Lionel Visionline Niagara Arriving

20centuryhudson posted:

Anybody compare the tooling on this versus the century club model? The tender looks different in the back to my eye

All of the pictures I have seen, they are identical save the cab apron which is thicker. It was my understanding the new one would be assembled differently, perhaps a one piece boiler vs two piece. I will find out for sure after York when mine arrives.

Pete

Attachments

Photos (2)

Got home yesterday, unboxed it, put it on our 7' test track, fired it up and - the new Vision Niagara is everything I'd hoped for .... and less:  

Less drama.  The past few Lionel locomotives I've purchased have had defects and jerky operation.  Resulting in unhappy children, returns to Lionel, and weeks waiting for what we ordered to actually be "right."  This brute, however, seems to have nice smooth operation.  We've come to expect the drama and it was so nice when this thing fired up and seems to be working as it should right out of the box. Fundamentally, this was the biggest checkmark for us. 

Less expensive.  Kind of a backhanded compliment, but I expected the quality of functions to be lower given this 4-8-4 was "only" around $1,500 (compared to some of the other recent VL steamer prices), but all the smoke functions not only work well, but they seem to have improved. Rather than the wisps of smoke I've come to expect from Lionel (compared to MTH), this thing has a prodigious smoke output.  The sound package is incredible. A horn and whistle too - what?! And the paint and assembly seems state of the art. 

Less detail. Well, this could just be me, but the description says a "high level of detail."  While I'm not in the same galaxy as rivet counters, to my untrained, uneducated eye, the details (hoses, pipes, doo dads) on the boiler seem sort of spartan?  Having said that, it has clean beautiful lines, there are nice hand painted details, the pop off valves and builders plate are all crisply done, etc. So, for what it provides, it has delivered very well.  

 

 

WANNA BE HEARD? VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS

"Less detail. Well, this could just be me, but the description says a "high level of detail."  While I'm not in the same galaxy as rivet counters, to my untrained, uneducated eye, the details (hoses, pipes, doo dads) on the boiler seem sort of spartan?"  

I don't mean to sound like a grumpy old man (too late), but does anyone ever look at photos of the real locomotives?

Indeed, why would one even buy the model unless one has seen the real thing, or its image?

The Niagara, the definition of the modern steam locomotive, had very few "doo dads" ("is that an Elesco or Worthington doo dad "?) visible on it. The thing was virtually streamstyled, if not streamlined, enhanced by the smoke lifters. But it was not either. It was modern engineering, done with some esthetic sense*, and, had steam survived, more and more locomotives would have looked like it.

It was industrial sleek and slick, and kept most of its "doo dads" in its pants.

(*The original 1920's J1 Hudson specs from management instructed the designer - Kiefer, same as the Niagara's - to give the new locomotive "pleasing proportions", roughly quoted.) 

D500 posted:

"Less detail. Well, this could just be me, but the description says a "high level of detail."  While I'm not in the same galaxy as rivet counters, to my untrained, uneducated eye, the details (hoses, pipes, doo dads) on the boiler seem sort of spartan?"  

I don't mean to sound like a grumpy old man (too late), but does anyone ever look at photos of the real locomotives?

Indeed, why would one even buy the model unless one has seen the real thing, or its image?

The Niagara, the definition of the modern steam locomotive, had very few "doo dads" ("is that an Elesco or Worthington doo dad "?) visible on it. The thing was virtually streamstyled, if not streamlined, enhanced by the smoke lifters. But it was not either. It was modern engineering, done with some esthetic sense*, and, had steam survived, more and more locomotives would have looked like it.

It was industrial sleek and slick, and kept most of its "doo dads" in its pants.

(*The original 1920's J1 Hudson specs from management instructed the designer - Kiefer, same as the Niagara's - to give the new locomotive "pleasing proportions", roughly quoted.) 

That's a good point, and I had little knowledge on the facts you raised, so thanks for this.  In terms of the only thing you've focused on from my entire post - did I look at the real thing - I did. Here's one of the images I found before ordering.  To my untrained eye, it looks like it has a a good amount more external doo dads than the the "high level of detail" Vision version.  Again, not a deal breaker for me by any stretch, as I don't buy these things for rivets but rather for play value, and this one is a winner in that regard ... 

nyc3137

 

WANNA BE HEARD? VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS

Attachments

Photos (1)
PJB posted:

 

That's a good point, and I had little knowledge on the facts you raised, so thanks for this.  In terms of the only thing you've focused on from my entire post - did I look at the real thing - I did. Here's one of the images I found before ordering.  To my untrained eye, it looks like it has a a good amount more external doo dads than the the "high level of detail" Vision version.  Again, not a deal breaker for me by any stretch, as I don't buy these things for rivers but rather for operating play value, and this one is a winner in that regard ... 

nyc3137

 

Thats a Mohawk, not a Niagara. MTH did some nice versions of those.

Pete

Wow - did anyone count the number of rivets?   i thought this was model railroading for fun and being as prototypical as possible.  the models are to be enjoyed and run - including nice features etc  can any model train look "exactly" as an old photograph?  Everyone can have their opinion and comments - thanks for all - but you dont need to respond to this post

 

ted

tjkos24@att.net

RickO posted:

PJB , Thats a Mohawk in that photo you posted. This is a Niagara, to D500's point, the boiler is much "cleaner".

Image result for nyc niagara

Direct from Wikipedia

"The Niagaras did not have steam domes, as did most steam locomotives, which resulted in a smooth contour along the top of the boiler. A perforated pipe collected steam instead. This was necessary because of the lower loading gauge of the New York Central (15 ft 2 in versus 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m) for other American railroads)."

RickO posted:

PJB , Thats a Mohawk in that photo you posted. This is a Niagara, to D500's point, the boiler is much "cleaner".

Image result for nyc niagara

RickO posted:

PJB , Thats a Mohawk in that photo you posted. This is a Niagara, to D500's point, the boiler is much "cleaner".

Image result for nyc niagara

Hey Pete and RickO -  thanks!  

Just confirms what I said - I'm a novice with an uneducated eye.  I had googled the NYC Niagara many months ago and didn't even realize the image I posted was a Mohawk. I now see that the Vision model is quite a good representation of the real Niagara.  

But again, the thesis of my earlier post was that this Vision offering, at least to me, is a total winner.  It seems this was totally lost on some folks here (certainly NOT you two gents) who live only to complain, criticize, and debate.  

Enjoy the rest of the weekend everyone. 

WANNA BE HEARD? VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS

20centuryhudson posted:

Can’t wait to hook mine up to my 12 car 1938 GGD 20 Century set— not prototypical but what the heck!

Please do a video when you do, would love to see that! Mine is in the mail, when it arrives the GGD 8 car Empire State express with kitbashed station sounds diner will be ready! 

PJB posted:

Hey Pete and RickO -  thanks!  

Just confirms what I said - I'm a novice with an uneducated eye.  I had googled the NYC Niagara many months ago and didn't even realize the image I posted was a Mohawk. I now see that the Vision model is quite a good representation of the real Niagara.  

But again, the thesis of my earlier post was that this Vision offering, at least to me, is a total winner.  It seems this was totally lost on some folks here (certainly NOT you two gents) who live only to complain, criticize, and debate.  

Enjoy the rest of the weekend everyone. 

PBJ,
It seems to me that these folks were only trying to educate you and show you the error in your research. When your school teachers corrected you, did you say that they also "live only to complain, criticize, and debate"?

Dj'sOgaugetrains posted:

Anybody test out the force coupler? Who here coupled 100 cars on then went upgrade........

I did .... well, sort of.  I mentioned that I'm relegated to a 7' test track (we're between layouts) on my floor.  Backed up the Niagara a bit too far and the tender ended up with about 1/3 of it's back end off the rails, with rear wheels hanging off. Didn't notice it and when I tried to move forward the beast wouldn't move, but the sounds got deeper and more intense.  

WANNA BE HEARD? VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS

Add Reply

Likes (4)
JohnBAlan Mancusevanchsa@T1Titan_ZachF


OGR Publishing, Inc. PO Box 218, Hilliard, OH 43026 330-757-3020
www.ogaugerr.com
×
×
×
×
×