Size of Lion Chief Plus Engines?

Mike, none of the LionChief diesels are scale, except the camelback.   The FTs are close to scale, I understand.

It depends what you mean by "scale." Acceptable to a scale modeler? No. 1:48? Pretty close.

Full disclosure: I do not have one of these. But you can tell just by looking at the picture that the NW 2, GP 7, and RS 3 are based (respectively) on postwar, MPC, and LTI tooling. These three will be roughly scale size, though without the scale detailing that scale modelers would demand, of course. The GP 7 and RS 3 will also have the usual vices of "traditional" diesels: stamped steel frame, big gap above the pilot, rides too high. The FT is based on newer tooling, and it, too, is about scale size. My brother has a non-LC version, and it is just a hair smaller than an F 3, which is accurate, as I understand; it is a pretty good looking engine, though all the detail is molded in.

I am pretty sure that none of the steamers are scale size, with the exception of the camelback. I am certain that that uses the same tooling as early 2000s scale camelback in my father's collection. That was a well-detailed engine, for its time.

The Hall class steam engines are scale. 

I've read the LC+ A5 0-4-0 is made from the old K-Line tooling and should be very near scale sized.  As far as diesels, as was surprised the RS-3 was nearly the same size as my Atlas RS-1.  Just a bit smaller.

I have the camelback, it's scale sized.  I'm led to believe, as Ron states, the A5 will also be scale sized.

As mentioned above, the RS-3 is the LTI tooling.  The LionChief RS-3 is a real cheapie, with a single motor, plastic frame and plastic trucks, while the LionChief Plus RS-3 has a stamped metal frame, die-cast trucks and pilots, and two motors. 

The LionChief Plus GP-7's are Post War tooling, and feature die-cast trucks and pilots, two motors, and a stamped metal frame.

The FT's have hidden stamped-metal frames, die-cast trucks and pilots and twin motors.

The "Pacifics" use up-graded Post War 2055 Baby Hudson tools. 

The Mikados are the Baby Mikes of the current era, and are actually scaled down when compared to the "Pacifics".

The Camelbacks are very close to scale.

Jon

I believe the LionChief Plus Hudsons are the Baby Hudson which was newly tooled around 1998/1999.

Guns,

   Where did you purchase the LC+ Scale Phily/Reading Camel Back, I would like to purchase one myself, and what did you have to pay for it.

PCRR/Dave

I got the Camelback at Henning's Trains, I don't know if they have any more or not.  There was one in the display case a couple weeks ago.

I just purchased a LC+ Philly/Reading Camelback from Mario's Trains on Ebay for $299.95 plus frt.  I believe he has posted another.  BTW it's beautiful. Wish Lionel would do more scale or darn near scale in LC+

Billy Bassoon posted:

I just purchased a LC+ Philly/Reading Camelback from Mario's Trains on Ebay for $299.95 plus frt.  I believe he has posted another.  BTW it's beautiful. Wish Lionel would do more scale or darn near scale in LC+

Nice. Mario's has some good deals on Lion Chief + stuff (among other things).

His shop is a little bit of a hike for me, but doable for a Saturday jaunt. I ‘ve been thinking about heading over there one weekend to check out the store.

Ken-Oscale posted:

Mike, none of the LionChief diesels are scale, except the camelback.   The FTs are close to scale, I understand.

Not exactly true, actually. The steamers are smaller than scale, other than the A5 and the Camelback, which are scale. The diesels are also scale, size-wise. The rectifiers are shorter than scale. The diesels, namely the GP engines, RS-3 engines, NW switchers and FTs, are "traditional" Lionel bodies; while they may not have all the small scale detail parts, size-wise they are the same length, etc. as scale engines. Actually, if they're running by on a layout, you have to look fairly close to tell them apart from the scale ones.

Breezinup, I did not include the A5 0-4-0, as it is not yet available, AND it is describe as "scale proportioned", which is different from "scale" - perhaps it is near-scale or semi-scale.

Interesting that you say some diesels are scale in size and proportion, minus some details.   I did not realize that!   Scale-size diesels that handle O-36 and O-27.

What do we call these, as "traditional" can include locos with no prototype and not at all scale-size, so is not a great classification.   Should we use Lionel's classification as "Scale-Proportioned"?  

nickaix posted:

The GP 7 and RS 3 will also have the usual vices of "traditional" diesels: stamped steel frame, big gap above the pilot, rides too high.

Not correct. Actually, these engines ride very well, low and with no gap. Similar to the newer TMCC Geeps built in the late 90s and on, with the scale fuel tanks. No scale engine I have rides any lower; it couldn't, really.  

Ken-Oscale posted:

Interesting that you say some diesels are scale in size and proportion, minus some details.   I did not realize that!   Scale-size diesels that handle O-36 and O-27.

What do we call these, as "traditional" can include locos with no prototype and not at all scale-size, so is not a great classification.   Should we use Lionel's classification as "Scale-Proportioned"?  

Yes, same size on a number of the diesels. Obviously Lionel did some so-called "traditional" engines smaller than scale over the years, but not all of them. You can hold up a Postwar Geep next to a scale one, for example, and they're exactly the same size. Pretty well known, but it's amazing how many folks aren't aware of this. Maybe "scale proportioned" is a apt phrase.

The NW-2 is a scale-sized loco. The LC steamers vary - Camelback is 1:48; the LC Pacific is compressed but pretty much scale-girthed. It could live in the scale world.

The Lionel FT's are 1:48, though they have a reputation of not being. I bought an older TMCC AA set and measured them per plans in one of my reference books, and variance from scale is negligible, if any, as I recall (most models, even high-end ones, can vary a bit from dead-on scale dimensions). I believe that the real FT's were a bit shorter than the later F3's, which I think causes confusion.