Lionel O/ O27 engines/ rolling stock ID

[Anonymous]

Hi, y'all..
After many years of not playing with trains (I had Ns as a kid), now with my son showing interest in trains, I have rediscovered a long forgotten hobby. Being interested in the larger scales, and antiques/ collectibles in general, I have settled on postwar O scale Lionels.
I have a question about O/ O27 engines and rolling stock. I understand the scale and track differences, but what I can't find is way to readily identify engines and stock, by pictures and/or Lionel numbers, as being O or O27.
When I am shopping, esp. online, I would like to be able to look at a piece and know whether it's O or O27. I would like to stick with O and not mix O27 in there.
Is there a definitive way to tell without actually eyeballing the piece in person?
Sorry about the length of this post, thanks for your time and any advice/ suggestions you might be able to offer.

[Jumijo]

In many cases, forfan, the only difference between an O engine and an O27 engine was the part number it wore. A 675 was an O steamer. The exact same loco stamped 2025 was considered an O27. Same with the 682/2020, etc. Generally, O scale wore 3 digit numbers, O27 had 4 digit numbers.

"The Standard Catalog Of Lionel Trains: 1945-1969 (Standard Catalog of Trains)" by David Doyle is an incredible resource for identifying post war Lionel items of all kinds. It's filled with photographs of each item, often several photos showing each variation and many in color. A price guide and chronology of builds are included in the description of each item. There is also a set list with breakdowns of items included in each set in the back of the book. I have this book and can honestly say it has taught me plenty, especially as far as pricing, rarity, and condition. See the link below. The book is selling for $19.79 there, but can also be found at local book stores and chains.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873498909/qid=1125053229/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7991943-9552828?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Jim

[Frank53]

I noticed this recently on a 2026, whereas there is a designation on the nameplate on the underside. I do not know if this is a universal feature (I think not), but nonetheless, there is a distinguishing factor.



Likewise on David Doyle's book - it is a very well done rundown on post war trains. It has a lot more photos than the overhyped Greenberg books and is more of a ready reference - particularly for someone who is relatively new to teh hobby.

[pbjwilson]

fordfan,
Welcome! I too was an N scale modeler. My first trainset back in "68" was N scale. With the birth of my first son I went out and bought a Lionel for his first Christmas. Ever since I've been hooked on O gauge trains. My son , not so hooked, but he does enjoy the layouts I build. Good luck, collect what you enjoy, and have fun playing with your trans.


Some of my collection

[Anonymous]

Usually the difference between 027 and 0 is that the O locomotives were usually the more deluxe versions of the 027 locomotives.

O gauge Lionel locomitves and cars usually had...

-dual motors (diesels)

-magnetraction

-coil couplers

-diecast shells

O27 Locomtives and cars usually did not have these features onboard. But Jim is right, only usually the numbers were different.

[lionelsoni]

See
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=23391
for a dissenting view on Doyle's book.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jerrylovestrains



O gauge Lionel locomitves and cars usually had...

-dual motors (diesels)

-magnetraction

-coil couplers

-diecast shells

I don't think any of these generalizations hold much water, especially the last 3.

Magne-traction could be found on just about any engine. Some engines were actually redesigned to include it in later versions. Some models had it one year, and not the next, especially during the Korean War.

Coil couplers are more a function of space than of quality. Truck designs of the F-3 and GG-1 didn't have room for mechanical couplers. Coil couplers were actually standard on all of the earliest post war cars, except the scout style.

Diecast shells are common among steam engines. The entire 20 series of so called 027 engines were all diecast, and diesels, none at all. The GG-1 was not a diesel, it was an electric.

The biggest factor in determining if an engine could be run on 027 track, was it's ability to negotiate the sharper curve, and even more importantly, go through the curved leg of the 027 switch. The FM and I believe the GG-1, required O gauge track, because their bodies would hit the motor housing on switch. No steam engine, with the possible exception of the 773 scale hudson, had this problem.

Dual motors only ever came in 3 models, F-3, FM, and GG-1, but it wasn't the motors that made them O gauge only, it was the curves mentioned above.

Frank, I think what you have there with your 2026 is an early version, maybe 1948. What is more unusual than the 027 plate, is the pickup style. The design was a carryover from the 1666. I believe later versions had regular rollers.

Fordfan, for your purposes, any postwar engines will work if you are using O gauge track. If you use 027 track, there just those few limitations on select pieces. There are only a couple of cars that you may want to avoid, not because they won't work, but because they will seem very small compared to the rest of the cars.

I wouldn't rule out the plastic 027 passenger cars, they look nice behind the stubby Alcos, or a small steamer. If you go for the large aluminum passenger cars, then you will need to use a large steamer or F-3 to make them look good. I don't think the aluminum cars work with the 027 switches either. Their wheel base is too long.

[lionelsoni]

Elliot, I agree with you; but I would offer some minor corrections to the details:

F3s switched to mechanical (magnetic) couplers about as early as anything.

The GG1 has no problem with O27 switches.

The 773's blind middle drivers short out on the center rail of the O27 switch; but the locomotive clears the switch machine with no problem.

The aluminum 2500-type passenger cars do hit the switch machines. I had no misgivings about cutting the skirts off a 9100 Amtrak baggage car to fix this problem, since the prototype cars have no skirts either.

[Anonymous]

Thanks to all of you for your posts, I found them informative and helpful.
I guess the specific question I have is, I am concerned with maintaining the same porportion (scale) throughout the layout. I know that O is 1:48 and O27 is 1:64. Doesn't it look weird to have an O boxbar with an O27 boxcar? I know that it is acceptable to use O scenery with O27, but it appears the converse isn't true. It seems that people interchange the terms O and O27, and indeed it seems Lionel did, as evidenced by their engines, as jaabat pointed out.
Since I particularly like the late 40s to late 50s, and say I am looking at a 6015 (54-55 Sunoco) or a 6014 boxcar, how can I tell what they are? Is there an O 6015 and an O27 6015? Or all rolling stock O, or are they all O27? Or are certain years/ catalog #s O, and others O27?
Am I thinking too hard on this one?

[jimhaleyscomet]

Fordfan....I believe the current Lionel Catalog talks a little about this right in the front. I have found that most of the older gear works o.k. with each other. However, when you mix modern scale cars with old 0-27 there is a huge very noticable difference. A small amount of size difference can sometimes be seen on prototype railroad boxcars. Sometimes I get away with slightly different height box cars by not putting them together on the same train (I put a flat car in between).

Jim H

[csxt30]

[img]http://www.postwarlionel.com/[img] I often go to this site for info & lots of pictures. Hope this helps.

[lionelsoni]

I often see the assertion that O27 is 1/64; but I don't accept that. Very little if any American postwar and later O-gauge equipment is that small. (Some, like the General locomotives, are larger than 1/48.)

Toy trains are not that often built to scale at all. The length, width, and height may each be to a different scale. Although Lionel "O" equipment tends to be larger than Lionel O27 (when it is not identical), it is often undersized too. If I had to state an approximate all-around scale for O gauge, I would put it somewhere in-between, say 1/55.

[Anonymous]

Thanks jh'scomet, and cxst30. I have marked that site, it's really good. I have referenced it a lot in the last couple weeks.
Lionelsoni, I didn't realize O was that fuzzy in the scaling. I figured O27 and O, while sharing some common characteristics, were truly different scales, not as far apart as say N and HO, but different nonetheless. So, I guess "scale" in O terms is used loosely.
So, is it then safe to assume postwar rolling stock was all originally designated/ sold as being the same "scale"? Like my previous example, the 6015 Sunoco tank? I have not seen it, or any rolling stock for that matter, classed into O or O27. If all the postwar stock is basically the same scale, what was its Lionel designaton? O27? (kinda?)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all this, plus my independent study, I conclude:
1) Lionel came up with O27 as its entry level line, meaning cheaper, lower feature engines (generally), all found in starter sets.
2) Some O and O27 engines may share the same parts/ be the same engine, the only difference is the Lionel #s are different, because Lionel designated one O and the other O27.
2) Some longer O engines may have trouble with O27 radiuses due to their length.
4) Mixing O and O27 track may create problems.
5) (Now this is guess!) All postwar rolling stock is the same, i.e. you cannot find identical cars made in both O and O27, and all postwar rolling stock should be compatible aesthetically. Example: there is no 6015 O scale and 6015 O27 scale.
Postwar rolling stock that came in O27starter sets was the same scale (or size) as those cars sold individually for O.
Is this all about right?
If not, I'm going back to N!!![banghead]

[Chris F]

The only article I've seen on this subject was "The Scale's the Thing" by Alfred E. Hoffman, in the March, 1993 issue of CTT. The author created four catagories: small (<85% of O scale), medium (83-93% of O scale), large (93-<100% of O- sclae, and true O (100% O scale). Even then, he wasn't above classifying a piece as medium/large (e.g., the GG1). The goal was to classify items that would look reasonably proportional together. BTW, both the 6014 and 6015 are Scout set items, and were considered small by the author.

Assuming you don't have a copy of this 12-year-old issue (!), you may want to consider getting a copy of Mr. Doyle's book. The set listings will give you an idea of what the Lionel Corporation thought looked good together.

[Anonymous]

You know what, I'm going to do just that, get the book. It's just to me, it would seem goofy to have cars of different proportions running in the same layout, especially if you have 2 tank/ box/ whatever running together (or even sitting in the yard), and one's noticably smaller than the other. But from what you say, Lionel didn't give a *** about true scale if they have rolling stock ranging from 85-100% of O scale. Kinda dysfunctional, no? I never noticed that problem with Ns, then again that was a long time ago, maybe I was too young to notice.

[alton6]

The size of trucks and wheelsets are a GIVEN for O gauge (this also follows for "true" O scale and Proto 48 items, though each of these are slightly different than O gauge).

Take a KNOWN item, say a boxcar that you have, and find the PROPORTION in dimension for height, width and length of the trucks and/or wheelsets to the body dimensions.

Check this against the photo of the item under consideration. As the proportions vary, so will your estimation of the item's suitablity for your purpose.

Carl

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Carl. Yes, that's a good idea, that's almost as good as if sellers would put a ruler in the picture! I see now that other than the rail guage being the same, the rolling stock proportions can and will vary all over the lot.
I saw lionelsoni's previous comment on Doyle's book. I missed the significance at first, then noticed it later and checked it out.
Lionelsoni, did you have any followup comments on that book, or does anyone else have comments about it? Can anybody else comment on the accuracy of it? I sure as hell wouldn't know if it's accurate, I'm still S.O.S. (Stuck On Scale), that is![D)]

[alton6]

For what it's worth, various Greenberg offerings are a bit less then precise and detailed in their listings. Remember, we aren't talking about analyzing the Magna Carta here. O gauge products are intended often to be fun and amusing, if not always accurate.

Carl

[Anonymous]

Hello Group, (jabbat/Jim)
Does the book you mentioned include the crane cars, the 6460 in particular?
I think that may help with all of the variations I am seeing.
(I am looking for the diecast 6460 version)

Thanks, Greg

[Anonymous]

Carl, forget fun and amusing, I'm breaking out the micrometer and dial calipers here![:D]
You are 100% right about not analyzing too much. I know I kinda beat this topic to death, but to learn about something I really pick it apart. And I learned a lot from you and others on this thread. At least now I can browse out there and have an idea what I'm looking at. Thanks!
I would certainly welcome anything anyone else has to say as well. And thanks to all of you who have posted on this thread so far!

[spankybird]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fordfan

You know what, I'm going to do just that, get the book. It's just to me, it would seem goofy to have cars of different proportions running in the same layout, especially if you have 2 tank/ box/ whatever running together (or even sitting in the yard), and one's noticably smaller than the other. But from what you say, Lionel didn't give a *** about true scale if they have rolling stock ranging from 85-100% of O scale. Kinda dysfunctional, no? I never noticed that problem with Ns, then again that was a long time ago, maybe I was too young to notice.

Before you get all hung up on having two box cars different sizes next to each other, maybe a visit to a real rr and some railfaning is in order. I am lucky to live a ¼ mile from two main lines (CSX and NS) and see many trains. It always amazes me how different the size of cars are on the same train, both height and length. Some times you will see a 40’ car next to a 60’ car. [;)]

About the only trains that have all the same size cars are coal drags and auto cariers. [:)]

[Frank53]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jerrylovestrains

Usually the difference between 027 and 0 is that the O locomotives were usually the more deluxe versions of the 027 locomotives.

O gauge Lionel locomitves and cars usually had...

-dual motors (diesels)

-magnetraction

-coil couplers

-diecast shells

O27 Locomtives and cars usually did not have these features onboard. But Jim is right, only usually the numbers were different.

I'm looking for an accurate statement in this post.

I'll get back to you when I find it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Frank53

QUOTE: Originally posted by jerrylovestrains

Usually the difference between 027 and 0 is that the O locomotives were usually the more deluxe versions of the 027 locomotives.

O gauge Lionel locomitves and cars usually had...

-dual motors (diesels)

-magnetraction

-coil couplers

-diecast shells

O27 Locomtives and cars usually did not have these features onboard. But Jim is right, only usually the numbers were different.

I'm looking for an accurate statement in this post.

I'll get back to you when I find it.

What's the matter Frank53, trying to stir up things here?[:(!]

[lionelsoni]

Actually Lionel didn't invent O27; they bought it. It is descended from the Ives line that they acquired around 1930. They treated it as a sort of cheaper version of their original trains, but very inconsistently. They created a short-lived third tier with the Scout line after the war.

I have no further thoughts about the Doyle book. I didn't feel right about selling it to anyone; so I gave it away.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

Actually Lionel didn't invent O27; they bought it. It is descended from the Ives line that they acquired around 1930. They treated it as a sort of cheaper version of their original trains, but very inconsistently. They created a short-lived third tier with the Scout line after the war.

I have no further thoughts about the Doyle book. I didn't feel right about selling it to anyone; so I gave it away.

Bob, thanks for the corrections yesterday. I was actually pleased that I got as much right as I did, working from memory, experience, and my repair manual. I've never actually owned a GG-1 or a 773, so I could only guess that they had troubles.

When it comes to the F-3's, it must just be the screen tops that had the coil couplers, Santa Fe and NYC early versions, right? I only have a couple of sets of the Santa Fe's in postwar, the rest of my F-3's are MPC, which all used the mechanical style coupler.

One question on the Scout thing. Didn't Lionel bring back the Scout style motor in the 60's? I thought they did, but I can't find any evidence to support that. Maybe it's just my imagination, cost cutting in the declining years and all.

Frank, I think you and I are on the same wavelength when it comes to our young friend. My volume is just turned up higher. [swg] I'm not sure who let Mr Christopher in. He's always welcome to make constructive comments.

[cnw1995]

So 027 engines and rolling stock are distinguished by their ability to run on 027 track and switches? That's alway been my definition.

[Frank53]

QUOTE:
What's the matter Frank53, trying to stir up things here?[:(!]

not at all, in fact, I expressed great conifdence in Jerry's Traini Repair Venture.

However, of those statements regarding differentiating O from O-27, there really isn't a definative and accurate statement in the bunch.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Frank53

QUOTE:
What's the matter Frank53, trying to stir up things here?[:(!]

not at all, in fact, I expressed great conifdence in Jerry's Traini Repair Venture.

However, of those statements regarding differentiating O from O-27, there really isn't a definative and accurate statement in the bunch.

I'm sorry. I was mistaken.

Youth and inexperience are not his fault. Live and learn.

[lionelsoni]

Elliot, the magnetic couplers replaced the electro-magnetic ones gradually, apparently beginning as early as 1948. They first appeared on F3s in 1955, at the time of a major truck redesign. My first Lionel locomotive, which still runs beautifully, is a 2243 which I got in 1955. I think the coupler type may correspond to the motor type, but I'm not sure about that.

I don't know about the Scout motor in the '60s.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spankybird
Before you get all hung up on having two box cars different sizes next to each other, maybe a visit to a real rr and some railfaning is in order. I am lucky to live a ¼ mile from two main lines (CSX and NS) and see many trains. It always amazes me how different the size of cars are on the same train, both height and length. Some times you will see a 40’ car next to a 60’ car. [;)]

About the only trains that have all the same size cars are coal drags and auto cariers. [:)]

Ya, Spankybird, I understand what you're saying, I wasn't thinking so much about actual lengths or heights, just scale proportions, like using HO scenery, like vehicles or people, with N or a HO rolling stock with O (I know that's not possible because of the guage, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.
After thinking about it, and reading these posts, I realized ultimately there can't be big proportional conflicts between O and O27, because they do run on the same guage track with similar wheels/ trucks. For instance, it wouldn't look right to have, say, a boxcar with wheels/trucks that are, say 1/2 the height of the boxcar, if the boxcar was of the "smaller" O scale. I was looking for an absolute rule, like, thou shalt not mix O and O27 together, like thou shalt not mix N (or Z) and HO together.
I have learned a lot from this thread. I wasn't expecting that what I thought was a simple question could be so complicated to answer! I am surprised at the differing points of views and so many dissenting opinions. I thought the answers to my questions would be more black and white (or absolute), was I wrong! But the good thing is, I learned that my concern about major differences or problems in mixing O and O27 turned out to be unfounded, and I don't have to worry about making absolutely sure I purchase exclusively just O or just O27 items (except track issues, and certain engines for O27 track, etc.).
I see I have much to learn about O, but that's the fun of it, isn't it? And postwar to me is cool, not only because it is antique and historical, which I'm into, but also because I see there are so many variations (large and small) in different items from year to year.
I look forward to learning more in the future from all of you, who, despite your differing (and sometimes spirited!) opinions, all obviously share a common passion for your hobby of train collecting.