Which are the ‘better’ Scouts from the PW era? Perhaps a combo of dual traction tires (or magnetraction?) light and possibly smoke.
(I don’t think any came w/ magnetraction or diecast body)
Thanks
The 6110 came with a diecast body, smoke, and magnetraction, but no light. It was made only in 1950.
Thanks!
What about w/ a plastic body?
Hello pgtr!
Lionel made a deluxe Scout Engine in 1961 numbered 233 & it had Smoke, Magne-Traction & a 233 Whistle Tender as well. There is another Scout Engine #236 & it had Magne-Traction & Smoke. No whistle in the Tender though & the Engines had Plastic Bodies also. Hope this helps you out. Take Care.
Thanks! All these look pretty good. Didn’t now about the magnetraction or the diecast.
thanks again
The 1120 came with dicast shell and magnatraction. Very finickey e-unit.
Kurt
Although not technically a Scout, the 2034 is a 2-4-2 and is considered by many to be a superior starter set post war engine. It has a die cast shell, a 3 position e-unit that did not protrude through the shell, a light, and a metal-framed motor. It’s a very strong puller and a great looking engine as well. It was made in 1952 only. I have one and love it. It was my very first post war locomotive.
Jim
I have a 2034 also, that my wife found at a garage sale late last year. It obviously lived a really hard life judging from the damage on it, but it ran as soon as I lubed it a little and cleaned the drivers. The pulling power is comparable to my 2026. It’s really too bad they didn’t make it longer, because it’s a really good locomotive.
At some point that locomotive will probably be a restoration project.
Since this thread has steered clear of the “Scout” v. “Scout-type” debate in response to your inquiry on the “other” forum, please allow me to endorse the 233. The 233/233w is the finest runner and whistler in my 2-4-2 collection.
The 239 is the only 2-4-2 from the late Postwar era with a die-cast body; not a bad choice with its 234w tender, although not equipped with Magnetraction and required to move more weight than the other 2-4-2’s with plastic motors.
The 244 is the only 2-4-2 from the late Postwar era with a plastic body and metal motor, but it was not equipped with Magnetraction or paired with a whistle tender.
I believe all 2-4-2’s of late Postwar vintage were equipped with smoke units fueled by liquid, but I have a few 240 and 250-series gaps in my collection. All 230-series are smokers.
I rather like the 1655. It’s also 2-4-2, die cast. It seems to run far more reliably than a Scout.
The 1655 is a sharp looking locomotive. It has the added feature of a silver handrail running the length of the boiler.
Give me these toy-like locos any day. I can’t get enough of them. They are inexpensive and plentiful. And they are loads of fun.
Jim
I think the “Scout” vs. the “Scout-Like” debate is very important. There’s a world of difference in the performance, servicability, and quality between a “Scout” and a generic issue 2-4-2. Too many people today use the term “Scout” as a generic moniker for any Lionel 2-4-2, and I think it devalues some very nice locomotives.
In regards to the #244 “Scout-Like” steamer, it has a metal motor frame with serviceable brushes and commutator face, two position smoke unit, plastic smoke unit with red glow down the stack, headlight, and two position reverse. Its achilles heel is the plastic body.
Jon [8D]