What is your #1 concern: PRICE, QUALITY or PLAY VALUE?

Classic Toy Trains Forum
1

Brian’s exceptional posts are a treasure trove to mine. He writes:

“What is important is PRICE, QUALITY and PLAY VALUE.”

His point (in toy trains reaching youth post), was that all 3 are important.

I agree, BUT,

COMPROMISE is sometimes necessary. Sure, we should have all 3, but that probably will never happen.

For instance, I’d love to have a $2K Acela, if I modeled the modern NE Corridor, however, I’d never be able to afford it (PRICE); so I’d be willing to stick to a cheap GG-1 or even a Pepsi Can locomotive; perhaps even a semi-scale model with excellent PLAY VALUE.

Reg. QUALITY, the higher the PRICE, the better should be the QUALITY. Sometimes but not always.

The higher priced items may have quality issues. I’ve read CTT and OGR reviews and even high-priced locomotives have things go wrong (quality), but on the other hand, low-cost Williams diesels rarely (but sometimes) have quality problems.

On the post where I stole Brian’s quote, there is a reply from a guy who finds most 3-rail trains costing too much so he buys and restores PW engines.

So what is the point or moral to the story?

If you are poor and can find a high quality, low-cost train with lots of play value, buy it! Otherwise, save your money and enjoy the play value of the trains you already have. He who dies with the most toys doesn’t necessarily always win.

Dave Vergun

2

Great follow up Dave, this really is a 3 way tug-o-war. For ME the answer is simply PRICE. Because I can fix things that break, or add details if I want them, quality is not really the issue. Decent is all I seek. Superior is more than I need or care to pay for. As an operator of trains, with a focus on the trains themselves, play value doesnt matter too much either. I can add value there by modeling around the trains. That’s what makes ME happy!!!

I’m sure everyone will have a different answer to this one. There is no wrong answer here.

3

The answer is price. I wish it didn’t have to be a concern, but if the price is not low enough for me to buy it, Quality and play value don’t even figure into it. Notice my tag line about the Acela. I have about $400 saved now for it. It’s going to be a struggle. I don’t think it’s fair, but I love passenger trains and I have to have this one!

4

I’m sort of surprised that price came up #1.

But that’s what I too pick. I’d rather have a die-cast engine that costs less than a plastic one with all the detailing quality. I can add the detailing myself. Kitbashing is all the play value I need.

dav

5

A few months ago, there was a posting on the OGR forum that had a link that led to the web site for this local news show on a Maryland TV station. The link was to an interview that Mike Wolf had done with the show.

In the interview, Mike indicated that the average MTH customer had spent a little over $4k last year.

Now, I don’t know about you, but there’s no way I’m ever going to get to spend $4k a year with one manufacturer on trains, short of winning the lottery or coming into some unexpected inheritance.

So, for me, price is a HUGE concern. Most of the stuff out there really isn’t as bad as people on the forums think it is, for reasons that have been discussed on OGR before. (for those interested, you rarely hear anyone say anything nice when something works as expected; you only hear about the failures. The increased frequency of bad reports leads you to the conclusion that a lot of stuff is bad, when the failure reate is really within statistical norms)

Play value comes into play (no pun intended) when you consider buying something. But even if something had the most play value in the world, you’re not going to buy it if you can’t afford the price.

Tony

6

Tony,

In statistical language, there probably were outlyers with high numbers, raising the mean significantly. In this case, the median would be more meaningful or the percentile distribution.

You are so right about the failures. I’ve experienced about a 20% failure with MTH (2 out of 5 purchases), but the problems were quickly remedied by MTH and I’m a satisfied customer. Had 0.0% failure with Williams, but it doesn’t have near the gadgetry that MTH has.

A friend of mine always tells me to buy the best and you’ll save money in the long run because you won’t have to go back and buy again. For example, I purchased a $99 weight set last week and he was advising me to return it and spend $1K on a good quality set.

I have sort of mixed feelings on price and quality. For example, I love Bodington Beer but often my wallet dictates Natural Light or some generic brand.

As for trains, the play value of 10 Railking switchers would be a lot higher than for one Acela (price of 10 RK SW switchers at $200 a piece equals $2K for one Acela). So PLAY VALUE DOES come into play for me.

dav

7

Well I guess I’ll buck the trend. I go for quality first. If the stuff don’t work out of the box or quits soon after it has been used a little that gets me hot. Luckily for me at this point in my life I can pretty much afford to buy what I want. (train related)Of course this comes at a price. My business dictates that I work around 355 days a year, yes that is not a typo, last year I only had 10 days off where I did not work at all. This translates into very little time to play with what I have. I figure when I start slowing down I will have a nice huge collection of trains to sift through and rediscover. Getting back to quality I have terrible luck with mth. Everything I have purchased from them is currently broke. I spent close to 4k on engines, cars, accessories and track with mth until I realized that their stuff didn’t work. Since then I have been buying Lionel and kline and I have not had one failure that was not caused by operator error(read it crashed). I would say play value is next since when I do get a chance to fool around in the basement with the kids I like to play with the accessories or trains.

8

For me too, quality is the key-word. Especially building quality of the drivetrain, metal wheels, metal framework and a decent motor (not some small tiny canmotor, but a big juicy engine) is important to me. We have had Lima for example, building cheap engines with 100% plastic drivetrains, only the added weight and the wheels where NOT made from plastic, and it ran like overcooked spaghetti. For a bit more money you could have a fleischmann loco with a metal frame and metal gearwork, wich ran smoother and with less noise. If I compare my JEP machine made entirely (also the drivetrain) from Zamac and plastic with my F3 or the 2037 steamengine with metal gears, metal trucks and proper motors, I can see the difference clearly. The Jep’s gearwork has much play in it, the F3’s a little and the 2037 none.
All have been played well with.
Second comes price, mostly because IF something American 0 gauge is for sale, I mostly buy it.
Third is play value, because that depends on your own emagination.

9

Quality is most important to me. I would rather have one quality engine than two or three cheaply made engines. It all depends who you are. Everybody has and is entitled to their own priority. The industry caters different products that suit these prioritys with quality trains, cheaply made trains, and trains with lots of features. or a combination of any of these priorities…

10

Hey gang, let me put some quick clarification on this: in my many conversations with parents over the topic of train sets and trains for kids, certain issues come up. On the traveling layout I once had, I had taken some Kickapoo dump cars and redone them, weighted them and repainted them. I used a bicycle cable to operate them. Folks were very impressed with this. I also had some of the simple 9-inch flat cars with the dump tray. These are not complicated cars, nor are they expensive to produce. Yet they offer some play fun for a child being able to dump loads. Most lower end sets come with a couple of non-operating cars. Take the current Lionel GN RS-3 set… those simple dump cars certainly can’t cost more to make than the tank car in the set, yet they are more fun than the tank car. Interaction is a key element here. Even a flat car with a couple of interchangable load holders offers tremendous play value. One car that can be several cars… parents like that idea too. And eventually they’ll want to buy more flat cars that will hold the different loads the kids come up with. I’ve made gondolas with removable ramp trays, so that gon can be used to load barrels (they roll fdown the ramp) or with the ramp easily removed from the gon, it can be loaded with other items. These are a couple of the kind of ideas that say “value” to a parent.

On the issue of quality, yes there are the very basics - things should work and work out of the box. This is a given. But when ever Lionel is written about in the news media, it is always the top line product that gets remembered: the Hudson, the Trainmaster, the GG1, the F-3. This is what people associate Lionel with. Diecast quality. But most younger parents have grown up in the era of plastic everywhere. There is nothing wrong with plastic, but there are certain places it shouldn’t be… the frame of a locomotive is one. The plastic should also be molded with enough color in it so as to not look cheap, or should be painted.

I ran some heavily plastic l

11

As much as I like the play value argument here, there is a toy train that has been mentioned before that runs circles around any that we have seriously talked about.## LEGOWe have a large collection of Lego trains, and my son and his friends really like them a lot. The kids can build anything they want and run it on the rails. They can make towns and cars and have wizards and dragons or dinosaurs. The play value of our trains pales in comparison. NO CONTEST. Quality indestructable, possibilities unlimited, and price not bad.

In the model railroading world we may win the battle of play value. In the TOY WORLD, we can still get our butts kicked. When Lionel was at it’s peak, Lego was still a tiny foreign company. Today Lego is world wide, and Lionel is a tiny foreign company. If you want to see a real business plan, forget Lionel and all the rest and look at Lego.

Whose products are in Toys R Us and whose aren’t? Who offers accessories for as little as $2 at Target and Walmart? Whose most expensive single set is under $300?

I don’t mean to sound depressing here, but 30 years ago Lego opened up a can of whoopass on us, and as far as play value goes, stick a fork in us we’re done.

12

I go for quality above all. I’d rather have a single higher end metal loco and tender and some metal operating cars than a whole slew of plastic ones, that don’t do anything. Play value goes second I guess because if it is plastic and it has a cool load on it, or does something, I would get it. Price is important, but I’d spend a bit more for something that will be a bit better. I dont like the fancy electronics on the new ones, so I like to stick with post war. I have gone new but plain stuff(I hate electronics). A cool body or a nice paint scheme, tend to catch my eyes too.

Angelo

13

When I take my father hat off and look just for me price is number 1. If it exceeds my personal price point, currently somewhere in the $200 range for an engine, quality and playability don’t enter into the fray. Doesn’t mean I won’t lust after it, drool on it and dream about it, just means that right now I’d feel guilty spending more. If it makes my price point I have to feel it will work properly right out of the box and for a reasonable period of time, maybe only 1-1/2 generations instead of 3[:)]. You might say 2 out of three isn’t bad – buy it.!

It is at this point that playabilty comes in and that is many things to me. It might be an operating accessory, such as a sawmill or oil derrick that strikes my fancy, and I think will add to the enjoyment of my layout. It could be an engine or operating car. It could be a simple non-operating car with a paint scheme or load I admire. It is these areas of “playability” that I believe gives O it’s advantage over other gauges. Afterall, the switching challanges, realistic operations challanges and landscaping techniques are similar across all scales.

Now if I put my father hat back on the focus is entirely different. The first thing I’m going to look at in a new toy or activity is what playability does it offer my son. Is he going to get bored with it before the weekend, a week or a month is past. Here is where toy O shines. As an aside his idea of detailing is setting his toy soldiers in the cars and around town guarding the sawmill. He doesn’t really care about grass, trees or envriotex water.

So now that we’ve found this new cool activity or toy I next check the price. If it’s more than we can afford it does not matter how high the quality he’s not getting it. To me this is where toy O seems to fail with many potential newcomers.

Ok, this “new thing” has passed the first two hurdles. At least with me a ballancing act takes place trying to strike a compromise between price and quality. As a parent

14

Okay a couple more thoughts based on my first hand observations.

And I’ll preface them by saying that as many of you know, NYS has been particularly hard hit with the downturn in the economy. Ohio too. Plus the minimum wage (which is not a “training wage” as Congress maintains, but the sole basis for what the working class service sector gets paid) has not gone up in almost a decade. Yet the northeast US has historically always been one of the strongest markets for toy trains. Pennsylvania had more real railroads running though the state than any other in the country. The northeast states still appear to have the largest number of train shops. I’ve also read the northeast states also account for the largest number of subscriptions to train magazines. California is the one western state that competes with the NE for numbers of train shops.

So with the lower wages being paid to younger workers today along with the “sluggish” economy (I’m being polite), price is the first factor the newcomers look at. As one who demonstated trains to this audience, I saw what is commonly called “sticker shock.” Folks who are just looking at 3-rail trains for the very time often are shocked by the prices, especially when the make the comparison to the prices of stater HO train sets. Beyond this, I found as a dealer, that $100-$150 is the price most young newcomers are prepared to pay for what they hope will be a complete train set. Even with that price, some are turned away. Regardless of the quality, or operating features, I found that this is the price range. Train sets in this price category sold better than others, regardless of what they were.

We all know the MTH Docksider starter set contains a top notch quality steam engine and very nice well made cars. But it only contains a bare circle of track and is priced at nearly $200. Not a good value as far as newcomers are concerned. It was far easier to sell the various Lionel colombia-type steam engine sets. The number one set for me were the

15

Wow, I don’t know where to begin. A lot of information to chew in some of these replies. Price and quality are oft discussed in toy train forums, but “play value” that brian originally brought up deserves a place too.

Elliot’s mention of Legos adding high play value is right on the mark. To me, play value is foraging in fields and woods for scenery: trees, dirt, rocks, and so on; or, scratchbuilding structures or kitbashing trains; all items that do not really cost a lot of money. Time, yes, money, no. And I, not some toy train maker, has control over the quality.

I’m completely satisfied with a dozen locomotives; actually very very happy; and the buzz of the latest cataloges doesn’t get me hyper or giddy. The fun of construction and operation and do-it-yourself gives me play value. The man with the most trains–even if they all are high quality trains–isn’t necessarily the happiest man. The key is the PLAY VALUE.

dav

16

Brian:

Your last paragraph is exactly the point I was trying to make. Make Locos that can be upgraded later to TMCC, if the owner wants it. I know that at one point Lionel did offer trains that were “TMCC Ready;” I don’t thnk they’re doing that any more. The question here is “why?”

As others have said (and I believe I said it, too), a parent is going to look at play value first, then price. There’s an assumption that the quality will be proper for the price point. For example, if my son picks up a toy at the Dollar Store, I’m not going to expect it to even be in the house in a week, let alone my great great grandchildren playing with it.

Buying for yourself is different because you’re not a child any more. At least, you’ve learned to have patience & an appreciation of things that kids don’t care about. And here, unless you’re independently wealthy, price or quality are important.

But even buying for a kid, if it’s not in the budget, it doesn’t get bought.

Tony

17

In it’s day Lionel trains had some of the highest play value of any toy anywhere. Actually AC Gilbert did better with his Erector sets, which could be combined with the trains. Today this is simply no longer true, especially if we look at the “cost to play value ratio” ie how much play value can you get for your dollar??

There must be something special about the trains themselves to have kept them in the game so long, I’m just not sure what it is.

18

IMO “play value” as some of you mentioned, is the biggest selling point of 3-rail trains. Lets face it, and be honest, we likely have a lot more fun that most in HO and N, who don’t have smoking noisy sparking big locomotives with exciting, goofy, crazy, whacky operating accessories that make you laugh when milk barrels get thrown off the platform and little people run around like lunatics.

19

Your last post is spot on FJ and G.

Eliot – To a child trains are big, loud, colorful and most of the conductors and engineers will still wave back and ring the bell or blow the horn when a child waves to them. (Good Guys) They see them more than the tiny specs in the sky called airplanes. Plus they are introduced to 1:1 trains and toy trains in old cartoons where they are both toys and personified characters. Of course there is Shining Time station with Thomas. Just about every child today has taken the train to Hogwarts. Trains just have personality that is still apparent to and easily reinforced to a child.

Steve

20

No argument there Steve, just a couple of side notes, things that I’ve mentioned before elsewhere. The glamour has gone out of railroading in general, it left us with the demise of steam, and the reduction of railroad jobs. Add to that all of the loss of track, through all of the small towns across the country, and the exposure that it gave to kids. We have cars, trucks and planes to thank for much of this shift.

As a life long lover of trains, I have always seen anything with RUBBER TIRES as the enemy, but kids like those things too. When it comes to play value those toys “SUCK” when compared to trains.

In the world of model trains, 3 rail O is still the play value king. The problem is that our world has to compete dierctly with Lego, and we lose out. Maybe there is some hope here, though. When I was young (notice I didn’t say “when I was a kid” because I still am) I played with my Lionel trains, and then along came Legos.

I palyed with them too, sometimes even using them together. Then Lego started making trains, and I was given one of them (which I still have today). By this time I was totally hooked on the whole train thing, and it made no difference whose trains they were.

Maybe the bottom line here is just to get the tra