Lionel PRR I1s 2-10-0 Decapod from 2023 Big Book

Well if its any consolation, here is the 3rd Rail one and compare it to the 3rd Rail J1 and Q2 tenders...

All photos by me.

@rplst8 posted:

But I wonder what that means for the MTH Q2 tooling. Did it also go to Lionel? Additionally MTH just announced a run of J1as a few months back. Are there maybe two (or three) copies of the tooling for the 180F84 tender they used with those?

Don't you threaten me with a good time!! haha I would love to see a Q2 get released by either company.

I am glad I wasn't the only one thinking the tender looked familiar. I have no speculation on where tooling landed though. I'm not connected enough to know at the moment.

@prrhorseshoecurve can't really compare anything. The one in the case has bad reflections, and the shelf photos are too blurry to tell anything.

Here is a list of tenders that were used behind the I1s/sa decapods.  May not be complete.  No 180F84, and the 210F82b says it was converted from a 210F75a.

Class 90F82,      original I1s tender when built.

Class 130 F 82,     formerly 13000 gallons,  82 1/4" deck - Lines East.  No. 3700.  (I1sa Loco).

Class 180 F 82,      No 6000.  (Converted from 180 P 75)  I1sa - Loco (Narrow cast steel frame).

Class 180 F 82a,    Converted from 180 F 79 for I1s, I1sa (Berkley Stoker) Nos. 373, 374, 375, 377 and 378 (N. and W. Tenders)

Class 210 F 82,     Experimental Nos. 7866, 7867 (I1sa Loco) (No. 7866 Berkley Stoker formerly 210 F 78).

Class 210 F 82a,  I1sa,   ("L.T.", Berkley, Duplex and "HT" Stokers).

Class 210 F 82b,  I1sa, (Converted from 210 F 75a).  Berkley Stoker.

Class 250 F 82,     I1sa,  (Converted from 250 P 84, #6100)  Berkley Stoker.

Class 250 F 82a,  I1sa, (Converted from 250 P 75)  Duplex Stoker or Berkley Stoker.

Not sure where it came from, but my notes have this statement:  "One of the PRR’s main heavy haulers – their I-class Decapods – burned roughly 8100 pounds of coal per hour during high-power/low-speed use. An average-sized tender could power it for about 4 ½ hours before refueling of coal was necessary. The Coast-to-Coast tenders allowed the locomotive’s use to be extended to over 7 ½ hours."  I wonder if they had a Honey Bucket or just hung their rears out over the side when they need to go

Here’s some comparisons - 3rd Rail Q2 and J1a tenders:

3rd Rail Q2 and I1 tenders:

Lionel made a pretty proper 210 F-84 for their TMCC  and later J1as:

So maybe Lionel could use their own 210 F-84 tool for the new ex-MTH Decs (close enough?). I hope Lionel got the Q2 and the M1b from MTH (Lionel's J1a is a bit nicer IMO). As much as I'm attached to my 3rd Rails, replacing them with modern Legacy versions would be OK with me over the next few years.

Here's a link I saved a while back: http://www.wsbcos.com/tenders.htm

One thing I did notice is that those long haul tenders are larger than the ones that Lionel had on the K4's they offered, at least it sure as heck does look longer. That's the one I'm ordering, don't need no short tenders, haha.

@Norm Charbonneau posted:

Lionel made a pretty proper 210 F-84 for their TMCC  and later J1as:

So maybe Lionel could use their own 210 F-84 tool for the new ex-MTH Decs (close enough?). I hope Lionel got the Q2 and the M1b from MTH (Lionel's J1a is a bit nicer IMO). As much as I'm attached to my 3rd Rails, replacing them with modern Legacy versions would be OK with me over the next few years.

Here's a link I saved a while back: http://www.wsbcos.com/tenders.htm

What was the issue with Lionel's M1b that you think the MTH model is better?

I think the MTH tooling is a bit newer and has more details. Lionel’s boiler seemed a little slender too. It would be interesting to see them compared, along with the 3rd Rails.

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

@EricTrainMan posted:

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

Yeah, that tender is wrong for the Hippo. It does at least have some detail differences though.

This is something I just had to swallow when I got my MTH J1a.

It’s not the end of the world, but I was mostly curious about tooling reuse.

I like @Norm Charbonneau’s idea of using the slightly closer tender from the Lionel J1. Smart cookie that one.

P.S. Norm, i’m not sure I would give up those 3rd Rail models what with their way more accurate tenders (among other things probably). Especially when you could have someone do an upgrade for you.

But if you do, I’d happily buy them from you!

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

One thing I did notice is that those long haul tenders are larger than the ones that Lionel had on the K4's they offered, at least it sure as heck does look longer. That's the one I'm ordering, don't need no short tenders, haha.

That’s because they are different, here and on the prototype. The K4s “coast-to-coast” tenders were closer to the M1b twelve wheel tenders. They had riveted bodies too AFAIK. The post-stoker K4s shared the same 75” deck height as the M1b too.

@EricTrainMan posted:

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

P.P.S.

After looking at your pictures and comparing again to the catalog illustrations, it appears to me that Lionel did indeed get the Q2 tooling and they paired that even more wrong tender with the I1.

In the catalog the hatches are transverse like the Q2 tender in your picture instead of parallel to the direction of travel like they should be.

@rplst8 posted:

Especially when you could have someone do an upgrade for you.

I think I’m good thanks, I do my own stuff:

This is my coast to coast 3rd Rail Dec. I am leaning toward keeping this and ordering a pair of the short tender ones with the modernized front end details.

@Norm Charbonneau posted:

I think I’m good thanks, I do my own stuff:

This is my coast to coast 3rd Rail Dec. I am leaning toward keeping this and ordering a pair of the short tender ones with the modernized front end details.

Sorry wasn’t trying to insinuate you couldn’t, I like the posts you did fixing the High Iron K4s and stuff. I was thinking for the loss you’d take on them it would probably cover the upgrade cost done by a third party.

After reading more about I1s tenders, it looks like they were initially delivered with a 90F82 tender then most received the 210F82a welded tenders before WWII.  While other tenders were used, like the 110F82a from M1s, the 90F82 ans 210F82a seemed to be the I1s primary tenders. Not sure why the 90F82 tender was not included in the other list of Decapod tenders I used above.  I added it.

Also, there are pre-war and post-war versions in the Lionel catalog, so make sure you get the one the best matches your era.  Of the 598 built, around a 100 never were "modernized" so either one will work post war.

Has anyone spoken to Lionel about the tender issue? I recall they were willing to make corrections to the Class A after it had been announced and people found detail discrepancies between models, think it would be worth a shot to ask for the right tender? I want one of the coast-to-coast versions but already have a 3rd Rail I1 and I'm not sure I'd like the visual of the different tenders when they're sitting in the yard together.

Can any rational argument be made for an I1 having a Q2 tender? I'm usually not that steeped in equipment details like this.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

Can any rational argument be made for an I1 having a Q2 tender? I'm usually not that steeped in equipment details like this.

Doesn't seem like it based on CAP's reply above...

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...3#169655768995340713

Lionel has these listed as an O-54 minimum radius requirement.

Is that even possible? Has anyone ran the Mth version on O-54?

I'd be running on O-60 fastrack.

@RickO posted:

Lionel has these listed as an O-54 minimum radius requirement.

Is that even possible? Has anyone ran the Mth version on O-54?

I'd be running on O-60 fastrack.

The short tender, yes runs great on 054. I haven’t tried the long haul on 054, MTH rated them for 072. But what the heck, I’ll give it a shot and report back.