What if Lionel were to build S Gauge steam engines with plastic shells.

I am all for it. When you look at the detailing available in modern plastic. It is outstanding. Why wouldn't we try this? For the record I'm a 35 year old married guy.  Probably one of the youngest on here for S anyway.

Bill, thanks for starting the new thread. Based on your comments above I would absolutely purchase plastic shell locomotives. I do think it is important they be painted and not bare plastic. I prefer Legacy with DCC compatibility.

Bill:

I am not opposed to plastic locomotives.  As long as the detail can be on the level with the Y-3's.  I would like the electronics to support DCC, but the Flyer Chief Berkshire performs remarkably well.  Have been very pleased with the offerings from Lionel motive power.  Would also encourage more rolling stock items now that the truck fiasco of the cylindrical hoppers is behind us.

Roger

It was interesting to note that the cost of a plastic engine at cost price to Lionel could be somewhere between 1/4 and a 1/3 of a die cast engine. So taking a stab in the dark could we assume that the Y3 cost Lionel about $400 and they then sell them to dealers for somewhere over $500? If some dealers have been moving them on for not much more for clearnece I would like to think that they are not doing so at a loss, or may be?

So on a hyperthetical set of figures above, a plastic Y3 could  cost Lionel $150-175 to have produced. The problem now is that if people accept plastic shells on steamers,  will they pass on what could be a significant saving to the end purchaser or will they take advantage of a lower unit cost and still keep the prices up high close to a die cast unit and therefore make a larger profit for themselves?

If they were honourable and set the cost to the end user at a pro rata rate then there could be some great deals to be had and possibly people that just buy a single item could be tempted to purchase more. Just out of interest what does an HO plastic Y3 cost these days?

Then this brings us onto the freight and passenger cars being offered, if steam locomotives could cost us considerably less by being plastic, then why are we paying so much for for them? ( I think most of us have our views on this).

As for Legacy or Lionchief, I am happy to have them as Lionchief, keeps cost down and has most things I need. 

The plastic should be thick enough to be sturdy. Steam engines have lots of things hanging out, like cab roofs, pilots, smoke stacks and so on. The plastic will have to be thick like Gilbert locos so as not to be broken off easily.

You could really feel the difference in the thickness of Williams diesel shells when they went from traditional locos (F-7, GP-9, Sharks) to scale locos (AlCo FA, EMD E-7) and such.

The detail on the SD70s, U33s and ES44s are fantastic.  Obviously all plastic and good pullers.  As long as a steamer looks great and pulls I don't care if it is plastic.  I want more product and choices in the S gauge market.  If plastic is the answer so be it.

Are there any good examples of highly detailed plastic steamers out there in other gauges to take a look at for comparison? 

Ben 

NotInWI posted:

The detail on the SD70s, U33s and ES44s are fantastic.  Obviously all plastic and good pullers.  As long as a steamer looks great and pulls I don't care if it is plastic.  I want more product and choices in the S gauge market.  If plastic is the answer so be it.

Are there any good examples of highly detailed plastic steamers out there in other gauges to take a look at for comparison? 

Ben 

Howz ziz?

The Athearn HO SP MT4.

Rusty

Roundhouse Bill posted:

 Assuming the engines had enough weight to pull the same number of cars as a Y3, would you purchase a plastic shelled locomotive?

Nope. 

Plastic steam engines are OK for down market starter sets, but not for quality pieces in the larger scales. Die cast is more durable over the long term with screw threads that are better able to withstand damage after repeated reassembly. And, I suspect the claimed cost savings is being overstated (the electronics are to be still comparable). Maerklin (arguably, the world's best mass market train maker with the durability and QC to prove it) dabbled in plastic for a short period and then reverted to sheet metal and die cast because of quality (real and perceived) and lack of customer acceptance. SHS incorporated much plastic into the design of the tender and detail parts for their 2-8-0, resulting in many of its parts being fragile. Many fear to disassemble or ship it. By contemporary comparison, the all-metal Lionel-AF Mikado and Pacific are far more physically robust.

Rolling stock and diesel body shells are often brought up to support the use of plastic. Rolling stock gains in light weight and cost, but rolling stock are not usually operating devices and are seldom taken apart for repair. The easily stripped screw holes in diesel bodies are precisely what puts me off. And, notice, if you will, that the most premium of diesels and electrics in Lionel's O scale lineup (i.e., JLC, VL) are made from die cast.

Metal = quality. Plastic = cheapo.

Bob

Bob,

I agree that stripped plastic screw holes are a real pain but if Lionel know what our views are now, then it shouldn't be difficult to have a metal threaded insert set into a plastic housing which would overcome this problem

Ukaflyer posted:

Just out of interest what does an HO plastic Y3 cost these days?

 

Not a Y3 (which currently isn't available in HO,) but the plastic Athearn HO SP MT4 pictured three posts up MSRP's out at $419.98 with DCC and Tsunami sound.  $319.98 for straight DC, no sound.

I think what's going to need to happen is what type of plastic steam locomotive, if it's going to be Conventional, Legacy or FlyerChief and an estimated price range before folks can make a valid decision on if they'd be interested or not.

Rusty

Rusty, Lionel has done no active planning on plastic locomotives. This is just a consideration.

Bob, all of the Flyonel diesels have plastic screw holes. How many have you had problems with? You are thinking of 60 year old Gilbert engines.

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Rappe sold me a Weaver brass 4-6-0 chassis a while back and I made a boiler for it using a length of 2" PVC round stock.

Its more or less "plastic" although it was a solid piece.

After turning the outside shape on my mini-lathe I bored the middle out with a 3/4" drill bit (for headlight wiring) and cut out the clearance for the motor and drive components.

With some brass parts added on it's just as heavy and sturdy as any of my Diecast engines.

I would be happy to see plastic steam, the detail should be better and crisper than Diecast.

I'm all for it!

Plastic boilers on steamers is OK by me.  It can be as detailed as the manufacturer makes it.  The weight is not a problem if the locomotive is balanced correctly and has traction tires.  Die cast may be better, but again, it all depends on the amount of detail the manufacturer puts into it.  However, if it's Lionel, I'll never buy it.  My C&O Berk which was sent back and repaired by Charles Ro's service department for running issues has now had its smoke unit quit after about 5 hours running.  This thing is a lemon, even having a metal boiler.  When it ran, it ran great and pulled as many cars as I wanted.  I never wanted TMCC, FlyerChief, Legacy or anything but basic sound and smoke.  As my dad used to say about more options on cars: "More to go wrong."  He was right.

Roundhouse Bill posted:

Rusty, Lionel has done no active planning on plastic locomotives. This is just a consideration.

Hmmm...

Rusty

Roundhouse Bill posted:

Bob, all of the Flyonel diesels have plastic screw holes. How many have you had problems with? You are thinking of 60 year old Gilbert engines.

Thanks for your interest.

Yes, I am, but there is a similar problem with relatively new O scale diesels, too. A threaded insert, as suggested above, would help. With over 60 years of experience in the hobby, I clearly prefer metal for motive power. I shall leave it to others to financially experiment with plastic-bodied steam, particularly for the first production run. 

Thanks for asking.

Bob

I cannot see the cost advantage if the same level of detail is accomplished. The detail is in the add on components. They cannot be molded in, because for the most part they are hanging out there in free air. So, what is the advantage of molded plastic?

it sounds like it is worth a try

Bob C.

Oman posted:

I cannot see the cost advantage if the same level of detail is accomplished. The detail is in the add on components. They cannot be molded in, because for the most part they are hanging out there in free air. So, what is the advantage of molded plastic?

I'm not a tool maker and it really needs someone that is to reply to this but I would say that for a die cast body you might be using a hardened steel which is going to take longer to cut and possibly be more difficult to work, whereas for plastic you could get away with material that is a lot easier to work and let's you add more detail and will run off a lot of copies, therefore costs can be greatly reduced.

Keith:  The tooling for a plastic engine is much less expensive that diecast.  The tooling to make the mold for making the engine shells over and over again is what is the most expensive for Lionel and MTH in developing new engines.  It is the high cost of developing and building the tooling that keeps these companies from building all the engine types we could ask for.   

Hey Lionel, if you are really interested in getting feedback on this issue, why not come to the Spring S Spree, the NASG Convention and the Fall S Fest where you can mingle with S People and get some real feedback?  You are always welcome.

Mike A.

Mikeaa posted:

Hey Lionel, if you are really interested in getting feedback on this issue, why not come to the Spring S Spree, the NASG Convention and the Fall S Fest where you can mingle with S People and get some real feedback?  You are always welcome.

Mike A.

My, my...  Where have I heard similar sentiments like that before?

BTW, is anybody here also on the S-Trains Yahoo board to float this trial balloon over there? 

I thought of floating this on S-Scale Yahoo and the S Scale SIG, but unless there would be an indication that a theoretical plastic steam locomotive could be converted to scale and operate on DC/DCC, a lead balloon would seem light by comparison.

Rusty

Plastic has a perceived cheapness. One that will never go away! It is in bread in the fabric of the American consumer...certainly for some reason. As a example...Lionel's plastic tab couplers....anyone want to trade in there new die cast couplers?

If Lionel is following this, I'll throw my hat in the ring and say I'd welcome a plastic steamer if it was scale proportioned and not have too many cast in details. No cast in handrails please. A ledge of material representing a wire handrail in a scale this large is inexcusable. FlyerCheif is fine. Legacy is better. 

Fine by me.

Screws stripping is a non-issue to me. There should rarely be any reason to open them up in the first place. In my experience brass is much more prone to stripping than plastic and that hasn't stopped anyone from making brass.

How Many People here think the SD70 or other new diesels from Lionel are Cheap?  its just a question.

I have not ever thought they were cheap.  I mean if you can make plastic steam perform just like the Y3 or Berkshire (but better detailing) it seems foolish not to. 

I would rather have a detailed plastic Berk with handrails vs a metal berk with molded on handrails.  FYI I have said Berkshires and love them.  for me it all comes down to performance. 

Plastic-bodied steam engines

Positive

1. Lower investment cost, less risk for Lionel
2. Greater variety of locomotives and quicker time to market
3. Better molded in detail
4. Lower price point—maybe—for locomotives
   1. Highly detailed versions with Legacy electronics (Challenger, Mikado, Pacific, Y-3)
   2. Less detailed versions with Flyer Chief similar to Berkshire (the Chevy Biscayne, Belaire, Impala model—same car/more detailing for a higher price; maximizes return on the investment)

Negative

1. Some market resistance to plastic bodies as “cheap”
2. Concern about screws stripping plastic body (metal inserts could be molded in as in the U33C)

Metal-bodied steam engines

Positive

1. Offer the image of higher quality
2. Heavier bodies can offer more traction

Negative

1. Higher investment cost, more risk
2. High price points to recover higher costs
3. Build-to-order sales approach—reduces prospect of production (mechanical reefers only met 10% of minimum required for production—not because of lack of interest but because of distrust caused by the cylindrical hopper fiasco)
4. Fewer choices offered; extended time to market

When I weigh the pros and cons, I would prefer to have more choices, more variety, and lower costs; so a plastic body on a Legacy steam locomotive that looks as good and runs as well as a Y-3 for $700 and a plastic Berkshire Flyer Chief type for $400 is fine with me.  A $1,500 build-to-order metal-bodied steam locomotive that may or may not be built--you won't know until the hobby shop either cancels the order or ships it four years after you have placed the order--is not the way to build interest or excitement.

Is everyone thinking that lower production cost will equate to lower selling price?

Maybe, just maybe, the selling price is based on what the market will bear.

Lionel tried a low selling price experiment with the O gauge Milwaukee road S-3 Northern. To their dismay, it did not sell in sufficient quantities to justify offering more lower cost locomotives.

Plastic is fine.  I have no interest in/use for Legacy or LionChief technologies.

RadioRon posted:

Plastic is fine.  I have no interest in/use for Legacy or LionChief technologies.

As long as the detail is applied and not cast.  Concur with the proprietary systems, I don't want to have to pay for something I'm only going to rip out.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Word I got was not cast in detail.  

I think you guys are going to have to get over no proprietary electronics.  Lionel and MTH are not going to back off those in their locomotives.   

Rusty Traque posted:

Mikeaa posted:

Hey Lionel, if you are really interested in getting feedback on this issue, why not come to the Spring S Spree, the NASG Convention and the Fall S Fest where you can mingle with S People and get some real feedback?  You are always welcome.

Mike A.

My, my...  Where have I heard similar sentiments like that before?

BTW, is anybody here also on the S-Trains Yahoo board to float this trial balloon over there? 

I thought of floating this on S-Scale Yahoo and the S Scale SIG, but unless there would be an indication that a theoretical plastic steam locomotive could be converted to scale and operate on DC/DCC, a lead balloon would seem light by comparison.

Rusty

Rusty,

My guess is most of the S-Trains group is similar to the S-Scale groups. They been running S trains for far longer the Lionel has been cramming proprietary systems down the throat of the collective S trains market. They didn’t need it before and probably only newcomers would embrace it now.

Who is going to convert DC or DCC to Legacy? AM and SHS both offered engines without proprietary systems so I know it is possible to leave out the Legacy or TMCC or whatever the next new not necessarily backward compatible system is.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Lionel has to respond to two markets. the old dudes and the young guys bringing youth into the hobby. The electronics are not going away. and I think with SHS and AM it was more of a matter of economics. they sell to a much smaller niche than the Big L aims to sell to. 

Plastic shells on steam loks? No thank you.

Tom Stoltz posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

Mikeaa posted:

Hey Lionel, if you are really interested in getting feedback on this issue, why not come to the Spring S Spree, the NASG Convention and the Fall S Fest where you can mingle with S People and get some real feedback?  You are always welcome.

Mike A.

My, my...  Where have I heard similar sentiments like that before?

BTW, is anybody here also on the S-Trains Yahoo board to float this trial balloon over there? 

I thought of floating this on S-Scale Yahoo and the S Scale SIG, but unless there would be an indication that a theoretical plastic steam locomotive could be converted to scale and operate on DC/DCC, a lead balloon would seem light by comparison.

Rusty

Rusty,

My guess is most of the S-Trains group is similar to the S-Scale groups. They been running S trains for far longer the Lionel has been cramming proprietary systems down the throat of the collective S trains market. They didn’t need it before and probably only newcomers would embrace it now.

Who is going to convert DC or DCC to Legacy? AM and SHS both offered engines without proprietary systems so I know it is possible to leave out the Legacy or TMCC or whatever the next new not necessarily backward compatible system is.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom,

I wasn't addressing the proprietary systems, like Bill says, those are here to stay.  There's still a contingent of 3-rail O gaugers that want nothing to do with TMCC, Legacy, Chief or DCS while both Lionel and MTH sail right past them.

I was addressing the plastic steamer trial balloon.  If Lionel's going to rely solely on this forum for input, they're only going to get a small and perhaps skewed sample.

I know the scale guys would have zero interest unless conversion is possible (notice I didn't say optional or available) so it makes no sense to even bring the subject up to them.  But S-Trains is where the Gilbert Gang hangs out and if someone here (I'm not) is on that forum, it would probably be worth it to make the boys on Yahoo aware of the possibility.

After all, if the question is going to be asked publicly, wouldn't the largest sample possible be desirable?  Otherwise, design it, build it and take your accolades or lumps with the market.

Ultimately, if Lionel makes something I would want to have, I'll buy it. (Assuming they don't short my LHS's distributor again...)  If not, I'll just look at all the pretty pictures in the catalog.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Mikeaa posted:

Hey Lionel, if you are really interested in getting feedback on this issue, why not come to the Spring S Spree, the NASG Convention and the Fall S Fest where you can mingle with S People and get some real feedback?  You are always welcome.

Mike A.

My, my...  Where have I heard similar sentiments like that before?

BTW, is anybody here also on the S-Trains Yahoo board to float this trial balloon over there? 

I thought of floating this on S-Scale Yahoo and the S Scale SIG, but unless there would be an indication that a theoretical plastic steam locomotive could be converted to scale and operate on DC/DCC, a lead balloon would seem light by comparison.

Rusty

Hi Rusty,

If I'm repeating something said by you or someone else here, I didn't mean to plagiarize. 

However, since Roundhouse Bill said Lionel is reading this thread, I thought it was worth mentioning even if it was mentioned before.

Mike A.

I have a Gilbert Flyer 293, plastic shell, with a can motor conversion and ERR Mini Commander 2.  It does regular duty at shows.  It's a good puller, able to do 30 cars (with modern-production trucks, such as SHS, AM, or K-Line) with no problem at all.

I like the feel and weight of a diecast loco and tender as you are putting it on the track, but if a plastic-bodied steamer pulls well and is reliable... I don't think the material it's made of is that much of an issue.

Taking the mechanism built for the Berkshires, truncating it to 6 drivers instead of 8 and putting a nicely detailed plastic shell on top with FlyerChief for < $300 or full legacy for <$500....  you could have a pretty big hit there, I think.

Giving a nod to Jerry's post above, I've developed a real dislike for fan-driven smoke units.  When they work they're great.  But they just don't seem to hold up. A pencil-eraser sized motor assaulted by oil and heat is gonna lead a short life.  I know on the articulated models there wasn't another choice, but is it possible to do a piston-type smoker, like Gilbert did and AM did on their Northern?  There should be plenty of room in the tender for the electronics.  In my 293 conversion above I was able to fit the Mini Commander, Railsounds board and speaker in the tender.

Nick C.

I for one am not crazy about the notion of plastic steam engine shells.  Not that I don't think they will be detailed enough, or possibly even durable enough, but that I don't think plastic bodied steam engines will have the same balance, smooth running, and pulling power as die cast shells.  For example, I very much like and enjoy American Hi-rail and Balston Locomotive Works steam engines (especially the streamlined models like the Hiawatha and 20th Century Limited), but with resin bodies, they wobble more than their die cast Gilbert AF counterparts.  Nothing like the heft of a die cast to smooth things out.  

Original Gilbert 293's were diecast with plastic tenders.

S Gaugian, My Y3 wobbles and I have seen others that do.  Do your plastic diesels wobble? None of my Gilbert plastic engines wobble, do yours? If properly done a plastic steam engine won't wobble.  

Give Plastic a chance. 

Rusty Traque posted:

BTW, is anybody here also on the S-Trains Yahoo board to float this trial balloon over there? 

I thought of floating this on S-Scale Yahoo and the S Scale SIG, but unless there would be an indication that a theoretical plastic steam locomotive could be converted to scale and operate on DC/DCC, a lead balloon would seem light by comparison.

Rusty

Interestingly, I have yet to see this thread cross posted to the S-Trains list.  Does that mean I am the only one that belongs to both lists?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I don't belong to either of those posts.  I do on Facebook.  I don't know if Lionel watches the others.  That is the key.

Roundhouse Bill posted:

S Gaugian, My Y3 wobbles and I have seen others that do.  Do your plastic diesels wobble? None of my Gilbert plastic engines wobble, do yours? If properly done a plastic steam engine won't wobble.  

Give Plastic a chance. 

A wobble will be the result of worn/bad bushings or bearings, a bent axle, a wheel not true on its axle or an uneven traction tire.  The material used on the body will not cause a wobble, it will just emphasize it. 

I've seen and owned plastic, die cast and brass locomotives that wobbled.  The same for ones that didn't wobble.

As I once wrote in a letter to the editor decades ago in 3/16" S Scale Railroading magazine when discussing a similar topic: "A brass wheel with a wobble is no better than a plastic wheel with a wobble."

Rusty

Roundhouse Bill posted:

I don't belong to either of those posts.  I do on Facebook.  I don't know if Lionel watches the others.  That is the key.

Speaks volumes…

Maybe, Lionel should post the question of plastic steam locomotives on THEIR American Flyer Facebook page rather than highlighting a 3-rail O gauge guy.

Just a thought...

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Maybe, Lionel should post the question of plastic steam locomotives on THEIR American Flyer Facebook page rather than highlighting a 3-rail O gauge guy.

Just a thought...

Rusty

This is an interesting point. Though I’m not sure another dedicated Lionel site is the best place to get feedback about what S gauge really is. S gauge is not Lionel, never has been, however now it does seem that Lionel wants to dictate what S gauge will be despite 71+ years without them.

I have found the focus of this S scale (I use the words S scale & S gauge interchangeably though not really correct) forum to be largely influenced by the 3 rail cross overs. And maybe that’s as it should be, being that it is the 0 gauge forum. However, having been active in the Yahoo groups of S-trains and S-scale since 2001 and NASG since 1995 and S via AF since 1948, joining this group has been an eye opener and a very different experience. It seems of me that a large number of this group have come from the 0 gauge side which of course means Lionel which in turn means the acceptance of things Lionel… fantasy equipment and the proprietary control systems. I have not experienced this (at least to this degree) on the S gauge sights. So this attitude is new to me.

I do remember quite a while ago Jonnyspeed saying that Lionel was going to do what they wanted and not address the needs of S gaugers in general. I was surprised at the time, hoping he was wrong, but sadly have come to realize he was right. MTH seems to be following suit. I had hope they would continue in the direction of SHS, however it is now apparent they are more interested in competition with Lionel than furthering S gauge. Maybe great for the toy train industry, but S was never part of that.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom Stoltz posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

Maybe, Lionel should post the question of plastic steam locomotives on THEIR American Flyer Facebook page rather than highlighting a 3-rail O gauge guy.

Just a thought...

Rusty

This is an interesting point. Though I’m not sure another dedicated Lionel site is the best place to get feedback about what S gauge really is. S gauge is not Lionel, never has been, however now it does seem that Lionel wants to dictate what S gauge will be despite 71+ years without them.

I have found the focus of this S scale (I use the words S scale & S gauge interchangeably though not really correct) forum to be largely influenced by the 3 rail cross overs. And maybe that’s as it should be, being that it is the 0 gauge forum. However, having been active in the Yahoo groups of S-trains and S-scale since 2001 and NASG since 1995 and S via AF since 1948, joining this group has been an eye opener and a very different experience. It seems of me that a large number of this group have come from the 0 gauge side which of course means Lionel which in turn means the acceptance of things Lionel… fantasy equipment and the proprietary control systems. I have not experienced this (at least to this degree) on the S gauge sights. So this attitude is new to me.

I do remember quite a while ago Jonnyspeed saying that Lionel was going to do what they wanted and not address the needs of S gaugers in general. I was surprised at the time, hoping he was wrong, but sadly have come to realize he was right. MTH seems to be following suit. I had hope they would continue in the direction of SHS, however it is now apparent they are more interested in competition with Lionel than furthering S gauge. Maybe great for the toy train industry, but S was never part of that.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news Tom, but I've been dealing with Lionel for a long time coming from O.

My feeling is that this thread is a microcosm of the main problem. If there are 20 unique responses to the original question, there are probably 21 different opinions. To add to the problem, S is represented by multiple factions... Flyer, Hi-rail, Scale, P:64, Sn3. I don't think Lionel or MTH really understood the dynamics of the whole S market before they jumped in. Add in a change in Lionel management and recent China production troubles and I guess that's where we find ourselves. I hope I'm wrong about the future of S from Lionel and MTH, but I've been right so far...

jonnyspeed posted:

 To add to the problem, S is represented by multiple factions... Flyer, Hi-rail, Scale, P:64, Sn3. I don't think Lionel or MTH really understood the dynamics of the whole S market before they jumped in.

I don't think anybody expects Lionel or MTH to concentrate on P:64 or Sn3.  American Models surely doesn't and the former SHS didn't. (Neither does River Raisin for that matter.  PBL is pretty much the go-to company for Sn3.)

But, both AM and SHS figured out how to sell to the other three (remember, AM started out only selling scale-wheeled, DC operated products.)

However, it appears over time SHS became the true driving force for S and it's an opportunity that MTH has squandered.  And if Lionel ever stops bumping into walls, they could also become a driving force for S.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

 To add to the problem, S is represented by multiple factions... Flyer, Hi-rail, Scale, P:64, Sn3. I don't think Lionel or MTH really understood the dynamics of the whole S market before they jumped in.

I don't think anybody expects Lionel or MTH to concentrate on P:64 or Sn3.  American Models surely doesn't and the former SHS didn't. (Neither does River Raisin for that matter.  PBL is pretty much the go-to company for Sn3.)

But, both AM and SHS figured out how to sell to the other three (remember, AM started out only selling scale-wheeled, DC operated products.)

However, it appears over time SHS became the true driving force for S and it's an opportunity that MTH has squandered.  And if Lionel ever stops bumping into walls, they could also become a driving force for S.

Rusty

The point I was making is that S has very few modelers to start with and those are split between several groups. Niche within a niche... Then for whatever reason it seems that there are several differing opinions within those groups on any given question. 

I agree that SHS had the formula correct. You need to design the products in a way that they will appeal to Flyer, HiRail, and Scale modelers alike. I suppose Lionel does have the traditional Flyer crowd, as the FlyerCheif BERK seems to be selling well at it's price point. While I'm happy for those folks that like it, it doesn't interest me as a Scale fan.

We've discussed this before, but I think one of Lionel's biggest missteps was the assumption that S was just like O. In O the bigger the model you make, the more you sell. Not necessarily so in S. You are talking about a scale that never had anything bigger than a 4-8-4 until Lionel came on the seen. They hit the market with 3 big articulated engines and then decided that there was no market and it was too costly to make more high end steam. I still believe that they simply chose the wrong prototypes. Jon Z. Told me 2 years ago that he had reduced the size of the electronics to the point that smaller models were now possible. That timing coincided with the management change unfortunately.

So back on topic.... I think that a small/mid sized plastic shelled steam engine could work. On the diesel side I think they need to look at something like the Sd40, Gp30/35/38/40, 44Tonner, 70tonner, S2, U23, C-series, etc... Basically something short enough to easily negotiate 20"r. That is assume of course that they want to invest in new tooling. 

Perhaps they should call Ron at AM and see if he is interested in selling his tooling. Then they could spruce those up and add their electronics. Cheaper than making new. It's what Atlas and Lionel just did in O with Weaver... Just sayin...

Rusty Traque posted:

But, both AM and SHS figured out how to sell to the other three (remember, AM started out only selling scale-wheeled, DC operated products.)

However, it appears over time SHS became the true driving force for S and it's an opportunity that MTH has squandered.  And if Lionel ever stops bumping into walls, they could also become a driving force for S.

Rusty

I don’t think Lionel will be a driving force is S simply because they are so focused on the toy train market and their proprietary electronic systems. Most Hi-rail and certainly all scale people are not interested in non-standard systems. The model railroad settled on a standard DCC system and why Lionel can’t comply is beyond me. As I said before, maybe great for the toy train market, but S was never part of that.

Tom

Tom Stoltz posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

But, both AM and SHS figured out how to sell to the other three (remember, AM started out only selling scale-wheeled, DC operated products.)

However, it appears over time SHS became the true driving force for S and it's an opportunity that MTH has squandered.  And if Lionel ever stops bumping into walls, they could also become a driving force for S.

Rusty

I don’t think Lionel will be a driving force is S simply because they are so focused on the toy train market and their proprietary electronic systems. Most Hi-rail and certainly all scale people are not interested in non-standard systems. The model railroad settled on a standard DCC system and why Lionel can’t comply is beyond me. As I said before, maybe great for the toy train market, but S was never part of that.

Tom

Tom, just so you are aware Lionel Legacy S electronics support AC, DC, DCC, TMCC, and Legacy. I don't think they are leaving anyone out.

jonnyspeed posted:

Tom, just so you are aware Lionel Legacy S electronics support AC, DC, DCC, TMCC, and Legacy. I don't think they are leaving anyone out.

Jonathan, thanks for the reminder. However based on the performance of my Y3 on DC, I would have to disagree with that statement. Also, when I buy an engine, I would like to choose the sound system… there are so many to choose from it is silly to be locked into one. Then there is the issue that proprietary systems is not the way the model railroad industry is set up. If you want to participate in the model railroad market there are a set of standards that helps keep everything compatible. There is plenty of leeway within that system to put your own spin on it so again, I don’t understand Lionel’s approach other than their aim is towards the toy train side of things.

Tom

Tom Stoltz posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

Tom, just so you are aware Lionel Legacy S electronics support AC, DC, DCC, TMCC, and Legacy. I don't think they are leaving anyone out.

Jonathan, thanks for the reminder. However based on the performance of my Y3 on DC, I would have to disagree with that statement. Also, when I buy an engine, I would like to choose the sound system… there are so many to choose from it is silly to be locked into one. Then there is the issue that proprietary systems is not the way the model railroad industry is set up. If you want to participate in the model railroad market there are a set of standards that helps keep everything compatible. There is plenty of leeway within that system to put your own spin on it so again, I don’t understand Lionel’s approach other than their aim is towards the toy train side of things.

Tom

I can understand your point of view. I think that Don Thompson hit it out of the park at SHS. He designed a basic electronics interface based off of an existing standard (DCC) and made additional adapters that would allow AC, DC, or proprietary (LocoMatic) sound and control. I don't know what is so hard about that. My suspicion is that Lionel and MTH both force the electronics because a good portion of the profit and competitive differentiation (in their minds) comes from the electronics.

Example: I spoke with Andy E. of MTH at the big show in Cleveland a few years back. I asked him why he thought MTH would be successful re-releasing the same products that had been on the market for years? He was quick to say DCS and ProtoSounds. He felt that once S modelers got their hands on MTH electronics that they would gladly buy the same products again. I thought that was a bad idea then. I think it is even worse idea now because DCC sound has caught up to and well surpassed DCS or RailSounds. So now MTH is going to release a run of F's with a control system nobody wants that has sub-standard sound. AND they will likely take away the ability to easily swap electronics like Don designed. So the only options will be to live with it or gut it.

As I said before... S is different than O or HO and I still don't think they fully grasp it. But you can count on them force feeding the market what they want to sell us.

jonnyspeed posted:

 

Example: I spoke with Andy E. of MTH at the big show in Cleveland a few years back. I asked him why he thought MTH would be successful re-releasing the same products that had been on the market for years? He was quick to say DCS and ProtoSounds. He felt that once S modelers got their hands on MTH electronics that they would gladly buy the same products again. I thought that was a bad idea then. I think it is even worse idea now because DCC sound has caught up to and well surpassed DCS or RailSounds. So now MTH is going to release a run of F's with a control system nobody wants that has sub-standard sound. AND they will likely take away the ability to easily swap electronics like Don designed. So the only options will be to live with it or gut it.

As I said before... S is different than O or HO and I still don't think they fully grasp it. But you can count on them force feeding the market what they want to sell us.

DCS 3.0 is DCC compatible.  It's used in MTH's HO line (where DCS was snubbed) and also loaded in current O Gauge production.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

 

Example: I spoke with Andy E. of MTH at the big show in Cleveland a few years back. I asked him why he thought MTH would be successful re-releasing the same products that had been on the market for years? He was quick to say DCS and ProtoSounds. He felt that once S modelers got their hands on MTH electronics that they would gladly buy the same products again. I thought that was a bad idea then. I think it is even worse idea now because DCC sound has caught up to and well surpassed DCS or RailSounds. So now MTH is going to release a run of F's with a control system nobody wants that has sub-standard sound. AND they will likely take away the ability to easily swap electronics like Don designed. So the only options will be to live with it or gut it.

As I said before... S is different than O or HO and I still don't think they fully grasp it. But you can count on them force feeding the market what they want to sell us.

DCS 3.0 is DCC compatible.  It's used in MTH's HO line (where DCS was snubbed) and also loaded in current O Gauge production.

Rusty

Fully aware of that. Doesn't change anything I said. They have the same problems as Lionel. 

1. They employ a watered down basic DCC implementation. Not full blown DCC

2. They do not use a DCC socket for easy removal/upgrades (MTH remains to be seen)

3. Sounds are not as good as best DCC decoders

4. When DCS 4.0 comes out you probably won't be able to upgrade your 3.0 engines. See #2

5. With MTH's DCS/DCC implementation in my HO models there are some features/settings that can not be changed under DCC control. You HAVE to have a DCS system to make certain changes. Trust me, this one is a pain.

You guys keep talking about DCC as if that is what all in S want.  I don't want it at all.  I like and prefer Lionel's proprietary systems and I look forward to MTH's DCS system.  Those of you in DCC make up probably about 15% of the S market.  

I think Lionel is playing to the S market as it exists for the 85% and including the 15% of the market by extending Legacy to use DCC.  Remember they have been making S since 1981 so they have lots of history in S.  

MTH will develop its products with DCS because they believe the S market will like it better that the Lionel systems.  I know about MTH as I spent lots of time talking about this with Andy Edelman at York.  There were lots of questions and answers to this point in the interview article.

Lionel and MTH are never going to abandon their proprietary systems for DCC.  

It's all a matter of perception. 

DCC is a lot like my car radio where I have 18 AM, FM and XM selections each.  Never tried the AM, and I'll generally use only two selections each on FM and XM.  I've long forgotten what the other radio stations I programmed in are when I bought the car.

Lionel's DCC suits my purposes when I run my SD70's, I expect MTH's will do the same.

Consisting is a pain in my opinion with anybody's DCC.  When my F3's arrive, they're not going to be switched out or changed around.  I'll set up the consist and leave it alone.

I expect 95% of the model railroading community uses only the basic CV's of DCC.  After 40+ years in the hobby, I have yet to destroy a conventional locomotive because minor speed or acceleration/deceleration differences.  And I generally don't feel the need to mix brands of locomotives.

I'm less worried about sound nowadays than I was a few years ago.  My SD's and SHS 2-8-0 are my only loco's with sound.  I usually have the volume low enough that when the train is 5-6 feet away, the sound of the wheels drown it out.  My other DCC loco's are soundless.  And I'm in no hurry to convert my conventional locomotives.

Frankly, the thing I most like about DCC is it keeps the headlight constant and on when I stop the locomotive. 

Rusty

Roundhouse Bill posted:

You guys keep talking about DCC as if that is what all in S want.  I don't want it at all.  I like and prefer Lionel's proprietary systems and I look forward to MTH's DCS system.  Those of you in DCC make up probably about 15% of the S market.  

I think Lionel is playing to the S market as it exists for the 85% and including the 15% of the market by extending Legacy to use DCC.  Remember they have been making S since 1981 so they have lots of history in S.    

Bill,

I do believe this is a common mistake, confusing American Flyer with S as a whole. The trying to group Flyer as representative of S is what causes scalers to be so against AF. DCC and 15% of the market is not the way Don T of SHS describes it. And don’t forget AM doesn’t offer Legacy, TMCC or Chief nor did SHS. Lionel has been making AF since 1981 or so, but it wasn’t until the Mikado did they ventured into the wider market of S Hi-rail. Please remember, there is a difference between Flyer and Hi-rail. If you don’t believe me, just turn them over and compare the wheels. And scale wheels are a third category!

I have and run lots of Flyer plus I have ACG accessories on my layout, so it is not as though I’m anti Flyer. But I can tell the difference between Flyer (including the Flyonel rehash) and the Hi-rail of AM & SHS. I only have a few pieces of scale and there the distinction is harder to discern. One must really look at the wheels to see the variation between scale and Hi-rail.

I recognize the Lionel and MTH will probably have a difficult time getting away from their systems. But face it, it is not what the world of model railroading does. Ever see Legacy advertised in Model Railroader?

Tom Stoltz

I would say that DCC is less than 15% of the S market.  Not all the scalers are into DCC.  Most of the time I run conventional DC anyway.  My first DCC locomotive was the SHS 2-8-0 (with sound to boot.)

I've converted a handful of locomotives to "silent" DCC, but the bulk of my roster is DC and there isn't enough of an advantage in DCC for my use to convert them.

Rusty

I keep mentioning DCC because it IS the standard that most of model railroading uses. If S has any chance of growing or even existing in the near future I think it should start to adopt standards, or at the very least replicate what Don did - gives us the option to swap out the proprietary system.

If Lionel was actually dedicated to producing S product and they were bring new stuff out then fine I'll take Legacy with DCC capability. At least I could use DCC to control Lionel and MTH on the same track at the same time. But it's been a while since the Y3 and how long will it be until the Scale Berk? 

My big question to Lionel is this: You say tooling costs too much, but how do you have any idea of how many units you would sell of a particular engine if you never even offer it? You have implemented this BTO model where you shift the risk to the dealers and customers so why not put some ideas in a catalog and see how many orders you get? The catalogs are 50% wishful thinking these days anyways. Why not throw something new against the wall and see if it sticks? You can't say that XYZ is too expensive if you have no idea how many orders you would get. That's called talking out both sides of your ...

I don't even have an S layout right now but if Lionel hit me with an NYC Hudson, SP Daylight, N&W  J, 2-6-0, 4-6-0, or other small steam I will commit to purchase a minimum of 2 @ $800-$1000 each. Must be scale, detailed, with Legacy/DCC. I'm willing to pay for what I want. I don't think many others in S are though quite frankly.

Tom,

I thought I had grasped the concept of hi-rail and Flyer but it seems the edges are becoming blurred again.  I have a Y3 in my display case with a 326 above it and a 21099 below. When I look at the profile of the tender wheels on the Y3 they look very close to the same tender wheel profiles on the 326 and 21099. So what is the Y3, hi-rail or Flyer?

I also have the NYC PA set and I seem to remember that the powered unit had wheel profiles that were quite low and then Lionel changed them to be larger afterwards, so is this hi-rail or Flyer?

To make this subject clearer can someone actually denote the upper and lower parameter measurements of hi-rail wheels and do the same for Flyer?

Ukaflyer posted:

 

To make this subject clearer can someone actually denote the upper and lower parameter measurements of hi-rail wheels and do the same for Flyer?

Nope. You really want to get confused? There is an NMRA S HiRail standard http://www.nmra.org/sites/defa...3.3%202010.02.24.pdf . Unfortunately nobody seems to adhere to it. I spoke to Fast Tracks when they where making the S HiRail turnout fixtures and they said that the spec didn't match the models they tested. I have the Flyonel Mikado and Pacific. One would think that they would be similar as they are from the same era. Nope, The Mikado has significantly deeper flanges and a narrower gauge. The Pacific will actually run on code 100 flex track where the Mikado bumps along.

Again, why I am advocating standards in S.

jonnyspeed posted:

I keep mentioning DCC because it IS the standard that most of model railroading uses. If S has any chance of growing or even existing in the near future I think it should start to adopt standards, or at the very least replicate what Don did - gives us the option to swap out the proprietary system.

 

The lack of DCC doesn't seem to hurt O Gauge, although I guess the code is now in some of Lionel's O gauge loco's.

But, Lionel put DCC into S first.

And the 8-pin plug was brought up early on in the development of Lionel's DCC compatibility.  It was shot down by the people at the top.  Lionel simply isn't going to allow it.

None of my AM loco's came with a DCC plug.  Even the latest and greatest RS11's.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

jonnyspeed posted:

I keep mentioning DCC because it IS the standard that most of model railroading uses. If S has any chance of growing or even existing in the near future I think it should start to adopt standards, or at the very least replicate what Don did - gives us the option to swap out the proprietary system.

 

The lack of DCC doesn't seem to hurt O Gauge, although I guess the code is now in some of Lionel's O gauge loco's.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. MTH seems to think that O is contracting. 

Lionel Pioneered Command Control and sound in the mid 90's and it was a game changer. Since then DCC has surpassed Lionel's systems in all aspects except arguably the usability of the handheld remote. Motor control, expand-ability, upgrade-ability, sound, compactness, standardization, and price are all on the side of DCC.

I still can't believe that O buyers are willing to buy the same exact model made from the same exact tooling for more money just to get upgraded electronics. Even as much as I love the electronics I think that's nuts. I think you are seeing a big push back in that area in O right now. Especially against MTH.

BTW... AM will wire an 8 pin DCC socket in for $15 if you ask them.

Ukaflyer posted:

Tom,

I thought I had grasped the concept of hi-rail and Flyer but it seems the edges are becoming blurred again.  I have a Y3 in my display case with a 326 above it and a 21099 below. When I look at the profile of the tender wheels on the Y3 they look very close to the same tender wheel profiles on the 326 and 21099. So what is the Y3, hi-rail or Flyer?

I also have the NYC PA set and I seem to remember that the powered unit had wheel profiles that were quite low and then Lionel changed them to be larger afterwards, so is this hi-rail or Flyer?

To make this subject clearer can someone actually denote the upper and lower parameter measurements of hi-rail wheels and do the same for Flyer?

I try to keep it simple: look at Flyer, that’s Flyer; look at AM or SHS Hi-rail, that’s Hi-rail and in general the same for scale. If your flanges look close to one of these 3 categories, then that identifies it.

Here is a short video (second one down) that shows a comparison of all 3:

  http://tomsturnouts.com/video/VideoTTT.html

Tom

Jonnyspeed,  Lionel is never going to pay for the tooling, produce it and throw it on the wall to see if it sticks. If I had been in business for many years, I wouldn't either.  I would put money into an investment that I had a good idea would pay off.  Wouldn't you?

The NMRA has never been a factor for Lionel or MTH.  That was all developed around HO and N scale products.  These two companies just don't care about NMRA standards.  Perhaps they should, but they won't.

Rusty Traque posted:

The lack of DCC doesn't seem to hurt O Gauge, although I guess the code is now in some of Lionel's O gauge loco's.

Rusty

Of course not, Lionel is 0 gauge.

Tom

Tom Stoltz posted:

Ukaflyer posted:

Tom,

I thought I had grasped the concept of hi-rail and Flyer but it seems the edges are becoming blurred again.  I have a Y3 in my display case with a 326 above it and a 21099 below. When I look at the profile of the tender wheels on the Y3 they look very close to the same tender wheel profiles on the 326 and 21099. So what is the Y3, hi-rail or Flyer?

I also have the NYC PA set and I seem to remember that the powered unit had wheel profiles that were quite low and then Lionel changed them to be larger afterwards, so is this hi-rail or Flyer?

To make this subject clearer can someone actually denote the upper and lower parameter measurements of hi-rail wheels and do the same for Flyer?

I try to keep it simple: look at Flyer, that’s Flyer; look at AM or SHS Hi-rail, that’s Hi-rail and in general the same for scale. If your flanges look close to one of these 3 categories, then that identifies it.

Here is a short video (second one down) that shows a comparison of all 3:

  http://tomsturnouts.com/video/VideoTTT.html

Tom

In the past I seem to remember that hi-rail and flyer was referring to wheel profiles rather than brand/manufacturer. Are you now saying Tom that anything with the Flyer name is now regarded as Flyer irrespective of wheel profile? Then you say that by looking at the flanges they will denote which category an item fits.

Jonathan mentioned above he has a Lionel/Flyer Pacific that runs on code 100, but by your definition because it has the word Flyer in it, it has to be regarded as Flyer, I find that hard to grasp. It seems that various people have different views on how to define the same topic.

Looking at the NMRA link I see that the rail profile is 125, so on that basis if something can operate on 125 track, irrespective of it being alleged hi-rail, Flyer then they must all be compatible. Are we not then working to a standard which is denoted by track profile and not so hung up on wheel profile? 

So coming back to my question on the Y3, that has to be regarded as Flyer and not hi-rail then.

I'm sure I am not in the minority of being confused on this topic

Ukaflyer posted:

In the past I seem to remember that hi-rail and flyer was referring to wheel profiles rather than brand/manufacturer. Are you now saying Tom that anything with the Flyer name is now regarded as Flyer irrespective of wheel profile? Then you say that by looking at the flanges they will denote which category an item fits.

Jonathan mentioned above he has a Lionel/Flyer Pacific that runs on code 100, but by your definition because it has the word Flyer in it, it has to be regarded as Flyer, I find that hard to grasp. It seems that various people have different views on how to define the same topic.

Looking at the NMRA link I see that the rail profile is 125, so on that basis if something can operate on 125 track, irrespective of it being alleged hi-rail, Flyer then they must all be compatible. Are we not then working to a standard which is denoted by track profile and not so hung up on wheel profile? 

So coming back to my question on the Y3, that has to be regarded as Flyer and not hi-rail then.

I'm sure I am not in the minority of being confused on this topic

First, did you watch the video?

I call it Flyer because that is the name everybody associates with early ‘tin plate’, ‘traditional’ or ‘vintage’ S gauge.  And yes, it does come down to what rail the flange will run on which will include the flangeway on the turnout.

IMHO, I would say the wheel type also indicates the market the item is targeting.  The Y3 with Flyer flanges… it is certainly not scale or Hi-rail, is it?  If the Flyonel Pacific will run on code 100, it could be scale until you take into consideration the flange way on the turnout.  If it will operate through a scale turnout, then it is scale.  If it won’t, then it would be Hi-rail. Perhaps Jonathan can tell us that bit of info.  I would be surprised if it could, but at this distance I can’t say.

Confusion only comes in when people go out of their way to make it confusing.  Like trying to include details or the scenery as part of the definition.  Then trying to include all the hybrids into a category doesn’t help either.  For example, I have a Flyer boxcar with a body mounted Kadee #5… that doesn’t make it scale.

Tom Stoltz

Roundhouse Bill posted:

Jonnyspeed,  Lionel is never going to pay for the tooling, produce it and throw it on the wall to see if it sticks. If I had been in business for many years, I wouldn't either.  I would put money into an investment that I had a good idea would pay off.  Wouldn't you?

The NMRA has never been a factor for Lionel or MTH.  That was all developed around HO and N scale products.  These two companies just don't care about NMRA standards.  Perhaps they should, but they won't.

Bill, where did I suggest that they pay tooling first? You might want to re-read my comments.

Lionel uses a Build To Order model these days. There is no reason that they need to produce tooling for ANYTHING until they have enough orders. That's the point I'm making. How can Lionel say that they can't afford tooling on a Daylight when they have no idea how many they would sell? Why not put a picture of a Daylight in a catalog and see how many BTO orders they get? That would cost nothing more than the cost of ink. If they get enough then they build it, if not then they don't it's simple. They seem to already know what the tooling would cost so they should be able to determine what the break-point is as far an number of orders needed. That is simple logic. It is also what many companies are currently doing.

This part is my opinion: They don't care about S enough to bother. S isn't a big part of their strategic plan. They will just trickle out high margin products to pacify an aging Flyer community that will largely be gone in the next 15-20 years. It sounds harsh, but I see no reason to believe that S is going to be anything but a sideshow trick for this management team. As I said, my opinion and I do hope I'm wrong. I'll gladly eat crow, but I haven't had to yet.

I think this tread is starting to circle the drain.  We've gone from plastic vs. metal steamers to the cost of tooling to control systems to scale/hirail daffynitions to BTO.

And what's been accomplished?  Nothing.  This has been about as effective as all the attendance threads after each York.

Realistically, all I want is some consistency from Lionel be it Traditional Flyer, Hirail, or crumbs for Scale.  I really don't care.  Every time the door rotates over there it's back to square one.

Note: I like my scale converted SD's and the deep flange scale propotioned Flyer I own.  Looks good, runs fine.

And from MTH: All I want are my Illinois Central TOFC's and my Santa Fe F3's.  That's it. 

Anything newly announced this year from either company will probably be coming out after I retire and I'll be busy figuring out how to live on a fixed income.

And I'm sure Ryan's reaching for the Advil right about now.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

I think this tread is starting to circle the drain.  We've gone from plastic vs. metal steamers to the cost of tooling to control systems to scale/hirail daffynitions to BTO.

And what's been accomplished?  Nothing.  This has been about as effective as all the attendance threads after each York.

And I'm sure Ryan's reaching for the Advil right about now.

Rusty

Rusty,

I think communicating is better than not bothering at all.  Sure it appears like nothing happens, but in reality that is not true.  I have learned that a fair number of people of this list who consider themselves to be well versed in the S community have no idea what else is out there other than this focus group.  They might not even belong to the NASG.  I have also learned that many come from the Lionel 0 gauge side of life and that certainly colors their view of all things Lionel.  S is a wide and, as you know, varied group with many different interests.  However there is more that we have in common than not.  Hearing other people’s opinions is always helpful even if we don’t agree or are not interested.  That is how we get to know one another and hopefully form some sort of cohesion.

I hope Ryan is continuing to follow this discussion so that he will understand there is much more to S than this one group.  I would venture that this group is a rather small segment of the S world, but at the same time a fair sampling of the American Flyer crowd.

Tom Stoltz

"I think communicating is better than not bothering at all.  Sure it appears like nothing happens, but in reality that is not true." 

The Yahoo group "Promoting S Scale Modeling" picked up Bob Bubeck's post on the discussions at York, so there is some cross communication. There is a lot of evidence that Lionel does listen. The SD70ACe's pivoting pilot overcame the objection to the U33C. That diesel and the subsequent ES44AC could operate on AC, DC, Legacy, or DCC--before O gauge locomotives could. (The Y-3 was not designed for DC, as Jon Z. confessed, and he was a bit surprised that it worked; so I wouldn't hold its somewhat erratic DC performance against Lionel.) Lionel rearranged truck design so that later SD70s and all the ES44s worked across American Models' switches.

Someone at Lionel was listening, but no one from Lionel informs the S community in return. Maybe if they didn't have so many high-water cylindrical hoppers in inventory, we might have seen new versions with prototypical trucks and real, non-glossy paint schemes as a reaction to the criticisms/suggestions. Instead, Lionel pulled back so quickly that they fell over and killed the mechanical reefer. If they consider the sell-out of the Berkshire as a success, maybe they'll try again. 

The number of posts stirred up by the talk at York is encouraging, and the communication may not be one-sided. There have been a good number of suggestions from forum members here. Unfortunately, we won't know if anyone at Lionel has considered them until we see a concept drawing in a catalogue some time in the future.

I'll firstly admit that I didn't read the posts today and maybe I missed something. However, what would S gauge have been without AF? Now, I am one of those guys that wants it to be more than toy trains. If the purists think they will get want they want without the AF community, they are dreaming.

Sooooo plastic yes...

Tom Stoltz posted:

 

I hope Ryan is continuing to follow this discussion so that he will understand there is much more to S than this one group.  I would venture that this group is a rather small segment of the S world, but at the same time a fair sampling of the American Flyer crowd.

Tom Stoltz

Tom,

I actually hope Ryan can start applying some consistency to the Flyer product line, but as indicated somewhere in one of these associated threads, he'll be in charge of locomotives, but not rolling stock.

Hopefully, he'll maintain an open line of communication with the Flyer rolling stock guru.

There's been 3-4 reboots of the Flyer line and as many management changes since 2001, when the Mikado's were first shown.  It was the Mikado that got me back interested into Flyer after writing it off around 1995.  I have a modest assortment of Gilbert and modern Flyer, so I'm not just a scale sourpuss.

Lionel has shown it can achieve great things with the Flyer line, but I think the corner office is the primary roadblock.

Rusty

The guy at Lionel that is in charge of AF other than high end engines is Steve Hilla.  I have talked with him in the past and he participated with Ryan in answering my interview questions, but he was not at York.

Let me step into this puddle of poop, and state the future is flyerchief.  It can run on AC, DC, DCC or DCS. Solves all the compatibility problems, isn't expensive and is easy to use.  Less expensive for the manufacturer as well - might lead to a larger S gauge/scale selection, which might mean more customers purchasing, which would lead to more products offered etc, etc, etc.

And for those who say, you need a controller for each engine, Lionel has come out with a new controller to handle 3 at once.  Since this is still in the early stages, that could expand exponentially.

Making stuff for one small segment of the market isn't going to happen, not in today's economy.

Francine

Francine posted:

Let me step into this puddle of poop, and state the future is flyerchief.  It can run on AC, DC, DCC or DCS. Solves all the compatibility problems, isn't expensive and is easy to use.  Less expensive for the manufacturer as well - might lead to a larger S gauge/scale selection, which might mean more customers purchasing, which would lead to more products offered etc, etc, etc.

And for those who say, you need a controller for each engine, Lionel has come out with a new controller to handle 3 at once.  Since this is still in the early stages, that could expand exponentially.

Making stuff for one small segment of the market isn't going to happen, not in today's economy.

Francine

 

There's been A LOT of criticism on the 3-rail side with the fact that the reverse isn't true, that the "Chief" systems can't be controlled with either a Legacy or TMCC controller.

Now, I don't have a FlyerChief loco to get the feel for, being that the BTO on the Berkshires didn't cover all the "O's."  I would have liked to, but I was only interested in the NKP and not any of the other roadnames that still may be available somewhere.  I've stopped worrying about it.

If Lionel wants to hang their hat on FlyerChief, that's fine with me, there may be something in the future I'd be interested in, there may not be.  But, I don't think FlyerChief alone the total solution to a larger selection or availability of S.

Rusty

Francine posted:

Let me step into this puddle of poop, and state the future is flyerchief.  It can run on AC, DC, DCC or DCS. Solves all the compatibility problems, isn't expensive and is easy to use.  Less expensive for the manufacturer as well - might lead to a larger S gauge/scale selection, which might mean more customers purchasing, which would lead to more products offered etc, etc, etc.

And for those who say, you need a controller for each engine, Lionel has come out with a new controller to handle 3 at once.  Since this is still in the early stages, that could expand exponentially.

Making stuff for one small segment of the market isn't going to happen, not in today's economy.

Francine

 

If you are correct they will lose the customers that are actually willing to pay the higher prices for Legacy engines. They will have to decide which market is more profitable. They will also likely not bring in any new modelers to fill the funnel as younger modelers, on average, are more interested in detailed scale models (once they get past the Thomas stage and start modeling).

The model railroading hobby seems to be contracting. The scales that seem to be growing are HO, N, and Z. They all leverage DCC and standards and their customers demand scale fidelity.  Not exactly what we are talking about here.

IMHO, If Lionel takes this approach S will likely continue to shrink in proportion to the Flyer customer base. It's not my call of course. I wanted to see them build scale products to bring in new blood from O and HO. But nobody asked me

I would love to see Lionel offer a detailed plastic steam engine with a basic electronics socket (Think SHS) that would allow people to choose what they wanted ie. AC, DC, DCC, Legacy, FlyerChief and then sell the plugin electronic modules. Everybody wins! It is technically possible, but I doubt they intend to invest that kind of R&D into S at this time.

If Lionel just uses FlyerChief they lose me. I have my entire layout operating from the LCS on iPads. That includes turnouts, uncouplers and power blocks. I run Legacy and TMCC engines from the Cab 2 or with iCab on iPhones. I can run my original Gilbert engines from the Cab 2 since it can control the ZW-L throttle output. I now have 14 American Models engines, all converted to TMCC/Railsounds. I suppose I could run the FlyerChief in conventional mode, but that would not have full features.

There are a lot more S gauge operators using Legacy than post on these forums. Just ask the service providers what their backlog is to complete the TMCC engine conversions.

"And the 8-pin plug was brought up early on in the development of Lionel's DCC compatibility.  It was shot down by the people at the top.  Lionel simply isn't going to allow it."

This is a missed opportunity from management that appears to be some combination of ignorant and arrogant. One of the great attractions of the wonderful SHS locomotives was that it was easy to get plain, Locomatic, or DCC versions and later change formats because they included the 8-pin plug plus a DC shorting plug. Conversion was easy. Resale value was high because a new buyer could easily make a conversion or an upgrade.

If the money is in the electronics and Legacy is as great as Lionel believes--it certainly offers a lot for the money and a DCC hand-held wireless remote is more than twice the money--then why not offer Legacy modules that would use the DCC standard connector? Sell the Legacy modules to customers who have SHS locomotives that they want to easily convert to Legacy. Sell the Legacy modules to owners of American Models locomotives who want to "upgrade" to Legacy. Order enough modules from a supplier and you can afford to pack more functionality into programmable chips that allow Legacy to fit into O gauge and S gauge switchers. If they're small enough and have the DCC connector, you might even attract some HO users who would find the Legacy hand-held controller easier to use. Lionel could even upgrade chips for more Railsound options and sell new modules for replacement in Challengers and U33Cs to allow AC/DC use and new sounds. 

DCC offers standardization that is appealing. Legacy offers ease of use with the Cab-2 Remote Controller. Why not take advantage of both and start selling DCC-standardized Legacy boards? Even if buyers of Lionel Legacy locomotives want to convert to DCC, providing a standard DCC plug removes any resistance to investing except having to remove (or sell? Why not, if there's a market for these modules..) the Legacy module. That is the kind of forward thinking that made SHS so great and popular.

I think Lionel is as likely to go straight Flyer chief as they are LionChief on the O gauge side. Legacy is still the flag ship of both.  I for one will not miss another "conventional" flyer engine again. After all, every FlyerChief engine is ALSO conventional.  Just flip the switch. I don't see the sky falling with this.  

Now IF...IF Lionel is done with Legacy in S then I will eat crow and be mad about it. I am invested in Legacy S.  I think this is a break that might be needed, there was a flood of SD and ES desiels.  S can only soak up so much saturation.  We still have a completed UP heritage SD series (and who thought it was actually going to be completed?? Not me). 

And, while I am  adamant that the failure of the mechanical reefer is their own making because of the CH trucks, I'm sure it's hard at this point to pitch a bank or lender on xxx$ worth of new tooling right now when the scale rolling stock was, at least on paper, a flop.  

Is Lionel doing what we want, most the time no, (or at least not fast enough) but they are trying within their limits and comfort level.  Maybe Ryan K will bring some new life into Flyer, it's sounds like he at least  acknowledges that the SD40 is a reasonable choice for consideration.  If anything I feel Lionel has given us more inside info on what is up (mikado tooling, tooling decision process, info on the 10% number for the reefer) than what I think they have before.  And now we are being told that we are at least being monitored on here by the S gauge players at circle L.  It's not all bad.  

Ben 

TOKELLY posted:

"And the 8-pin plug was brought up early on in the development of Lionel's DCC compatibility.  It was shot down by the people at the top.  Lionel simply isn't going to allow it."

This is a missed opportunity from management that appears to be some combination of ignorant and arrogant. One of the great attractions of the wonderful SHS locomotives was that it was easy to get plain, Locomatic, or DCC versions and later change formats because they included the 8-pin plug plus a DC shorting plug. Conversion was easy. Resale value was high because a new buyer could easily make a conversion or an upgrade.

 

I suspect the culture there would prefer everyone buy Lionel products and nothing else.

Well, somebody at Lionel (I suspect Jon Z) was able to at least convince the powers that be to include DCC code into their electronics.  It was a herculean effort to get it done before the release of the SD70's because not all DCC systems are created equal. 

For example: Each system has it's little quirks, what worked on an NCE system didn't necessarily work on an MRC or Digitrax system.  And vice-versa. 

Granted, it could have all been avoided if there was an standard 8 pin plug, but that wasn't (isn't and likely won't ever be) an option. 

Ya gotta work with the hand you're dealt.

Rusty

I don't think you can run a FlyerChief locomotive on DCC or DCS.  It says in the catalog that Legacy engines are DCC enabled.  DCS can run Legacy engines, but only the features available in it for TMCC.  Someone would have to check with MTH to see if DCS can run FlyerChief engines.

Ok folks, we're off the tracks.  You can run Flyerchief on DCC 0r DCS, but only with a Flyerchief handset - not with a legacy or DCC or DCS handset.

I did it this weekend at York (Black Hall) and there is a youtube video of someone demonstrating it.  That is why I bought it.

Francine posted:

Ok folks, we're off the tracks.  You can run Flyerchief on DCC 0r DCS, but only with a Flyerchief handset - not with a legacy or DCC or DCS handset.

 

 

 

And that has been perhaps the BIGGEST complaint about the "Chief" system on the 3-rail side.  Folks heavily invested in TMCC or Legacy don't want to mess with a separate controller for 1 locomotive. (Or even up to 3 with the new remote...)

Rusty

The 3 rail operators have a much bigger issue and complaint than us S gauge operators. In 3 rail there is LionChief and LionChief+. FlyerChief=Lionchief+. Flyerchief can be run conventionally so a Cab 2 operating a ZW-L will run the engine. LionChief ONLY runs with its controller, so it cannot be operated conventionally. Thankfully we do not have that problem of two Lionel proprietary systems incompatible with Legacy. We only have one and it is marginally compatible.

Well, after trying to digest the info here about Lionel’s different proprietary system and how they play or don’t play or sort a play with one another or how Lionel’s top of the line compares to the outside world, the answer becomes obvious. Go to the universal 8 pin socket and let the buyer decide. I would guess they would sell more units though less of their Legacy, TMCC or FC chips. If it is true Lionel’s systems have been eclipsed by the rest of the model railroad industry, then forcing an inferior product on the customer is not, in the long term, wise.

However, from the S-scale group I read some interesting inside info this morning. From it I took that the American Flyer side of Lionel will continue to limp along, but the Hi-rail and scale side are gone.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

If FlyerChief had been introduced first, before TMCC and Legacy I think we would think differently of its usefulness and place in the control system competitive landscape. Introducing FlyerChief (FC) after Legacy was established focuses the value of FC primarily to entry sets targeting new purchasers.

There is much more to Legacy than some electronics in an engine. Legacy is an entire ecosystem of layout control and automation products. There are the Apple store LCS and iCab products that integrate iPads and iPhones into the layout. There is the Cab2, SC-2, STM2, LCS Sensor Track, LCS WiFi, AMC, ARC, and AVC. Even the ZW-L has a Legacy receiver integrated into the throttle controllers.

Legacy and FC will continue to co exist. The only question is the pace of new product introduction to the S gauge market place.

Tom Stoltz posted:

From it I took that the American Flyer side of Lionel will continue to limp along, but the Hi-rail and scale side are gone.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I wouldn't say gone, just set aside:

Rusty

If you look waaaay back in the upper left corner, there's a crate with the Pacific and Mikado molds.

I NEVER expected Lionel to embrace Scale products in S.  When they did make some scale compatible products, I never expected them to do so in a big way.

Having said that, I would not be sad to see "Scale Detailed" plastic steam locomotives from Lionel.  However, I fully expect that the only way that wheels with scale flanges will appear on those locomotives will be if someone in a "cottage industry" will make them and the modelers will have to self install them. 

LittleTommy

Guys, Could you please start a thread on this topic of Lionel technologies so this thread can go back to Plastic Steam Engine shells.

Thanks so much.

Back to the plastic engine question. Make detailed engines, plastic or diecast. I will purchase them.

Tom Stoltz posted:

However, from the S-scale group I read some interesting inside info this morning. From it I took that the American Flyer side of Lionel will continue to limp along, but the Hi-rail and scale side are gone.

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

I concur.  I was helping Jon Z. Beta test the DCC implementation for the SD70s at that time. I was very excited to see where they were going next. Unfortunately they seem to have done an about face...

Sorry to stray off topic, I'll stop now. 

How about wood and embossed card?

Seriously, the detail can be captured very well in plastic and even be fairly robust.  This is a Bachmann HO locomotive that was released in the mid-1970's. (Bought it at Sears in the middle of summer!)  Only the front steps are a little clunky, but otherwise it's a pretty nicely detailed locomotive.  The only changes were adding an MV lens, coal load and weathering.

AHM/Rivarrossi really popularized plastic steam back in the 1960's.  Deep flanges and three pole motors aside, the detail on these locomotives still hold up today.  The landmark 0-8-0 introduced in 1961, although an odd choice, was pretty faithful to the prototype.

None of AHM's steam locomotives were really very heavy, (certainly less than an equivalent Mantua or Bowser locomotive) but they did have traction tires.  The pulled rather well, but then HO cars tend to roll more easily than your typical Flyer freight car.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

 

AHM/Rivarrossi really popularized plastic steam back in the 1960's.  Deep flanges and three pole motors aside, the detail on these locomotives still hold up today. 

Rusty

 

Owned an HO AHM/Rivarrosi N&W Y6b when I was a lad. Very nice looking, smooth running piece. I never had to take it apart, however. 

Bob

Bob Bubeck posted:

Rusty Traque posted:

 

AHM/Rivarrossi really popularized plastic steam back in the 1960's.  Deep flanges and three pole motors aside, the detail on these locomotives still hold up today. 

Rusty

 

Owned an HO AHM/Rivarrosi N&W Y6b when I was a lad. Very nice looking, smooth running piece. I never had to take it apart, however. 

Bob

I took mine apart to build a quazi Y3 out of it:

Two screws held the boiler together, a zinc weight took up about half the bottom of the boiler and also held the gearboxes.  The motor took up the cab and the rest of the boiler was blissfully empty.

As you can see, I had no issues with hacking up plastic steam locomotives back in the 70's.  The tender was a modified Berkshire tender.  Later got the "Y3" a proper N&W brass tender and numbered it correctly for a Santa Fe Y3.

But, given the costs of locomotives today, I'd be reluctant to hack away at any of them, be they plastic or metal.

Rusty