Why no plastic steam locomotives?

There is something about the heft and feel of the diecast that places you closer to the real thing.

My first Scout steamer from the early 70s was plastic but that's the only steamer I've seen.

 

Jim

Historically, steam engines made of plastic -- going back to the first Lionel Scout engines such as the #1001 of the late 1940's -- were the very bargain basement items. They had few features and sold for the lowest prices on "starter sets." Later on they become the staple of special promotional trains sets made by Lionel.

 

When MPC production began in 1970-71, plastic steamers became the backbone of the early steam starter sets and fulfilled a need for simple, affordable train sets designed to reintroduce them to an audience which had gravitated away from them over the years.  We owe much to the success of these efforts, without which we would likely not have a robust O gauge hobby today.

 

Over the years, plastic steam engines remained the poor cousins of the metal ones and are stll consdered such today. 

Exactly right. My first train was my uncle's Southern special, a 2-4-0 plastic steamer with the "chuff-chuff" tender. 

I had a few never again!!Oive me iron every time.Besides the weight helps the locomotive pull better.And I know nobody likes 3 or 6 car trains.

The Lionel General is also made of plastic.

Sorry, I won't ever do this again and offend you. Thank you for the valuable contribution.

 

EDIT: Actually, I'll tell you why: if I just hit reply, am I replying to the original post that started the thread, or another post later in the thread? This forum is topic view rather than thread view, so it isn't clear unless I quote whichever post I am replying to due to how the string of messages develops. It also makes clear to the poster I am quoting that the post is directed to them as much as it is the general audience. And, given the format of this site, it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of screen to quote and make it clear.

 

I think your post is more of an annoyance than someone quoting the person they are addressing, since it fails to contribute to the discussion at all. 

 

Hope that clears it up.

Quoting text doesn't usually get one shouted at here. Usually that's reserved for folks quoting long strings of photos/videos--and even then it doesn't always happen (even when there are half-a dozen posts quoting the same string of photos/videos). I think you just caught someone in a "mood".

 

FWIW, I usually trim my text quotes to just the relevant section if the original post is long-winded, and knock out photos/videos* unless I'm asking a question about a specific one, and even then I'll only leave in the relevant image and ditch the rest.

 

---PCJ 

 

(for those who may not know how to edit out quoted photos/videos in a response, just click on them once to highlight them, then hit [Delete])

Used to be a lot of plastic steam locos in HO.  I had a bunch of Rivarossi that I should have kept just because they were beautiful.

Oh, yeah, the topic at hand:

 

A: History says: the folks who actually buy detailed steam locomotives, associate plastic with "low quality/pulling power"* 

 

B: According to industry insiders, there's little-to-no savings in tooling costs.

 

---PCJ

 

*and as for detailed diesels proving this wrong, a lot of those high-end steam buyers don't seem to buy a statistically-significant number of "diseasels"

I post a lot here, and on 5 other forums, all of which have a generally more rowdy/rude group of posters. There's a lot less decorum on those other sites, in part because of subject matter, and in part because of the culture of the sites themselves (OGR pushes respect more than most forums). This guy is the first one in thousands of posts I've made and tens of thousands I have read where I (or anyone else) was told not to use the quote button (much like you, I cut out strings of photos/videos unless there's a specific thing I am pointing out in that photo/video). I figure if it were a problem, I'd have seen it on one of those sites a long time ago. Strange seeing that on OGR.

 

Anyway, back to plastic steamers, their relative rarity, and the reasons why.

I have 2 AHM Indiana Harbor Belt  0-8-0 that I will be selling and they are plastic.

BTW, I have a bunch of the plastic steamers from both the postwar and MPC eras and they all run quite reliably with a short consist. I have nothing against them, believe me! 

I remember back in 1991 a fellow named Bill Brennan used to bring a 773 Hudson to the HAAC Hall in Woodbridge (Metca Show) that was cast in plastic ...it had a motor front and rear trucks but no smoke unit and no light. The loco was not painted and was "milk white"... If I had the money I would have liked to have bought it but in 1991 $400.00 was too much to spend on a novelty item.I never got the background on the piece.

My first Lionel train set was from the MPC era and featured a gray plastic 2-4-2 no. 8141 and I still have it. Even as a child I was jealous of my friend down the street who had his dad's heavy, die-cast postwar Hudson, probably a 2065 or similar if my memory serves me. I hope to never see plastic steamers again myself!

what about the corollary... why so few diecast diesels?

Dave,

I've thought about this often. 

 

The future of 3D printing and high quality molding could hold a new "Horizon" for model trains and everything else we commonly think of as of now..

 

Incredible detail and mass production could change how the brass and die-cast steam group view plastic. 

 

Weight is easily added to plastic locomotive models-HO has done it for years.  Smaller electronics could fit with large amounts of weight.  Technology marches on....Like it or not...

 

Opinion-we wouldn't see much of a price difference between 'high end plastic steam' and the current brass/die-cast models.  Initial tooling costs would be one of many factors. 

 

Also, the manufacturers know we're 'comfortable' already spending beyond a $1K for a brass/die-cast model...in many cases, closer to $2K!...

 

Case in point, Lionel's new 21" plastic passenger cars.  Only slightly less than the aluminum cars....

...So I've always been of the understanding that the tractive effort (i.e., pulling power) of a steam engine in any scale had much to do with the weight on the drivers.  As such, unless you plan to stuff the plastic shell with a bunch of lead weight (thereby robbing the interior space for gadgetry such as motors, gears, electronics, smokers, light cables, etc.), you'll end up with something...perhaps...at a lower cost/price, but rather poopy for operational fun.

 

I mean, how much 'tonnage' can the Lionel General handle?...in comparison to a diecast engine with, say, four driving wheels?  On grades?  (Don't know....I'm asking...I don't have a General to find out for myself.)

 

Besides, I've also perceived (from junkers at train shows, in particular) that plastic structure is not as robust to play...yet an essential market for the O3R segment...as is die cast. 

 

Just a thought...

 

KD

 

FWIW, I find this topic regurgitating year after year after year on this forum. The answers are always the same. But now that we have a few Die cast Diesels done over the years, why are the results different [i.e. opposite of this topic results]? In the end, Does it REALLY boil down to Personal Preference?

 

Would you spend a $1000.00 on a plastic steamer as opposed to a die cast one?

Would you spend $1500.00 for a die cast diesel[ i mean frame and shell] as opposed to a plastic shell diesel with a die cast frame?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know!

 

 

 

 

In general folks perceive items made of metal to be of higher quality than items made of plastic. To many, plastic means cheap. Its not limited to just O gauge trains. The feeling seems to be universal.

When I purchased my last portable circular saw, the deluxe model had a die cast base, the lower models had some sort of thick metal plate. Is the cast base really better? ... I don't know, but I went for the model with the cast base.

 

Would I buy a steam engine with a plastic body? ...... I've purchased some plastic bodied Lionel Postwar locomotives that I wanted for my collection. There aren't any older Modern era plastic bodied engines that are of interest to me.

If that's true then what about diesels? They generally have respectable pulling power with their plastic shells. I don't think the person who started this topic meant steamers would have entirely plastic bodies but rather just the shells. Even with plastic shells they'd still have the weight from metal frames just as diesels do. There's no denying plastic injection can give you added detail over diecast metal and at a lower cost. While initial tooling costs might not be cheaper for plastic versus metal shells, everyday production costs and raw materials would be PLUS the new high impact resistant plastics would stand up to harder use, falls and similar mishaps than diecast metal.

Looking at one brand, Marx's most common and die cast steamers, the #999, and #333, often found battered and scratched, but complete.  An then there is the plastic  Marx #1829 Hudson, often found with chips and parts broken off, pilot and cab window frames, etc.  Marx plastic E diesels are most often found with steps broken off.  Not

that broken steps are not found in diecast.  Diesels, all covered in paint, seem to be

more tolerable in plastic, than steamers, where a black metal casting seems like a

better model of the hulking prototype.  (Marx plastic #1829's LOOK plastic, shiny,

and this is also a negative...not a problem of color covered diesels).

Here's a photo of my Weaver chassis-ed 4-6-0 with a piece of 2" diameter PVC (that's plastic, right?) boiler I made on my mini-lathe:

 

 

 

A little plain and it does have brass fixtures applied (and a cast cab from a Railking 2-8-0) but the PVC piece is just as heavy as any die cast boiler I have.  Of course all the appliances would have to be hand applied I would think (but they do that on a lot of die cast anyway).

Here is my 2 cents on it going both steamer and diesel.

If you take your regular 2-4-2 plastic steamer it was designed to pull 3-5 cars the die-cast was designed to pull 5- 8 cars same engine same everything just different shell.

Diesel if you took your 200 series single motor engine it was designed to pull 3-4 cars the ones they added a second motor to 5 - 7 car move up to say a GP your looking at 5+ with magnatraction 7+

Bigger cast steamers well we all know the bigger and if tthey had magnatraction even more so they would also pull even more

 

But as a whole the plastic shells where designed for introduction sets and in some cases special sets to get some colors which would otherwise take special painting( ie general sets) ( easier to mold red or blue plastic than paint 3000 red roofs and 3000 tan boilers ect)

It's the quality perception thing, as others have mentioned, IMHO.  But I don't mind plastic.  I have lots of them.

 

I have had a Rivarossi HO Consolidation since about 1962.  The plastic body is still perfect.  The diecast metal tender frame, which held the motor, disintegrated in the 1970s.  It was a fine-running loco until that happened.  

I've always appreciated the tool-and-die maker's art in any material. Does the die-cast metal seem to prevail only in O scale 3-rail, or am I mistaken? Not much seen in the other scales since the 50s I would guess; just thinking of Flyer S scale and some of the British 00 stuff.Plastic doesn't lower visual quality, as seen in some of the beautiful European HO stuff over the years. 

My first O gauge was a 1947 Scout with a diecast loco and have stayed with diecast. I like the weight and heft of them. Only plastic I have is a much abused one that ran and I rebuilt it. I was running steam last night and thinking how heavy and massive the PW diecast engines look - like a real steam engine.

I think it just boils down to the easy way to add weight.  If you made the boiler shell from plastic, you'd be trying to stuff weights all over the place to get the weight back up for sufficient traction.  Look at many of the brass steam engines, they have weights in various places to add sufficient heft for traction.

I guess because many of us are products of the past and the way things were done when we were young. I find as I get older I miss some of the way things were made as I remember them and metal engines were part of that period of time I remember. I accept diesel engine bodies being made of plastic because it was the way they were mostly done when I was growing up in the late 50's and 60's. Steam was mostly done in metal with quality steam engines. Yes, I did have a Marx plastic steam engine when I was young, but it was not my favorite like the Lionel 675 from 1947 which I also owned.

I have a small plastic steamer from Lionel. Good runner.

Actually the cost is the same in tooling dollars if not more, due to the mold flow analysis and material properties of plastic. The piece cost may be cheaper with higher volumes, but then again this is low volume and who wants a lighter locomotive?

You would also have to add weights to meet the same performance objectives. Not very efficient, and not very durable if it met the floor.

My vote is stay with metal...

 

Die cast is the norm for steam and I like it. Plastic shell diesels is also the norm. All the weight is in the frame so the shell just goes along for the ride.

Good point.  

 

But diesels generally have more driving wheel points of contact with the rails through which to gain tractive effort.  Also, the chassis frame of many diesels having plastic bodies are of die cast or sheet metal.  Some even have more than one motor (=some additional weight).

 

Somewhat relevant is this discussion as it relates to N scale.  Now there's a scale that struggles to achieve prototypical...or even reasonable-to-acceptable...pulling capability with either plastic or die cast boiler/cabs on steam engine models.  Traction tires included, many of the N scale steamers have been disappointing pullers....not enough weight to achieve acceptable tractive effort...not just my opinion, but that of many, many of our (LHS) customers modeling in that scale.  And even the slightest amount of grade change on the N scale layout can exacerbate this problem with steam engine models.  I've seen awesome pulling of 100-car trains on N-scale modular layouts at shows with diesels; Can't recall the same with either a single or even double-headed non-articulated steam engine.

 

Oh well, I'm sure the horse is dead by now.

 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

 

KD

 

 

I don't think this is a good comparison, since the question is why they aren't building them in plastic now. Marx was on the cheap end even back in the day when they were produced, so I would expect they didn't use the best materials available. Couple that with the advances in plastics over the last 60 years, and I doubt a steamer produced now would be as easily broken as a Marx item from the 1950s. 

Gilbert made plastic steam locomotives in S guage from 1952.

The real thing is that people don't understand 3D printing.  It is very expensive and slow.  And it can't produce the same file details you can get out of cast or molds.  Sure there are some printers that can get really close, but they are even slower and costlier. 

As for plastic, Lionel does make plastic steamers.  I have 3 that I can think of, the Thomas and Friends ones.  But they can't pull more than 4-5 cars.  And they tend to fly off of the track when my little one is running them.

As for cost, plastic really isn't much cheaper in bulk.  In fact I think metal is cheaper than plastic is at the scale the manufacturers buy at.

I think the OP was refering to high end plastic steamers, could be wrong(?).

I relate to die-cast toys (they were the sought after when I was a kid and always seemed just plain neat) and have to admit part of the allure of electric trains is towards metal steam locomotives. Even if they could make a super-detailed plastic steam engine with great features and lower price I don't think I would be interested, but maybe today's generation would like it.

You are correct, it can be done with enough added weight and more detail then any diecast engine but overcoming peoples prejudices towards diecast it may be a tough fight.