If the same engine(let's say like a smaller engine...like a 4-6-0) was produced in Plastic shell, a brass shell, or a diecast shell, which one would you buy? (assuming same level of detail, same price, and same drive)
Things to consider:
Plastic is easier to modify, and lighter, details break easier
Brass is heavier, more durable, and you can solder on details, needs larger radius curves
Diecast is the heaviest...
EDIT:
The plastic one has plastic detail parts, Brass has Brass, and diecast has brass details
As a person who likes to customize, I would go for the plastic
Scoreboard:
Plastic-IIII
Brass- III
Diecast- IIII
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
I would argue that brass in many ways can be "easier" to customize, assuming one can solder.
I would choose brass for relative durability, simply because too many plastic engines that I have personally owned just don't quite hold up as well. There are gorgeous plastic engines that I won't buy because they are a. relatively expensive for what they are, and b. handrails are very delicate to the point of being brittle.
John
All things being equal, it wouldn't matter to me which one I bought. All can be easily modified, with details applied solidly on any, and all can be modified to similar weights, too.I run all three types on my layout and all have been modified to suit the service in which I have placed them. Most will run well with any of the other types, too, even on my DC-powered layout.Nowadays, most die cast locos, if not hybrids, are older locomotives, while plastic ones have been around for years and run the gamut from trainset quality to ones which rival brass in details. Brass locos vary in quality and detail like the plastic ones, and like the plastic, are priced accordingly. I don't think that I've ever owned a locomotive which I didn't modify to some degree, and it never mattered the material from which it was made.
Wayne
I get what's available for that type of locomotive and only if I can swallow the wad of cash it'll take to have buddy drop it at my door. I have all three types, and I like them all. I will say, though, that my diecast ones are the strongest pullers inch-for-inch. Details would be a toss-up between the plastic and hybrid. So far, while pricey, BLI's hybrids are exceptional value in my view because their details come second only to the lone all-brass loco I have.
In plastic, my two most detailed locomotives are, in order, the P2K 0-6-0 marketed in the early 2000's and my Rivarossi 2-6-6-6.
Plastic, but the Walthers Proto or Athern Genesis quality level. Brass too expensive and/or needs customization. I like my engines ready to run.
Given your conditions, which do not exist, the real question is what are the details made of? If they are brass on all 3, then I would opt for the diecast since heavier locomotives will track better and pull more. Anything can be modified.
Paul
For me plastic of Atlas or Walthers P2K quality and DCC ready. Athearn RTR will work too.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
The good plastic steamers, like Bachmann Spectrum, P2K, and Athearn are marvels of detail. Really good and they run well too. They are too light to pull much, which is unsatisfying. Die cast like Mantua are good and heavy, pull well, run well. Most of 'em come sorta plain in the detail area, but that can make a fun kitbashing project. Well detailed, and painted, diecast looks as good as anything. Brass is just out of my price range. Nice stuff but too much money for me.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I've been enjoying diecast locos quite a bit. Though I wish details, especially piping and handrails were brass or diecast instead of plastic, but I don't mind adding said parts.
Alvie
For me, the answer is, "Whatever builds up into or can be modified to resemble the specific locomotive needed to fill the hole in my roster."
I own one die-cast loco - a Tenshodo 0-6-0T. If that wasn't the only Japanese-prototype die-cast model I never encountered the others. It sounds like a sewing machine, but runs like a Rolex.
Most of my locos are brass, because that was what I could buy (in kit form) in Japan in the 1960s. All have been mechanically tweaked, and most have added or changed details. I traded off the dogs a long time ago, and consider the survivors excellent runners.
I own some plastic locos, either in my club-operation US collection or as either ready to use or ready to kitbash. Many were acquired as kits, or ready to rework. Of them, one Spectrum 0-6-0 and a much-modified Mantua 2-6-6-2 are in service. Three Bachmann 2-8-0s are running as 'foobie' 9600 class, awaiting modificatiion into real JNR 9600 class locos, 6 wheel tenders and all.
I don't have any lacquered cardstock locos, but am considering that route to modify an N scale USRA 0-6-0 into a 1:80 scale model of Ikasa Railway #21. The same trick may put proper-size cabs on four N scale plymouths to provide my log hauler with an appropriate roster.
As you can tell, my approach is entirely pragmatic. Whatever works, is good.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
That would depend on what prototype that 4-6-0 was based on, and the amount of modification required to make it into an at least passable representation of the locomotive.
Also assuming it is factory painted I would go with brass. I am a free lancer and have no desire to customize locos. RTR is just fine with me. I'm OK with repainting and decaling them for my railroad, but I'm not going to pay hundreds of dollars for a loco and then start modifying it.
The underlying premise -- die cast but with the same level of detail as plastic or brass -- throws a monkey wrench into the choice for me because I don't know that I have ever seen die cast with the same level of detail.
Dave Nelson
dknelson I don't know that I have ever seen die cast with the same level of detail. Dave Nelson
I don't know that I have ever seen die cast with the same level of detail.
FYI Most HO MTH engines, as well as the newer BLI steam engines have diecast shells.
ex. MTH 2-8-2, BLI K4, BLI H10, etc
doctorwayne All things being equal, it wouldn't matter to me which one I bought. All can be easily modified, with details applied solidly on any, and all can be modified to similar weights, too.I run all three types on my layout and all have been modified to suit the service in which I have placed them. Most will run well with any of the other types, too, even on my DC-powered layout.Nowadays, most die cast locos, if not hybrids, are older locomotives, while plastic ones have been around for years and run the gamut from trainset quality to ones which rival brass in details. Brass locos vary in quality and detail like the plastic ones, and like the plastic, are priced accordingly. I don't think that I've ever owned a locomotive which I didn't modify to some degree, and it never mattered the material from which it was made. Wayne
I'm 100% with Wayne on this. I judge each model on its merits and any idea that one material is automaticly superior is just silly.
I've seen brass that was out and out junk, and combination or hybrid locos that equal or exceed most brass.
Like Wayne, I can and have worked in all those mediums.
My plastic shell, diecast frame, freelanced Mikados have brass trailing trucks build from PSC kits that require soldering to assemble:
And have been weighted to match any die cast boiler version:
So there you have it, all three materials on one loco.........
Sheldon
Trainman440 dknelson I don't know that I have ever seen die cast with the same level of detail. Dave Nelson FYI Most HO MTH engines, as well as the newer BLI steam engines have diecast shells. ex. MTH 2-8-2, BLI K4, BLI H10, etc
And many of those locos have at lease some details grossly oversized.
The grossly too thick running boards on the MTH Berkshire make it look like a scaled down piece of 1940's LIONEL.
My Spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's have die cast boilers but plastic details added to them. So does the Spectrum 2-10-2.
As for some of the comments about plastic boiler locos being too light, well, some are and some are not, and some have lots of room to easily add weight.
So again, I will repeat, better in my view to judge each individual loco on its merits, rather than make assumptions based on its method of construction.
Since I am a "runner" it would be Die Cast. The extra weight gives more weight on rail for higher tractive effort and better electrical connectivity.
All that nice detail just gets broken off in operating sessions by clumsy engineers and brakemen.
And your point being ... ?
The extra weightis nice for Die Cast.
dknelson And your point being ... ? Dave Nelson
....
The diecast BLI K4 is more detailed than the Bachman k4, the plastic BLI M1, and almost on par with Brass Models.
This goes true with the diecast MTH 2-8-2 vs the plastic bli, Athearn, or Bachmann 2-8-2s.
There are many more, but I can't say with absolute certianty, unless I own one of those engines.
My point is being that today's diecast models are on par with everything else.
Back on topic, my OP said that if the detail size and amount are all the same, which one you would get.
Trainman440 dknelson And your point being ... ? Dave Nelson .... The diecast BLI K4 is more detailed than the Bachman k4, the plastic BLI M1, and almost on par with Brass Models. This goes true with the diecast MTH 2-8-2 vs the plastic bli, Athearn, or Bachmann 2-8-2s. There are many more, but I can't say with absolute certianty, unless I own one of those engines. My point is being that today's diecast models are on par with everything else. Back on topic, my OP said that if the detail size and amount are all the same, which one you would get. Charles
Charles, respectfully those are apples to oranges comparisons.
It has nothing to do with the materials chosen, the BLI and MTH models cost a lot more, they better be more detailed.
And, the Bachmann K4 is generally a 25 year old model, in its day it was very good for its modest price.
Same is true of the new Bachmann 2-8-2, very nice for less than half the price of an MTH 2-8-2, which are out of production and hard to find.
I would agree with one point: it depends upon the individual locomotive in question.
My personal tastes gravitate toward the rarer prototypes which are only available in brass. So for what I want, there is usually no other option.
The Bowser diecast kit locomotives, still available in very limited quantities in the marketplace, can be highly detailed if also built with the superdetailing kits that Bowser also sold, which were predominantly nice lost wax brass castings, some of which were also used on brass imports. However, they are not for the faint of heart, and it does take considerable time to assemble a really nice looking one--but it can be done.
Also, as I now have some hybrids in stock and have seen others close-up, and am able to compare to other full-on brass locomotives from the very same prototype railroads, I am able to see detail differences when the models are placed side-by-side. Most people might not notice or care about the detail differences, because the full-on brass engine might cost twice as much, but it is not 100% accurate to say that hybrids are "as good or better than brass", as compromises are being made to keep the hybrid price down and to offer a lot of bang for the buck.
For instance, some of the most recent brass steamers are coming in with see-through frame details, while the hybrids have diecast frames to save money. Most people might not care about a see-through locomotive frame, or might not see the benefit of having same in an area not always readily visible, but some would.
In the end it's going to come down to personal preferences versus available budget.
dknelson:
Yes, I never said that my comparisons were completly even. In fact, you can't ever compare 2 engines without something that isn't even(price, or time built).
But what I was trying to say is, you said that you've never "seen a diecast(engine) with the same level of detail". And that is wrong, unless you've never seen an MTH 2-8-2, or BLI k4, or any other example that I've already mentioned.
Hope you understand what I am getting at...
Trainman440 Yes, I never said that my comparisons were completly even. In fact, you can't ever compare 2 engines without something that isn't even(price, or time built). But what I was trying to say is, you said that you've never "seen a diecast(engine) with the same level of detail". And that is wrong, unless you've never seen an MTH 2-8-2, or BLI k4, or any other example that I've already mentioned. Hope you understand what I am getting at... Charles
Someone else said that, but I did not. I simply pointed out the shortcomings of the MTH Berkshire, and commented that the weight question is not an issue to me because I have generally been able to weight my plastic boiler locos to the same weights as die cast boiler locos.
I have seen the MTH 2-8-2 and the BLI K4, While the BLI K4 is a nicely done model, I was not impressed so much by the MTH Mike. Again, too many of their details seem heavy and oversized.
But I don't buy either of those brands much, since I don't use DCC and don't want sound. I have been known to buy a few BLI pieces at bargin prices and remove the decoders.......by MTH, no thank you.
My vote would be a high qaulity brass. The cast enginbes I have seen over time they peel their paint and get a powdery white dust from the metal, the brass has weight, great detail, can be modified...Plastic from thE factory are not as heavy. Great detail on higher end products.
Sheldo - just curious what is your issue with MTH ?
YGW
Charles--
I was not the one who said that, but the rtr diecast engines available from MTH and BLI, well, I personally would not honestly compare them to brass models. There are noticeable differences in detail, unless perhaps you are discussing the oldest or earliest brass from the 60's.
I owned the BLI PRR 2-8-0--very nice engine and nice finish, and I did like mine prior to reverting to southwestern railroads. First run models unfortunately had some bad gears that fail quickly but can be replaced under warranty (annoying to have to deal with).
yougottawanta My vote would be a high qaulity brass. The cast enginbes I have seen over time they peel their paint and get a powdery white dust from the metal, the brass has weight, great detail, can be modified...Plastic from thE factory are not as heavy. Great detail on higher end products. Sheldo - just curious what is your issue with MTH ? YGW
I run DC, I have no interest in onboard sound. MTH locos require 16 volts DC or more to reach normal top speeds. I run my trains near the original NMRA DC standards, my max track voltage is 13.5 volts.
It is well documented in many product reviews about MTH locos not being fully and properly compatible with traditional "12 volt DC", and running "slow" at 12 volts.
Additionally, I run my trains with Aristo Craft Train Engineer wireless radio trottles. These throttles use constant voltage pulse width modulated motor control, which is generally not compatible with ANY dual mode DCC decoder.
I remove all decoders from any/all brands of locos I buy that are so equiped - but MTH - at least on some models, has used 16 volt motors, not 12 volt motors, so even after removing the decoder, they would not work corrcetly on my layout.
These facts, combined with the what I feel is "toy like" oversized detail on some models, and crazy high prices, makes MTH a non starter for me.
PRR8259 Charles-- I was not the one who said that, but the rtr diecast engines available from MTH and BLI, well, I personally would not honestly compare them to brass models. There are noticeable differences in detail, unless perhaps you are discussing the oldest or earliest brass from the 60's. I owned the BLI PRR 2-8-0--very nice engine and nice finish, and I did like mine prior to reverting to southwestern railroads. First run models unfortunately had some bad gears that fail quickly but can be replaced under warranty (annoying to have to deal with). John
John, here we are in complete agreement. Most of the BLI and MTH die cast boiler locos have lots of crude and oversized cast on detail. I consider most all my plastic boiler locos to be better detailed - OR - in the case of several Bachmann models, die cast "plain" boilers with lots of applied plastic detail parts - all way superior to the cast on detail of MTH and BLI metal boilers.
Sorry, I meant to say that my comment was directed to dknelson(Dave Nelson).
My bad...
I will edit that comment to stop confusion.