2046 2056 Lionel Hudsons

Two different boiler castings.

2046 = NYC style boiler

2056 = Santa Fe style boiler, Elesco feedwater heater casting on smokebox front, illuminated class lights.

Sorry, can't help on exploded drawings.

Rusty

okay rusty Besides the looks

Are these Basically Identical and do they use the same tenders

Rusty is thinking of the 2055 Santa Fe type. The 2056 is a 2046 without magnetraction.

http://www.postwarlionel.com/c...in/postwar?ITEM=2056

http://www.postwarlionel.com/c...in/postwar?ITEM=2046

Interesting, even PostwarLionel has it wrong. The 2056 is not a Santa Fe type.

Pete

What Pete said...and while we're at it - the 646 is identical to the 2046, also w/magnetraction.  The 2056 was a 1952 one year only production, lacking magnetraction because of Korean War material shortages. 

Jim

Thanks guys I appreciate it

Know anyone who works on these old masterpieces and could maybe do a once over and clean up the 2046 needs some TLC after some run time it slows down and acts up a bit.

The 2056 was only produced in 1952.  Try the Greenburg's Repair and Operating Manual for Lionel Trains 1945-1969.  This is the 2056, don't have a diagram but picture should help.  Referred to as "Baby Hudson"  Great little engine.  

Trivia time:  Why a 3 digit number for one of these models 646, 2046 and 2056?

The 3 digit numbers were assigned to engines in O gauge sets.

The 4 digit numbers were assigned to engines in O27 sets.

Other examples:

685 - 2055

675 - 2035

671 - 2020

637 - 2037

...and others

...oops - Bill beat me by a minute!

Jim

quote:

Interesting, even PostwarLionel has it wrong. The 2056 is not a Santa Fe type.

The folks providing postwarLionel.com appreciate being informed when an error is found.

Ooops, got my 5's and 6's mixed up.  I was thinking of the 2065.

Sorry.

Rusty

Interesting comment "Besides the looks, are these basically identical?".  Maybe I need to look up 'identical' in the dictionary.

Earl

All six Santa Fe 4-6-4's were remarkable locomotives. They were built by Baldwin Locomotive Works in Philadelphia in 1937 (Nos. 3460-3465). The first was Santa Fe's first and only streamlined steam locomotive. She was nicknamed "Mae West" because of her curvy figure and also the "Blue Goose." All six had 310 lb. boiler presssure and 84" drivers (just 4" shorter than the diameter of their boilers), and force feed lubrication. They resembled condensed 4-8-4's rather than elongated 4-6-2's.

To accommodate 90-foot turntables, their tenders were tall and rectangular. They contained 20,000 gallons of water and 7,000 gallons of fuel oil. They were designed for service on moderate grades of the Eastern Lines between Chicago and La Junta, Colorado.

On December 12, 1937, No. 3461 completed a test run that is believed to be the longest ever by a steam locomotive in regular service. She arrived in Dearborn Street Chicago, with mail and express train No. 8, after a run of 2,227.3 miles from Los Angeles, California. This train consisted of a dynamometer car and 10 to 12 steel cars, a total trailing load of 737 to 939 tons. This run usually required four locomotives plus helpers.

No attempt was made for a speed record. The elapsed time was 53 hours, 40 minutes. About 4 hours 35 minutes were spent at stations en route, loading and unloading mail and express and cutting cars in and out . The running time was 49 hours, 5 minutes at an average speed of 45.4 mph. The highest speed was 90 mph.

They had Worthington feedwater heaters rather than Elesco with its prominent tank across the top of the smokebox front. The 685 in 1953 was an accurate model. Lionel added a smokebox front with an Elesco tank in 1954, probably to distinguish the 665/2065 from New York Central Hudsons 646/2046.

Lionel added an angular 6026W tender with a coal pile instead of a fuel tank. Some plain, boxy prewar (pre-World War II) tenders resembled a 3460 tender, but Lionel probably wanted a detailed tender that looked different from the streamlined Pennsylvania Railroad tender behind the NYC Hudsons and later steam turbines.

Lionel 685/665/646 small Hudsons require frequent oiling, especially a drop or two on  armature shafts, gear hubs and axles. When they "run dry" of lubricant they can slow down and screech. But they are easily taken apart and serviced. The armature needs an occasional cleaning, too. If brushes wear down or the brush springs get weak, replacing them will improve operation.

Earl I fell flat on that one didn't I

Me too!  

Jim

I recall reading or hearing that the Korean War was the cause of a metal shortage that kept magnetraction off of the 2056 - is that an urban legend or fact?

I mentioned that in my first post - that's the way I've always heard it. But, I'm not sure why it didn't affect the diesels which had magnetraction from the first 2343 in 1950 on without interruption.

Jim

Here's a nice 2056 obtained from a Forum member who had repainted it to recreate a real Hudson No. 5326 that his uncle was engineer on back then. He did a really nice job with it and had the 2426 Hudson tender to pair with it adding to the effect. It is a fine runner on our layout.

Looks nice sam

Appreciate all the replies

As noted the 646/2046/2056 are strong runners just requiring basic TLC from time to time.

These engines also have a MPC era companion, the 8600, the first engine of the

MPC era with magnetraction.

Back to your original question, how is it acting up after running for a while?

The motor may need cleaning and new brushes/brush springs.  G

Best way I have found to distinguish the ATSF from the NYC Hudson is to simply look at a photo of the real engine and then look at the model.  Each loco is a reasonably accurate - if compressed - model of the real one, and the differences are obvious, as in valve gear, boiler front, pilot deck, etc.  The Santa Fe with the added Elesco is just plain silly, however, as the loco could not have both systems.

The tenders are usually wrong, too. The NYC is most often seen with the PRR Turbine tender, even tho L. was making the proper NYC tank with the huge coal bunker and using it on even the little 2-4-2's.  The ATSF should have had a boxy oil tender, as all were oil fired.

quote:

He did a really nice job with it and had the 2426 Hudson tender to pair with it adding to the effect. It is a fine runner on our layout.

That tender must have cost more than the locomotive itself.

Here's another repainted 2056. Two 1666T tenders were spliced to represent a long, graceful Reading T-1 tender (26 tons; 19,000 gallons).

On Jim Policstro's question about diesels in 1952 having Magnetraction while steam did not: Supplies of the Alnico magnetic material were limited due to Korean War demands, so Lionel decided to devote their supply to the diesels and leave the steam engines without.

Martin

When It Runs for about 15 to 20 Minutes with A 3 Car Passenger Set from MTH it Starts to Slow down and continues this till it comes down to a Crawl. Take it off the Track and let it cool down and it runs fine for about 15 to 20 minutes and it does it again.

Thank you, Martin.

It makes sense considering that Lionel was trying to push the newly introduced diesels and wanted them to be at their best. 

Jim

This section from Olsen's Train Parts will give you exploded views and parts breakdowns of all postwar engines.

http://pictures.olsenstoy.com//searchcd2a.htm

thank you just what i needed it is great that all of you have come out to help me and i appreciate it very much

I believe they left the magnetraction off the steamers because the steamers had more weight over the drivers due to the diecast shells and could therefore pull better without the magnetraction.

I beleive the sets with 3 digit locomotives and 031 track were at the top of the price list, while the 4 digit locomotives and 027 track were the cheaper sets.  Probably made to compete with the Marx sets that came with 027 track and a lower price.

Can anybody verify my thinking?

Al 

Al,

Even though the 4 digit were O27 sets, they still weren't anywhere near the price of the inexpensive Marx sets.

Jim

Just thought I would mention that you can find, from time to time, 2056s that do have Magnetraction. I have one that is original, probably came from early production when Lionel still had 2046 parts. After all, they were only toys and not collectibles in 1952 and whatever parts that were on hand were used.  Both my 2046 and my 2056 run well with proper lubrication and maintenance.  Still a beautiful Alco inspired  locomotive with an NYC look that works with freight or passenger consists.

Even though the 4 digit were O27 sets, they still weren't anywhere near the price of the inexpensive Marx sets.

Jim, that is true and why I got a Marx set at Christmas in 1948.  And I still have that set.

Al

Me too, Al. It was years later that I realized my father considered the Marx set to be expendable, and I was allowed to really play with it. The Lionels came when I was a little older and were treated totally differently and given much more careful handling.

Jim

I just bought a 2056 at a train show. It has a 2-6-4 wheel arrangment and a 2046W tender. It runs OK but the tender shorts out the track from time to time. I plan on dismantaling it and cleaning it up, any tips?  I have old Marx engines but this and a 2020 S2 tubine I just got are the only old Lionels I have.

Isn't the 2046 casting the same as the 736 2-8-4 Berkshire casting?

A 2056 should be a 4-6-4.  I have both the PW and Conventional Classic done recently.