I too shop on ebay where some are overcharging for plastic 2-8-8-2's and where some brass models are actually cheaper than some plastic. It's all a matter of what you want. Occasionally nice models are almost given away.
Maybe this isn't the right thread for this observation, but I'll throw this out anyway.
The observation about a proposed N&W 4-8-0 was interesting. It reminded me that N&W sold light M and M-1 4-8-0's to Winston-Salem Southbound, High Point Thomasville & Denton, and Atlanta Birmingham & Coast. AB&C was absorbed by ACL, so an N&W light 4-8-0 could be operated justifiably in ACL lettering. N&W also sold at least one heavy M-2 4-8-0 to Durham & Southern.
My own opinion is that the market for any model can be enhanced by taking advantage of information about these later re-sales. BLI and MTH have already started releasing some of their PRR engines with plausible lettering for Long Island, LNE, and others. Additional possibilities for some of these models include DT&I, Interstate, many shortlines, and even ATSF! A new valve/cylinder casting would turn the H10s into an H9s, which would expand the possibilities even further.
I urge producers to think about these things when considering future products.
A logical choice would be the Baldwin standard light 2-10-0, represented by Strasburg 90. It was basically the same as engines used by Great Western Sugar, Seaboard, Gainesville Midland, AT&N, Woodward Iron, Durham & Southern, and others.
New York Central owned over six hundred H-5 2-8-2, and they appeared in many variations on the parent road and subsidiaries. Copies were bought by NKP, and second hand H-5's found their way to the High Point Thomasville & Denton, Atlanta Birmingham & Coast (ACL) and possibly others.
The Harriman 2-8-0 is best remembered as a UP or SP engine. It could be produced in a UP or SP version, and with minimal reworking a second run could be produced in the other. This is something like BLI's recent release of a generic non-Belpaire 2-8-0 based on their H10s 2-8-0. Minimal mods to an established model produced a new model. These Harriman 2-8-0 engines were very typical. Engines almost identical to the Harrimans were owned by Erie and others. The Bachmann 2-8-0 represents this basic type, but its 63" drivers are too large (should be 57") and the sandbox is completely bogus.
Much of what I said about the Harriman 2-8-0's can be applied to the Harriman light 4-6-2, which ciuld be adapted into very acceptable models of SR light Pacifics, B&O P-3 or P-4 Pacifics, and probably many others of the same era.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie sold a great many light 2-8-0's to several shortlines in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and elsewhere, so they could be sold in many lettering schemes.
Bessemer & Lake Erie also sold a lot of their light 2-8-0's to regional shortlines.
I've only scratched the surface. The unique ones are interesting to collectors, but not necessarily to those who are interested in believable operations.
Tom
John, just another one of our differences, that $300 Rivarossi, or my two Proto 2-8-8-2's, or my two $300 each BLI/PCM Reading T-1's lettered for the ATLANTIC CENTRAL (bought back in the day when they offered DC versions), cause me no concern about their future value.
Same is true about my 1970's PFM USRA light Pacific, which now has plastic delta trailing truck and a Bachmann Spectrum tender.
They were bought with money that others folks might have spent on a vacation to the islands, or a membership at the golf club, or a ski trip in the mountains - could you ever get that money back?
Since I'm not going to sell them, and I accept that they only have "value" to me, I do with them as I please without a second thought.......
And, at least for me, the combination of protolancing the ATLANTIC CENTRAL, and modeling its interchanges with the B&O, C&O, and WM, provides me with exactly the kind of modeling I enjoy, a nice balance of fantasy and historical reality.
That is a pleasure worth every penny.........
Sheldon
One of my train "lodge" buddies, Dick Kaiser, always said "if it's worth having it's worth having in multiples" so of course I agree with you Sheldon. I have a bad tendency to buy two or three of everything, including articulateds, even once upon a time (years ago) in brass, for that very reason. I can hear his voice saying the quote above in my head...
Sadly, Dick just within the past couple weeks went into a nursing home, and his mind is leaving him such that he doesn't know quite exactly where he is now.
His uninformed, non-model railroader son in law is currently trying to sell the trains (most of his brass is long gone), and Dick Kaiser is still with us, at least in body. I'm stating his name here so that his friends out there, who may very possibly be reading this forum, can at least know what is going on with him. I can get the name of the home but don't have it right now today.
I'm sure Dick would want me to pass along a hello to you all, and especially a shout out to John Glaab, in particular. They enjoyed many brass "horse trades" in the past...
Maybe I should "proto-lance"? It would be the only way I could possibly begin to justify the various equipment I like all being on one road...but I'm hesitant to pay for expensive paint jobs that, being a private name, would lower value of a brass engine.
That's the dilemna I struggle with and have not found a satisfactory answer to. For now, I'm attempting to learn more about Texas & Pacific operations in the hopes of actually modeling it. Maybe I need some kind of magnetic private roadname label that could go on over painted on lettering? But brass is non-ferrous; would have to have a backing piece behind or inside the tender....lol.
John
John,
Price is not my first controling factor, I have locos that I have spent $300 to $400 for, 5, 10 or 15 years ago, when prices were somewhat different. That is like paying $500 or $600 today.
But I also have lot of bargains, because I am a careful shopper, and because I don't want DCC and sound. I'm happy to buy new old stock Proto diesels and put gears in them, or buy an older NOS Spectrum steamer and do a couple small mods to make it run perfect, while I am customizing it for the ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
So I have lots of locos, that came "new in the box", but needed a little something, at typically only $100 each, sometimes less, even after mods or repairs.
BUT, I will NOT buy $500 locos with DCC/sound that I then need to rewire. And I will not buy locos that cost twice that, it just is not happening, no matter what they are made of.
Lucky for me, I now have most of the locos I need and want for operations on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL. And because I have no "collector bug", I have no shelf queens.
The layout theme of the ATLANTIC CENTRAL has a fairly set list of roster requirements, I "protolanced" a list of possible locos for the desired operations years ago - I only buy to fill jobs on the list. There are only a few slots left. I'm not an "impulse" buyer, in this hobby or otherwise.
One will likely be filled with brass, for the best accuracy, I'm waiting and watching for a WM Pacific......
And I would like a few modern 10 wheelers, like the B&O B18 class. Not holding my breath for those in plastic/die cast either.
But would I buy a $1000-$1600 C&O 2-6-6-6 when the Rivarossi version I have was only $300? Not likely, the Rivarossi is a good running well detailed loco with a good track record.
A typical train on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL is pulled by four powered diesels or two steamers, the layout will stage nearly thirty trains when complete. Add in a few switchers, a few doodlebugs and RDC's, and a few operating session power changes, and you get the current 130 loco/powered unit roster real fast...........
One other factor when building the kind of layout I want, I have many "duplicates" of various locos, because that is the way the prototype is/was. If you rolled up to the typical transition era engine terminal, there would be multiples of the same classes of locos in line waiting for their assignments - that's how my layout looks.....
Hard to do (and expensive) in brass, but I have nine Spectrum USRA heavy Mountains, not one cost more than $100 - they all run great......and gives a nice "fleet" look.
And yes, you are in a completely different version of this hobby, and agreed there is no right or wrong version of this hobby.
Just thought I would share some of my views on costs.
Hi Selector--
Thanks for your post. Your scenery appears to be better than passable, too!
John, I am much like you are about the hobby. I really don't enjoy building the layout at all...it's a means to an end. I do enjoy the photography later, so I hafta do it, and passably well.
I have stated elsewhere that there are two great inventions attributed to humanity, the pipe organ and the steam locomotive. Both require gases or vapours to work them, and that they work at all as well as they do, and as reliably and as long as they do, is a testament to man's ingenuity, art, and determination.
Completely agreed.
Sheldon--
Post wasn't directed at you. I know you will use best available loco that meets your needs, brass or otherwise. Your definition of best available probably has more to do with "at what price" than mine.
Yes, brass may not contribute to the overall effect. That is absolutely true.
However, you and I are as opposite as can be.
You see, I don't really care about the layout: it is merely a place to run the trains (and my kids are hard on scenery, so Howard Zane levels of scenic detail may have to wait till kids are older, if I could even attempt such). I'm all about the models themselves. I just am utterly fascinated by steam power, and enjoy watching them run. I can imagine the other stuff that isn't there.
I just enjoy a fine model, and the finer the better for me. I can't deliver that kind of detailing myself, either.
So our whole approaches to this hobby are "opposite". Yours isn't bad, and mine isn't either. We are just merely different and there's room for both.
Respectfully submitted--
PRR8259 Hi Sheldon-- Absolutely true. I'm not rich and can only buy maybe one model a year (in a normal year), so I have to make hard choices. Yes, there is a point of diminishing returns, and definitely comes down to personal choice. The real question is: what is that other 20% of the detail worth to you? I'm an engineer so I immediately see stuff that is missing off some models. I like quality and detail, so the extra expense is "worthwhile" to me. It all comes down to priorities. I have less of everything else: less layout, less expensive turnouts, less rolling stock, less acquisition of basement right-of-way from the wife--and I'm considering downsizing my layout to get rid of the loops and rebuild to a true point to point, to take up less space, and to completely redo the trackwork to much wider radius on the curves that I would have--but then I'd have a big bridge scene. So I don't skimp on the very few engines I want. That doesn't mean others should do the same thing. My total model train investment is likely less than most folks on these forums. Just don't trash brass if you've never even tried them out for real on your personal layout, that's all I'm asking. Others need a big fleet just to operate their layouts, and would rather have the big fleet of motive power. That's what is great with this hobby. It's your railroad. Enjoy it. John
Hi Sheldon--
Absolutely true. I'm not rich and can only buy maybe one model a year (in a normal year), so I have to make hard choices.
Yes, there is a point of diminishing returns, and definitely comes down to personal choice.
The real question is: what is that other 20% of the detail worth to you? I'm an engineer so I immediately see stuff that is missing off some models. I like quality and detail, so the extra expense is "worthwhile" to me.
It all comes down to priorities. I have less of everything else: less layout, less expensive turnouts, less rolling stock, less acquisition of basement right-of-way from the wife--and I'm considering downsizing my layout to get rid of the loops and rebuild to a true point to point, to take up less space, and to completely redo the trackwork to much wider radius on the curves that I would have--but then I'd have a big bridge scene. So I don't skimp on the very few engines I want. That doesn't mean others should do the same thing. My total model train investment is likely less than most folks on these forums.
Just don't trash brass if you've never even tried them out for real on your personal layout, that's all I'm asking.
Others need a big fleet just to operate their layouts, and would rather have the big fleet of motive power. That's what is great with this hobby. It's your railroad. Enjoy it.
John, I have some brass, I have had and sold some brass (diesels), I may likely buy a few more pieces of brass.
I do not hold and engineering degree, but I have considerable formal training and real life experiance in automotive engineering, architecture, structural engineering as well as mechanical and electrial engineering.
My clients hire me because of my broad base of knowledge about old houses and their systems, and because I am very much a perfectionist. I am also a skilled trim carpenter.
I also build HiFi speakers, talk about deminishing returns.....
But even I know when good enough is good enough.
Here is the thing about model trains for me, my set of goals is to create a small part of a whole minature world, viewed as a whole, the big picture, not to focus in on one loco, or one car, so investing that much in one loco, is simply not a good allocation of resources.
And that extra 20% detail does not really ad much to the overall effect.
John, aside from getting a specific prototype you desire, here is my fundimental problem with current new production brass - deminishing return. At what point are you paying 100% more for a 20% improvement?
I don't drive a BMW or Benz for the same reason, and I drive nice cars.
Until inflation changes the value of the dollar acordingly, even if I hit the 400 million power ball, no HO model train locomotive is worth $1500 or $2000, or even $1000 of my money.
Especially not while ones that cost $200 run and look as good as they do.
It is my opinion that the idea comes mainly from BLI and MTH's own marketing: that these engines are as good or better than brass, which seems to have been very effective on the general train buying public. A lot of people have bought into that belief, including myself for actually quite awhile.
However, eventually I reached a point where I was not perhaps 100% happy with the detailing and operational performance (not talking about bells and whistles like the sound and smoke, but actually running on the layout), and then I tried brass again, with an open mind.
The hybrids are very nice, and selected Bachmann and Proto offerings too, can be very nicely done indeed, and certainly can have excellent detail or even be modified to have that detail. However, you get what you pay for, and the more expensive brass (out of the box) offers detail and operational performance that the mechanical engineer in some of us wants to have. I can get better, smoother, low speed operation in plain DC with them than even with anybody's engines in DCC.
I'm not dissing Sheldon's collection or anyone elses: he is quite happy with his modified and improved steamers, and that's fantastic. However, some other people that don't or never did own a single brass model saying their engines are "better" than...well, they just don't truly understand what it is they are missing out on. That's all.
Of course with anything there are lemons, notorious bad models that don't perform, or poorly cared for models out there, so one has to be careful before plunking down hard earned cash.
Sorry, I meant to say that my comment was directed to dknelson(Dave Nelson).
My bad...
I will edit that comment to stop confusion.
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling the PRR & NYC in HO
Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/@trainman440
Instagram (where I share projects!): https://www.instagram.com/trainman440
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
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, 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.
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
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.
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
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...
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.
dknelson:
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.
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
dknelson And your point being ... ? Dave Nelson
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, 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.
The extra weightis nice for Die Cast.
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
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
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 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.