Is the 225E prewar locomotive scale or traditional?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
There was no such thing as scale in prewar. Are you asking if it was O27 or O?
It was O and it was not scale, but more scale - like. You could reasonably call it a traditional item in my opinion. It was among the first all diecast steamers Lionel made from 1938-42. Btw, there were full scale items made prior to WWII, the 700E comes to mind. I understand that many of todays scale modelers would scoff at that comment, but it is accurate as the 700E was considered one of the better scale models available for many years.
It is smaller than a 260e and meant for the smaller cars like the 650 series or the 1600 litho cars.
Dennis Holler posted:It was O and it was not scale, but more scale - like. You could reasonably call it a traditional item in my opinion. It was among the first all diecast steamers Lionel made from 1938-42. Btw, there were full scale items made prior to WWII, the 700E comes to mind. I understand that many of todays scale modelers would scoff at that comment, but it is accurate as the 700E was considered one of the better scale models available for many years.
Right, but as you indicate, even the 700e was not scale by today's standards or what Lionel and MTH mean by the term. That said, tinplate is great, and it is just about trying to match the right rolling stock so it doesn't look too odd and so the coupler heights work. While 650 series cars and 1600 litho are clearly different, I see folks running them together and having fun.
I have the 1939 anniversary issue, 700e and freight set, running on solid black track. It seems that the freight cars are scale with small knuckle couplings. Can they be adapted to the larger couplings on my 1947 set? Charlie
chaz389 posted:Is the 225E prewar locomotive scale or traditional?
I doubt it's fully scale. The beauty of this engine is that it runs like a swiss watch. Great design and craftsmanship went into building this model.
Mine is almost 80 years old and it can pull a train at almost any speed. Who needs computers?
George S posted:Dennis Holler posted:It was O and it was not scale, but more scale - like. You could reasonably call it a traditional item in my opinion. It was among the first all diecast steamers Lionel made from 1938-42. Btw, there were full scale items made prior to WWII, the 700E comes to mind. I understand that many of todays scale modelers would scoff at that comment, but it is accurate as the 700E was considered one of the better scale models available for many years.
Right, but as you indicate, even the 700e was not scale by today's standards or what Lionel and MTH mean by the term. That said, tinplate is great, and it is just about trying to match the right rolling stock so it doesn't look too odd and so the coupler heights work. While 650 series cars and 1600 litho are clearly different, I see folks running them together and having fun.
I would state it as the loco is scale in dimensions yet not including the level of detail that is now associated with a "scale" loco. You or I could find dimensions or detail that is off or missing or what ever in just about any of todays "scale" locos short of maybe a Kohs Hudson. Forgive me, I don't mean to seem argumentative, but maybe we are looking at it a different way. Also, the 700E was only sold with either the "scale" 2900 freight cars or the Rail chief passenger cars which were admittedly not scale. The 763E was considered to be semi scale by Lionel and it was missing a good deal of detail compared to the 700E although used the same components otherwise. It was, as you suggest, sold with tinplate cars, 2615 passenger cars and 2800 freight cars. Don't confuse the 224E,225E,226E engine's with the 700E and 763E. They are two different ballgames where the latter three were all what you would call traditional sized locos but with (for the time) much greater detail. All of them were great engine's and I think it is fair to say that we all have a soft spot for them. I also agree, if you can get em coupled together, run em and have fun!
Also, the 700E was only sold with either the "scale" 2900 freight cars or the Rail chief passenger cars which were admittedly not scale.
Wouldn't the 700E been sold with the 700 series scale freight cars, which had scale couplers and trucks?
The 2900 series cars had tinplate trucks. There was a 226E set that came with the 2900 series boxcar, tank, and caboose.
As others have posted, in it's day, the Lionel 700E was considered a very well detailed, scale model. Look at what other companies were offering.
80 years from now, people will be disparaging todays "scale" offerings. 
I have the 224, 225 and 225E
I couldn't tell you the difference between the two - they look alike to me. Anybody know what's different?
The 225 and 225E are BIG beefy locos - the boiler girth looks the same as my 773 - just not as long.
The 224 is just a touch shorter than the 225s - about half inch...and less girth to the boiler...basically identical to a 1666.
I was just looking at the original Lionel parts lists for the 226E. Apparently the 225E and 226E shared the same motor assembly and boiler front. The 225E is a 2-6-2 with a feed water heater. The 226E is a 2-6-4 with a firebox light.
Attachments
Images (3)
C W Burfle posted:Also, the 700E was only sold with either the "scale" 2900 freight cars or the Rail chief passenger cars which were admittedly not scale.
Wouldn't the 700E been sold with the 700 series scale freight cars, which had scale couplers and trucks?
The 2900 series cars had tinplate trucks. There was a 226E set that came with the 2900 series boxcar, tank, and caboose.
As others have posted, in it's day, the Lionel 700E was considered a very well detailed, scale model. Look at what other companies were offering.
80 years from now, people will be disparaging todays "scale" offerings.
Yes, you are correct, 2900 cars were the 700 cars with tinplate trucks. I got ahead of myself. Thanks for getting that out there.
Dennis Holler posted:George S posted:Dennis Holler posted:It was O and it was not scale, but more scale - like. You could reasonably call it a traditional item in my opinion. It was among the first all diecast steamers Lionel made from 1938-42. Btw, there were full scale items made prior to WWII, the 700E comes to mind. I understand that many of todays scale modelers would scoff at that comment, but it is accurate as the 700E was considered one of the better scale models available for many years.
Right, but as you indicate, even the 700e was not scale by today's standards or what Lionel and MTH mean by the term. That said, tinplate is great, and it is just about trying to match the right rolling stock so it doesn't look too odd and so the coupler heights work. While 650 series cars and 1600 litho are clearly different, I see folks running them together and having fun.
I would state it as the loco is scale in dimensions yet not including the level of detail that is now associated with a "scale" loco. You or I could find dimensions or detail that is off or missing or what ever in just about any of todays "scale" locos short of maybe a Kohs Hudson. Forgive me, I don't mean to seem argumentative, but maybe we are looking at it a different way. Also, the 700E was only sold with either the "scale" 2900 freight cars or the Rail chief passenger cars which were admittedly not scale. The 763E was considered to be semi scale by Lionel and it was missing a good deal of detail compared to the 700E although used the same components otherwise. It was, as you suggest, sold with tinplate cars, 2615 passenger cars and 2800 freight cars. Don't confuse the 224E,225E,226E engine's with the 700E and 763E. They are two different ballgames where the latter three were all what you would call traditional sized locos but with (for the time) much greater detail. All of them were great engine's and I think it is fair to say that we all have a soft spot for them. I also agree, if you can get em coupled together, run em and have fun!
Thank you for the clarification. I didn't mean to disparage the 700e. Greenberg says the 700e Hudson is exactly 1/48 scale in size to NMRA standards.
In today's world of scale models, I have a harder time telling the difference between scale and not. I am not much of a rivet counter. There are clearly two different sizes of O gauge rolling stock today. In prewar times, there was more variety. coupler heights and types seem to be the biggest limitation, although preference on looks and trucks come into play as well. This is where we could use a compatibility guide. I heard the Greenberg Prewar Sets book has a good reference, but I haven't been able to get my hands on one.
That makes me wonder about the original OP question. Why was it asked as "scale" vs "traditional"? What are you interested in pulling with it?
George
And the 225 and 226 carried over into post war, 226 became Berkshire and 225 the 675, both with mods to the molds. These steamers are great runners but were labor intense on their assembly. Later locos: 2046, 2056, 746, etc much easier to remove motor as a unit, some without need to detach running gear
The 225E was the cheaper version of the 226E and was introduced a year or two before the even cheaper 224E. Yes, indeed the 225E had many of the features of the 226E including the opening smokebox door that some times doesn't want to close. If you view it from the left side you see far more casting detail than on the 224E. It is a heavy locomotive and has much greater pulling power than the 224E. It took me many many years before I acquired all 3, with the 224E being bought for me in 1939 and the other two purchased(or swapped for) over 74 years later.
As for scale. If I recall correctly the PRR had two 2-6-2s and the 225E by coincidence is about scale length. But Lionel certainly didn't market it as such. Unfortunately we are down in Florida and my library is back in Boston.
Lew
Above:
"I was just looking at the original Lionel parts lists for the 226E. Apparently the 225E and 226E shared the same motor assembly and boiler front. The 225E is a 2-6-2 with a feed water heater. The 226E is a 2-6-4 with a firebox light."
All 3 of those boiler castings were different; the boiler fronts were similar, NYC-inspired fronts, but the 224E had a different (cheaper) version - note headlight. I am not sure that all the motor units were the same - are the apparently larger drivers on the 224E due to a wheel difference or a casting proportion difference?
A few months ago I bought a 1666, which uses the same boiler casting as the 224E above, but looks much better because it has smaller drivers by way of the same motor unit used on the "Dreyfuss" 221 (I think). I'm more of a scaley-hi-trailer, but I always though that these early die-cast Lionel steamers were some of the most handsome and potentially realistic locos that the old Lionel Corp ever made - better tool-and-die work than most 1950's Lionel steamers (except the 2055, etc., small Hudson). The 2-6-4 226E is a sharper piece than the PW 2-8-4 Berk.
Interesting post, with some insightful comments about the quality of the tool and die work and proportions on the 224E and the looks of the 226.
Have tried to get Lionel to reissue a version of the 226, but it does not fit their current marketing direction. Now that I think of it, how about a LionChief Plus version of the 226. Would have to change the Berk tooling, which would militate against a production decision, but just think of it with some reissued Irvington cars! Nostalgia in a cost efficient, modern wrapping. Neat.
Ed Boyle
Couldn't you make/simulate a 226 by modifying a postwar 2046, 2056, or 646?
Couldn't you make/simulate a 226 by modifying a postwar 2046, 2056, or 646?
The boiler casting of the 226 was modified to make the 726 / 736 / 2046 / 2056 / 646.
Most noticeable was the rearrangement of the domes.
If they made a new die for the 226, then they could also make an engine that looks like an early 726. But is there a market?
the boiler fronts were similar
The 225E and 226E both used the same boiler front : 226E-68.
The 224E did not have a separate boiler front.
Better off using the PW style Berk tooling as a starting point. Could work very well.
Ed Boyle
Better off using the PW style Berk tooling as a starting point. Could work very well.
And then convert it back?
