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. [:)]
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?[:(!]
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.
So 027 engines and rolling stock are distinguished by their ability to run on 027 track and switches? That’s alway been my definition.
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.
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.
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
If you think O gauge is bad with having 027, try G gauge. You can go from Gauge1 (1/32) to 1/24 to 1/18 all on the same track.
Really? It seems like with the larger guages, the manufacturers forgot the KISS rule, cuz they sure didn’t keep it simple.
Big Boy
Lionel did re make the scout motor in 1959 with slight changes to the oringinal. The motor number was 246-100 and 245-100 w/ magnets or cheap magnatraction., then it was change in 1960&61
Greg,
The 6460 crane cars are covered in detail by Mr. Doyle, and if not mistaken, show several variations. I have one with a red cab!
Jim
I’ve seen O/O27 layouts that used N scale trains as amusement park rides, and some as ride-ons like live steam scale. It actually looked great!
Buy Mr. Doyle’s book at a chain like Borders or B&N. Take it home and look through it for a week or two. If you don’t think you got your money’s worth, return it for a refund. I’m almost certain you will keep it and learn a great deal from it. I know I did.
Jim
Yep, N would look like a kiddie ride next to O.
Next time I’m by a Border’s, I’ll take a look. Of course, not knowing much about O at this stage, I really couldn’t tell the difference between legit and bulls*it! [%-)]
OK O-Scale verses O-27. I think we all agree that Lionel O-Scale engines are typically larger than O-27 engines. Now the question what scale are the cab numbers on a Lionel 675 (1947) locomotive? 1/64 or 1/48? I am looking for decals for a 675. I don’t believe there are 1/55 scale number available.
Contact a parts dealer like Henning’s. Lionel used rubber stamps or heat stamps for the vast majority of numbers, lettering and even car data in that era. The size of the numbers was more about available space and aesthetics than it was about scale accuracy. If you’re looking to upgrade the markings to scale accuracy I’d go with 1:48. But if you’re looking to restore the 675 to it’s postwar appearance reproductions are your best bet.
I like the Doyle book, myself. It has what I need- general descriptions of most everything, lots of pictures, and dates. I personally am not a person who cares what day of what month the pins in knuckle couplers changed from black to silver, or if something that appears to be cast metal (rather than stamped) is zinc or sintered iron. I just acquire and run what looks visually interesting to me, and the descriptions in the Doyle and other books, too, are enough to be useful to me. Thank you to all who are more passionate about details. I don’t have the desire or energy to be