CTT Product Review question on Williams Hudson

[okiechoochoo]

I was reading the CTT product review of the Williams Girls train Hudson in the last issue.  It made reference to the Hudson review done in the May 06 CTT.  I noticed in the last issue the Girls trains had a slow average speed of 39.6 smph but an identical Williams Hudson reported a slow speed of 9.6 smph in the May 06 issue.  These engines are identical except for the color paint.  Why was there such a difference in slow speed.  30 smph seems like a lot.  Was this a misprint or was the Girls train locomotive just not broken in good.

[dwiemer]

Sorry, I am being lazy tonight, so I did not go back and check the review(s), but wasn't the Girls Train based on the Lionel 2037-500 engine which I believe was a Pacific type and not a hudson.  You may be talking about two different engines here.  I could be wrong....wife tells me all the time, but you may want to re-check.

Dennis

[BDT in Minnesota]

Dennis the 2037-500 was the pink locomotive.......That wheel  arrangement was a 2-6-4.......that is neither a pacific or a Hudson....rather than call them an "it""    I call them a "Lionel"....Lionel Lines was the only railroad in the USA that used a 2-6-4  to any degree,,so I named them after that railroad...BDT

[okiechoochoo]

I don't think you understoond the question.  I am talking about the Williams reproduction Girls train, not the Lionel issue of it.  Both Williams engines in the articles were Hudsons.

[lionelsoni]

BDT, the little-known name for a 2-6-4 is an "Adriatic".  Although they were never used here, some were made in the US for export to that area.  (Could it be called a "Cificap"--a backwards Pacific?...;-)

[Jumijo]

The Williams 2056 and the Williams 2037 girl's locomotive are identical, except for the paint AND the pilot truck. The 2056 has a 4-wheeled truck, but the 2037 has a 2-wheeled truck. The pinky is essentially a Hudson with 2 less wheels on the pilot truck.

Jim 

[DMUinCT]

The Williams "Pink" Hudson uses there copy of the Lionel body shell which started with the "226E" in 1938, became the 726 Berkshire in 1946, and the 2046 "Baby Hudson" in 1950.  In the "Pink" train they install the 2 wheel lead (pilot) truck, but it's still the "Baby Hudson" body. Lionel had used the smaller 2037 in its Girl's Set. All have plastic tenders

Williams also makes the larger, Scale Size, copy of the Lionel 773 Hudson. This may be the locomotive with the slower, more controled speed you refer to.  This also has a cast tender.

[dwiemer]

Williams also makes the larger, Scale Size, copy of the Lionel 773 Hudson. This may be the locomotive with the slower, more controled speed you refer to.  This also has a cast tender.

DMUinCT, if it had Magnatraction, I would buy one.  Speaking of which, how does the Williams 773 match up against a Lionel with magnatraction? 

Thanks for the education regarding the rest.

Dennis

[Bob Keller]

No mistake, when I tested the locomotive in May, I did the speed test twice since it was lower than I'd expected. The Pink 2-6-4 was about what I'd expect - though if you use TMCC in conventional mode, you'd shave some mph off for a lower speed.

[BDT in Minnesota]

BDT, the little-known name for a 2-6-4 is an "Adriatic".  Although they were never used here, some were made in the US for export to that area.  (Could it be called a "Cificap"--a backwards Pacific?...;-)

 

Bob,,Thanks for the info on that name......That loco must have been named after the Adriatic Sea..."Cificap" would make  a classic name for our classic Lionel versions...

 

Okiechoochoo,,sorry for getting a little ----off track ----on the thread

BDT

[okiechoochoo]

BDT, not a problem, Bob Keller answered my question.  Thanks.

[NYC Fan]

I believe if you look back at different times and in different catalogs Lionel called 2-6-4 steam locomotives "Prairies" and "Mohawks."

[BDT in Minnesota]

I believe if you look back at different times and in different catalogs Lionel called 2-6-4 steam locomotives "Prairies" and "Mohawks."

 

Yes,,they have been called a Mohawak in the Lionel catalogs....The real world Mohawks were the NYC 4-8-2 locomotives...Being that the NYC, the Pennsy, and the SF  roadnames were so popular on Lionel products,, it would be understandable if some of the locomotive nicknames were borrowed also...The Prairie nickname could have followed the 2026, when it retained the 2026 number when it was updated to a 2-6-4 from it's original 2-6-2 Prairie wheel configuration...

In a like sense, the 2035  2-6-4 has been referred to as a K4 Pacific.....

 

I have to chuckle when this topic comes up in a conversation....Lionel also made a giraffe car to be pulled behind these same locos, so total real world accuracy may not have been  applied to the lionel products as far as names...

 

But now I may be confused,,,Did any railroad really have a giraffe car??

Anyone have any info on the Circus trains???    

BDT

 

[brianel027]

I'd like to know what transformers are used for these tests, given that this topic on fast minimum speed comes up from time to time. It has been mentioned many times in reference to the truck mounted DC can motored diesels like the K-Line MP-15, Alco FA and S-2 as well as similar Lionel locos - that these types of locos run like jack rabbits.

If you use a modern transformer with a zero starting voltage, or the best Lionel transformer ever made (my opinion), the old reliable 1033 wired to the track at the B-U post setting, all these locos that supposedly run like jack rabbits can all run slowly. This also goes for Williams locos too, so long as the transformer is 6amp or in that neighborhood due the the Williams circuit board reverse. The 1033 runs Williams locos just fine too.

My pet-peeve with the CTT reviews is that every semi-scale loco reviewed comes with a comment under the "Cons" that it isn't scale or will look odd with scale stuff. Duhhh?!! For some of us, non-scale is a HUGE PLUS!!

It's a simple fact that most buyers of the more expensive scale sized/detailed locos and cars are seasoned older buyers who know their trains, and already know what is and isn't a TOY train. I personally find the "editorializing" a little unnecessary. Obviously I think there's an aim to inform the buyer, especially the novice. But these non-scale locos are most likely to be purchased by the beginner or the novice or the budget operator.

To be fair, maybe with the next review of the latest scale Atlas, Lionel or MTH loco there is a comment under "Cons" that these locos have fragile detailing that breaks easily, are overpriced, don't sell nearly as well as traditionally non-scale trains, will not run on 027 track and will look odd with traditionally sized trains. And actually, most of these cons are also proven facts.

As with the closing line of the current review of the MTH SD70ACe: This big fella moves to the head of the toy train pack. Maybe the scale train pack, but it moves to the bottom of the heap in the TOY train pack since it will never run on most "toy" train layouts. The RMT BEEP is miles and miles ahead of this loco in the "toy train" department. But now I'm editorializing.

I know a couple of parents who have purchased train sets for their kids. I'll ask them what is a reasonable list for a TOY train loco: $430 for the mentioned MTH loco or $70 for a BEEP. I think the answer will be obvious. Maybe it's like the bumper sticker "The only difference between the men and the boys is the price of their toys."

But then again, I'm a certified bona-fide TOY train operator. So I KNOW what runs and looks right on toy train layouts. And for most of these scale locos, their size, price and detail level is a very large scale sized CON. But what's a PRO for some, might not be for everyone.

Maybe it'd be a nice idea to have a size disclaimer at the lead of the review such as "full scale loco" or "semi-scale loco" or "proportionally scaled down replica" instead of listing size and detail as a pro or con. There are different groups of operators looking for differing types of trains in differing price ranges, which doesn't make any of them good or bad.

[bfskinner]

BDT in Minnesota,

Of course there were giraffe cars! Check out the link below. The salient text is:

      "In August,1929, two giraffes arrived from Africa, named Neck and Neck. They had to be transported from New Hampshire to Detroit in specially constructed giraffe railroad cars. According to a News article of July 1929, the floors of two flat cars were lowered 2-1/2 feet and a small deck house was mounted on each car to afford a neck rest.

      "While the train track is clear,", the story said, "the giraffes will be permitted to stretch their necks at will and look over the scenery. As they approach a low bridge or tunnel, the (keeper) will reel in the giraffe's neck and attach it to the padded rest until the passage has been made safely. When they get to Detroit, they will have two taxis awaiting them which are actually underslung trailers ordinarily used to transport steam shovels."

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=204&category=locations

[BDT in Minnesota]

BDT in Minnesota,

Of course there were giraffe cars! Check out the link below. The salient text is:

      "In August,1929, two giraffes arrived from Africa, named Neck and Neck. They had to be transported from New Hampshire to Detroit in specially constructed giraffe railroad cars. According to a News article of July 1929, the floors of two flat cars were lowered 2-1/2 feet and a small deck house was mounted on each car to afford a neck rest.

      "While the train track is clear,", the story said, "the giraffes will be permitted to stretch their necks at will and look over the scenery. As they approach a low bridge or tunnel, the (keeper) will reel in the giraffe's neck and attach it to the padded rest until the passage has been made safely. When they get to Detroit, they will have two taxis awaiting them which are actually underslung trailers ordinarily used to transport steam shovels."

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=204&category=locations

BF,,,,Thanks for the link,,,that story made my day.....now a have a legitimate reason to buy two more railcars!!

thanks again,,,BDT

[DCmontana]

Excellent comments brainel027!  The part of indicating if it is scale, traditions, etc. in the text would be an improvement on the cons.  We must always remember that one man's junk is another man's treasure!

[Bob Keller]

Brian,
I regularly get irate e-mails and letters from guys who buy the semi-scale or traditional locomotives - and they get mad that it isn't right at home with larger scale cars that they've previously bought.

Where I look at it is SEMI-scale, they want it to be semi-SCALE, if you catch my drift. Even though size and even dimensions might be specified in a given review, their mind's eye sees something else.

I can't put "Won't look right with scale equipment" under pros, and only mentioning it in the text can get easily overlooked. A lot of guys see something, buy it, then discover it is way to large, long, tall for their layout or trains.

While I'll consider adding something like "traditional" to the info box - using the Lionel LionMaster Cab-Forward as an example, it is classified as a traditional engine, the retail price pushes $850 (to me, not a traditional train price), yet the scale is smallish, yet the overall footprint is way beond a stereotypical O-27 layout with 2018s and 0-4-0s. So someone with a small layout could buy it because it said "traditional," just to find it doesn't work for them.

[brianel027]

Thanks Bob. Believe me, I understand to some degree where you are coming from. I was in the newspaper business for many years. News is news, facts are facts and opinions are for the editorial page. Part of the proper purpose of the review is to inform the reader about the product as unbiasedly as humanly possible.

The sizes of products can be a little confusing to the novice. I certainly assume though that experienced buyer would understand the difference between traditional, semi-scale and full scale. It surprises me that you would get emails from these more seasoned train buyers who cannot figure this out. Of course, it would also stand to reason that some of these buyers would be more vocal, as they are so on the other train forum. Though the train companies share some blame for trying to pass off semi-scale products as full scale.

I've been told personally by reps and company insiders that there is a very intentional omission of the "027" phrase from their catalogs for fear of losing sales. Even though a scale item may in fact clear 027 curves and switches, the term 027 has a strong connection to "toy" trains.

All of this certainly makes the review writer's job somewhat more of a challenge. But my point simply put, is that there are many buyers who do not see smaller size as a Con, as mentioned with the CTT review of the Williams 027 proportioned Alco FA copy of the Lionel version. The idea of a "size category" in the stand alone features box strikes me as a great idea. That would state the product size area without the potential editorializing.

While the train companies product push is obviously towards scale and high end, everything I have read and heard from train company insiders tells me that scale product sales are still the MINORITY of train sales. You'd never know it though from looking at the catalogs. I'm sure the bottom 3 Lionel sets (Polar Express, Pennsy Flyer and NYC Flyer sets) sell far far better than most scale items. I know from talking to dealers, the Lionel starter set cars don't stay on the shelves long.

But I strongly suspect the buyers of starter train sets, traditionally sized items and more toy train items are not writing CTT or the train companies to complain the way other more scale hobbiests are. I know I have never once written any train company to complain about the semi-scale or traditionally sized train I buy. Well, I have written, but to either constructive comments to make cost effective operational improvements, compliment them and ask for more products like these and in modern road names.

Final thought Bob.... might be a great time to update and reprint the "Scale's the thing" article from the now famous Neil Young cover issue of CTT. I'm sure that article got passed over by many who were looking to read about Neil's layout.

[DMUinCT]

Who ever said Train Cars have to be the same size!  On real trains they are all sizes.

[bfskinner]

DMUinCT,

You make a good point. On toy train layouts, however, even those with no claims of being scale, a huge car in a consist with little ones (or vice-versa) tends to stand out in an annoying way -- at least to my eye. The degree of this annoyance depends on which dimensions are the problem, in this order of increasing bother:

1. Length: seldom a problem. You can even mix passenger cars and freight, as in real life.

2. Height: sometimes a problem, if otherwise similar cars tend to tower over (or under*) the rest of the consist. Some folks minimize this effect by putting oversize cars (say, boxcars) between a string of very different cars, such as gondolas or flatcars.

3. Width: in my opinion, this is the biggest problem. A car that is appreciably wider than the cars ahead or behind is an optical sore thumb. A scale boxcar, for example, in a line of Industrial Rail boxcars, looks like Dumbo.

My partial solution would be for manufacturers to list full size of the bodies (all three dimensions) of their rolling stock in inches -- minus the length of the couplers. Height could be measured on track or on a flat surface as long as it was done consistently. For electrics, it should be done with pantographs up. This would provide info about clearance with respect to tunnels, bridges and overhead signals, etc.

An illustration may help. Recently I bought a Williams 4-bay hopper. It is marked "scale" in their catalog, which also gives length and height numbers -- but not width. I love Williams, but why do they not publish width? Worse yet, they describe the length of the car as 10 inches. In fact, it is every bit of 11 inches', counting the ornamental brake wheels but NOT counting the couplers. There is no way to measure it and get "10 inches." How could that be?

The brain is quite good at making comparisons when both objects are in view. When they are not, it has great difficulty. If you can't see both objects side by side, as in mail ordering, or sometimes even in a store ("Do not open the boxes!") it is easy to make a mistake.

 

* I admit the expression "towering under" leaves a good deal to be desired.

[lionelsoni]

I like to measure length between the coupler pulling faces, which is the length that the car will take in a train.  It has the advantage of being unambiguous:  Any two persons should be able to come up with the same number, without having to make judgments about whether to include brakewheels, diaphragms, etc.  And it's easy enough to estimate any other interpretation of length from this one.

[BDT in Minnesota]

I was up till 2 this morning measuring some of this so called "compatible equipment" ..The only thing in common was the three rail track....The 2046 is called a "Baby Hudson", well, what does that make the the 2055?? The Prewar 224 and 225 are both called O gauge locomotives...Allot of difference in size, and the 224 shared it's boiler design with the 1666, which is labeled as a 027..

Now enter Marx, K Line, American Flyer, Williams, MTH and their contributions to the mix.

So there I sat, looking at an 0-8-0 that towered over a Berk,   a boxcar that is two inches shorter than a caboose,, anouther boxcar that dwarfs a passenger car... This could be labeled a disaster on a small layout..

 Seventy years of production represented,, same old story...   Lots of different size toys..I noticed these radical differences when I was an eight year old kid..

For me, Some purchases will not be repeated, and many will...I have often gambled on some of my purchases....There is some new fad stuff on the market that I wouldn't think of buying ;As I have done my share of buying suprise packages...At times, I have bought a complete set just to get one item..So I have my share of extra stuff leftover..I often think of the extras as a boobie prize...They are canidates for a kitbash or a swap meet....

Well, a new locomotive or railcar should not have to be a suprise package....I  agree  with BF, the dimensions should be listed..I would also like to know the driver diameter and wheelbase on the locomotives...

Us seasoned folks can sort this stuff out, often with knowledge  we have gained through experience.

Well, how about the Grandparet, Aunt, or next-door neighbor who has a young engineer on a birthday or Christmas list..??

Not everyone is a train expert,, and a sad thing is, many train items can be affordable gifts...A little more effort on the part of the train companies could make shopping a little less of a nitemare. Allot of people are suprised that three-rail trains are still being made....They know that the tiny HO sets are delicate for young hands....One old classmate asked recently about a train for his grandson..He remembers playing with my 027 back in the 60s...In many cases, We, the customers, are the best promoters and sources of information for our hobby...our MR and CTT mags cannot be found in every magazine rack( I like to pass mine on), and not every town has a hobby shop that puts trains out in the public eye... I think that we could use a little more manufacturer's  help in the promotion of our hobby...Better info on the product would be a good start...

This Forum is priceless, I appreciate the ways questions get answered on here...Any answered question is answered not for just one person, but for many....

[brianel027]

Good points and thoughts since I last wrote. You guys need to check out the article I mentioned: "Scale's The Thing" from the Neil Young issue (March 1993) of CTT. Without having the article open in front of me, there were listings of various train cars and locos from over the years and differing manufacturers (up to that time). They fell into four categories: true 0, large, medium and small with respective percentages of their relation to true 0 scale. The common Lionel stater 4-4-2 steam engine for example, fell into the small category as did the MARX/K-Line 5000-series cars. It was a very good article and very helpful.

I know that real trains have cars of all differing sizes. Being an 027 guy, I tend to stick to the small and medium categories mentioned above. The K-Line MARX origin 5000 cars would look totally out of place with a scale Weaver box car, but look fine with normal 6464 sized cars. The Crown Models origin cars, now part of Weaver (the outside braced box car, woodside reefer and 40 foot box car) are all scale yet based on smaller prototypes. I run these Crown/Weaver Woodside reefers and they look fine with my smaller trains. I also really like the K-Line 765-series modern steel welded box car.... with it's missing roofwalk and short ladders it looks like a modern car and its size mimics a larger hi-cube box car with my other smaller cars. Williams box cars are a little bigger than the 6464's yet don't look out of place running with them. I mix in the smaller Lionel 027 plug door box cars and you can cover a pretty wide range of sizes in the CTT mostly the small and medium and also the large categories.

I've also gone to the trouble to make some Railking cars smaller: I've lowered the height of several RK box cars as well as the height of the PS-2 Hopper. They as is clear the 027 switches, but I just wanted them to look a little more at home with my smaller cars.... they're still taller, but not as much as they once were.

I've shortened the height of almost every K-Line MP-15 I have. Shortening the scale height makes the loco look bigger and closer to the height of the cars I run. Many of the Lionel MPC locos were actually too tall for their smaller size, as were many of the early MTH Railking locos. Take a look at one of the last RK locos, the SD90MAC: at a height of 3-1/2 inches it doesn't tower above most smaller cars. And with the 14 inch length, the shorter cab height makes the loco actually appear to be bigger, rather than a shoebox on wheels, like the Lionel MPC Conrail Rectifier.

On the other hand I've raised the height of the Industrial Rail covered hopper. I've also taken the 027 2-dome and 3-dome small tank cars, and build new frames that are a little higher and mimic the frame of a modern "frameless" tank car. There's all kinds of possibilities.

I think of my trains less in terms of rivet counting and more in terms of water color painting... in water colors, you are painting an impression of something rather than precise duplication. That's the way the hobby once was. And I'm still amazed at the detail and realism of those simple tin lithographed MARX trains. They show just how much can be attained with so little actual detail.