What's the attraction to brass engines & rolling stock?

Chris Lonero posted:

     What is it about brass that folks like? 

Much higher separately applied details, and much easier to repair/modify. No "zink pest" either.

Chris, I am a die cast guy all the way.  I have hundreds of engines and only one is brass.  That would be my converted Weaver New Haven I-5 Hudson.  I never liked the sound of brass engines running.  I like the weight and feel of a die cast steam locomotive.  I do not like brass with a blob of lead inside to weigh them down.

Chris, I have a flywheel kit for your Hudson if you want it.  The front truck usually needs to have weight put in it.    I know many people will throw rocks at me for not liking brass locomotives.  My Railroad and I run what I like.  BTW, my railroad runs every day that I am home.  Williams made a later/recent die cast Hudson that is a real winner.  Looks great and runs better with the big can motor and flywheel.  I have converted many of them to DCS.

Marty Fitzhenry posted:

Chris, I am a die cast guy all the way.  I have hundreds of engines and only one is brass.  That would be my converted Weaver New Haven I-5 Hudson.  I never liked the sound of brass engines running.  I like the weight and feel of a die cast steam locomotive.  I do not like brass with a blob of lead inside to weigh them down.

Gee,,,,,,I never realized that that big slug of lead weight inside the boiler showed much.

I've always wondered the same thing about brass.  I suppose it's like the Jeep saying , " If you have to ask"........   I forget the rest, but you get the idea.

I suspect we will be getting an education on it shortly.

Chris, I have 4 brass locos (all Williams). I like them, but given the choice I'll take die-cast any day over brass. Brass locos seem "flimsy" and fragile to me compared to die-cast, plus the weight of die-cast IMO makes them much better runners. That's a nice-looking Hudson--especially the 260T that's behind it--quite a hybrid!!

Plus, the marketing of highly detailed die-cast scale locomotives is a fairly recent development (last 20 years or so...) due to changes in technology.

Back in ye olden days, most die-cast locomotives were sparsely detailed and if you wanted to buy a well detailed locomotive, brass was the only option.

Brass is still the preferred choice for low production runs or extremely highly detailed locomotives.  I don't think Scott at 3rd Rail would be in business if he had to rely on die casting.

Plus guess what...  Most of the added on detail parts on the die-cast locomotives today are...  brass.

Personally, I have no preference as to what is holding the paint up.

Rusty

 If given a choice. I prefer die cast over brass. Let's face it. Engines you personally desire are never going to be made in die cast. Just not enough interest. I model the NH. MTH catalogued an I5 NH Hudson years ago. I don't remember to many Premier engines ever being cancelled. This one was for lack of orders. I already had the Weaver version that I had bought new. I purchased the Weaver I4 Pacific. A beautiful loco. . Chances of ever seeing this one with this level of detail were pretty slim from MTH or Lionel. With brass you can get by with a much smaller production run and can bring a unique road accurate model to the hobbies.

 As far as rolling stock. I still find myself buying old William's brass NYC Woodside cabooses. Nothing unique as both MTH and Lionel have been making them for years. I still feel with a little work they are the easiest to convert to a good looking 3RS caboose. The railings and ladders are just more scale in appearance.

Well then, why plastic for Diesel models?  Isn't a lot of it just personal preference?

In 2-rail the preference for brass is economic: production quantities are simply not high enough to pay for tooling for pressure casting, even in plastic.

For me, brass has a level of refinement that cast locomotives will never have.  I like a high level of realism and enjoy the brass pieces I have a great deal.  Having said that, the Williams brass series doesn't have that level of detail as it was introduced as a "budget" brass series.  I still have 8 different Williams brass locomotives though. 

Williams K4 on the right and Weaver Brass GG1 on the left.  Both considered to be "budget" brass.

Sunset J1

My second favorite version of the K4s by Sunset (PSC is my favorite, but out of my budget!)

Sunset GG1 4800. 

There's two trains of thinking that I've seen over brass models, which is already indicated here. Many 3-railers like injected molded products, be they die-cast or plastic. But brass models offer the potential of unique models that do not have the potential to recover the high costs of the dies and tooling for injection molded models. Again, especially if that model has limited sales appeal.

And that's not just limited to locomotives, but to rolling stock too. I don't pay attention to it, but seems to me I have seen advertisements over my years back in trains, for unusual models of trains that have been made in brass.

I remember when Rich Yoder produced the brass scale 44-ton switcher and there were a good many posts here from people who said they'd rather wait for a injection produced model. I recall some saying they though that type of model would be a lower cost. Well, now we have two of them and the list cost of them is not all that inexpensive, and personally I have to wonder how well these models are actually selling? If they're not selling to expectation, this is not a good message for the manufacturers given how many people "said" they wanted this model. Of course, the paint schemes for those two versions have thus far have been limited.

It seems to me with all the various "I want" lists that so frequently appear here, of prototypes that modelers would like to see made, that brass models would have more appeal with 3-rail scale operators. But we want everything made ready to run. The decline of decals and detail parts made for O scale speaks eons to this.

A decade ago one of the HO manufacturers said it cost over $200,000.00 to bring out a new locomotive from the R&D start to finish of the process to be ready for production. That cost has certainly gone up, and is even more for O scale as the physical molds are much larger. And the likelihood of recouping those investment costs are much more assured in HO than in scale O gauge.

So there are some advantages to brass models. But I don't read many requests for new brass models of unusual prototypes, nor do I notice many companies offering them. But again, I don't follow these models that much so maybe they are out there in O.

Rusty Traque posted:

Plus, the marketing of highly detailed die-cast scale locomotives is a fairly recent development (last 20 years or so...) due to changes in technology.

Back in ye olden days, most die-cast locomotives were sparsely detailed and if you wanted to buy a well detailed locomotive, brass was the only option.

Brass is still the preferred choice for low production runs or extremely highly detailed locomotives.  I don't think Scott at 3rd Rail would be in business if he had to rely on die casting.

Plus guess what...  Most of the added on detail parts on the die-cast locomotives today are...  brass.

Personally, I have no preference as to what is holding the paint up.

Rusty

What Rusty says. Up to about 1990 if you wanted detail it was brass. I suspect CAD software and CNC machines allowed for finer detail in molding machines and lower cost to produce them. Compare the best brass steam engines to the best diecast steam and brass still has the edge. Diesels and other rolling stock not so much.

Early Williams should not be used as the yardstick. While many are durable few had the detail of other brass of their time. Two exceptions are pair of NYC Hudsons made in the early '90s.

Pete

At recent O SCALE shows' engine importers booths, as l walk quickly by in rubber gloves and a face mask, are mostly diesels.  Diecasting gives you dies to amortize, and all those me-too Belpaire boilered ATSF lettered locos. Brass gives you the uniqueness of a model of one specific engine number, with its appliances, versus a die cast one that was averaged out, and is an exact model of none.  While l don't want diesels,. Yoder's 44 tonner was tempting, and it would be nice having a source for small, unique engines today.  If he'd had that support, he would not have picked up his marbles and gone home. His experience does not incentivize 3rd Rail or others to jump into small engines.

Hello guys and gals

One reason why  I like brass because of NO ZINC PEST to deal with !!!!!!!!! but some brass locomotives and rolling stock uses zinc casting such as gearboxes, couplers, freight car trucks.

"When I heard your voice, the baby inside me jumped with joy." Luke 1:44 ERV (Easy to Read Version)

Tiffany

Some people like a Ford and others like a Chevrolet.  Enjoy what you like.  

I like brass because:

• the production runs are limited. If the loco is run again it's still is different than a previous run. 
• Can be repaired and/or modified
• NO Zinc Pest
• 

Hmmmm... I had thought zinc pest was a plague from the 1930's . .but there seems to be much current concern.  Wonder if l have stuff that has turned into pumpkins, 

My best running and most delicately detailed O scale engine is my Weaver brass Milwaukee Road 4-6-4.  It runs so nicely.  My other favorites are my Lionel die cast 4-8-4.  It is just as nicely detailed as the 4-6-4.  It runs flawlessly too.  I have several other brass locos including an old Weaver USRA 0-6-0, a weaver Reading 4-6-2, a Weaver Milwaukee Road 4-4-2 and a Sunset B&O 2-8-0. All the rest of my O scale roster are die cast and I am just as happy with them.  My only advice is to handle your brass engines carefully as they are easy to damage.  But as to whether you should buy brass or die cast steam engines......just buy what you like.  More advice... Try to buy Sunset or other brass engines second hand as they are usually much cheaper.  Get the point?

Brass garners a higher price for the most part no matter how it compares to a diecast train. You ended up with a good investment if you didn't over pay for it when you bought it.

Chris,  Some of the dollars are in real chains rather than simulated or not modeled.  On the REA express reefer shown above, the Sunset model has a chain at each hatch.  On Sunset heavyweight cars there are short chains on each side of the couplers and real chain on the underside of the floor.  I have dining cars and 8-1-2s from both Golden Gate Depot and 3rd Rail/Sunset.  Next to each other, the Sunset cars just look better.  The GGD is very good but there is something a bit better on the Sunset cars.  John in Lansing, ILL

When I was a kid living in Cleveland we'd go downtown on the trackless trolley.  The stop to return home was across the street from Blum's Hobby House.  Before heading home we would go there.  As you entered and made a 180 turn the entire wall was glass cases full of LMB Models O scale locomotives.  They didn't paint them back then.  

More of a fascination than an attraction.

The last time I saw a display bigger than that was at Ajin Precision in Seoul Korea.  Mr Cho took me to engineering on the third floor where there was a wall of shelves that had one of every locomotive they had ever made.

Lou N

Well, there's always wood and embossed cardstock:

Rusty

Marty Fitzhenry posted:

Chris, I am a die cast guy all the way.  I have hundreds of engines and only one is brass.  That would be my converted Weaver New Haven I-5 Hudson.  I never liked the sound of brass engines running.  I like the weight and feel of a die cast steam locomotive.  I do not like brass with a blob of lead inside to weigh them down.

Chris, I have a flywheel kit for your Hudson if you want it.  The front truck usually needs to have weight put in it.    I know many people will throw rocks at me for not liking brass locomotives.  My Railroad and I run what I like.  BTW, my railroad runs every day that I am home.  Williams made a later/recent die cast Hudson that is a real winner.  Looks great and runs better with the big can motor and flywheel.  I have converted many of them to DCS.

 

I'm with you on that statement.  If brass is what you like nothing wrong with that! As I stated in my original post I am curious as to why people like it?  I will probably take you up on that offer as I cannot see a flywheel on this motor and it comes to a dead stop when you power down.

I always admired the detail, but not so much the limited-run pricing. It seemed to be a major collector thing back when, but with reports of not-so-good running qualities. Better mechanisms now I guess, but never in the budget no matter what the scale. It was always just eye candy for me; no great desire or justification to own it.

To each his own. The die-cast details have their own charm. I once knew a guy who only collected American Flyer HO because it was, in his words,  "as cute as a button."

Maybe somebody has the comic verse from Model Railroader somewhere? 1980s?  I just recall a few words... 

The collector has class,

The collector has brass,

And all of it locked in a case....

----------  memory gap -------

.....I suggest in this verse

That his brass be dispersed

And given to those who will run it.

GG1 4877 posted:

For me, brass has a level of refinement that cast locomotives will never have.  I like a high level of realism and enjoy the brass pieces I have a great deal.  Having said that, the Williams brass series doesn't have that level of detail as it was introduced as a "budget" brass series.  I still have 8 different Williams brass locomotives though. 

Williams K4 on the right and Weaver Brass GG1 on the left.  Both considered to be "budget" brass.

Sunset J1

My second favorite version of the K4s by Sunset (PSC is my favorite, but out of my budget!)

Sunset GG1 4800. 

I can appreciate the high detail of brass and it looks great when viewing each piece close up and standing still. But really now when you view a running layout does anyone come with a magnifying glass?  Can you even see fine detail from afar?   Layouts are seen in the context of the whole and seldom viewed for micro detail. Brass is nice but is it worth 2x the price when cast does the job and is durable for the intended purpose.

Great thread Chris! I had always heard there were brass locos. I had never seen or heard of brass rolling stock.

Guess I live a sheltered life.����

Joe Gozzo

Rusty Traque posted:

Well, there's always wood and embossed cardstock:

Rusty

Just curious, Cleveland Model?

Lou N

I don't know why it has to be one or the other. I like both.

Taste Great ---  Less Filing !!!  I have about 30 steamers and only one is Brass, its an older Weaver that I just had converted to full ERR and Super chuff then Weathered. I love it and may consider another if I find a good buy at York. My only preference,  Is it o-Gauge and  3 rail, if I like it I buy and run it. That the beauty of o-gauge, we have choices

Lou N posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

Well, there's always wood and embossed cardstock:

Rusty

Just curious, Cleveland Model?

Lou N

Yep.

Rusty

I really like brass engines and rolling stock. When I got out of  HO I sold my collection of 100 brass engines and some cars to a dealer. Also sold my  On3 engines of the EBT and Colorado RRs.  They are eye candy but pricey. Old Lionel is easier to handle and deal in. If I was rich I would have brass.

I'm by no means a brass collector, but brass opened my eyes in the form of a Key Model Imports E6 AA set in 2015. I recently acquired a PSC BE-1 CB&Q Express ex troop kitchen car. If you look at the difference between these items released in plastic and in brass you'll see why they are so coveted. I'm acquiring another Key early unit this summer and have some key CZ cars on order. Plastic is great as long as it's done correctly, 3rd rail diesels are proof of that. Like many I adore my Atlas CZ train.

Since I am staying away from recently released engines due to cost (I'm retired now), I look for older conventional scale PRR engines to buy and upgrade with command.  Every now and then I run across an older Weaver or 3rd Rail brass engine at a very low cost, so I buy it.  In the end, the total cost is less than half a new engine.  I currently have 7 that have been upgraded with either TMCC or DCS, and they all run very well and look great.

That said, my brass engines due not pull as well as comparable die-cast ones.  My Weaver K4 pulls less than my Legacy K4, which isn't great a good puller itself.  The same thing between my 3rd Rail L1 and K-Line L2 (both 2-8-2). 

For me, I can't really tell the difference between my recent die-cast engines and brass ones when a few feet away or when running them.  I guess I'm in the camp of liking them both.

My big issue with older brass engines is that they are made in small numbers.  I have friends that are going crazy looking for parts that do not seem to exist.  Not naming any company,  it seems that valve gear and side rods seem to be the big issue because they are delicate and held together by very wimpy rivets that are also non existent.  Aside from that, they are pretty.

I am very happy for the guys that like them.  

Marty Fitzhenry posted:

My big issue with older brass engines is that they are made in small numbers.  I have friends that are going crazy looking for parts that do not seem to exist.  Not naming any company,  it seems that valve gear and side rods seem to be the big issue because they are delicate and held together by very wimpy rivets that are also non existent.  Aside from that, they are pretty.

I am very happy for the guys that like them.  

I collected HO brass for about three decades. It was pretty much accepted that they were simply assembled kits that needed to be reworked to run right so you either learned how to work with brass or you just kept them on the shelf.

I am a bit disappointed the importers don't keep of stock or spare parts longer. Precision Scale is a huge resource for repair and restoration of brass engines. Without them we would have learn to cast our own. Other sources for parts include the other three rail manufacturers including Lionel, MTH, and now RIP Weaver.

This 3rd Rail J3a was repaired using PSC and Lionel parts. The valve gear is from a Lionel  Vision Hudson from which parts were removed and modified.

Tender Beam was replaced using PSC and scratch built items.

Pete

My point.  If it was Lionel or MTH, you can get a part.

Tiffany posted:

Hello guys and gals

One reason why  I like brass because of NO ZINC PEST to deal with !!!!!!!!! but some brass locomotives and rolling stock uses zinc casting such as gearboxes, couplers, freight car trucks.

"When I heard your voice, the baby inside me jumped with joy." Luke 1:44 ERV (Easy to Read Version)

Tiffany

Tiffany - your response implies that zinc pest is a definite effect of die cast, which is not at all the case.  It occurs when sub-standard purity (for the circumstance) zinc is used.  Unless it's a given that every die cast modeler uses sub zinc, then pest is not a given.   

A seller I frequent was pushing Weaver brass steamers a few years back.  I think it was a New Haven 4-6-2?  Anyway, I didn't like the weight, the look, the sound as it rolled down the track, or the feel - or the fragility.  And, while it could have been the locomotive in particular, this locomotive didn't have any more detail (in fact, it felt like it had less) than my MTH Premier Mohawks.  The notional value is that, purportedly, no two are alike, given each piece is hand-formed and uses lost wax molds.  For the simpleton like me, it just seemed liked a way over-priced marketing stunt, given there was no discernible benefit and several negatives specific to my enjoyment - and all for a higher price.  But then, I'm not someone who necessarily appreciates a $200 bottle of wine over a $30 bottle - I go by what tastes good to me...    

Rusty Traque posted:

Lou N posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

Well, there's always wood and embossed cardstock:

Rusty

Just curious, Cleveland Model?

Lou N

Yep.

Rusty

Many years ago I had the good fortune to meet Ed Packard at Cleveland Models out on Lorain Road in Cleveland.  Even though it was Saturday he was dressed in a suit and tie.  He was no longer making model kits, just selling his blueprints.  

I understand Cleveland Models was sold to a fellow in Indianapolis and is still selling blueprints.

And I do have a half dozen of his woodside S gauge reefers.

Lou N