If the same engine(let’s say like a smaller engine…like a 4-6-0) was produced in Plastic shell, a brass shell, or a diecast shell, which one would you buy? (assuming same level of detail, same price, and same drive)
Things to consider:
Plastic is easier to modify, and lighter, details break easier
Brass is heavier, more durable, and you can solder on details, needs larger radius curves
Diecast is the heaviest…
EDIT:
The plastic one has plastic detail parts, Brass has Brass, and diecast has brass details
As a person who likes to customize, I would go for the plastic
I would argue that brass in many ways can be “easier” to customize, assuming one can solder.
I would choose brass for relative durability, simply because too many plastic engines that I have personally owned just don’t quite hold up as well. There are gorgeous plastic engines that I won’t buy because they are a. relatively expensive for what they are, and b. handrails are very delicate to the point of being brittle.
A simple reply based on your criteria - all things being equal. I would go with the die cast as the pulling power of the engine would be better. That and the fact that I rarely modify an engine.
All things being equal, it wouldn’t matter to me which one I bought. All can be easily modified, with details applied solidly on any, and all can be modified to similar weights, too.
I run all three types on my layout and all have been modified to suit the service in which I have placed them. Most will run well with any of the other types, too, even on my DC-powered layout.
Nowadays, most die cast locos, if not hybrids, are older locomotives, while plastic ones have been around for years and run the gamut from trainset quality to ones which rival brass in details. Brass locos vary in quality and detail like the plastic ones, and like the plastic, are priced accordingly.
I don’t think that I’ve ever owned a locomotive which I didn’t modify to some degree, and it never mattered the material from which it was made. [swg]
I get what’s available for that type of locomotive and only if I can swallow the wad of cash it’ll take to have buddy drop it at my door. I have all three types, and I like them all. I will say, though, that my diecast ones are the strongest pullers inch-for-inch. Details would be a toss-up between the plastic and hybrid. So far, while pricey, BLI’s hybrids are exceptional value in my view because their details come second only to the lone all-brass loco I have.
In plastic, my two most detailed locomotives are, in order, the P2K 0-6-0 marketed in the early 2000’s and my Rivarossi 2-6-6-6.
Given your conditions, which do not exist, the real question is what are the details made of? If they are brass on all 3, then I would opt for the diecast since heavier locomotives will track better and pull more. Anything can be modified.
The good plastic steamers, like Bachmann Spectrum, P2K, and Athearn are marvels of detail. Really good and they run well too. They are too light to pull much, which is unsatisfying. Die cast like Mantua are good and heavy, pull well, run well. Most of 'em come sorta plain in the detail area, but that can make a fun kitbashing project. Well detailed, and painted, diecast looks as good as anything. Brass is just out of my price range. Nice stuff but too much money for me.
I’ve been enjoying diecast locos quite a bit. Though I wish details, especially piping and handrails were brass or diecast instead of plastic, but I don’t mind adding said parts.
For me, the answer is, “Whatever builds up into or can be modified to resemble the specific locomotive needed to fill the hole in my roster.”
I own one die-cast loco - a Tenshodo 0-6-0T. If that wasn’t the only Japanese-prototype die-cast model I never encountered the others. It sounds like a sewing machine, but runs like a Rolex.
Most of my locos are brass, because that was what I could buy (in kit form) in Japan in the 1960s. All have been mechanically tweaked, and most have added or changed details. I traded off the dogs a long time ago, and consider the survivors excellent runners.
I own some plastic locos, either in my club-operation US collection or as either ready to use or ready to kitbash. Many were acquired as kits, or ready to rework. Of them, one Spectrum 0-6-0 and a much-modified Mantua 2-6-6-2 are in service. Three Bachmann 2-8-0s are running as ‘foobie’ 9600 class, awaiting modificatiion into real JNR 9600 class locos, 6 wheel tenders and all.
I don’t have any lacquered cardstock locos, but am considering that route to modify an N scale USRA 0-6-0 into a 1:80 scale model of Ikasa Railway #21. The same trick may put proper-size cabs on four N scale plymouths to provide my log hauler with an appropriate roster.
As you can tell, my approach is entirely pragmatic. Whatever works, is good.
That would depend on what prototype that 4-6-0 was based on, and the amount of modification required to make it into an at least passable representation of the locomotive.
Also assuming it is factory painted I would go with brass. I am a free lancer and have no desire to customize locos. RTR is just fine with me. I’m OK with repainting and decaling them for my railroad, but I’m not going to pay hundreds of dollars for a loco and then start modifying it.
The underlying premise – die cast but with the same level of detail as plastic or brass – throws a monkey wrench into the choice for me because I don’t know that I have ever seen die cast with the same level of detail.
And many of those locos have at lease some details grossly oversized.
The grossly too thick running boards on the MTH Berkshire make it look like a scaled down piece of 1940’s LIONEL.
My Spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2’s have die cast boilers but plastic details added to them. So does the Spectrum 2-10-2.
As for some of the comments about plastic boiler locos being too light, well, some are and some are not, and some have lots of room to easily add weight.
So again, I will repeat, better in my view to judge each individual loco on its merits, rather than make assumptions based on its method of construction.
