What is the great mystery behind this affair? The Lionel Corporation as it existed between 1900 and 1994 is seen by many to be a polar opposite of “Lionel, LLC” as it has existed since 1995. The Wikipedia article regarding Lionel, LLC cynically puts it like this:
“Although Lionel, LLC now owns all of the trademarks and most of the product rights associated with Lionel Corporation, the original producer of Lionel trains founded in 1900, there is no direct connection between the two companies.”
Well, would not the name, the product rights, the trademarks, the products, etc. be that “bond of connection?” This is akin to suggesting that “although my family is biologically related to by great-great-grandparents’ family, there is no direct connection between the two families.”
Ron Hollander, in his excellent book about Lionel*, All Aboard*! mildly comments on this in the closing chapters of the 2000 edition of his book:
“Young formed a group with Wellspring Associates, an investment firm headed by the late Martin Davis (who was involved with Gulf & Western and Paramount Communications) and investor Greg Feldman. On September 29th, 1995, Kughn sold them all of Lionel, including the train name and the tooling. Kughn kept what he describes as a “small interest” in the company and was made chairman emeritus. Kughn and Young also sold LionTech to the group**. At the same time, Wellspring bought the remaining rights to the Lionel Corporation name**.”
Would this, perhaps, be the “bond of connection?” Some CTT writers speak of the “original Lionel Corp.” What is Lionel, LLC then? A scam? A fake? A reproduction that collectors should watch out for? Clearly, a transaction was made some time ago that bound together once again the Lionel name and corporate
I’ll take a stab at this even not quite getting your point - no one’s mourning a ‘paper’ loss. I wouldn’t believe much of what you see in Wikipedia for the obvious reason that you can’t tell the motivation behind the poster, let alone their identity or authority. Lionel has existed in a corporate sense in several forms since the heyday you noted. The current entity still oversees the design, manufacture and sales of O gauge trains… It’s got a heck of a brand still among certain demographics … and you can trace its legacy back to JLC. What’s not to like?
I have found Wikpedia to be a fine, CONVIENT source of information, but not necessarily always right. It is afterall a compliation of opinions etc… Regarding Lionel, I too would certain think the Chain of continuity to be intact. Could you image IF Lionel would have been able to survive as orginally defined, what it would be like today? Hardly competitive, for sure! I don’t really see any issue.
You can have fun with this one!!! One long connected product line. The name and tooling passed along each time.
Please correct or add information
ORIGINAL LIONEL Founded and operated by J. Lionel Cowen until the 1950s, then with his son Lawrence until they both sold their stock in 1959 and retired. J. Lionel Cowen died in 1965.
The most recent catalogues have used the “Lionel Electric Trains” title, but the contact information is still listed as “Lionel, LLC.” I doubt the name has changed. A good part of Lionel’s business now involves licencing the name. I don’t think Lionel should be reduced to just that, a brand name. Moreover, I have never really liked the idea of MTH and Williams reproducing prewar and postwar Lionel products. Isn’t Lionel capable of reproducing its own design?
I find it rather odd that Lionel has its trains and accessories produced in the same factory that crafts trains for other brands (what would Mr. Cowen think if his trains were produced in the same plant that put out Marx trains?). I imagine Lionel still concieves of their products in North America and advertises out of North America. I have a battered 1963 consumer catalogue that lists Lionel as being the “Lionel Toy Corporation,” a bit earlier than what you suggested. Of course, the catalogues produced now are more like thick novels that take a while to read in detail.
The question is, I would guess, one of history or philosophy as opposed to business and marketing. It is possible to distinguish between the Lionel Corp. of old and what exists today. But I don’t think there should be such a sharp division between the two. CTT makes mention of the “original Lionel Corp.'s successor firms,” but I don’t think that distinction answers our question either.
To me, Lionel LLC is a totally different company than the Lionel Corporation, with the name being the only thing the two have in common. IMHO, everything that Lionel once stood for is gone. Lionel LLC’s current products seem to lack the character that makes the products produced by the original Lionel Corporation special. Good thread though.[tup]
The overall quality of the product, or the sociological ideal perpetuated by the Lionel Corp. during the 1950’s? True, Lionel LLC does not have that image of “father and son” mystique that was idealized half a century ago. Still, as one who has grown up with both postwar and modern Lionel trains, I would reasonably argue that Lionel LLC products still have “character” to them. A locomotive decorated for the “Lionel Lines” carries far more weight (no pun intended) than a similar locomotive decorated for “MTH Lines” or “Weaver Lines.” Lionel LLC has that historical and cultural cachet you just can’t find in many other manufacturers.
The late Lenny Dean (1926-2007) seemed to be the incarnation of “Lionel” regardless if the men at the top were Mr. Cowen, Mr. Kughn, or Mr. Maddox. Although I am a Canadian citizen, I wrote an essay about Lionel for my former Gr. 11 American History class; the thesis running as follows:
“Lionel, the most influential of the manufacturers modeling North American railway heritage for such enthusiasts, has for almost one hundred and eight years mirrored the constant evolution of American taste in the fields of industry, design, and American society. Since the company’s inception, America has witnessed the importance of mass manufacturing, streamlining, animation, the space age, corporate downfall, advertising, electronic emphasis, competition, and even woman’s rights. Lionel, throughout its many years in business has echoed these developments and reproduced them through their wide variety of products.”
Yes, that sociological ideal is a big part of the character to me. That, combined with the look, feel, smell, and general operation make Lionel Corp products stand out to me. I’ve got a substantial amount of Lionel LLC products, and they just don’t appeal to me the way that the Lionel Corp stuff does.
Thank goodness the current management has put emphasis on this great heritage. Conventional Classics, Prewar Celebration and Postwar Celebration series products, return of some classic accessories, tried-and-true tubular track, orange and blue boxes, and an office in NYC all come to mind. I suppose this “direct connection” issue is historical in that Lionel has a unique cultural and product heritage that no other manufacturer has; sociological in that Lionel is a globally-recognized name; and metaphorical in that Lionel has come to symbolize a quality “investment in happiness.”
I must admit that the E-Unit buzz of the 675 Steam Locomotive (1947-48) and the 622 Diesel Switcher (1949-50) that we put around the Christmas tree have a sense of nostalgia. Still, the sight of a Lionel product from the past decade or so operating at a train show is something I always enjoy.
Fantasy Product: A Lionel Electric Express (c. 1901) featuring LEGACY, CrewTalk, Magne-Traction, directional lighting, ElectroCouplers, etc, etc, etc. Imagine what that would be like! [:)]
You are confusing a conglomerate Corporation that once made trains until 1970(Lionel - dissolved in 1994) with several other parties - licensees, manufacturers, rights holders, & importers.
General Mills, Fundimensions, & Kenner Parker did not own Lionel. They were licensees & manufacturers. LTI under Kughn was also a licensee & manufacturer, but part of the deal with the Davis group involved Kughn being able to actually acquire the outright rights to all Lionel’s intellectual property involving trains - Ives & American Flyer(& probably LionTech too) included.
At this point in 1995-1996, Lionel as a model train company was as whole as it had been since 1969, and flourishing, with USA made product, offices close to the plant, and a hands-on owner. All ties with Lionel, the just dissolved(then a toy store chain) company, had been severed, after they had actually been out of the train business for over 25 years. LTI was now a licensor(they did a lot of this in the LTI era), manufacturer, owner, & marketer of the trains called Lionel, but had no ties to the Lionel Corporation of the last 95 years.
LLC gradually became just a licensor, owner, & marketer of the trains called Lionel(& American Flyer) when they stopped production of the equipment ~2000 & contracted production overseas. The loss of “Ives” to MTH is a whole other story.
Have you ever seen Kodak batteries? Kodak stopped making batteries in 1991 but they are still made under license. Kodak also got out of magnetic media in 1991, but floppy disks & video tapes continue to be made under license. The difference w/ Kodak is that they survived their “spin-offs” where Lionel did not.
I don’t understand much of this thread at all, but want to comment on newer Lionel Trains versus those made by the Lionel Corp. I have always liked my 1122 switches with its NY. NY, and have a warm spot for Postwar trains. Heavens know I have enough of them, and still seek certain ones as I encounter them. Years ago, I used to think I could work for Lionel, and visioned what it might have been like to work at Lionel, and with some of the greats. There was even a time I thought I would like to bring the line to our facility and fill in some of our down time. My last new Lionel till the early 1990s was my Spirit of 76, which I felt was every much a part of Lionel even though it was made by MPC. After my son was born and we built a new house, I dug out my trains after roughly a 17 year lapse in actively working on a layout or doing much with them. I am thankful my father asked me what I wanted to do with the trains as I went off to college. One of the first new Lionel Steam locomotives I purchased was the C&NW 4-6-2 of I believe 1993. Even though the catalogs didn’t do much for me like the 1957 or 58, this engine is every bit as much Lionel and my 2035, or 2046, both of which I like and often run. I later purchased a 726 Century Engine, now this is Lionel, and it was made by LLC. I like it more than the Postwar, because of the electonics and sound. I bought my daugter a trainset around the same time. The engine is a baby Hudson made overseas, but I love how it runs, and the decoration. This too I consider Lionel. What I have tried to do over the time is purchase trains that I like, fit in with my collection, and will be happy with down the road. Today, I saw a copy of the 2009 volume II in print for the first time. When you hit those pages for the 50s, it evokes emotion, the 646 looks just
“Today, I saw a copy of the 2009 volume II in print for the first time. When you hit those pages for the 50s, it evokes emotion…”
Exactly. Lionel does evoke emotion. To fuss over the passing away of the “original” Lionel Corp. and question the relation between it and the Lionel of 2009 is distracting and takes all the fun out of our hobby by reducing Lionel to a legalistic letter. I suggested earlier that Lionel, whether it has “Corp.,” “MPC,” or “LLC” behind its name is, overall, one manufacturer. The various organizational titles bear witness to the fact that several corporate stewards have brought Lionel from 1900 through to the present day. If this theory is correct, the Lionel Corp. of 1900-1969 is just as much a steward as is “Lionel, LLC.”
Not at all. Insults are scorned. Comments designed to start a fight sure are, as are “Brand X Stinks” posts. But "Brand X stinks because of my personal experience a) b) c) and d) that are factual, not fire bomb like, are okay by me.
Most critical posts (including negative posts about the magazine) don’t go away because they are critical, but how the thread devolves into a mud wrasslin’ match.
Sorry if I started something… I suppose my original question had less to do with brand and more to do with the seemingly fuzzy relationship between the Lionel of storied history and the Lionel we know of today. To me, Lionel LLC must have some direct connection, no matter how tumultuous, to the “original” Lionel Corp. dating back to the days of Cowen, if it is to have any credibility.
Lionel as produced and licenced by Fundimensions and LTI would, I guess, have less of a “full” relationship to Lionel LLC, as the latter apparently actually owns the intellectual property of the Lionel Corp., which is much different than doing a mere licence. But I don’t think it is necessary to place the two into two seperate camps and speak of them as being drastically different or unrelated. At least General Mills and Mr. Kughn managed to keep the Lionel reality afloat during the hiatus years until 1995 or so, when the name, intellectual property, etc. were legally reunified with the actual product.
To those new to the hobby though, I think it would be beneficial if we spoke of Lionel as being like a family tree; all are interrelated somehow, even if not “directly.” No one wants to be told that their 2009 outfit produced by Lionel, LLC is not “real” Lionel because “real” Lionel apparently hit the dust forty years back.
I look at it this way. A Fender Stratocaster made in Mexico, Japan or China is not the same as one made in Fullerton California with American woods and labor.
I feel the same way about the Chinese made trains.
Sorry, but some of us feel that way.
I am not going to start making negative comments about modern era trains, but while a reissued (or reproduced, which ever word you prefer) Lionel Corp piece might be very nice in it’s own right, it is not the same as the original Lionel Corp piece.