Lionel 2023 Dreyfuss Hudsons (positives and concerns)

If I am not mistaken the Drefuss Hudsons were delivered in two groups of ten, the first ten got Boxpoks with friction bearing rods and the second set got Scullins with roller bearing rods. Later in life wheels got swapped around.

Pete

@Norton posted:

Later in life wheels got swapped around.

Pete

Wasn't there an issue with cracking of the Scullins? Thus, part of the reason Boxpoks found their way back onto Scullin equipped engines.

They catalog art looks very accurate.

Really?

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...egacy-dreyfus?page=5

But don't worry, these are only catalog illustrations and Lionel is going to do these right.  

- Crank

@RickO posted:

Wasn't there an issue with cracking of the Scullins? Thus, part of the reason Boxpoks found their way back onto Scullin equipped engines.

I know there was an issue with one of the drivers. Not sure which one. As far as 5445, it appears it had Boxpoks for the duration of its life including when it pulled the Mercury. See for yourself here.

https://nycshs.omeka.net/items/browse?tags=%235445

Pete

While the incorrect band thickness on the tender stripes is disappointing, even if they are delivered as such, that’s not a big enough problem to be a deal breaker to me.

Now 5445 (with pt tender) and 5449 with roller bearing rods could very well be a deal breaker for me.

-Cole

@RickO posted:

Wasn't there an issue with cracking of the Scullins? Thus, part of the reason Boxpoks found their way back onto Scullin equipped engines.

It wasn’t just necessarily a specific driver, as much as it was a chronic crank pin failure of the Hudson engine itself, and more so main driver crank pin failures,…..driver swaps was a round house repair. In some cases, it was done as a running repair, ….round house crews could swap out drivers in short time. Drivers were then sent off to the bigger shops, West Albany, Beech Grove, etc., the driver set would be rebuilt, sent back to the roundhouses, where they’d be kept for spares for “quick repairs” and then the whole cycle started over again…..the way grandad explained it to me, was the problem was more notorious to happen on the J3’s then the J1’s or even the J2’s……at the time, it didn’t matter what the wheels looked like as long they were “ round & hold onto a bearing” is the way it was explained to me…….

Pat

What I dont get is why there is not ONE road number close to the various road numbers made famous in many O Winston Link Photos of the N&W Hudsons!  

@Norton posted:

I know there was an issue with one of the drivers. Not sure which one. As far as 5445, it appears it had Boxpoks for the duration of its life including when it pulled the Mercury. See for yourself here.

https://nycshs.omeka.net/items/browse?tags=%235445

Pete

I hope Lionel catches this before production begins.

-Brian

Just a thought, but Ryan Kunkle is very much the scale modeler.    Seems unlikely he would produce a loco he doesn't have photographic evidence for.  As we all know, the railroads did all manner of things to these locos to keep them operating and/or updating them as technology permitted. These changes may or may not have been documented, or the documentation of the modifications may no longer exist, since the company (NYC) no longer exists.  So perhaps just email him about any issues?  Your photo and his photo might both be correct, yet different, no?

I am interested in this latest release from Lionel.  The Dreyfuss  Hudson is an iconic engine and adds a lot of history to my layout.  I personally like the fantasy scheme as it is closer to the colors of my 1980 aluminum passenger cars and I was pleased to hear from Ryan on the Trainworld catalog introduction, that all versions of this release would have lights over the three drivers.  This was a cool feature only seen on one of their earlier Dreyfuss releases.  I have ordered this with the PT Tender as it was in use in the very last years of this trains service. I was only able to ride on one steam train called the The North Star in 1955 from New York to Toronto Canada.  After that almost all steam engines were phased out to Diesel in the mid 50's.

I'd like to see the PT tenders decorated with the proper dual width aluminum-gray stripes and black finlining that was applied in the early 1940s. Also, I doubt that the Dreyfuss Hudsons saw much road service with the front coupler extended, so, unlike the catalog illustration, I'd rather see it modeled with the front coupler retracted and the pilot closed.

- Mike

I think the Dreyfuss has a similar fate as the Strasburg #90. Lionel knows it can’t be screwed up without major blowback, so they’ll take all the time necessary to get it right/rework it. So, I believe it will be very nice when it finally shows up - whenever that turns out to be.

and speaking of Dreyfuss hudsons...what kind of caboose (if any) did they pull???

@Don Beck posted:

and speaking of Dreyfuss hudsons...what kind of caboose (if any) did they pull???

I believe it was a passenger engine, not frieght

so it is safe to say that only freight engines pulling cargo had a caboose and never passenger trains?

@Don Beck posted:

so it is safe to say that only freight engines pulling cargo had a caboose and never passenger trains?

Yes and no, A branch line  , may run a mixed train on a given run, between towns, and  would have several passenger cars and a number of freight cars, and may or may not have a caboose.   The  Dreyfuss Hudsen's were designed to lead a High end , high speed  passenger train, and as far as I know were not downgraded to branch line service.?

@Dave Koehler posted:

Yes and know, A branch line  , may run a mixed train on a given run, between towns, and  would have several passenger cars and a number of freight cars, and may or may not have a caboose.   The  Dreyfuss Hudsen's were designed to lead a High end , high speed  passenger train, and as far as I know were not downgraded to branch line service.?

Oh yes, ….Hudsons were most definitely bumped down all the way to branch line service, ……not only that, but whenever a Hudson came out of shoppings, it’s first duty was branch line service and locals, to do a double check of the work performed….idea was to keep it close to the shops to have a look at how well the shopping went….……At the end of their careers, they were commonly found on branch lines, commuter duty, etc,….

Pat

I don't have much faith in Lionel getting all the details correct on their upcoming release of Dreyfuss Hudson models even though they say they will.   I am sure they will come as close as they can utilizing parts and models already in stock.  I noticed that their illustration of Dreyfuss 5447 shows her with Scullin drivers and Timken rods which she did not get until after losing her shroud.  I also noticed that the front coupler covers are not shown in some of the illustrations.   I agree with Mike Casatelli's opinion on that and I hope Lionel includes it.   With Al Staufer's Thoroughbreds,Tom Gerbracht's Know Thy Hudsons and the NYCSHS it should be fairly easy to get the details correct on these.

No one seems to be discussing that this is advertised as "all-new" tooling.  So one would be led to believe this isn't just a paint slap job on what they already have lying around.

With that said, it might be worth just gathering questions/comments/observations/information resources and sending them over to Ryan rather than complaining here and hoping that by chance he stumbles across this post before its too late.  Especially this far out, I would imagine they would have a good bit of flexibility as far as tweaking models and adjusting details for the final product.  These models are still a long way off from even existing yet.

An example of what I'm talking about is the Vision Class A, which was also all-new tooling.  Complaints about details early on were, at least in a number of cases I can name, heard by Lionel and the final product was corrected from what was in the catalog art.

@Don Beck posted:

so it is safe to say that only freight engines pulling cargo had a caboose and never passenger trains?

In this case, you wouldn’t have seen a shrouded Hudson pulling a mixed train, ….the shrouding had started to come off by the time these engines went to lessor trains, such as Mercury service, etc., …..remember, round house crews were all too happy to take tin snips to these engines to make servicing easier ( & less expensive)………in addition, anytime there was a mishap, later in their careers, the shrouding wouldn’t go back on…..Only when they were in their heyday would they have concerned themselves keeping them the glamour girls they were…….so by the time they got bumped from trains like the Mercury, all of the shrouding was long gone, ….then you’d might see a Hudson on a mixed train, maybe a coach or two, some freight, and a caboose,…hope that helps,…

Pat

@Catonsville Central Railway posted:

No one seems to be discussing that this is advertised as "all-new" tooling.  So one would be led to believe this isn't just a paint slap job on what they already have lying around.

With that said, it might be worth just gathering questions/comments/observations/information resources and sending them over to Ryan rather than complaining here and hoping that by chance he stumbles across this post before its too late.  Especially this far out, I would imagine they would have a good bit of flexibility as far as tweaking models and adjusting details for the final product.  These models are still a long way off from even existing yet.

An example of what I'm talking about is the Vision Class A, which was also all-new tooling.  Complaints about details early on were, at least in a number of cases I can name, heard by Lionel and the final product was corrected from what was in the catalog art.

No one seems to be discussing that this is advertised as "all-new" tooling.  So one would be led to believe this isn't just a paint slap job on what they already have lying around.

anytime they modify an existing tool set, they declare it as “ all new tooling “ ….as much Hudson tools they have in their arsenal, I seriously doubt that it’s all new, …they more than likely had to make a new boiler casting, but Legacy J3a’s already exist,……the “all new tooling” is a bit tongue & cheek ……case in point, all the remade MTH engines, they’re touting as new tooling,…..sure, it’s new to them,….😉

Pat

@Don Beck posted:

so it is safe to say that only freight engines pulling cargo had a caboose and never passenger trains?

Never is strong word, but by-and-large, yes.  Remember the purpose of a caboose is for the train crew to have somewhere to be and to watch the train.  On a passenger train, the conductor/crew can be inside the cars, and routinely walk the length of the train for various purposes.

@Mike Casatelli posted:

Also, I doubt that the Dreyfuss Hudsons saw much road service with the front coupler extended, so, unlike the catalog illustration, I'd rather see it modeled with the front coupler retracted and the pilot closed.

- Mike

My understanding is that the pilot cover was one of the shrouds routinely removed due to servicing headaches, and that's why the partially de-shrouded versions have it removed.

There are good example photos from the NYCSHS like these two:

4-6-4 #5445 at Elkhart, IN · New York Central System Historical Society (omeka.net)

4-6-4 #5445 · New York Central System Historical Society (omeka.net)

@Mike Casatelli posted:

I'd like to see the PT tenders decorated with the proper dual width aluminum-gray stripes and black finlining that was applied in the early 1940s. Also, I doubt that the Dreyfuss Hudsons saw much road service with the front coupler extended, so, unlike the catalog illustration, I'd rather see it modeled with the front coupler retracted and the pilot closed.

- Mike

The TMCC Dreyfuss has a removable coupler cover with a hinged coupler. No reason they couldn’t do that again. I believe the MTH engines have the same feature.

Pete

@harmonyards posted:

anytime they modify an existing tool set, they declare it as “ all new tooling “ ….as much Hudson tools they have in their arsenal, I seriously doubt that it’s all new, …they more than likely had to make a new boiler casting, but Legacy J3a’s already exist,……the “all new tooling” is a bit tongue & cheek ……case in point, all the remade MTH engines, they’re touting as new tooling,…..sure, it’s new to them,….😉

Pat

True, but if you read the wording in the catalogs, you'll see Lionel is very careful in their choice of language.  "New to Lionel," "updated tooling," "modified tooling," and "new tooling" is different than "all-new tooling".  They don't (and wouldn't from a legal perspective) call an item "all-new tooling" unless the lion's share (no pun intended) of the model is newly-tooled.  The Class A is the most recent model to my knowledge to carry the "all-new tooling" label, and it is indeed almost entirely (save for mechanicals) new tooling that has not been used before.

@Catonsville Central Railway posted:

True, but if you read the wording in the catalogs, you'll see Lionel is very careful in their choice of language.  "New to Lionel," "updated tooling," "modified tooling," and "new tooling" is different than "all-new tooling".  They don't (and wouldn't from a legal perspective) call an item "all-new tooling" unless the lion's share (no pun intended) of the model is newly-tooled.  The Class A is the most recent model to my knowledge to carry the "all-new tooling" label, and it is indeed almost entirely (save for mechanicals) new tooling that has not been used before.

Woody, if you wanna be led to believe this is an all newly tooled locomotive, then who am I to stop ya!…..carry on sir,….😉

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Woody, if you wanna be led to believe this is an all newly tooled locomotive, then who am I to stop ya!…..carry on sir,….😉

Pat

If it isn’t, then this will be the first time within at least the past 20 years that they’ve used the specific term “ALL-new tooling” and lied about it.  I have a spreadsheet I built to keep track of their models and when different ones were first introduced (what you do in your free time as an engineer I guess!).  Not being naive, I just doubt that their lawyers or anyone there with common sense would have thought it ok to put that specific wording multiple times in the catalog if it wasn’t true, especially considering how careful they are with the wording when it’s only “new to them” or “modified existing” tooling.

If it isn’t at least majority new tooling, it would be a great opportunity for someone make a buck suing for false advertising!

OK, OFF topic...but...If the Hudsons were so popular on the east coast (NY Central) why didn't the west coast railroads buy and use them?  Yes, I tried googling and could not find the answer.  And YES, I'm on list for Pats Trains fantasy version of the SF black bonnet version...

@Don Beck posted:

OK, OFF topic...but...If the Hudsons were so popular on the east coast (NY Central) why didn't the west coast railroads buy and use them?  Yes, I tried googling and could not find the answer.  And YES, I'm on list for Pats Trains fantasy version of the SF black bonnet version...

Actually, quite a few roads used 4-6-4 wheel arrangement locomotives. It was the NYC proper that named their 4-6-4’s Hudsons. The MR called their 4-6-4’s Baltics, and other roads had different names. …….the NYC designed their 4-6-4 to do a specific job on their roads, different railroads have different needs, thus, there’s no real one size fits all answer to a given road’s needs,…..

Pat

My favorite "West Coast Hudson"

I just noticed that Lionel changed their catalog art for their legacy Dreyfuss slightly. The tender stripes have been thinned down to a more prototypical size. Very interesting. I wonder if they will make any other changes to the catalog artwork before the locomotives are released.

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

-Cole

I can sleep so much better tonight, knowing they now dont match my MTH cars from the 90's

Is there any chance Lionel bought MTH's Dreyfuss tooling?

@IC EC posted:

Is there any chance Lionel bought MTH's Dreyfuss tooling?

Does it matter? The TMCC version and MTHs are all solid engines. Not sure the detail favors one or the other. I believe these are supposed to be “ALL NEW”. That, in itself, may or may not be a good thing.

Pete

@J Class Hudson Fan posted:

I just noticed that Lionel changed their catalog art for their legacy Dreyfuss slightly. The tender stripes have been thinned down to a more prototypical size. Very interesting. I wonder if they will make any other changes to the catalog artwork before the locomotives are released.

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

-Cole

That is a great thing. I remember it was being debated when the catalog was released that the lines were incorrect being too big. Hopefully this means that they will come out correctly as well.

Here's testament to why speaking up (in a polite and respectful way) about issues noted in the catalog early while the models are still in the design phase is so important!  I imagine someone probably reached out to them about the issues with the striping, and they responded by making corrections.  With paint and striping it costs just as much to get it wrong as to get it right, and it's certainly in Lionel's best interest to get it right.  Now of course, how it arrives from the factory is another issue altogether...

Also, FWIW, Ryan specifically answered in a podcast that the shell and all is brand new tooling for the sake of being able to model prototypical detail variations.  So it should not be a rehash of old MTH or Lionel tooling.  I'm sure the drivetrain is existing but of course no reason to reinvent the wheel there.

@J Class Hudson Fan posted:

I just noticed that Lionel changed their catalog art for their legacy Dreyfuss slightly. The tender stripes have been thinned down to a more prototypical size. Very interesting. I wonder if they will make any other changes to the catalog artwork before the locomotives are released.

Before:

After:

-Cole

Actually the 1938 version had wide center stripes so now thats the one thats wrong.

Pete

@Norton posted:

Does it matter? The TMCC version and MTHs are all solid engines. Not sure the detail favors one or the other. I believe these are supposed to be “ALL NEW”. That, in itself, may or may not be a good thing.

Pete

Yes, because I have been extremely pleased with my MTH steam engines.  They have very good detail and are a known quantity versus the somewhat risky "all brand new tooling" version.  Unfortunately, MTH Dreyfuss Hudsons are hard to find on the secondary market (except for the very light gray, 5 volt Protosound 2 equipped 20-3045-1).

I will probably go for it anyway since they are so hard to find.  I'm not expecting Smithsonian Dreyfuss detail quality, but something better than a large diecast blob would be welcome.  Manufacturers can do it in HO, why not in O?

@Catonsville Central Railway posted:

Here's testament to why speaking up (in a polite and respectful way) about issues noted in the catalog early while the models are still in the design phase is so important!  I imagine someone probably reached out to them about the issues with the striping, and they responded by making corrections.  With paint and striping it costs just as much to get it wrong as to get it right, and it's certainly in Lionel's best interest to get it right.  Now of course, how it arrives from the factory is another issue altogether...

Also, FWIW, Ryan specifically answered in a podcast that the shell and all is brand new tooling for the sake of being able to model prototypical detail variations.  So it should not be a rehash of old MTH or Lionel tooling.  I'm sure the drivetrain is existing but of course no reason to reinvent the wheel there.

Thanks for the information about the tooling.

@IC EC posted:

Yes, because I have been extremely pleased with my MTH steam engines.  They have very good detail and are a known quantity versus the somewhat risky "all brand new tooling" version. 

It's gonna take a miracle for Lionel to get the color right. Grey's and reds have been Lionels weak spots. They have yet to find the smokebox graphite color that was consistent across the line during the tmcc era.