A more modern model of an S scale NYC Hudson?

laming posted:
AmFlyer posted:

In order to sell more that about 70 to 100 units of any engine the engine would have to be able to work with AC track power and the Legacy control system as well as run on 20" radius curves.

Of course, in the realm of control systems, I seriously doubt there is any way that Lionel or MTH will EVER surrender the proprietary concept of their operating systems.

 

Their size almost dictates that their systems are proprietary.  They need the extra revenue stream.  HO and N are  giant markets in comparison; most HO/N manufacturers would rather leave that niche to someone else.

Brendan

With plastic the the tooling is cheaper, and faster to get up and running. Adequately detailed, (i.e. separately applied handrails) I would have no problem buying allot of them.

I mean if they can produce a diecast legacy Berk for $500. The price point on plastic should be awesome.

I'm not sure but I think the can mold in more detail with plastic also.

AmFlyer posted:

The S gauge market is different than O gauge since we in S have so few engine models available. A painted plastic shell done with adequate detail would sell to almost all high rail buyers. It would not impact my purchase decision. Those who want engines for scale layouts are a different pool of buyers. My personal opinion is plastic would be acceptable for those buyers if scale wheels were made and could be swapped easily.

Just my opinions but if it were my money I would take the risk and do a painted plastic steam engine.

I would handle a highly detailed plastic model in the same way I handle a highly detailed brass model.... As little as possible. But I would not feel bad if I broke it.

  What I'm getting at is scale people who value high detail won't care if it's painted brass or plastic.

What if you could get a river rasin level detailed loco for 500.00 in legacy.

Highly detailed models are often very delicate to handle. That is something I take into consideration when I buy, as I will probably never have any kind of layout where I don't have to store excess equipment in drawers, boxes, totes, or on shelving.

One of my qualms with HO scale is that the really nicely detailed plastic models are extremely fragile, to the point where even  a minor derailment can do a lot of damage to ladders, stirrup steps, grab irons, and other details. What's the point of having a finely detailed model if it is too delicate to use and enjoy?

Jeff C

Greekchief posted:

With plastic the the tooling is cheaper, and faster to get up and running. Adequately detailed, (i.e. separately applied handrails) I would have no problem buying allot of them.

I mean if they can produce a diecast legacy Berk for $500. The price point on plastic should be awesome.

I'm not sure but I think the can mold in more detail with plastic also.

Sorry. A steamer must be die cast, unless we are talking expensive brass. Otherwise, wallet shut for me.

BTW, this thread roughly duplicates ones that appear typically about every year and a half. 

Repectfully,

Bob

So, the only scale detailed steam locomotive with a plastic boiler  in recent times in S that I am aware of is the SHS 2-8-0.  I have heard complaints about the sound system and the smoke unit, but have heard nothing negative about the operating characteristics or the level of detail.

I, personally, find the detail is more fragile than I would like, but that is because the DETAIL is plastic, not the boiler and cab.  If the loco had durable metal details with a plastic boiler, it would be perfect in my book and I would certainly buy a Hudson with a plastic boiler and metal add-on details.  If that loco had the option of flyerchief or legacy and one could choose either, that would make it all the better. 

LittleTommy

 

Perhaps some steam engines types are more acceptable to be produced in plastic than die-cast, an example being the streamlined SP 4449. It has a lot less fine detail to worry about and should be a popular choice. In fact there are probably several streamlined or semi streamlined engines which would be good sellers.

LittleTommy posted:

So, the only scale detailed steam locomotive with a plastic boiler  in recent times in S that I am aware of is the SHS 2-8-0.  I have heard complaints about the sound system and the smoke unit, but have heard nothing negative about the operating characteristics or the level of detail.

I, personally, find the detail is more fragile than I would like, but that is because the DETAIL is plastic, not the boiler and cab.  If the loco had durable metal details with a plastic boiler, it would be perfect in my book and I would certainly buy a Hudson with a plastic boiler and metal add-on details.  If that loco had the option of flyerchief or legacy and one could choose either, that would make it all the better. 

LittleTommy

 

 

Hopefully sales figures on the FlyerChief and Legacy Berkshires will inspire Lionel to tool up a new steamer...

Jeff C

After giving this plastic vs. metal talk some thinking, I can see where metal would be preferable.

Because of the bulky proprietary electronics, there's really no room to add weight if a plastic boiler were to be used.  Here's the innards that make the Y3 go, liberated from Carl Tuveson's website:

TMCC Y3 1TMCC Y3 2

If a plastic boiler were used, there's really no place to place an extra weight.

Now, our friends in HO have it easy.  Even with the smaller physical size of HO locomotives, there's room to have weight added to the frames.  Here's a DCC/sound decoder that can handle everything but smoke:

Tsunami Steam

A diesel Tsunami decoder is the same size, and here's MTH's diesel's electronics:

MTH F3 AT&SF 040217 001

Again, a lot of space is sucked up for proprietary electronics.

Even without sound, non-proprietary DCC decoders take up little space.  Decoder, decoder, where's the decoder:

KGB 122408 01

Oh, there it is, snug as a bug in a rug between the motor and front truck.  This is a JST Gold decoder. While marketed as an HO decoder,  I've used these in AM RS3's and SHS F3's with no problems.

So, in Flyerworld, I would have to (reluctantly) side with metal for steam locomotives.

Rusty

Attachments

Photos (5)

Why the need for extra weight in a steamer and not a diesel? A model of a one or two motored diesel (F3 -50'8" long) and a smaller (Pacific- ~79' w/tender , Mikado- ~82' w/tender) in any scale pulling the same toy train should have nearly the same tractive effort shouldn't they? Wouldn't the shell on the steamer be the only thing in plastic? I would think the frame and the metal that surrounds the drive train would have nearly the same weight or more than a diesel frame with diecast trucks.

Mark

I respectfully disagree with Rusty's analysis.

Lionel, in keeping with the usual O gauge practice, packs most of the electronics into the engine and leaves the tender pretty empty.  AC Gilbert packed the reverse unit and the whistle into the tender. If one modeled a NYC Hudson with an extended tender (like this MTH O Gauge model Image result for hudson with extended tender

you would have plenty of room for electronics in the tender and enough room in the engine for added weight.   One might have to put up with hard wiring from the tender to the engine but I think a plastic boiler on a Hudson is "doable".  Dare I suggest that, since they already have a workable 4-8-4 mechanism that a plastic bodied Niagara or Mohawk with the same tender would also be something that folks (at least those of us who grew up on the "Water Level Route") would buy.  If any of those engines were offered with scale details in durable metal at a flyer chief price point, I would eat brussels sprouts 3 meals a day for 6 months to afford to buy any or all of them.  

LittleTommy

LittleTommy posted:

I respectfully disagree with Rusty's analysis.

Lionel, in keeping with the usual O gauge practice, packs most of the electronics into the engine and leaves the tender pretty empty.  AC Gilbert packed the reverse unit and the whistle into the tender. If one modeled a NYC Hudson with an extended tender (like this MTH O Gauge model Image result for hudson with extended tender

you would have plenty of room for electronics in the tender and enough room in the engine for added weight.   One might have to put up with hard wiring from the tender to the engine but I think a plastic boiler on a Hudson is "doable".  Dare I suggest that, since they already have a workable 4-8-4 mechanism that a plastic bodied Niagara or Mohawk with the same tender would also be something that folks (at least those of us who grew up on the "Water Level Route") would buy.  If any of those engines were offered with scale details in durable metal at a flyer chief price point, I would eat brussels sprouts 3 meals a day for 6 months to afford to buy any or all of them.  

LittleTommy

Eliminate the locomotive's traction tires commonly used on Flyer/Hirail locomotives and results will be different, particularly if using a big dead-weight die cast tender, like what AM's Northern is.  Actually, my even AM Pacific pulls slightly better than my Northern.

Lionel's M.O. has been motor control in the locomotive, sound in the tender.  That's how they can get by with only an opto-coupler on the drawbar instead of a multi-wire cable or PC board drawbar like MTH uses.  I don't see that changing.

To have everything in the tender, you'd need two wires for the motor, two wires for the headlight and two wires for the smoke units.  Add another two wires if they were to ge inspired and stick a speaker in the boiler.  Even if a common ground were somehow used, it would still require 4-5 wires.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

After giving this plastic vs. metal talk some thinking, I can see where metal would be preferable.

Because of the bulky proprietary electronics, there's really no room to add weight if a plastic boiler were to be used.  Here's the innards that make the Y3 go, liberated from Carl Tuveson's website:

TMCC Y3 1TMCC Y3 2

If a plastic boiler were used, there's really no place to place an extra weight.

 

Rusty

What are most peoples needs for the Y3 to pull a certain quantity of rolling stock? I would say that most people would be pushed to put 20 freight cars behind one of these except for those that are lucky to have the space for a large layout.

What would be interesting now is for someone with a Y3 to remove the boiler shell and then slowly load it up with traditional AF freight cars and see where the break point would be for a maximum consist. If it was able to pull around 30 then I think it would meet a high 90’s % for most people. Traction tyres would enhance its pulling capacity to assist a plastic shell.

Ukaflyer posted:

What are most peoples needs for the Y3 to pull a certain quantity of rolling stock? I would say that most people would be pushed to put 20 freight cars behind one of these except for those that are lucky to have the space for a large layout.

What would be interesting now is for someone with a Y3 to remove the boiler shell and then slowly load it up with traditional AF freight cars and see where the break point would be for a maximum consist. If it was able to pull around 30 then I think it would meet a high 90’s % for most people. Traction tyres would enhance its pulling capacity to assist a plastic shell.

Articulateds like the Y3 are somewhat of an exception having two sets of drivers and motors.  If they don't pull heroically, there's something definitely wrong.

All I can report is when I run my Flyer Alton Limited (4-6-2 and the 6 heavyweight set passenger cars,) the locomotive slips on level SHS R24 curves, (no slipping on the straightaways) even with it's almighty metal boiler and traction tires.   It doesn't slip excessively, but it does slip and slow down.  I imagine slipping would be worse on R20.  If I were to set up grades, I'd probably have to cut out one or two of the passenger cars.

Now personally, I have set a 13 car maximum (including caboose) on my freight trains, be they Scale, Flyer or HiRail, so my locomotives are hardly maxed out. 

Rusty

 

Rusty, I wonder why the Alton struggles to pull that train. Below is a picture of my FlyerChief GP7 pulling a 20 car freight around a 180deg 2.1% grade, 60” diameter curve. The section from the rear tunnel to the bridge is 1.8%. Every engine I have will pull that train up that grade. The track is MTH, so the same as you are using. All the trucks are carefully lubricated and clean so it is as free rolling as Gilbert, Lionel and MTH cars can be.

I do not have the Alton but I have a NH and a Southern (AM) each with the 6 passenger cars. My poorest pulling engines are the older TMCC Lionel Flyer Pacifics and Light Mikado’s.

Tom

AmFlyer posted:

Rusty, I wonder why the Alton struggles to pull that train. Below is a picture of my FlyerChief GP7 pulling a 20 car freight around a 180deg 2.1% grade, 60” diameter curve. The section from the rear tunnel to the bridge is 1.8%. Every engine I have will pull that train up that grade. The track is MTH, so the same as you are using. All the trucks are carefully lubricated and clean so it is as free rolling as Gilbert, Lionel and MTH cars can be.

I do not have the Alton but I have a NH and a Southern (AM) each with the 6 passenger cars. My poorest pulling engines are the older TMCC Lionel Flyer Pacifics and Light Mikado’s.

Well, the Alton Pacific is one of the older TMCC locomotives and can't be compared to a FlyerChief GP7.  The Flyonel heavyweights also provide a fair amount of drag.

AM Pacific's are wonderful pullers with (HiRail) or without (Scale) "Gription Traction."Gription 2

Rusty

Attachments

Photos (1)

I have the Alton Limited set with the 6 passenger cars. All of my curves are R20. I have one area on the layout where that train encounters 3 consecutive R20 turns throughout the train at the same time:

The train would be between the two X's. The Pacific will slow down due to the weight load and lateral forces on the wheelsets in the curves but it doesn't slip. At slow speeds the effect is pronounced and then I give the engine a "Boost" since I operate with the Cab1 controller and that function adds some voltage  until I release the button. I have found that a good cleaning of the track and all engine wheels reduces this effect.

Mark

 

Attachments

Photos (1)

I did not mean to drag the new GP7 into the discussion but it was the only picture of the train ascending the grade I had handy. It is a plastic shell. I have an 8 car PRR set of the Lionel Flyer heavyweights. I only have six of them in the train on the layout because 8 will not fit on the station siding with the double headed PA’s. I do not run a lot of the Flyonel passenger and freight cars because it is a PITA to regauge all the wheelsets to the correct gauge. As manufactured they are about 1/10” narrow. I pull the six PRR heavyweights with a double headed AM PA set with scale wheels and no traction tires. One PA will just slip, double headed it takes those 6 passenger cars anywhere on the layout with no problems. I guess I need to try pulling them with a PRR TMCC light Mikado and see what happens.

I guess ad the ads say “your mileage may vary.”

Tom

Oh well...now that we're completely off this post's rails I'll contribute this.

Dale Manquen was a frequent contributor to this forum and an incredible hobbyist on model trains. On the referenced web page you'll read everything you never  wanted to know about the operation of TMCC and the like. 

BUT you'll also see Dale's humorous success at refuting the premise of James May's video in Rusty's post. Not only was Dale able to make his trains go uphill he made them go UPSIDE DOWN while doing it:

clip_image014

On some tracks the grades are non-existent but there were other challenges:

clip_image012

clip_image021

Anyway, the article makes for some funny reading and visually incredible images.

Sadly, I believe Dale recently passed away.

Mark

Dale's passing was a most unfortunate loss to his family and the hobby.

Back to plastic vs die cast. I tested a number of engines by connecting the 6 car PRR heavyweight Lionel Flyer passenger train to each in turn. Results as follows. AM PA-PA plastic shell set, scale wheels no traction tires. Starts and pulls the train anywhere on the layout, would pull more than the 6 cars. Lionel Flyer early PRR TMCC Light Mikado, die cast shell, high rail wheels, traction tires. Drive wheels slip, cannot even start the train to pull it out of the station! These Light Mikado's are not great pullers. The similar TMCC with the Pacific wheel arrangement started the train, ran well up to a 1% grade. It barely made it up the 2% grade, required a running start. It would not back up the train on straight and level track. Tried an AM GP9 converted to TMCC, plastic shell. Pulled the train up the 2% grade but was at its limit. The AM Northern (converted to TMCC) pulled the train anywhere like there was nothing attached to it. The newer Lionel Legacy diesels with plastic shells would likely pull at least 9 of the passenger cars up a 2% grade. I have some of them pulling 9 of the AM Budd cars and they could clearly take many more than 9, but the AM Budd cars are easier to pull than the Lionel Heavyweights. Lastly a plastic shell Gilbert 283. Takes those 6 cars anywhere on the layout but at a much higher speed than I normally operate.

Your results may vary.

I will be leaving early tomorrow for a 3 week driving trip back east for family visiting. This is the longest I will be away from the layout since it was finished. I will be out of the testing business and possibly a victim of withdrawal symptoms until I return home.

Tom

Interesting that a brass S scale Hudson has come available recently...priced over $2000.00.

My pockets aren't that deep, and my level of comfort for sinking that kind of money into one models is extremely low--even if I felt I could afford the purchase.

Jeff C

Add Reply

Likes (3)
MELGARRoundhouse BillChuck K


OGR Publishing, Inc. PO Box 218, Hilliard, OH 43026 330-757-3020
www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×