, and don't function always as the scale pieces they are advertised as being, with the scale features they are advertised as having, should.

Detail? Yes. Build quality? Eh, somewhat.

Can we really compare shovels to backhoes?   I don't have a single diecast engine that does not have half-ground parting marks on the engine shell.  Reverse units and power pickup slides/rollers wore out with use.  Could we be letting nostalgia blur our perspective?  There was much less to go wrong with pre-electronics stuff.  I can't compare my original 1666 with my 3rd Rail EM-1 converted to PS-2 but  I love them both for different reasons. 

Even comparing trains from the MPC era to modern stuff, I think that we've seen real improvements.  Granted, our trains are much more complex now with so many new features not available 40 some years ago and most of these new features add to the complexity of the trains.  I have a Lionel 4-8-4, Rock Island engine from the late '80's which only ran OK after adding thrust washers, new motor mounting screws and I forget what else, but that was a simple engine using old technology and it still created problems.  On the other hand, my new(er) Lionel Milwaukee S-3 4-8-4 has all the new stuff on it, caused a problem only until I realized that I needed to add a battery, and it is so far superior to the old engine that it shouldn't be on the same track.

Similarly, paint jobs and markings these days are so much more intricate as well as accurate than they were in times of old, that I'm always left in wonder.  Of course, scale accuracy is at an all time high, compared to when we thought a 6464 box car was the cat's meow.

i, personally, think that we're living in the best age for trains that we have ever seen.  Just my opinion.

Paul Fischer

GGG posted:

Definition of Quality is important.  If you were just comparing items that where common on the models being compared the answer is yes.  The detail, precision and quality of things like chassis and shells, the answer is yes.  Trying to compare an E-Unit to an electronic reverse unit is a whole different issue.

Given a given period of time to compare quality has it peaked?  For example just sticking to the Lionel PW period, were those trains made in the late 40s and early 50 better quality than the late 60s when money became tight and cost factored in. 

Trying to compare conventional PW trains to Modern trains, under a quality term is useless without a very specific definition of quality.  Can you turn that PW smoke unit on and off remotely.  Can you make if have different levels of output remotely.  Can it blow smoke out the whistle?   G

Good comments.  On the other hand - pw smoke units did not self-destruct when not constantly refilled.

Robert Coniglio posted:

I still see much room for improvement myself. I do realize that theses trains are sophisticated and problems will occur no matter what. But some more improvement is called for. Just my opinion.

Robert Coniglio posted:

I hope there will be constructive replies. I did not mean to start a controversy...

the best way to start a controversy is to leave a question as open-ended as you did.
just where, how or by what means do you see "much room for improvement"?
frames/ castings?  details? motors?  drive trains?  gearing?  pseudo-real effects?  quality control?

fisch330 posted:

Even comparing trains from the MPC era to modern stuff, I think that we've seen real improvements.  Granted, our trains are much more complex now with so many new features not available 40 some years ago and most of these new features add to the complexity of the trains.  I have a Lionel 4-8-4, Rock Island engine from the late '80's which only ran OK after adding thrust washers, new motor mounting screws and I forget what else, but that was a simple engine using old technology and it still created problems.  On the other hand, my new(er) Lionel Milwaukee S-3 4-8-4 has all the new stuff on it, caused a problem only until I realized that I needed to add a battery, and it is so far superior to the old engine that it shouldn't be on the same track.

Similarly, paint jobs and markings these days are so much more intricate as well as accurate than they were in times of old, that I'm always left in wonder.  Of course, scale accuracy is at an all time high, compared to when we thought a 6464 box car was the cat's meow.

i, personally, think that we're living in the best age for trains that we have ever seen.  Just my opinion.

Paul Fischer

I agree.  I remember reading articles in Classic Toy Trains, more than once, about guys buying new stuff in the '80s and having to dismantle it to get it to run properly.  I was one of those guys.  

This topic is always annoying and amusing, at the same time. Posters are often not even having the same conversation, and keep "shouting" (as it were) past each other.

Are the new locos the absolute "anvils" that the old (pre-60's) locos were. No, in almost all cases. Problem is, the old items were often about as desirable, as models, as an actual anvil.

I had only one loco as a kid (2055 Lionel small Hudson); an anvil - faithful (it did need an e-unit repair, once), and not a bad model, as those things went. But I ran it a million miles! Almost none of the new stuff will be called upon to do this. Even a tiny roster, by 21st Century standards, will usually contain a half-dozen locos. They will almost never be asked to run a million miles.

So, the old stuff (very appealing for what it was - still is) cannot approach the medium and high-grade modern stuff as models. They may last longer as appliances, but who cares? I have many appliances, and none will ever "wear out". The electronics? More robust than most know - especially the later stuff. Most of that will out live us Old F***s, too.

The new stuff is "better". It's almost apples and oranges - the culture has changed. 

Just for conversation sake, and to suggest another perspective on the question at hand, have the quality and design of modern-day vehicles (real-life cars & trucks) improved compared to the 1950's? For example, compare a 1958 Cadillac Sedan de Ville with a Cadillac CTS. Or compare a post-war Jeep with a contemporary Cherokee ?

Moonson posted:

Just for conversation sake, and to suggest another perspective on the question at hand, have the quality and design of modern-day vehicles (real-life cars & trucks) improved compared to the 1950's? ...

the introduction of polyoxymethylene plastics and can motors in the 60's and 70's changed the operational performance of model trains much more than any automotive innovation of the 20th century ever did for cars or trucks.

apples & oranges
cheers...gary

overlandflyer posted:

Moonson posted:

Just for conversation sake, and to suggest another perspective on the question at hand, have the quality and design of modern-day vehicles (real-life cars & trucks) improved compared to the 1950's? ...

the introduction of polyoxymethylene plastics and can motors in the 60's and 70's changed the operational performance of model trains much more than any automotive innovation of the 20th century ever did for cars or trucks.

apples & oranges
cheers...gary

Apples and oranges? Maybe. Is it that simple? If subjected to a head-on crash involving the two Cadillacs, which would you rather be a passenger in? Or in which of the two would you rather be the driver?

If I were in the market for a Caddy, the 58 would be the one I would buy. The new ones are too ugly and plasticy for the money they want for them. LOL

I'd take a 50's Jeep over a new Cherokee too. The vintage Jeep looks better and has a greater cool factor!

handyandy posted:

If I were in the market for a Caddy, the 58 would be the one I would buy. The new ones are too ugly and plasticy for the money they want for them. LOL

I'd take a 50's Jeep over a new Cherokee too. The vintage Jeep looks better and has a greater cool factor!