Great work here. Pete, I'm going to ramble here and I don't wish to take anything away from your work. I may have too much time to spare? 
Part of the reasons that almost steered me away from O scale, was the way all the equipment looked when I first saw it. It was almost like manufacturer's didn't care anything about looks at all. Coming from HO which jumped forward leaps and bounds over the years, it seemed like O scale was stuck in the 50's and 60's to me at first glance.
Then I noticed a movement in O towards details and looks. It seemed most of the manufacturers had their own partial offerings with this in mind. Almost a division in the scale that would either cater to this group, or ignore it with each offering.
So now I find it interesting to see an offering that maybe tried to please everyone. Better details and yet parts of the equipment seemed to be just thrown in that don't match the design. A young child may just imagine passengers inside these cars without the need for them to move through the train. As we grow older and learn, it's hard to ignore some basic facts about how things should work. A huge gap between passenger cars makes me feel like no one cares about realism.
So I have to ask just how many scale feet is between the stock cars? I can accept things when the manufacturer is trying to make something that will run on anyone's layout. If they make something so sloppy that it goes beyond that, it makes me wish to leave the hobby! I do applaud Lionel for many strives forward in realism and engineering, and this gap can be with anyone's products. I just wish there were standards that would move O scale forward. Until they happen, we have to modify almost everything if we want better realism on our toy RRs.
