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

Back during my (HO) steam-dabbling days, I PREFERRED plastic steam engines over die cast. A major part of the biggest enjoyment I received from my steam dabble days was kit-bashing steam. That was much more readily and easily accomplished on a plastic shell than a die cast shell.

So IF I was still in S scale, I would have zero issues with a well done steam engine with a plastic boiler/superstructure PROVIDED it could be had/easily adapted to scale.

Unfortunately, this thread is a good example of the many issues that exist in S scale, among them, the part where there seems to be several niches trying to get their way to be accepted as the best way.  Adaptability of product would SEEM to be the way a mfg'er ought to perceive being a good way to proceed, but apparently it is not.

 

Well, the crossover posting about this subject on Yahoo S-Scale died rather quickly.

Probably because A: Too theoretical, B: No suggestion of scale conversion, C: Perception of Lionel.

One person did make the comment of how it sounded like the plastic vs. metal debates of the 1950's.  Those that do not remember the past or some such thing...

Not a peep on Yahoo S-Trains.  They've been rambling on down memory lane for about a week and a half about non-train stores that sold trains.

So I guess this OGR forum is the only place to get any input from after all...  Sad.

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

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

I know what you mean. I have a lovely 2-8-0 I built when I was still in HO from probably 5-6 different engines. Probably would only do that job with an older TYCO model these days, or with an Airfix kit. 

Rusty Traque posted:

Well, the crossover posting about this subject on Yahoo S-Scale died rather quickly.

Probably because A: Too theoretical, B: No suggestion of scale conversion, C: Perception of Lionel.

One person did make the comment of how it sounded like the plastic vs. metal debates of the 1950's.  Those that do not remember the past or some such thing...

Not a peep on Yahoo S-Trains.  They've been rambling on down memory lane for about a week and a half about non-train stores that sold trains.

So I guess this OGR forum is the only place to get any input from after all...  Sad.

Rusty

Yes, how to interpret this?  My guess is a general lack of interest in things Lionel in the S gauge world.  So it stands to reason that the 0GF is where the interest is.  After all, the name of the forum implies how a large segment on the population got here… this is a Lionel and to a lesser degree, MTH, site.

Perhaps another way to look at this; how many of the Lionel cheerleaders are on the S sites and why not?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Tom Stoltz posted:

Perhaps another way to look at this; how many of the Lionel cheerleaders are on the S sites and why not?

Tom Stoltz

in Maine

Well, I did what I could on S-Scale.  Won some, lost some. 

The 57' mechanical reefer was a losing battle at first.  A lot had to do with the truck issue with the cylindrical hopper, along with Scaler's resistance to the Lionel name, but the tide was starting to change.

Around the same time, Smoky Mountain Modelworks (a part time manufacturer of resin kits) was taking reservations for two styles of 57' mechanical reefer.  Cost was projected to be about the same as Lionel's, however you had to build, paint, letter and still buy trucks and couplers.

Then...

They were cancelled in lieu of Lionel's announcement.  After Lionel canceled their reefer Smoky Mountain brought them back.  Then Smoky Mountain's real full-time industrial work intervened and most of the upcoming projects were cancelled, including their 57' mechanical reefers.

Result: No 57' mechanical reefers from anyone.

Isn't this a fun scale?  Right now there's not much to lead a cheer on.

I'm not on S-Trains or any other S forum. (Seems, sometimes I have my hands full here...)

Rusty

Rusty Traque posted:

Well, the crossover posting about this subject on Yahoo S-Scale died rather quickly.

Probably because A: Too theoretical, B: No suggestion of scale conversion, C: Perception of Lionel.

One person did make the comment of how it sounded like the plastic vs. metal debates of the 1950's.  Those that do not remember the past or some such thing...

Not a peep on Yahoo S-Trains.  They've been rambling on down memory lane for about a week and a half about non-train stores that sold trains.

So I guess this OGR forum is the only place to get any input from after all...  Sad.

Rusty

Well, the Yahoo S-Trains board was founded and continues to be the place to discuss, primarily, traditional Gilbert Flyer. You know. The trains that were made in good ol' New Haven, not in China, that have nostalgic value for those so inclined and are readily enjoyed and usually repaired without all the hubbub. And, the comments offered in this thread DO sound allot like the metal vs. plastic debates of the 1950s ... not a single post (including my own) has offered anything new not voiced multiple times before. Much of the S hobby is pretty fatalistic about Lionel. It has been well over three decades and their follow through has been, shall we say, spotty. If 'they' (either M.T.H. or Lionel) do something nice, well fine and dandy. If not, there is plenty of Gilbert (and Flyonel) around.

The fun, my friends, is in the trains, not serial posting (or is that post serials?) 

Bob

I would be all-in for a more detailed but plastic shell.  I would prefer Legacy/DCC equipped.  But if it is Flyerchief then so be it - I will remove the electronics/sell the board(s) and install a decoder.

Didn't want 3 or more control systems (Legacy, DCS, Flyerchief, DC, etc.) to be able to run Lionel, MTH, AM, SHS, and others.  The reason mostly being that I can go get a DCC decoder board no problem, but can't get DCS 3.0 or legacey boards unless someone is gutting a unit and selling it here on OGR or on the bay - so no way to standardize on one system or another except DCC.

Love my Legacy cab2 for my Y3, SD70, and just acquired Es44's.  I have run these with my O gauge Legacy system but will not use Legacey going forward for my S scale layout.  It will be used with my Xmas layout only for the forseeable future as I am starting to sell a good portion of my O scale stuff.  I would love to see more along these lines (SD70, ES44, SD40 hint hint) but if a lower price point unit gets more orders and maybe more people into S then lets do it.�� 

I did not buy one of the just released berks because it had to much molded-in detail - reminded me of the 1960's stuff I was stuck with as a kid just as General Mills was about to take over.  I don't need mega detail but give me something interesting to start with at least.

I would be interested. I really hope they dont drop the ball on it though.

Good detail + lower price point + Not built to order but a regular sku item +not too fancy electronics (no legacy) Yeah i would take a hard look at it.

Hey Lionel some feedback for you; 

1) The Docksider is approx a $100 but the Baldwin is $250 what gives ??? Both are little locos/engines where is the extra $ 150 going toward.

2) Please make the 57' reefer, why did you cancel it. Pursue that again please

3) The cylindrical hoppers; please sort out a better hi-rail/ or scale  truck situation and let us have the ability to change from one to other. But seriously $80 really!

4) Support the S gauge community more and we will support you. Also S gauge folks are not Lionel O gauge folks. Remember that.

5) One reason that I switched to S gauge and grew so tired of O gauge was the built to order madness and the pre-orders. 

Hey Lionel; 

Look at what Hornby did with their  “Design Clever” approach to less detail. Yes make a less expensive QUALITY product, that most folks can afford, and yes we would seriously consider buying it. 

 

ENP1976,

For the most part I agree with you but Legacy is a must for me.  I don't like the Flyer chief or non electronics.  To me Legacy adds fun to the layout as well.  My boys love it.  Having said that maybe the solution is to tool up the shell with detail and motor and offer two versions.  One with Legacy and one without.  I would even take the Legacy option as a built to order if it allows Lionel address two sets of buyers..... Those who want conventional and those who want Legacy.  I heavily invested in their Legacy engines and do not want to go backwards now.

--Rocco--

Lionel seems to be rich in new tooling for locomotives and poor in new tooling for rolling stock.  I'd much rather see big L figure out a game plan to introduce modern or or second generation diesel era rolling stock to go with their gorgeous GE and EMD behemoths.  Or at least a way to bring the product line forward in time to transition away from 70 year old tooling that was based on cars that were already 10 or more years in service.  I was really bummed when they canceled the 57' reefer and am discouraged that they haven't fixed the issues with the 'scale' Barber roller bearing truck in that its bolster makes the car body ride way too high.  A lower profile stamped bolster should be a simple fix but 'no-oh' after at least 3 years.  I really hate the idea of having to swap out trucks of $70 - $80 cars and lose the rolling endcaps even on the few cars for which they are appropriate.  :-(.

Actually I don't care what material they are made of, as long as the engine/tender are correctly proportioned and fairly well detailed.  If it gets more product to the market, we're all better and we can maybe get those wish list engines. 

I wonder why this has not been brought up on the American Flyer Face Book page. Makes a lot more sense than on an O gauge forum. Lionel does some pretty screwy stuff for sure. 

From my conversations with Lionel don't look for more modern freight cars in the near future. The issues are tooling cost and that the cars would be too long for the curvature of traditional Flyer track.  

If they can crank out cars using the same tooling AND the cars sell why go into the unknown and pay for new tooling.  This is a business to them and a hobby for us.

The waffle sided box cars needed tooling only for the plastic shell.  But no new tooling for the chassis or trucks. 

The reason for having me pose the question on plastic steamers here is obvious.  They can watch here for the S gauge conversations and with a quick flick they can watch O gauge conversations.

In the KC area, the last numbers were also "signs"  a 3 or 2 = Smoke & Choo Choo,  7 was "plain jane" (no S&CC, sometime note even a headlight!) 5 or 6 = S&CC and whistle,  4 was airchime whistle (only used on the 314). 1= Choo Choo only.

Of course, in all the years that have gone by, boiler shells could have been changed, so looking down the stack is the sure way to check!

OK There doesn't seem to be a way to delete one's own posting---the above, obviously, is in the wrong thread--don't know how I got it here. But I was going to add to this discussion, so: Remembering back to the 1980s when someone at Big L decided the AF plastic couplers weren't good enough and had them made of die-cast metal. This, of course, led to short circuits from the lighted cars and powered engines after the paint wore off. Plastic is sometimes better! Looking at that HO SP engine, I'd say plastic can be very realistic. Is the market still filled with folks that think plastic = junk? I don't really know. I do recall that we were told one reason the PE sets were so long in coming was the change from a plastic tender to a die-cast tender. When the expense of tooling the boilers in Die-Cast, why are the molds from the two first steamers "lost" (Maybe it was fallout from the manufacturer's sudden unavailability). I still think the Daylight or the J would lend themselves very well to plastic boilers, with all their streamlining.

Roundhouse Bill posted:

From my conversations with Lionel don't look for more modern freight cars in the near future. The issues are tooling cost and that the cars would be too long for the curvature of traditional Flyer track.  

 

Really...

American Models 70' passenger cars run fine on an R20 curve, but 50' and 60' freight cars won't?  Don't the U33C's, SD70's, ES44's, Northern's and Y3's run on R20 curves also?

Something doesn't jive here.

So, Flyer freight cars are doomed for all eternity to be built to fit on a stamped metal frame designed 60+ years ago?

I can understand the tooling costs, but if you want to make an omelet...

Sad.

Rusty

Guy's don't question my thinking on the length of cars.  I am just repeating what I was told as a part of my interview.  

This thinking must be universal with MTH and Lionel about build modern freight cars as MTH is not considering building any either.  MYH's reason was that are only looking at building engines from the mid 20th century so why build modern rolling stock.

You guys need to shout at American Models to come through for you.

Roundhouse Bill posted:

Guy's don't question my thinking on the length of cars.  I am just repeating what I was told as a part of my interview.  

 

Not questioning your thinking, Bill. 

Just Lionel's. 

It seems like they're still in denial about what went wrong with the cylindrical hoppers, which oddly enough, will still go around R20 curves.

Rusty

There may be a commercial logic to tooling badass modern locomotives.  There certainly isn't any modeling logic to have these engines to pull a stable of 60 or 70 year-old rolling stock.  More steam engines just seems to ensconce the Flyer name deep in the past.