Please Comment - PRR T1 Brass Manufacturer Comparison

The answer to your questions will be base on what you want. If you want the best Brass with details and have unlimited funds, the Third rail is the one to hunt down. Third rail made All three versions: the Demo model, the Baldwin model [which is what the Williams and Weaver models are based on, and the Altoona version which has little skirting on the sides. this is the one that Lionel made and assembled in Mt. Clemens in 2000. [ I was at the joint 2000 LOTS/LCCS convention and I saw it assembled and tested on the factory tour]

If you are on a budget, the Williams and the Weaver models are good models with solid drivetrains but if details are important hands down it's Third Rail [If you can find them] The Real difference is 3rd Rail added the number boards and lighted class lights on the upper cowling on the boiler. Williams and Weaver Models just have a faint brass etching that would require work to get light. Also the cab interior is sparse on the Williams and Weaver versions compared to the Lionel and 3rd Rail version, And the nose is correct on the 3rd rail versions.

The one Item that stinks is all three Mfg's used the similar locomotive numbers even though there were 49 PRR T1's. So MTH demo #was used on a Third Rail loco [understandable since there were only TWO prototype T1's#6110 & #6111]. But the Altoona and Baldwin versions could and should have different numbers than #5511 AND #5533. The issue beside changing the number on the cab for either the Williams or Weaver models is now to locate the Brass Keystone with your number to be mounted on the Pilot [see my Williams pic above]

Like I stated above, all three models have solid drive trains but the devil is in the details... and watch out for those sharp switches[ 072 or tighter] the middle wheels on 3rd Rail, Williams and Weaver models may short while going through a diverging route on the switch. The fix for that is to have the inner flangeless wheels angle cut [Beveled].  Good luck on whatever model you choose.

Consider using the three foot rule when inspecting models.  You will experience improed digestion and sleep better.

I come from a hobby/activity/business  where every aspect of the game was closely scrutinized.  I bought into it and it was always like spinning plates to make everything absolutely perfect.

When I switched over to trains I made a concerted effort to NOT repeat that practice.  In fact perfectionists would never  knowingly be welcomed to my RR.

If it runs dependably, doesn't sound like it is grinding coffee beans, then it could be a welcomed purchase.

I have three T-1 locomotives.  A Weaver, MTH & Williams.  I will not look at any of them critically, just run 'em and enjoy 'em.

However if a particular T-1 had the normal rigid wheelbase,  I would not select that version engine for a layout with tight curves.

There are T-1 model locomotives with swivel drive wheels like a GG-1 has.  That style would blend much better with tight curves.

If you’re specifically modeling the PRR, and fidelity and accuracy of your models is important to you, then the nose might bother you, and you may wish to do something about it,…..OTOH, if you just like running model trains period and 100% accuracy doesn’t bother you, then leave it be, don’t worry about what others think, and enjoy YOUR railroad …..maybe in your little world they had to change the nose to fit an apparatus?…….many many facades of this hobby, …..enjoy the one that suits you, and run with it, …..I personally enjoy making NYC engines as accurate as possible given what historical info is available and what parts I can get my hands on or make……but that’s my cup of tea…..if painting your T1 pink with purple poky-dots is your cup of tea, then by all means, have fun!….it’s often said on this forum and still rings true,….your railroad, your rules,……😉

Pat

My favorite steam engine is the PRR T1.  I have  of 3 them :MTH,Lionel,and 3rd Rail.  I think that the 3rd Rail version is the smoothest runner of the three.  It has the best detail  as far as I am concerned.  In the end,I like all three engines.  The 3rd Rail ranks #1 to me followed by the Lionel and the MTH versions.  With newer tooling, these engines are rating higher than the Williams or Weaver versions as far as I am concerned.  Of course the carry a higher price tag too.

Norm

Thank you all for the comments!

I have been "buying on a budget".   I have always practiced buying the best "Value", so I usually end up buying things in general, that are middle of the pack price wise.  It is what brought me into the 3R world from HO.  I had always admired O from afar.  A year ago when on eBay, I realized that used 3R items were about the same price currently as HO, to me it was a no brainer.

PRRHorshoeCurve, thank you for the clarification and the Photos!  I compared the Williams Front End and it is definitely more accurate than my Weaver.  Not only is the nose shaped better, but the perforated upper "grill" is where it belongs, not recessed way too far back.  I gotta guess that was some kind of manufacturing screw-up.  I have worked in design engineer forever, and always just shake my head, when all the research "went out the window" when something gets misassembled.  I need to mop-up the drool off my desk after looking at the 3rd Rail. LOL Thanks too for confirming they all have good gear trains.

Tom Tee and Pat, great advice I am doing my best to follow.  Professional I ALWAYS strive for perfection, OTOH this is my hobby and suppose to be fun and relaxing not ulcer causing.  LOL

Norm, thank you very much, and particularly for the comment on the running of of the Locos.  Also thanks for the comment on the "Newer Locos".

At this point, am still happy with my acquisition, but really would like a 3rd Rail version.  May buy the "Demo Version", I like the look and paint scheme of that Real One better.  Any idea what the "current price range" on these is? - Jim

The only rules you break are the ones you set. It is extremely hard to get an exact model of anything as some who have worked with the real engines have noted countless amounts of times. There is a lot of stuff documented to go on about what is historically right with any given thing(engines, passenger car, and other rolling stock), but in the end you can only get as far as you want to without ripping your hair out. If an item has some inaccurate things on it, is it really going to burn you up if it is just something that is just that one thing? Most handrails on engines are way too big from what I have heard over the years, but it is something that is harder to notice as the crews don't grab onto them while running around the track. If they tried, they may fall off and get run-over by the train. It's all in your perspective of your control on what you want. Go with that.

I grew up in the 50's with Lionel trains.  That is the yardstick by which I measure everything I buy.  IF it has more detail that a 2037, 646 or a 2343 then I think it is a great engine.  I have both a Weaver and Williams T-1.  Never have compared them, don't really care because they both look better than a 50's Lionel N&W J.

I buy trains because they give me enjoyment.  I have a lot of Williams, Weaver and MTH engines.  Even the worst of them is better than what I grew up with.

I have the Williams version and I am happy with it.  It is numbered 001 out of how ever many they made (I think 500?) so it is a keeper for me even if most of my PRR is 2 rail.  Yes, a bit sparse on details, but fitting for the T1 which was a bit sparse on details in real life.  I don't have much to compare it to for accuracy other than photographs.  I will say the factory sound in my T1 is awful.  Granted it was 1991 and sound was not truly a thing yet, but wow it is bad.  I need to get in the tender and disconnect it.  Only Lionel's "Mighty Sound of ****" is worse in my opinion.

I also have a Bowser and a Penn Line T1 in HO scale (same tooling).  Not totally relevant to the discussion, but it is just an interesting locomotive to have on your roster in general and while I sweat some details, this is one locomotive where I do not.   

Thanks Dave Bill and Jonathan for the "grounded" perspective.

As I stated am happy with my purchase, it was once the issue with the inaccurate nose was brought up, it got me wondering if I had made a poor decision.  As I compare my Weaver to the photos of the Williams while it may have a worse nose, it has some added features.  It has rear marker lights which it appear to be just empty holes in the Williams Tender, plus it has the Train Phone Antenna.  This goes along with what I have seen in general with the Weavers, they have more Details than Williams, which I like.  Now yes, the 3rd Rail are on another level, but so is the price.

My background in HO was Athearn Blue Box Kits (which when I was a kid were Yellow boxes).  So again they weren't "Craftsmen Kit" level.  My most cherished cars is a New Haven Dome in the McGinnis (Predominantly Black) Paint Scheme, which is carried through from the F7 pulling it.  There is a "back story" so it also has alot of sentimental value.  The paint scheme for the F7 is accurate, but New Haven never had passenger cars that exactly matched that.  Of course New Haven never had a dome.  So when guys are going nuts over the Black Santa Fe Passenger Cars, I get it, but think My McGinnis looks WAYYYY Better.

So carrying this over to my newly acquired 3R addiction, I saw a PRR 15" K-Line Dome in the shiny finish (Congressional) and I couldn't resist hitting the buy button.  Again a 60ft Congressional Dome Car (I think not), but I am very Happy.  BTW it is named Betsy Ross.

So yes, thanks for you posts!  The T1 nose thing just "got into my head".

@GG1 4877 posted:

I have the Williams version and I am happy with it.  It is numbered 001 out of how ever many they made (I think 500?) so it is a keeper for me even if most of my PRR is 2 rail.  Yes, a bit sparse on details, but fitting for the T1 which was a bit sparse on details in real life.  I don't have much to compare it to for accuracy other than photographs.  I will say the factory sound in my T1 is awful.  Granted it was 1991 and sound was not truly a thing yet, but wow it is bad.  I need to get in the tender and disconnect it.  Only Lionel's "Mighty Sound of ****" is worse in my opinion.

I also have a Bowser and a Penn Line T1 in HO scale (same tooling).  Not totally relevant to the discussion, but it is just an interesting locomotive to have on your roster in general and while I sweat some details, this is one locomotive where I do not.   

Funny you should say that you have #1 of whatever.  So do I.  Apparently they all are called #1 of...............

Something got lost in the translation from English to Korean!  LOL

BTW the Chinese take out near me is called #1 Kitchen

@MainLine Steam posted:

...snip... The paint scheme for the F7 is accurate, but New Haven never had passenger cars that exactly matched that.  Of course New Haven never had a dome. ...snip...

The NH never had any F7s either. The closest would have been the FL9.

@Bill DeBrooke posted:

Funny you should say that you have #1 of whatever.  So do I.  Apparently they all are called #1 of...............

Now that is truly funny!  Credit to Jerry Williams or Mike Wolf for those shenanigans?  I know where my bet is, but I'm not telling!

@PRRMP54 posted:

The NH never had any F7s either. The closest would have been the FL9.

And I am very pleased with my FL9s. 

@MainLine Steam posted:

I posted a few pictures of a recent acquisition of my Weaver T1 in Buy anything cool lately.  I of course was proud of my purchase and got a lot of positive feedback.  However there was a comment from someone (by his alias) that obviously knows a lot more about PRR than I do.  I was slightly taken back by his comment, but believe it was meant in a positive way.  Basically he said that the "nose" of the Weaver model is not very accurate.  I then compared it to all the photos of the actual engine I could find and agree it is too "full" towards the bottom.

I think this version of the T1 is quite handsome and accurate enough. I think there is a lot of confusion over what a T1 "looks like" since there were three versions, and AFAIK the PRR shops hacked a lot of the streamlining off of of them over the years during servicing. I'm almost positive there is a poster or ad out there somewhere that has the noses of the three versions out there, and I think the Weaver model matches at least one of them.

I have the "Baldwin prototype" that MTH modeled and also the Lionel rendition of the Altoona built "de-skirted" version. Both are nice models - but the lack of details on the original T1 make the models look plain. Don't get me wrong, they are fun to run and still great. My favorite version of the T1 is the three porthole one without the side skirts like the Weaver one you have. It's on my wish list, but since I have these two already, it's lower on my list.

One thing that always makes me chuckle is the sliding scale over which some folks will deal with "accuracy" on a model. The poster that chided the nose on your model is probably still happily running his trains on what would be 5 ft gauge in the 1:1 world - something that was mostly only found in communist Russia, LOL! Yet we still find a way to enjoy these models. I'm not above critiquing a model's looks though. For me length, width, and height need to be proportional, within reason, and there are just some specific features of certain prototypes you have to get right in miniature or it ruins the illusion. The cupola of an N5c, the rake and proportions of a Baldwin shark, the porch sizes of a SD40-2 and"heft" of its fuel tank. I think the Weaver version does the T1 justice.

Run it, and enjoy it.

@rplst8, yeah, there has been a number of discussions over the past two years on these. I believe Ron AKA CAPPilot has commented extensively on almost all the conversations regarding these. @CAPPilot has been wanting a good version that hasn't been done from Lionel for quite some time now. Perhaps he could enlighten this conversation further?

Does anyone know anything about the "Right of Way" T1s supposedly made by Ajin, and how they compare to the others?

The Right of Way model turns up every now and then and is essentially a nice one from what I remember. Very early (was it before 3RD Rail?) It had the advantage of being articulated with two motors like the GG1 from Lionel and others so it could easily negotiate the sharper turns as mentioned by a poster above.

The T1 is one of my top three locomotives as well. Have had the MTH model and two of the Lionels. Would like a Weaver or Williams sometime too.

Anyone out there have all the different models and could post some comparison photos?

Here's a few

The only T1 that I have wanted (and now have) has READING painted on the side of the tender!

This may or may not help, but at one time I owned Weaver, 3^rd Rail, and Lionel T1 models concurrently, and I displayed them together as an attention getting display in my train room. In my opinion, each was a solidly built good model of its prototype.

I found the Weaver model of the Baldwin production version (with portholes) to be the most attractive right out of the box, thanks in large measure to its first-rate decoration and finish. It was also a great runner, but strictly conventional and silent. I had Serial Number 1. As has been noted above, everyone who bought one got Serial Number 1, probably the result of an unclear or misinterpreted production spec.

The 3rd Rail model of the Baldwin Demonstrator was a terrific example of brass manufacturing. It was also a smooth runner, but was conventional with QSI sound. OK, but not great. My major quibble with this model was its dead flat finish. I like my engines to look freshly shopped, so I applied a soft gloss clear finish to it. The result made it my overall favorite of the three.

The Lionel model of the Altoona production engine (without portholes), die-cast rather than brass, was solidly built and had pull-the-paint-off the walls power. It also came with TMCC and early RailSounds, making it the most technologically sophisticated of the three. On the down side, its smoke production was poor and it had overly thick drivers causing it to short out when it crossed the frogs on some 072 switches. 

While I never owned one, I also am familiar with the Right Of Way model. It was the first T1 offered in 3 rail but, in my opinion, it had a chunky look about it. It also had an articulated frame as well as undersized and oddly spaced drivers, probably necessary to let it negotiate the 042 curves that were ROW's standard.

For what it’s worth, if I were I to get one again, I’d look for a 3rdRail Demonstrator and treat it to a command/sound upgrade.

- Mike

@rplst8 posted:

One thing that always makes me chuckle is the sliding scale over which some folks will deal with "accuracy" on a model. The poster that chided the nose on your model is probably still happily running his trains on what would be 5 ft gauge in the 1:1 world - something that was mostly only found in communist Russia, LOL!

Actually, in the American South/CSA, before the end of The War, 5 feet was often the preferred gauge. They were shrunken to the USA standard of 56.5" later.

Of course, early railroading everywhere had gauges all over the map (literally).

@PRRMP54 posted:

The only T1 that I have wanted (and now have) has READING painted on the side of the tender!

That's a

T-1

We're talking about a REAL locomotive...

The PRR T1

Thank you all for the additional comments and information!

Dave - Yes I should have said the Paint Scheme was correct for the FL-9  which Jonathan Shows.  Athearn produced the HO F7 for 40 plus years in every Road and Color Scheme imaginable.  The oldest units from my child hood were (Hi-Fi) rubber band drive.  I will try to snap some pictures tomorrow and post in the HONGZ Forum.

RPLST8 - I am linking what I believe is the comparison of the different versions you mention.  It is on Pinterest so, if you want a better look you will need to sign in.

https://www.pinterest.com/bigd...1-duplex-locomotive/

I would post, the Photos were Credited to PRR, but not sure if it  would violate copywrite?

c.sam - The model you are showing of the Altoona version is from 3rd Rail correct?  I also like your suggestion of comparison Photos.

Mike - Thanks for the info it is helpful!

Jim

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

@rplst8, yeah, there has been a number of discussions over the past two years on these. I believe Ron AKA CAPPilot has commented extensively on almost all the conversations regarding these. @CAPPilot has been wanting a good version that hasn't been done from Lionel for quite some time now. Perhaps he could enlighten this conversation further?

I am not sure how much I can add, we already had many good inputs on the real engines as well as the available models.  I only have one, the non-brass scale Lionel one from 2000.  I am hesitant to recommend it due to the too wide center drivers that can short out on some switches.  Also, the engine has TMCC but with 2 double chuffs/rev and no cruise control.   I really like this engine, but only after I beveled the drivers, added cruise control, and 4 double chuffs/rev.  This looks great pulling my express train as seen in the lower image below.

Some history on the real engines.

There are actually four versions of the PRR T1 (no "-"), but I know only of the three model versions mentioned above. One version (see below) I do not think has been made in O.

In 1942 Baldwin built two experimental 4-4-4-4 Duplex engines and called them T1, 6110 and 6111.  These two "prototype" engines had full fairings/skirting (version 1).  The skirting interfered with maintenance and was mostly removed within two years, except for the three porthole pilot (version 2).  These engines were successful designs.  The as-built prototype engine, which looked like that for less than two years, is the one modeled by MTH and 3rd Rail.   I know of no models of version 2.

The PRR ordered 50 more T1 engines after WWII, and they were delivered during 1945 and 46.  These are referred to as the "production" engines.  Altoona built 5500 to 5524 and all the tenders, and Baldwin built 5525 to 5549.  Initially, these engines were built looking like the Weaver model.  These engines differed from the prototypes in that the smoke box was shorter and less pointed, and the side skirting was raised to improve access to the running gear (version 3).  As mentioned, Weaver, Williams, and 3rd Rail have done this one in brass.

The maintainers soon started complaining about how the porthole shroud around the up-front appliances was making maintenance difficult, plus it was difficult to get to the running boards.  So late in the production run (May '46?), they modified the front end to expose the cylinders, added ladders and handrails, and a auxiliary headlight in the front grill (version 4).  This is the version of the T1 modeled by Lionel, ROW, and 3rd Rail.  This is the Lionel model.

By 1948, all T1 engines had been modified to version 4.  So between 1946 and 1948 you could have seen three versions of the T1 on the rails. The prototypes were retired in 1950, and the productions in 1952.  All 52 were scrapped

My layout era is late 40s, so version 4 is the version that I would prefer Lionel released with Legacy.  I personally would not be interested in any of the earlier versions.

@Magicland posted:

Does anyone know anything about the "Right of Way" T1s supposedly made by Ajin, and how they compare to the others?

I had one but sold it off in the march 30th Cabin fever auction.

It is made by Ajin of Korea. It had dual motors with no flywheels. It was made of brass but the frame was articulated and the tender skirting was cut above the tender trucks so it can negotiate the tight 042 radius curves. Its controlled by a qsi reverse board and sound unit. The flickering firebox IMHO is a cool feature still not found on any other mfg o guage locomotive.

The gearing is precision just like their ALCo PA1 so its a smooth runner as long as you dont cut the power abruptly.

Being the first commercial PRR T1 locomotive, it started a trend for the other mfgs to follow.

@Mike Casatelli posted:

This may or may not help, but at one time I owned Weaver, 3^rd Rail, and Lionel T1 models concurrently, and I displayed them together as an attention getting display in my train room. In my opinion, each was a solidly built good model of its prototype.

I found the Weaver model of the Baldwin production version (with portholes) to be the most attractive right out of the box, thanks in large measure to its first-rate decoration and finish. It was also a great runner, but strictly conventional and silent. I had Serial Number 1. As has been noted above, everyone who bought one got Serial Number 1, probably the result of an unclear or misinterpreted production spec.

The 3rd Rail model of the Baldwin Demonstrator was a terrific example of brass manufacturing. It was also a smooth runner, but was conventional with QSI sound. OK, but not great. My major quibble with this model was its dead flat finish. I like my engines to look freshly shopped, so I applied a soft gloss clear finish to it. The result made it my overall favorite of the three.

The Lionel model of the Altoona production engine (without portholes), die-cast rather than brass, was solidly built and had pull-the-paint-off the walls power. It also came with TMCC and early RailSounds, making it the most technologically sophisticated of the three. On the down side, its smoke production was poor and it had overly thick drivers causing it to short out when it crossed the frogs on some 072 switches.

While I never owned one, I also am familiar with the Right Of Way model. It was the first T1 offered in 3 rail but, in my opinion, it had a chunky look about it. It also had an articulated frame as well as undersized and oddly spaced drivers, probably necessary to let it negotiate the 042 curves that were ROW's standard.

For what it’s worth, if I were I to get one again, I’d look for a 3rdRail Demonstrator and treat it to a command/sound upgrade.

- Mike

I just had Gunrunner upgrade my Lionel T1 and its now a keeper with 4 chuffs and a rebuilt smoke unit! I remember the Chicago Hobbyland boyz set up their modular layout at the Hyatt where the 2000 LCCA/LOTS convention was held. They ran that T1 for hours each day on that layout throughout the convention and it ran flawlously! On the Lionel factory tour I saw UAW workers assemble that very same loco as well as testing it. I cant never those memories go so its a keeper in my collection! My only real issue was the 2 chuffs which has now been solved thanks to the Gunrunner!

I too like the T-1 in theory but not necessarily in practice. In any event I managed to take photos of T-1s back in 1951.  One shows the T-1 headed east through Latrobe on August 12 1951 the day of the Ligonier Valley fan trip. The other shows a T-1 headed west through Greensburg in the cut just before the passenger station.  I'm also including 2 photos of my Right of Way Version of the

T-1.  Say what you will about its proportions it has one super advantage over its toy train competitors. It runs quite well on my 0-54 curves.  Lew Schneider

@CAPPilot, Ron, I didn't know that there were four versions, so you did add something to the conversation, plus I value your information as well.

@lewrail posted:

I too like the T-1 in theory but not necessarily in practice. In any event I managed to take photos of T-1s back in 1951.  One shows the T-1 headed east through Latrobe on August 12 1951 the day of the Ligonier Valley fan trip. The other shows a T-1 headed west through Greensburg in the cut just before the passenger station.  I'm also including 2 photos of my Right of Way Version of the

T-1.  Say what you will about its proportions it has one super advantage over its toy train competitors. It runs quite well on my 0-54 curves.  Lew Schneider

I was wondering when someone was going to mention the RoW T1 as it was the first production model.  There were 340 pieces made and they sold out in a week.  It will run on 042 and the whistle is accurate for the model.  It has two Pittman motors and will pull very well. 

Lionel actually borrowed mine to get their engineering started on their model. 

Regards,

Lou N

Thanks to all for the replies.

Ron - Thanks for all the added information on the Real T1.

Lewrail - Wish I had the experience of seeing a T1 in action.  Unfortunately, before my time.  I can only hope that the one under construction becomes a reality!  They seem to be making good progress.  The reason for my screen name is back about 25 years ago I got to see Milw 261 "doing it's thing".  For me it was a life changing experience.  Diesel railfanning just has not been the same since.  Seeing a 10 wheeler chugging along at a museum at 15 mph just doesn't capture what you experienced 71 years ago when you took those photos.  One question for you, although at 100 mph it might have been hard to tell, was the stripping and Pennsy Logo still on the tender?  I realize these were working Steam engines, not museum show pieces.  But in your photos, and some I have seen of the Locos "parked" towards the end, it appears the tenders might have been just plain Brunswick Green or Black?   Your insight would be appreciated.

@Lou N posted:

I was wondering when someone was going to mention the RoW T1 as it was the first production model.  There were 340 pieces made and they sold out in a week.  It will run on 042 and the whistle is accurate for the model.  It has two Pittman motors and will pull very well.

Lionel actually borrowed mine to get their engineering started on their model.

Regards,

Lou N

I bought one several years ago, just because, and it's funky. Price was good; runs, but the sound is missing. I have a couple of other T-1's. I try not to let all my NYC equipment know about my secret admiration for the T-1, esthetically.

The ROW T-1 was a pioneer in 3RO. Sure, it's articulated, the trucks show on the tender and the drivers are under-sized. But - does anyone recall how exotic this was in 3RO? Sort of like the early 3RO Williams Dreyfuss Hudson, it had compromises, but it was so unexpected and impressive (BTW, the ROW T-1 was a much better machine than the Wms Early Dreyfuss).

ROW in general was a company that still goes under-appreciated in our hobby.

@D500 posted:

I bought one several years ago, just because, and it's funky. Price was good; runs, but the sound is missing. I have a couple of other T-1's. I try not to let all my NYC equipment know about my secret admiration for the T-1, esthetically.

The ROW T-1 was a pioneer in 3RO. Sure, it's articulated, the trucks show on the tender and the drivers are under-sized. But - does anyone recall how exotic this was in 3RO? Sort of like the early 3RO Williams Dreyfuss Hudson, it had compromises, but it was so unexpected and impressive (BTW, the ROW T-1 was a much better machine than the Wms Early Dreyfuss).

ROW in general was a company that still goes under-appreciated in our hobby.

I must confess that it is one of the most interesting looking engines I have ever seen. When I got a subscription renewal for some other publication a great number of years ago, there were post card from a sister publication included in the notice. Real hard card but bigger than post cards with information on each engine on the back. The one I liked the most, was the T1. Somewhere in one of my books(or in a file), I still have those, I think they sent six of them.

@D500 posted:..... Williams Dreyfuss Hudson, it had compromises, ....... (BTW, the ROW T-1 was a much better machine than the Wms Early Dreyfuss).

You can say that again. The early Williams Dreyfus was a major disappointment. It fell apart in the box on its way to me.

Want to Thank everyone for all the great response to my original question.

D500 - I live in Poughkeepsie, so I too more of a NYC guy than PRR, butttt.... The T1 and the Fleet of Modernism paint Scheme, what can I say.  LOL  Your cheatin' Heart.

As promised previously I want to show my most Cherished Model Train (Sentimental value from my childhood) the Athearn New Haven McGinnis.  Note The cab windows aren't missing, that is how they came from Athearn, but they did include lenses for the Headlights.  I figured out how to put it in here, although may put additional pictures in HONGZ, I included the one K-Line NH Car I have.  I am modeling Main Line Steam so really Pre-McGinnis but couldn't pass up the price and challenge to "fix it".

I bought the K-Line off of a site, where they keep dropping the price until it sells.  Think I had just finished watching a Charlie Brown Christmas when I bought it.  Paid under $40, not including my labor to "restore it".  Biggest Challenge was the glue glob on the end which was mentioned in the listing.  "You know Linus it really isn't such a bad little car after all!"  Last Picture is "before".

I sold my NIB MTH PS1 version to someone here on the forum. I had grown tired of converting stuff to 2 rail. It was beautiful and I missed it the second it left. I said I'd buy another someday but that probably won't happen. I passed on an old Lionel 2 rail version at Grzyboski's and regretted that too. I can't have them all.

Thanks to all who contributed here so far.

@Engineer-Joe posted:

I sold my NIB MTH PS1 version ... I passed on an old Lionel 2 rail version at Grzyboski's and regretted that too. I can't have them all.

Lionel made a 2-rail version of the T1? Do tell!

I doubt Lionel actually built a 2-rail version; probably somebody else's custom conversion.

Chuck