Model Train Journal

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lionel-Erie-Di ... 3755790477

Cheap 610, stamped steel frame, frame needs painting, with a coal dump car unsuitable for public display without repaint, all for a reserve of $140 plus FREE shipping.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Lionel-PW-6220 ... 3734329528

6220 with cast frame and tanks. Bell ringing. Electromagnetic couplers. And no aftermarket bell.
$70 reserve plus $25 to ship it.

No, but half the price for twice the engine.

I’ve got a 624 C&O and it is a smooth quiet runner. Love the early switchers.

If I remember, the best ones had a setscrew in the brushplate to limit armature end play. The worst ones depended on brush spring tension.

Didn't the Santa Fe's have the zebra stripes on the sides of the frame?

Ahh. The prototype has the zebra stripes! Some of the Lionel models only had them on the cab/hood.

I can't remember if it was in CTT or some other source that featured the "not made by Lionel" version on the Lionel showroom layout just prior to Lionel introducing their own NW2.

chuck wrote:Ahh. The prototype has the zebra stripes! Some of the Lionel models only had them on the cab/hood.

I can't remember if it was in CTT or some other source that featured the "not made by Lionel" version on the Lionel showroom layout just prior to Lionel introducing their own NW2.

Probably a General Models NW, which started the rumour that Lionel copied it. They didn't. Imitated it, because none of the dimensions are the same.

Interestingly, a 3-rail GM or All-Nation NW2, if you remove the Thomas Industries slider assembly, a Lionel set of rollers fits the spot.

I have either 4 or 5 of the 3-rail GM or A-M NW's, and while the Lionel is slightly bigger in every dimension (smallest is 1/8"), the Lionel I have just LOOKS bigger, so it sits on a shelf.

I have a couple of the GM/AN switchers too in “kit” read basket case form lol some day...

Never understood the "copied it" gripe. They are ALL copies of a "real thing" so I would hope they all bear some resemblance to the original

chuck wrote:Never understood the "copied it" gripe. They are ALL copies of a "real thing" so I would hope they all bear some resemblance to the original

Well, it's a small distinction; some copy the prototype and some copy the other companies products. Silly, but..........

Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

chuck wrote:Never understood the "copied it" gripe. They are ALL copies of a "real thing" so I would hope they all bear some resemblance to the original

Well, it's a small distinction; some copy the prototype and some copy the other companies products. Silly, but..........

.......Lets not forget the sale of production drawings to a competitor on the black market

Just think of all those Hudsons that are copies of a 700E.

Just think of all those Hudsons that are copies of a 700E.

But the 700E was supposed to be scaled from 1:1 blueprints , right down to the number of rivets on the tender (which were actually off).

Internals like details of a drive train should be different but even that has limitations. The design speeds are set for the loco and the motor choices are limited. Wheel diameter is also supposed to be "scale" or near to it. This leads to defined reduction ratio's and that leads to limited geometry of gears and gear arrangements.

This is like when the Russians were accused of copying the space shuttle. The Buran shuttle had a passing similarity to the US shuttle but it was based on the laws of physics, not copying. Form does follow function. Buran's main engines and fuel tanks were in the shuttle body while the US shuttle's engines were completely separate from the fuel tanks. Buran required a much larger and more powerful booster. In the long run, neither one worked that well.