In another post, Tony Walsham made a short reference to LGB’s new entry in the track market: nickle-plated brass track.
I have also made my observations to their LGB’s announcement on the Bachmann and the “other” site.
What are your questions in response to LGB of America’s brief discussion of the comparison of brass track to stainless track in their Q&A section on their website.?
From the LGB of America site – the Q&A section:
“The difference between the two [nickel-plated brass and “stainless steel track” with quote marks from LGB] is the Ni sections have rugged coating of nickel on the rails and metal parts. This offers two advantages for many users:
– Less track cleaning, without the wear problems of “stainless steel” track.
– More realistic rail color.”
My questions:
Curious, why the use of quote marks around their reference to “stainless steel” track?
Is there some distinction made in comparing a type of “stainless steel” with another quality of stainless steel (no quote marks)?
Is Aristo-Craft’s stainless track the benchmark for this comparison study? If so, does this mean the referenced “stainless steel” is not truly “stainless” and therefore will show greater wear?
As Tony noted, the presumed claim is the greater wear references the wheels. LGB did not say in the Q&A whether they determined differences in wear is with the wheels or the track.
So if nickle plating is on the rails there is less wear than stainless – does not the nickel plating also wear? Slower-to-wear than stainless? Less amount than stainless? Yet, the claim “there are less problems” is for the wheels or the rail (both?), under what conditions, and compared to using what “kind” or brand of stainless track?
LGB is pioneering a new track. Exploration of their new product is certainly very worthwhile as track is the basis for our hobby.
As I asked on the Bachmann site: Does anyone want to contribute by sorting this one out?
Thanks,
Wendell