What, if any, differences are there between the Diesel Switchers #622 and #6220. The only differences I can find is that the #622 is listed as O-Gauge and the #6220 is listed as 027. Normally, 027 engines are smaller. Is that the case here? I doubt if Lionel would have gone to the expense of making two sets of tooling for the same engine.
Earl
Earl,
Both are bell ringers but it’s just the number difference. Same engine.
Although according to Greenberg’s there was a slight difference in the wheel gauge in early runs but later this was eliminated and the two engines became identical.
I love my 623. Runs so well. No bell but Iit’s the later magnetraction with magnets in the hollow stainless steel axles. Better magnetraction as compared to the older system of placing magnets on the frame. It is also has added weight to the frame casting.
Mike S.
Hello sir…I am a proud owner of a 6220 switcher…1 difference is that the 6220 does not have the number 6220 stamped on the front shell…some 622 do have a 622 stamped number on the front of the shell…yes you are right 622 is O guage and 6220 is O27 guage…maybe some of the motor components are different…cause i know the 622 uses a 622M motor or something like that…and also maybe the magnetraction is different…maybe the 6220 has only 1 magnetized axel while the 622 has both power truck axles magnetized…reading books like kalmbach books helps alot…thanks
They’re identical except for the numbers, although the Service Manual says that early production had different wheelsets: “In initial production the gauge (distance between the wheels) of the 622 and 6220 locomotives differed slightly, but in later production this difference was eliminated and the two locomotives became identical.”
While there is this idea that 027 trains were smaller than the O trains, this was true prewar, and it was true in the later postwar era, but during the heyday of Lionel (and toy trains in general) from the end of WWII through the mid-fifties, there was a great degree of overlap between the two lines, and many of the engines were identical except for the numbers: 2020/671 turbines, 2025/675 so-called “Pacifics,” the 2055/685, 2065/665, and 2046/646 Hudsons were identical except for numbering. In the late '50s ('59?) even the little 2037 2-6-4, a stalwart of 027 sets for years, got the number treatment to became the 637, and into the Super O line it went. Then there were the GPs, which were included in both lines, with the Milwaukee 2338 moving from O in 1955 to 027 the next year.
During this period, most of the freight cars were common to the two lines. Even the original small plastic streamlined pullmans (always thought of as 027 passenger cars), were cataloged in both 0 and 027 outfits from 1948 through 1950.
At the bottom of the 027 line, the outfits did indeed include smaller cars and locomotives, and at the top of the O line were locomotives and cars that were never offered as 027 items (the Berkshires, FMs, aluminum coaches, the 4-truck depressed-center flatcars, the big metal single-dome 2555 and 6555 tank cars of the late '40s, for example). But in the middle of the range, most of the cars were common to both lines: the 6456 hoppers, 6462 gondolas, and, of course, the 6464 boxcars, among many others. Then, by about 1956, the 027 sets began to include an larger number of the smalle
On lionel2’s comments: The changes in the motor, the frame, and the Magnetraction occurred in 1950 – that is, the 1949 and 1950 models were different. But the 1949 6220 and 622 were the same, and the 1950 6220 and 622 were identical. (And all of the die-cast frame NW2s had two-axle Magnetraction; the one-axle cheapo nonsense came with the sheet-metal frames, etc., beginning in 1955.)
Earl,
I don’t know if you’re shopping for one of these or not, but I deliberately stayed clear of the 622/6220 because I had read that these have the the magnets on the frame. It’s true that later 1950 622/6220s have the superior hollow axle magnet system but I wanted to make it easier to spot the newer system so I shopped for a 623.
Mike S.
The 622 and 6220 did not have magnets on the frame; the axles themselves were magnetized. The difference between them and later SW2s is that the entire hard-iron axle was the magnet. This did not work nearly as well as the later scheme of putting a soft-iron magnet inside a stainless-steel axle. Lionel did not even bother to claim Magnetraction for the 622 and 6220.
Thanks Bob, checked my sources and I was so wrong. You are correct it was a different metal used for the magnets that wasn’t as permanent.
Tried to do it from memory, and sorry for the misinformation.
Mike S.
Thank you all for your comments. I knew this forum had a wealth of information on postwar Lionel.
I am watching ebay for either the 622 or 6220.
I am writing this post while my 1666 with four postwar cars is going around my layout. I was surprised that the 1666 can go quite slow without stalling. Most of my conventional engines require a fair amount of speed to keep from stalling in the turns. It is running on 036 FasTrack.
Earl