They go retail VERY expensive with 4 2400 series passenger cars for $600, but I found my set for 350.You are correct these sets are very high quality, both the Con. Classic 2056 and 646 have magne traction ,traction tires, a spur geared pullmor which runs even better than the original postwar pullmors, all cast metal and very heavy. 15 postwar cars is quiet the load, a conventional classic Hudson with Magne traction can easily pull an assortment of 30 postwar and modern cars without a slip at the start thanks to the 2 tires and magne traction. I do like original postwar engines though, they when maintained correctly can run very well.
Brad
Your endorsement of the Conventional Classics Hudson steamers suggests they are good product, though perhaps pricey (did you say $375?)
I picked up a 646 and a 2056 Postwar at auction for $130 - 150 each. The 646, having Magna-Traction, is the better puller, easilly lugging 10-15 postwar freights around an 031 curved layout. The 2056 comes close.
Of course, new assures (I hope) no operational issues, but $ for $, these postwar engines are a good buy, and seem to be readiy available.
runtime
I know the original 2056 had 2400 series passenger cars and thus the new set has them too, but wouldn't it be awesome if it came with 4, 2500 series cars? Just a thought. They look pretty cool with how there bigger and look more realistic. I'm satisfied with the 2400 series cars it came with. It would be nice if it had an add on though. They're hard to pull. Some of my 2 motor equipped Diesels can't make it up my 5% grade without struggling and slipping But my Conventional Classic engines can make it up no problem.
I have a Conventional Classics GP-7 Burlington set with a worm drive motor as well as the spur geared pullmor Hudson, but I have no postwar engines. I have seen a postwar K4 and run it but I have no Postwar sets themselves. I will get some someday.
I have to agree with BadACe Trainmaster. What ever you think its your set. I don't mind it. It looks better than the motor and E-unit in my opinion. I purchased the 2056 Passenger set to go along with my Postwar trains. YES the backhead is a littlle far back in the cab, but it doesn't look that bad.
This trainset runs nice, looks nice, and is as close to postwar i am going to get without buying a 50 year old set. I bought the conventional classic to run, and give some of my postwar trains a break. I too did alright on price.
Alan
So why the backhead? Did they change the tooling when they used it for the Berkshires?
Jon
What ever you think its your set. I don't mind it. It looks better than the motor and E-unit in my opinion. I got my passenger set for $350 and it is awesome in pulling power, looks and performance.
No, the back head placed all the way to the rear looks stupid. Where would the engineers sit? Other than that, its a nice engine but hasn't sold very well. It is being blown out now at a few dealers.
Roger
I looked up the number he listed and it is not a PWC but a 646 Conventional Classics. And the advantage of a spur geared motor is all wheels are geared compared to worm drive where the rear set of drivers is geared and power is transferred by the drive rods which is inferior in starting tractive effort. I have a worm drive Conventional Classic GP-7 set, and it pulls great. I pulled 9 passenger cars and 22 freight cars all at once very easily and with no slipping. Great sets.
The above comments apply to the #773 Post War Celebration set. The set you're inquiring about uses the #646/2046 tool that was a standard of the Post War/MPC eras.
The motor is, and has always been a spur-geared open-framed motor, not to be confused with the much larger #773 worm-geared motor placed just forward of the cab.
I have not seen the #646-2046-2056 Conventional Classics remakes, so I can't speak as to whether the back-head is placed too far aft, but I can say that the originals were wide-open all the way up to the e-unit.
OK I assumed b/c its a remake they'd be accurate to that but that just means the remake looks better than the original wouldn't you rather have a accurate firewall than no firewall?
No it did not. The motor was in the rear of the cab, there was NO firewall like in the new Engines.
I wouldn't let that bother you. Remember the original postwar Hudson had its cab like that and this is a remake of it. Are you pleased with its power/performance?
Its a nice set. But to me, the one big drawback is the engine's firewall is all the way to the rear of the cab. In my opinion, it looks rediculous.
Thanks Darren. I've been modeling O scale for 2 years now and just found these forums. I look forward to helping others with less experience and getting help from those with more.
BadACe Trainmaster - Welcome to Trains.com!
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
I'm getting this locomotive as well, except in the passenger set. From what I've heard its pros are:
The locomotive is very heavy and completely die-cast metal
The locomotive's spur geared pullmor motor is a smooth runner and has high torque particularly in the high speed range, and all the wheels are geared to the motor.
The Locomotive can climb grades without loss off traction and one guy told me it could pull 25-30+ cars on level track without a slip of the drivers and could accelerate that load up to a reasonable speed and it still had power left in both torque and traction. It has both magne traction and 2 Traction tires.
The cons are it's semi scale which isn't as much of a con as the original Hudson its modeled after is semi scale as well. It is sluggish, but it is powerful.
Hope this helped.
I just wondered if anyone has this set yet ,#6-38329. It looks like a nice set and wondered what the pros and cons are. thanks for any comments.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month