Another reason for metal over plastic, when the steamer gets knocked off of the layout and hits the floor. All the metal steamers that have "taken the plunge" now have a dent or ding, but otherwise are not phased and keep on going. Plastic would be totaled. I had two diesels that met at a 90 crossing at slow speed with track on a carpeted floor, and have yet to get around to fix them.
Yes, I have kids, and we play with our trains.
All of my HO and N steamers are plastic and they look and run great. I had an MPC 2-4-0 that was plastic that ran and pulled great. It wasn't much to look at, but I really can't expect much from an MPC Scout set locomotive. If the level of detail and paint were comparable to diecast I wouldn't have any problem with buying one. As a matter of fact, if it would get the price down, then I would prefer they be made with plactic bodies. No potential for zinc pest either.
I would certainly consider a plastic steam engine if it was accurate to the prototype and priced less than a comparable diecast model.
No way.. much rather have one diecast or brass loco then two plastics
sinclair posted:Another reason for metal over plastic, when the steamer gets knocked off of the layout and hits the floor. All the metal steamers that have "taken the plunge" now have a dent or ding, but otherwise are not phased and keep on going. Plastic would be totaled. I had two diesels that met at a 90 crossing at slow speed with track on a carpeted floor, and have yet to get around to fix them.
Yes, I have kids, and we play with our trains.
Never driven a loco off the table, off the track, but not the big dive. O-72 minimum and scale speeds = no flying locomotives. j
Never say neverHas anybody bothered to take the time and add up the "No", "Yes", and "Maybe" totals?
The only plastic loco I have or plan to have is the Lionel General. Both were damaged, one badly but I fixed it up and it runs. The rest IRON !!
I'm not sure exactly what David meant when he started this thread, but I wonder if he meant to include fiberglass, which is really glass reinforced plastic. There was once a very popular sports car made from that (I think they use polycarbonate now) and think about the pounding that speedboats take. Some of these strength arguments may work against inexpensive plastic, but maybe not so well against the more expensive stuff.
Gerry
Hot Water posted:Has anybody bothered to take the time and add up the "No", "Yes", and "Maybe" totals?
Yes, 13
Yes but only if Lionel did some intelligent things it will never, ever do 486
No 4,195
Maybe (who cares?)
I would accept a plastic or plastic/metal hybrid steam engine with the expectation of added details and as much or more prototypical accuracy as mentioned by others. I agree with those that said the key will be the price (both street and cost to mfr)/add-on details/quality compared to the current/future die-cast model; if the mfrs. expect to successfully continue to produce plastic steam they MUST understand that the first current attempt be made well, otherwise they'll likely lose any potential converts. The needed weight for traction shouldn't be an issue if the producers use a metal frame w/ added weight where required. What we see offered in detail and performance for a number of years in both HO & G should easily transfer to O gauge. IMHO the only hold-back is our clinging to our emotional attachment and memories of the real or perceived "good old days".
HCSader73 posted:Hot Water posted:Has anybody bothered to take the time and add up the "No", "Yes", and "Maybe" totals?
Yes, 13
Yes but only if Lionel did some intelligent things it will never, ever do 486
No 4,195
Maybe (who cares?)
Sorry but, I don't believe you!
I doubt the numbers, not the "winning" order
gmorlitz posted:I'm not sure exactly what David meant when he started this thread, but I wonder if he meant to include fiberglass, which is really glass reinforced plastic. There was once a very popular sports car made from that (I think they use polycarbonate now) and think about the pounding that speedboats take. Some of these strength arguments may work against inexpensive plastic, but maybe not so well against the more expensive stuff.
Gerry
Gerry,
when I said plastic I did not mean run of the mill plastic. I should have made it more clear. It could be a plastic, or a polycarbonate or maybe something else. Whatever it winds up to be in the future and I do think for reasons of cost another form of making model trains will come to the forefront.
As we all should know nothing stays the same.
Dave
I believe plastic could offer more or higher definition detailing than die cast. To be fair I'm not sure why i think this. But if true that'd be a possible upside.
Frankly, I don't want it to be from Lionel. It should come from a company that understands kits and their assembly--to make my job easier in disassembling them 
Pooh-poohing above notwithstanding, the Rivarossi kits mentioned above are excellent examples of the art, and they were available both ways (a further bonus).
The rarity with which I find them mint means that they were bought -- and used. The prices they still command suggest that they are still in demand (have you tried to buy one of the 4-4-0s lately?).
If you don't think them worth much, I will buy every 0-8-0, 4-6-0, or 4-4-0 you can find MIB for $50 with a $5 premium offered for AHM boxes.
Severn posted:I believe plastic could offer more or higher definition detailing than die cast. To be fair I'm not sure why i think this. But if true that'd be a possible upside.
Severn,
You would be correct! Just look at Tamiya, Hasagawa, Trumpeter, Italeri, et al!!!
Surprised at the response to this discussion but got me to thinking that I would buy a streamline loco like a N&W Class J as long as it had a diecast frame and steel drivers. Many streamline locos have very little fine detail that protrudes from the top and sides of the boiler and a plastic body could be just as viable as on a diesel. In fact some plastics are more impact resistant than potmetal at a given thickness. j
Started out wanting only pressed steel and tin litho from Marx, but after a while the delightful colors and variety available in plastic won me over. I do not like plastic wheels however and always convert over to steel wheels and axles... Car lightness is never a problem for me either as long as my local auto parts shop continues to carry stick-on wheel weights. A few of them inside or under any plastic loco or freight car puts the car right in the sweet spot!
It takes a lot of stick-on weights to make a plastic steamer pull like a diecast one. I present the following example of what I mean, this is from the diesel/electric world. When I got this HHP-8, it had great difficulty pulling six or seven cars, with the added weight it easily pulls ten and probably more.
Now it shoots down the track with a full consist, no sweat at all! 
No
Greywoulf posted:
Started out wanting only pressed steel and tin litho from Marx, but after a while the delightful colors and variety available in plastic won me over. I do not like plastic wheels however and always convert over to steel wheels and axles... Car lightness is never a problem for me either as long as my local auto parts shop continues to carry stick-on wheel weights. A few of them inside or under any plastic loco or freight car puts the car right in the sweet spot!
Did you say bright colors? Tinplate baby! No plastic there.
One "large" plastic loco from out of the past and the peak of toy train popularity is the Marx #1829 Hudson. The #333 diecast Pacific by Marx was from that period. Marx sold sets with both by the hundreds of thousands. How did these compare in pulling power? I have seen a number of #1829's with pilot and other plastic damage, and kitbashed one of those into a Mikado, with a driver set from another damaged one. For some reason, to me, #1829 does not look like as good a model as the #333, but that is due to the design of the mold. Apparently plastic steamers sold in that market.
gunrunnerjohn posted:It takes a lot of stick-on weights to make a plastic steamer pull like a diecast one. I present the following example of what I mean, this is from the diesel/electric world. When I got this HHP-8, it had great difficulty pulling six or seven cars, with the added weight it easily pulls ten and probably more.
Now it shoots down the track with a full consist, no sweat at all!
Say. What kind of "load" is that for an engine?
C.Highrailer I think it's the paint. It makes the 333 look closer to what we are used to seeing and associating a good quality within steam. If the plastic Mark was painted the same way as the 333 your choice by eye might be harder. We are somewhat quick to pooh-pooh plastics sheen without thought imo. Color and sheen can be used to excite people into all kinds of thoughts and moods. Casinos for instance use color top to bottom in their interior and game design to guide movement, influence mood, etc.
This is not our scale,
( so I apologise in advance) its G scale
(Unboxing - *Budget* Newqida R/C G Scale Locomotive ReviewYouTube - Jul 23, 2016)
It does show what is possible.... it's battery AND radio controlled to boot!
About $150
If we can get a low-cost Grand Trunk Western model like the ones in the 6400 series back in the 1940's and 1950's, then plastic would be fine.
Andrew
justakid posted:This is not our scale,
( so I apologise in advance) its G scale
(Unboxing - *Budget* Newqida R/C G Scale Locomotive ReviewYouTube - Jul 23, 2016)
It does show what is possible.... it's battery AND radio controlled to boot!
About $150
I bought several Bachmann Heavy Hauler sets years ago ($50 ea.) and feel they were made and ran much better than the Newqida locomotive is. Newqida would have to raise the quality several notches for me to even consider buying one. Seems they have several areas that need improvement. It's geared WAY to fast which shortens battery life and lessens pulling power. The flanges on the center drive wheels need to be removed. They cause the wheels to bind in curves which further shortens battery life. The points on their switch tracks don't close completely and cause derailing. Then there is the small problem that the radio looses communication with the loco at about seven foot. The detail on the loco is great but nothing else about the set is. Tie a string to the pilot and let the grandkids pull it around. Two Thumbs Down ! j
Tough review.
You did say the detail was great.
O scale people are all too familiar with the wheel flange issues- most center wheels have none.
I'm impressed with the price. Yes, You get what you pay for.
This engine gives alot. Lots of o scale shelf queens out there that cost six times what these people are charging. All in all not a bad beginning for a new company.
Does make you wonder what an "experienced" mfgr with design, engineering skill and money might accomplish.
That's why I felt it was applicable to this thread.
I didnt finish watching. Volumes are all at 100% but I could not hear the narration; nor train.
Two thumbs down for the reviewer. If your going to do video review, the sound is as important as the camera.
The train; I don't have too much to base an opinion on really.
I think G scale has some advantage in its construction as the size of the parts can be thicker in general and can be made of a less robust plastic because of that too.
The Lionel Gold Rush, New Bright, Lionel/Scientific, and some LGB are what I know in G. My dabbling was an experiment to help decide if G was for me (Better than ho, but still not "me". I do miss the lionel. I shouldn't have sold it)
The LGB and Gold Rush were nice enough and track powered. Some,detail is metal. There are two Lionel Gs named Gold Rush fyi, this one looked like a Porter (or Forney?) with a Prussian Blued boiler; thats why I miss it, very pretty and ornate. Smooth runners and near silent too. Lionels stuff wasn't really weatherproof enough for daily use outside, & LGB is kinda pricey so they didn't get to stay.
The 2 battery trains (Holiday use by adults, nice, $10-15 garage sale finds) First impression; they seemed very cheap. But both survived cosmetically about 3 years being left outside in Michigan sun, rain, and snow before the L/Sc became brittle enough for a passing kitty to break rails, stack, and couplers with a light body rub. Ice expanding broke the L/Sc gondola end and a side wall out. The plastic tracks both had about the same longevity. At 5 years outside, the trains still run, but the track breaks if you look at it hard. Expect 3 tops. The New Bright got some portions painted by me year one, they remained nice. The unpainted NB plastic lasted about a year longer than the L/Sc did, but is getting brittle now too. The metal plated plastic pieces on both suffered the worst with being brittle. The new bright plastic faded color badly, the L/Sc didn't fade,much but is more brittle. The batteries remained outside in each tender and only needed replacing once each (6 C batteries each), being run 10m to an hour average for a couple of times a week, and left alone most of the winter. The battery wells filled with water and needed dumping and two contact clean ups. Water & sunken batteries sat for weeks at times too. So about 2.5 years on a set of batteries before you hit a 10-15 minute limit. All had 6 drivers, the L/Sc being the worst tracker, needing weights,and the pilot truck removed before being even slightly reliable on fair track. New Brights 4axle plastic wheeled trucks did better than all the L/Sc bobber cars and including L-GR and LGB. I liked the NB fancy 1800s style passenger car detail enough to normally put them behind the pretty L-GR too (off scale,but didn't care 
)
So, deeper pockets and I might buy more LGB; naturally. I want my Lionel Gold Rush back just for the looks alone, but I respect it mechanically too. I would not pay over $50 for the cheap sets even new. At 1/10th the price of the 2 big names, I'll just look for more toys for my yard and let the kitty have it's way with them. For $150+ for an engine alone, I wouldn't expect a "toy" driveline. It better be smooth as silk, quiet, and FEEL durable as well as being durable or have outstanding enough detail to be a shelf queen. I still prefer a transformers throttle too.
Oh, the L/Sc has a 2 direction one speed radio remote, but I only used it maybe 3 times. I normally turned them on manually and just watch them roll away, stopping them manually near the door again each time. I didnt touch the track's between,the rails mounted controls either.
I would by a good driveline in a plastic loco again for $150 if it looked near this good. (Lionel) (The metalic prussian blue looks a bit too dark in this shot)
I wish that GT streamlined could still be seen running between the neighbors houses too. Reminds me of "the man in the iron mask" but I like it. Did it/any ,get,a."fancy",name?
Ok John, you got me going too (did I,post,this here already? Oh well, fresh pic, lol) Another Rivarossi 382, kit form with a GG1 roller set. About an equal for the RIP General (mpc, the generals pulling vary a lot by version) It can handle 2-3 more medium weight cars at least but had to be modified to run on Super O (36"- reliably) O 31 (sketchy) and 0-27 (good luck doing 5 loops). It is the smaller near scale flanges that make it suffer on tube track. Likely FTrack would be great. Borderline as a new kit for sure, but factory assembled I may bite at $150. Delrin rails and steps might make it more durable. Some newer ho hand and foot rails have,impressed,me by their ability to spring back without snapping.
I don't think folks would mind seeing these in Hi,rail, I wouldn't. I always try to include the shortcomings of getting to three rail with it though. Hey, MPC is of the same era, not post war; but plenty is there. 3 groups (to remain nameless) are mostly responsible for complaints on what goes where imo. Though correct placement is a good and courteous thing, at times it isn't always the best place for the masses; and Hi rail deservingly serves as a good catch all for things like this imo. I.e. if you can't learn modeling and grab ideas from (just barely) outside a comfort labeling, you have blinders on and.....and I need to stop here eh?
Wherever you post these builds I'll be happy you did as I'm very very interested in bashed power and gearing knowledge which most "builders" skip over too quickly ....I feel some lack of knowledge and better references is holding me back on that right now
I would, but I’m used to plastic trains in other scales, mainly HO.
I think a plastic bodied locomotive would only be successful if it was a huge upgrade in quality and appearance over current die cast locomotives. To be successful the manufacturer would have to work very, very hard to create an association of plastic with quality. A significantly lower price would be an enticement as well, but from above posts it appears there wouldn't be much cost savings.
Too many of us grew up with very negative feelings toward the inexpensive 027 steamers that Lionel produced during its decline from 1954 to 1966. They symbolized the cheapening and decline in quality that we saw as the near death knell to the hobby. It's hard to lose that type of association among the generation that came of age in the 1950's. (Looking back there were other larger factors involved in model railroading's decline as a hobby in the early 1960's but the association of plastic steamers with "cheap" and the bad feelings remain.)
There's a steep hill for O gauge manufacturers to climb to popularize plastic steam locomotives. As we oldsters age out it might become an easier sell.
So, it won’t save any money, it doesn’t offer any detail advantages for steam boilers and requires added weight to compensate for its light-weight properties.
So why would you want plastic? Because you had plastic steamers in other scales?
The only reason manufacturers like Mantua and Varney switched to plastic steamers was cost savings during a time when they viewed the HO market as a mass market — particularly Mantua, which was transforming itself into the company that would become Tyco Industries. At that time, in the 1960s, diecast tooling had to be more robust because it was needed to last many years and produce hundreds of thousands of parts. And plastics were very inexpensive back then, before oil prices began to climb, and gentler on tooling.
But by the 1990s, O gauge train manufacturers figured out they didn’t need diecast tooling to last for hundreds of thousands of pieces. They could amortize the cost of tooling by making the dies cheaper and by selling each unit for more money to a hobby crowd.
That’s where we are today. Plastics offer no substantial benefit for model steam locos. And metal offers key advantages.
Cheesy plastic steamers still are a pretty vivid memory for me, and there would have to be a quantum leap in quality without the corresponding price increase for me to even consider them. Even then, it would be an uphill battle to convince me to buy one. Truthfully, I seriously doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
Adriatic posted:Ok John, you got me going too
I don't think folks would mind seeing these in Hi,rail, I wouldn't. I always try to include the shortcomings of getting to three rail with it though. Hey, MPC is of the same era, not post war; but plenty is there. 3 groups (to remain nameless) are mostly responsible for complaints on what goes where imo. Though correct placement is a good and courteous thing, at times it isn't always the best place for the masses; and Hi rail deservingly serves as a good catch all for things like this imo. I.e. if you can't learn modeling and grab ideas from (just barely) outside a comfort labeling, you have blinders on and.....and I need to stop here eh?
How about more photos of your Casey Jones and some info about it. What motor are you using. A couple of years ago I bought 12 Maxon coreless motors on eBay for about $5 each and I have them in three of my bashes and plan to put one in the D16 when it is ready. I find my bashed versions run fine on Gargraves with the scale flanges though they would never make it through a typical three rail switch. So I have a couple of closing frog switches that they can negotiate on one of my mainlines. That limits all two rail or scale flanged equipment to that one line on the layout. My biggest misgiving about O gauge plastic locos is when properly weighed to pull a reasonable length train It's difficult to find a spot to lift them without crushing some small plastic detail. Lets say the boiler and cab were plastic and most or many of the details were diecast, then you have metal in the motor, frame,wheels, running gear your getting awful close to a metal loco. I like plastic because it is easy to bash but in a mass market It would have limited use in an O scale steam loco. Back to the thought, It might be possible in streamline locos without fine detail that stands proud to get knocked of. If a manufacturer of toy trains is geared up to produce metal and most of their expertise is in metal it's going to be difficult to convince them of the economics to add the equipment to do plastic injection molding. My guess is that all of Lionels production is contracted out so who ever makes their plastic diesel loco bodies might pull off a N&W J class or NYC Dreyfuss body to mount on an existing running gear. But they are going to have to compete with a contractor who already has the molds for diecast. I just don't see it happening. Think I'll go bash somtin. j
Here's a better review of the G scale loco and set.
The narrator is Australian. The point I'm trying to show is that this set was not produced by a big player train company. This set sells for a modest price
This set has extraordinary detail, is battery powered, Radio controlled, all at a price that won't break the bank. Yeah, they need help working out the bugs, improving performance. BUT,....they brought to market a train set made of Plastics, and they are not a big train company.
O scale now has "blue tooth" (rc) control. Could battery powered be on the horizon? Batteries are heavy.
O scale already has produced excellent sound quality. Most of the wheel,linkage, truck and coupler systems have been greatly improved.
Cost cutting by making cheaper dies and then increasing consumer costs could be part of the problems we experience today.
Limited repair/ replacement parts, no product support after 2 years, short longevity resulting in metal fatigue and failure, produced by 3rd party vendors who may or may not be concerned about quality control.
We grew up with toys that survived 3 generations or more of play.
Broke, repaired, worn, repaired again.
Today's generation is more acquainted with plastic products. The success of Lego is a good indicator of what can be accomplished in plastics.
My grandchildren play with RC "megatrax " cars and trains. All plastic.
The assumption was platic could be a cheaper alternative to die cast. If incorrect today, maybe tommorow. Why are so many diesels made with plastic?
Adriatic posted:The assumption was platic could be a cheaper alternative to die cast. If incorrect today, maybe tommorow. Why are so many diesels made with plastic?
- I don't love plastic. I'm wary of it for sure. But as time marches on it's production quality has this plastic "hater" mellowing. They make everything from excellent firearms to drills that withstand 60ft drops to concrete without more than a bounce most often.
- Arg.. composer freak out.. ..To be continues....
The reason so many diesels are made out of plastic is that after World War II the plastics market blossomed. Manufacturers also discovered their tooling for plastic products lasted longer.
Lionel decided to give it a try with its F3 to see how the market would react. It reacted well. People seemed to accept plastic diesels from the start.
But steamers? The Scout set, with its cheaper steam locomotive, was not highly regarded. Everyone was aware of the attempt to produce an inexpensive set, but the approach was not well respected, and Lionel opted for diecast metal models for even low-end steamers from that point forward (with the exception of the General).
Will plastic be cheaper in the future? Who knows? With 3-D printing, there will be more pressure on manufacturers to find materials that satisfy the market while also making new-age approaches to model building practical.
But I know I won't be buying any plastic steamers in O gauge.
And I repeat, in those other scales where plastic steamers have been commonplace, the trend has been toward diecast metal. Why? Manufacturers are no longer trying to sell to the mass market. Their emphasis is on quality, and that includes diecast steamers.
I too would prefer GOOD die cast (Asian metal worries me, not just trains) but good plastic isn't out of the question anymore if it fits my wallet better. As stubborn as I seem at times, I do try to keep an open mind and experiment out of my comfort zone. The 382 was a pleasant surprise made about 40 years ago. A better product exterior than the plastic scouts of 60+ years ago. I imagine newer plastic RTR is an improvement over that also. I see much better detail in most plastics today. Why not a less toyish version?
Did I just ask for less toyish? ...I gotta see a shrink, lol. I'm usually content with even a general shape being "close enough".
Another reason I'm willing to fold on this is plastic can be kitbashed more easily.( Note, getting glue to stick to some old Scout bodies is something of a mystery. I've tried four super glues, JBweld, DAP epoxy, Radio Shack epoxy(best so far), contact cement, and even white glue and silcone Shoe-Goo, but none will stick well enough to not fall apart while running. Another Scout glued with no issue...???
The durability of the body in the hands of those expecting "bulletproof" quality associated with Lionel previously had to be a shock as noted above. However, I think the biggest issue with the Scouts overall was the plastic motor version's case was too difficult to work on for most people. The wear factor wasn't much of an issue except for the brushes which are not easy to install with the assembly being in a sunken pocket of sorts (no easy way for a novice to keep the brushes and springs in place to assemble it) . Let's see...the rollers get sticky too. (All the tube/ barrel roller did though)
The search won't work for me today to link to the 382 build thread. I think the title was AMH/Rivarossi Instructions (not started by me, I thought it would be a good catch all thread for an obscure genere and asked), but advance search with 382, instructions, Rivarossi, add by member Adriatic down a bit lower, should pull it up, scroll a bit. I did the whole build there, pics, instructions, mods and all I'll see any new questions there, but write me if you don't find it too... Thanks again to Mike G who sold me the train kit and stock power kit cheaper than I ever expected. He wanted to get to see that you folk saw it built online, and asap, more than waiting for more money or keeping it for himself for a future project. What a stand up guy, eh? He only need ask to own it again
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
