Would 3 railers accept plastic steam engines?

Gotta be honest.  I only own 1 O-Gauge steam locomotive.  If it had been made of plastic I would have NEVER bought it.    

Me, in general no, but that is just me.. in ho, I like old Bowser (diecast), Marklin (diecast)... well, you get the idea.  Also like brass.  Nothing really wrong with plastic, but I prefer the other.  In my clouded view, I see plastic locos and know that some go to far, with plastic trucks, plastic gears, covers etc.  That leads to split gears, broken cover clips etc.  That upsets me.  So, my solution is to buy stuff that won't have those problems...  Not for everyone I know, but it works for me.

Dave...I'am ok with plastic...most PW Lionel 027 engines were plastic...I believe you can get more detail with it....but I don't want to pay die cast price....don't know how a large steam loco in plastic would go over....just my opinion...joe 

Steam engine, no never did like them. there okay and there's a place for them, but no. Look back in the 80' &  90's. Lionel went back to die-cast in there starter sets. There more accepted than plastic. 

It really comes down to people's perception of quality in what gauge:  LGB G gauge has lots of plastic steamers, as does nearly any scale in Bachmann's line. But for 0, diecast or brass is what has always been and not many will accept anything else. 

For myself, I keep an open mind. I know there are injectable / moldable epoxies, some having a powdered metal base that may be an option. Sooner or later some company will try it, probably as an experiment in cost saving.

I would go for a plastic tender, to lessen the weight being pulled. I want a heavy locomotive.

If people wanted a plastic steam engine, then those ahm/rivarossi plastic kits and r-t-r plastic o scale locos should have an increase in their value and become more scarce. I have yet to see that happen.

No, can not tolerate plastic steam engines or tenders!

Sure, why not?!?
I remember when folks said they had to have an open frame universal motor.

How about Thomas the Tank engine, we run it every day at the Carnegie Science Center, everyone all ages knows and loves it.  Ask Lionel how many they have sold.

Jack

Absolutely!

Lionel large scale (g) 4-4-2 s are still out there going strong. Try to find an MTH G scale hudson.

There has been produced in various scales lots of plastic steam engines. The " Type" of plastic is critical to how well the engine will hold up, as is an all metal frame and metal drivetrain. 

You can't expect the type of plastics used by AHM or Revelle or most plastic model makers to be strong enough. You need LGB/PIKO, Aristocraft, Mth, type plastics. Polycarbonates, carbon fiber. These mfg plastics have stood the test of time and use. These mfg use metal frames, wheels, and gearing. Their products are durable enough to use out of doors, in most weather conditions.

If a mfg decides to go cheap (plasticville type plastic) then the engines won't hold up.

It is do able, possible and practical.

So...YES I would buy

I own  G scale LGB,MTH and ARISTOCRAFT. These engine will outlast me.

All somebody has to do is scale them down to "o"

I wouldn’t mind a steam loco constructed of poly resin. It would definitely warrant a diecast frame/chassis for weight and durability. But only as long as the cost is at least halved. If it would make a current Berkshire that runs $1300 come down to at least $600. 

Diecast has too many issues , warp-age,  zinc rot, brittleness and fragility.

Stamped or CNC cut steel or brass will give good results and can be weighted with lead (properly contained in a medium like rubber or plastic to prevent dusting and exposure)

Or just use a denser steel.

Aluminum would make a strong frame.

A big plus....no zinc rot

In theory taking advantage of more modern durable but lightweight materials would be a good thing. Before too long we will have widespread 3-D printing and be able to "print" a graphite locomotive body after buying a license online to do so. This can lead to a more modular approach to train ops and renewal with integrated circuitry and computer chips embedded in the forms. You could transform your steamer to a bullet train by removing modular bodies and by adding others.  You could run your set up from your iPhone. The main obstacle is human nature.

We are nostalgic. We love the cleverness and brilliance which brought so much joy to so many using Edisonian technology. Cast steamers replicate more tangibly their 1:1 big brothers, and so enlist our imaginations more readily. They feel heavier and more substantial than the 2-4-2 budget sets.

All this can be overcome. Build steamers with newer materials, with expanded features and capabilities at reasonable price points for a generation of delighted children and you secure Lionel for another century.

Most of the William's and Weaver brass engines in the 70s and 80s were weighted

HCSader73 posted:

In theory taking advantage of more modern durable but lightweight materials would be a good thing. Before too long we will have widespread 3-D printing and be able to "print" a graphite locomotive body after buying a license online to do so. This can lead to a more modular approach to train ops and renewal with integrated circuitry and computer chips embedded in the forms. You could transform your steamer to a bullet train by removing modular bodies and by adding others.  You could run your set up from your iPhone. The main obstacle is human nature.

We are nostalgic. We love the cleverness and brilliance which brought so much joy to so many using Edisonian technology. Cast steamers replicate more tangibly their 1:1 big brothers, and so enlist our imaginations more readily. They feel heavier and more substantial than the 2-4-2 budget sets.

All this can be overcome. Build steamers with newer materials, with expanded features and capabilities at reasonable price points for a generation of delighted children and you secure Lionel for another century.

WOW!

Very eloquently put and right on the money.

Although I prefer brass steam locomotive models, i.e. Sunset/3rd Rail, I would not be opposed to an ABS very highly detailed model of a steam locomotive. That said, it would have to be weighted appropriately to pull a good size train, compatible with its size.

justakid posted:

Most of the William's and Weaver brass engines in the 70s and 80s were weighted

O and HO scale brass locomotives have always had weights inside their boilers.  The sheet brass boiler shell alone doesn't have enough weight for adequate traction.

Rusty

I don't think that there would be a substantial saving in the cost of manufacturing.  To be done right a basic boiler/cab assembly could be made of plastic, but the running gear would still have to be heavily built.  All of the piping and other add-on details would drive the cost up to where the units would cost almost as much as a diecast engine.  As they say "The devil is in the details."

Tom

This question comes up every so often and every time I think it would be a great idea!!!
It would be easy to provide enough parts to make different versions of the same engine, just like the AMT 3in1 model car kits.

The trouble is I also feel that there are too many folks that don't know how to build a model or have yet to learn how to build a model and/or just want something already built for them.

if everything would be the same, like pulling power, heat dissipation, etc then yes. 

"Would it make steam cheaper in price? "

No - the primary costs for these items is research, design, engineering, tool and die making, manufacturing, marketing, distribution - not the materials.

To bashers like me a plastic boiler would be a blessing; the frames, wheels, rods would almost certainly continue to be metal, just like the diesels and electrics.

"Diecast has too many issues , warp-age,  zinc rot, brittleness and fragility."

No. Almost all die cast pieces are stable, long-lived and utilitarian; this false perception is due to the the "squeaky-wheel" effect. (Not that those with the bad pieces aren't rightly annoyed.)

clem k posted:

I would go for a plastic tender, to lessen the weight being pulled. I want a heavy locomotive.

The weight and rolling resistance of the tender is negligible compared to the weight and rolling resistance of an entire, typical train.

My MTH 1:32 J3a Hudson is all plastic; very tough plastic. I am in no way embarrassed by it. It looks just as nice as my zinc Lionel 1:48 J3a. This level of quality plastic construction is very appealing.

I wouldn't mind a plastic locomotive as long as it was:

1: Made of high-quality plastic.

2: Was well-detailed.

3: Giving some clear advantage over an equivalent metal model (lower price; greater level of detail; greater flexibility in producing a wider variety of prototypes, etc.).

Plastic just for plastic's sake would not impress me, nor would plastic solely for the sake of reducing manufacturing cost without passing the savings on to the consumer.

So my answer to the OP's original question is "It depends."

Maybe. 

I have a Rivarossi Casey Jones ICRR382 I like. The fine details and delicate feel makes your handling of it natrurally careful.  

I have the MPC cheapo dc dockside 0-4-0 converted to ac that I run(cab fwd) near daily

But I'd rather have had either in metal; &/or with open frame motors. They are both still lighter than I'd like and I'm out of room to add more weight easily.

Grampstrains posted:

Tom Densel posted:

I don't think that there would be a substantial saving in the cost of manufacturing.  To be done right a basic boiler/cab assembly could be made of plastic, but the running gear would still have to be heavily built.  All of the piping and other add-on details would drive the cost up to where the units would cost almost as much as a diecast engine.  As they say "The devil is in the details."

Tom

I didn't see much of a savings when Passenger cars went from aluminum to plastic.

And I didn’t see any savings when we switched from trains made in USA to China, or when Legacy sound sets for crewtalk/towercom were switched to generic to save money. Time and time again, when costs are cut, there is only more profit for the company, and no benefit to the hobbyist. 

This thread only serves to inspire the imagination of manufacturers who are always looking for new ways to cut corners. They will certainly use this thread to assess the likelihood of hobbyists’ acquiescence to lower quality. I am sure they would also like to see the results of a thread discussing who would accept unpainted bodies, or a non-operating coupler at one end of each car. 

GregR posted:

Grampstrains posted:

Tom Densel posted:

I don't think that there would be a substantial saving in the cost of manufacturing.  To be done right a basic boiler/cab assembly could be made of plastic, but the running gear would still have to be heavily built.  All of the piping and other add-on details would drive the cost up to where the units would cost almost as much as a diecast engine.  As they say "The devil is in the details."

Tom

I didn't see much of a savings when Passenger cars went from aluminum to plastic.

And I didn’t see any savings when we switched from trains made in USA to China, or when Legacy sound sets for crewtalk/towercom were switched to generic to save money. Time and time again, when costs are cut, there is only more profit for the company, and no benefit to the hobbyist. 

This thread only serves to inspire the imagination of manufacturers who are always looking for new ways to cut corners. They will certainly use this thread to assess the likelihood of hobbyists’ acquiescence to lower quality. I am sure they would also like to see the results of a thread discussing who would accept unpainted bodies, or a non-operating coupler at one end of each car. 

I think its an interesting thread and see no reason to bash it. If a manufacturer wants to make something cheaper, he will do so without coming to this Forum to be told how to do it.

Gerry

Ok, this "wheel" is gonna squeak. Every one. EVERY ONE of my lionel heavyweight passenger sets has a bad 6 wheel truck. Not talking missing axle journals.

My NYC 20th Century Limited heavyweight trucks disintegrated in the box. Zinc rot, no warranty after 2 years of being produced. My Santa Fe Chief set and my C&O George Washington sets both experienced broken truck sideframes attributed to extremes in temperature in storage over the Illinois winter in my garage. The diecast was too brittle and putting the box down hard in a warmed room caused hairline fractures that broke? No warranty after 2 yrs. Replacement sideframes $9 ea. ,replacement entire truck assembly $39 ea

My C&O Berkshire sheared off the mounts between the chassis and boiler after a 2 foot derail. No damage to anything but the 4 screw mounts in the boiler (diecast..replacement $175). My  C&O George Washington Pacific suffered a bent cow catcher (in the box)

Because of the weight distribution, and design of product packaging. Replacement $25.

Annoyed is an understatement, if you end up stuck with the lemon.

Plastic can be cut, re glued, replaced. Part shortages are not an issue. Thousands of parts produced for pennies on the dollar.

As for add on parts ALL Diecast engines have separately applied details. So I doubt any increase in costs to add details to a plastic boiler.

Stamped or cnc cut truck sideframes,body parts,  metal chassis, brass or metal add ons. All will enhance a "plastic" engine or rolling stock and really reduce costs.

Metal steamers and die-cast vehicles, and pewter figures have a nostalgic appeal to me...partly in remembrance of childhood toys and the fondness they brought. I guess I like plastic items too, but a steam engine has to be metal of some kind.

Diecast is used simply because you need the weight for steam locomotives.  In theory, it's possible to do what 3rd Rail does and put a giant weight in the boiler, but with most Lionel and MTH stuff, the electronics wants to live there.  3rd Rail typically puts the electronics in the tender.  A plastic steam locomotive without the weights would be a wimp, it probably couldn't even pull it's tender.

C W Burfle posted:

Sure, why not?!?
I remember when folks said they had to have an open frame universal motor.

When was that? I don't remember reading that on this forum since the forums inception of the late 1990's.

justakid posted:

Ok, this "wheel" is gonna squeak. Every one. EVERY ONE of my lionel heavyweight passenger sets has a bad 6 wheel truck. Not talking missing axle journals.

My NYC 20th Century Limited heavyweight trucks disintegrated in the box. Zinc rot, no warranty after 2 years of being produced. My Santa Fe Chief set and my C&O George Washington sets both experienced broken truck sideframes attributed to extremes in temperature in storage over the Illinois winter in my garage. The diecast was too brittle and putting the box down hard in a warmed room caused hairline fractures that broke? No warranty after 2 yrs. Replacement sideframes $9 ea. ,replacement entire truck assembly $39 ea

My C&O Berkshire sheared off the mounts between the chassis and boiler after a 2 foot derail. No damage to anything but the 4 screw mounts in the boiler (diecast..replacement $175). My  C&O George Washington Pacific suffered a bent cow catcher (in the box)

Because of the weight distribution, and design of product packaging. Replacement $25.

Annoyed is an understatement, if you end up stuck with the lemon.

Plastic can be cut, re glued, replaced. Part shortages are not an issue. Thousands of parts produced for pennies on the dollar.

As for add on parts ALL Diecast engines have separately applied details. So I doubt any increase in costs to add details to a plastic boiler.

Stamped or cnc cut truck sideframes,body parts,  metal chassis, brass or metal add ons. All will enhance a "plastic" engine or rolling stock and really reduce costs.

Well just so you know, plastic too can be affected by the temperature swings. Gets too hot the plastic warps and melts. It gets too cold, plastic can easily snap.

No offence intended to Paul Kallus, I agree with you on many points Paul.

I understand nostalgia. A William's 773 fills my childhood dream, not as costly as the real thing by big L.

It is strange that many on this forum will defend diecast as the "only way to go", nostalgia, original, "as JLC intended."

And then,

insist on "legacy" DCC, smoke, lights, add on details, swinging bells  disappearing coal in the tenders, ...as if all of it were really part of the original "nostalgia". Those things were in our imagination and with technology came into reality

Maybe with "plastic" we could get prices AND features back down to say $600 an engine. 

Maybe I could finally get that engine with the fireman shoveling coal and the engineer waving out his window blowing the whistle and yelling "helloooo!!".

( how bout that for a Legacy feature Lionel?)

Mfg. Can't continue to add features and keep upping the price. The average consumer can't afford it.

In today's market my William's 773 is affordable and only requires a little imagination, not to mention it's "iron horse" reliability.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Diecast is used simply because you need the weight for steam locomotives.  In theory, it's possible to do what 3rd Rail does and put a giant weight in the boiler, but with most Lionel and MTH stuff, the electronics wants to live there.  3rd Rail typically puts the electronics in the tender.  A plastic steam locomotive without the weights would be a wimp, it probably couldn't even pull it's tender.

So the MTH one gauge steam line-up is plastic! They have metal in the gearing, mounts, some frames, wheels, etc.

I sure wish the MTH Hudson one gauge was diecast. It's too light I believe. It does not pull what it should.

 I do like the MTH one gauge drives overall. The MTH diesel trucks seem to last really well. I've seen the plastic cases warp and that causes the tach to lose the correct gap. I have to believe the gap is right on the wide edge to work.

LGB uses a better grade of plastic in the older lineup that I've worked inside. Like the Genesis. Aristo used a lower grade on some things that break just from handling. The main air hose line snapped off my Aristo Dash 9 as soon as I put it on the track.

 I've posted my thoughts on USA Trains diesel plastic gears too many times.

If you get a plastic engine, there'd better be some weight added and some metal where it counts.

I agree on the nostalgic appeal of die-cast as part of the 3-rail aesthetic, but as a relatively recent convert to O Gauge 3-rail it's not a big priority for me. The interesting thing will be the LGB-quality plastics and resin castings slowly entering the fray. The casting quality can be high, .....and the price, oh, the price! I'm not sure how long the hobby will be able to continue supporting high-ticket die-cast zamac steam. Maybe the whole dead-track R/C battery idea will become the thing. Maybe even Lionel would then scratch the center rail as all the manufacturers turn to moulding/3D printing with ABS or some new magical material. In short, I think the plastics and resins will gain gradual acceptance but the die-cast will die pretty slowly. 

I have an irrational desire to avoid plastic models.  What I want is a die cast PA/PB, and a die cast E-7 A and B.  Lionel recent quality is fine; I will happily 2-rail them.

The Rivarrossi 0-8-0 was light years ahead of the USH brass version, in terms of detail.  You couldn't give them away (mine was $12 + $12 more for the motorizing kit).  You can still sell the brass version for $5-600, and the plastic might bring $100 on a good day.

I do not like plastic models.  Yes, they are of course light years ahead of their metal and wood counterparts.  But - no.

No

If it brings the price down then yes. 

Wow.  I'm new to O but I'm still ashamed to say, I assumed they were plastic!  I only own diesels.  I've never even picked up a modern steam engine.  They're metal?  That's news to me.

I am surprised by how many would accept or would think about it. Of course price would still be an issue.

I think the day of plastic steam is still in the future but not as far away as we think.

By using plastic or some composite the detailing could rival brass and could mean more prototypes could be modeled. 

Dave