I recently bought a Lionel postwar 682. Been waiting months for one to become available at a reasonable price. The one I got is in great shape…but it was the typical E-Bay 682…ie the linkage for the oiler was installed incorrectly. The arm that attaches to the shell was pointing down instead of toward the back of the loco. I’ve seen about a gazillion 682s on E-Bay sold like this. Makes me wonder if someone isn’t converting 681s to 682s and doesn’t know the proper position for the oiler linkage…but I digress [:)]
I saw what looked like a small bolt that attached the linkage to the boiler shell. Not only that, but the bolt “head” fit a 3/16 nutdriver perfectly!! So methinks “this will be a snap…just unthread this little bolt, reposition the linkage, and rethread the bolt onto the shell”.
WRONG!!! That is not a bolt. The Lionel parts suppliers call it a “rivet”. Even that is a wrong term IMHO. It’s actually a “press pin”. There are knurled grooves on it and it friction-fits the little hole in the shell of the loco. That would be the little hole that I just reamed out with my nut driver [:(] I pulled the “rivet” out and found all this out after turning it and not seeing it back out like a threaded part would do. My fix to this situation was to realign the linkage to where it faces the proper direction, then use some blue LocTite on the knurled area to hold the “rivet” in place. I chose blue LocTite over any other glue because it would be removable if I needed to take it apart again. On the other side, I didn’t touch that nasty rivet. I went to the loco drive wheel that had the oiler linkage attached to it and removed the nut with a pliers. I realigned the linkage and then put the nut back on. Presto…all fixed. I know you old pros who have done this fix before were already aware of this.
Are you sure you are correct about the position of the arm? I’ve seen “mint” versions both ways, and the Lionel catalog shows them with the “elbow” down… BTW, I learned the lesson you did in the same way (sigh!)
Lionel did the same trick with the bearing caps on the 733 trailing truck. Guess how I know.
Deputy,
Sorry about your problem. However, you are correct in that there are probably dozens, if not hundreds, of phonied up 682’s. A friend of mine used to relate the stories of how he was employed by Choo Choo Eddies in Rutherford, NJ (no longer in business). The repair guys in their spare time were always converting all of the 681’s that came through the store into 682’s. This went on for years. I’m guessing if they could do it, then there were probably others. I would think though that the counterfeit units probably had the linkage installed correctly. Just a sad story of some of the stuff that went on back in the 90’s.
LionelFlyer
As far as I know this is the correct positioning of the oiler linkage:
http://www.postwarlionel.com/cgi-bin/postwar?ITEM=682
Here’s a pic of the Lionel Century Club 671 with oiler linkage. Same setup. Click on it to enlarge.
I believe there was a hardware store in Michigan involved with this olier linkage scam too. Madison Hardware? There are probably lots more 682s floating around than what there should be. Heck, it’s not brain surgery to make the mod, and it’s an instant profit to turn a 681 into a 682 and sell it on E-Bay for 3 times what it’s really worth. Plus it’s easier to find a minty 681 than a minty 682. I’m glad I’m not a collector that pays big $$$ for those items. [V]
Dep
Sorry about the situation. Those are nice looking locos you guys have there nonetheless.
Dep,
You could try filling the stripped hole with 5 minute epoxy, let it dry then drill it out slightly smaller than the diameter of the pin, then press the pin back in.
Just out of curiosity, and I have NO intent of doing this. In this 681 to 682 scam, how did they change the number and add the white stripe to be unrecognizable to the discriminating train collector. After years the white stripe would be of a more chalky apperance than a painted stripe. Maddison Hardware, really? Did they pull any other scams?
I have a mint 682 with the oiler linkage…i will have to check to see how it is positioned…i am pretty sure its tot he back of loco…i paid 450 for mine and it comes with the correct tender…the 204w-50 tender…i mean i have taken the linkage off the siderod nut to gain access to the guts but never unbolted it from the boiler…mine is 100% original…paint and all…it runs the best out of all 6 of my turbines…my 2020’s, 671’s, 681, even better than my 1946 versons with smoke bulbs…oh well…thanks
“In this 681 to 682 scam, how did they change the number and add the white stripe to be unrecognizable to the discriminating train collector. After years the white stripe would be of a more chalky apperance than a painted stripe.”
It’s not only the stripe…the 682 # was heat stamped and near impossible to reproduce. There are probably many “restored” 682’s that were once 681’s but I doubt there are many fakes that could fool a collector.
Neil
Can’t agree there. There are lots of collectors who don’t really know much about what they are collecting. Once a collector decides that restorations are OK, the barn door is not just open, it’s gone.
My 682 is packed away, as I recall, the front wheels, where the linkage is attached, have a different stud, but I am not positive. Also, does the linkage pin really need to be removed to turn the linkage 90 degrees? Once again, this is from memory, but I thought this was the case.
I think folks that work on their own trains should at least have a copy of the Lionel service manual reprint. There are often tips and warnings on repairs. For example, one fellow mentioned that Lionel used drive pins on the 773 rear truck bearing caps. That is noted in the manual.
Dep,
So what does it look like incorrect? I have a non-discriminating eye! [;)]
Here are some examples from eBay(right side is REALLY messed up on this one):
Same one, left side:
Rob
Brent: click on the photo. That should make it bigger. Now see by the oiler linkage what looks like the head of a bolt just behind/above the front trucks? Okay, under that bolt is an arm that should be pointing towards the back of the loco…as it is in the picture. When it’s installed incorrectly, it points down towards the tracks.
As far as the service manual…I dunno of a manual that covers ALL prewar locos. If anyone one does, please point me in it’s direction. The little 2-page sheets that come with the loco are also in the “collector catagory” and I’m not paying big $$$ for them. [:)]
Jimtrumpie: Yep…epoxy was a possibility, along with Liquid Steel. But the hole wasn’t that enlarged. It was just that the grooves the rivet fit in were stripped. The LocTite filled that space and did a great job of it. [tup]
As to faking these locos and recognizing the fakes. I guess a real EXPERT would take samples of the paint and use a magnifying glass on the numbers. Can a 682 be faked for sale on E-Bay? Most definitely. Do a search of “Lionel 682” and you will find people selling rubber stamps for just about every loco number including the 682. The oil linkage is readi
As far as the service manual…I dunno of a manual that covers ALL prewar locos. If anyone one does, please point me in it’s direction. The little 2-page sheets that come with the loco are also in the “collector catagory” and I’m not paying big $$$ for them.
In your case, the service manual would not have helped. There are no pages covering the 682. Lionel did not create sheets for every item they made. The 2-page sheets would not have helped either. They would not have included the instructions you would have needed.
YThis thread got my curiosity up, so I looked around on the web to see if the conversion parts were available.
Lots of parts guys seem to have the linkage, and the rivet to attach it to the frame (drive pin).
I could not find a 682 wheel with the special stud for mounting the linkage. I did find one parts dealer who had the special stud available seperately.
The PRR 6200 on which the 671,681 etc are based did not have these oilers.So how do you know which way is “correct”?
Actually, it did; but they were tiny and almost invisible. I think Lionel was looking for an excuse to get something to replace the visual effect of the valve motion of a reciprocating locomotive.
cwburfle: Doing a quick search last night, I came up with these part numbers and sources. Can you give me more details on this special stud? part#?
682-5 ecc valve gear assy 5.00
682-6 eccentric crank only 1.50
682-9 valve gear body mounting rivet 0.75
682-11W flanged wheel w/white rim LIM 3.75
682-13 side rod new LTI 2.00
682-14 wheel spacer with boss for linkage 2.00
http://www.ttender.com/partslist.html
http://stanorrtrainparts.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/622-216_to_736-12.html
http://traindoctor.com/service/lionel/500to720.asp
“The PRR 6200 on which the 671,681 etc are based did not have these oilers. So how do you know which way is “correct”?”
Two comments…
#1 You are wrong with your comment that the oiler linkage didn’t exist. Lionel didn’t just “make it up”. It existed. It was just smaller than what Lionel installed. If you look at the MTH S2 turbine that has the linkage (newest version) and the Lionel scale S2 turbines, it’s a much more accurate reproduction of the linkage. If you look at this website, you will see a picture of the oiler linkage on a REAL S2 loco.
http://www.homestead.com/ogauge/turbine.html
If you look real close, you will see the oiler linkage on the loco. It looks like a white line along the lower edge of the drive rod at the front. If you trace that line, you will see it is L-shaped and goes up to a “knuckle” that then goes into the cylinder in front of it. Now if you have a picture of an S2 that definitely shows it WITHOUT the linkage, I’d sure like to see it.
#2 When we are talking “correct” we aren’t talking about prototypical correct, we are talking about correct as far as the