700E 5344 Scale Hudson

So what are you trying to say? I have a 1938 700E. I have no problems with it. It has a perfect casting, no warpage, it's not fragile, and it is numbered.

You got one of the better ones , a rare one at that .

 

I think the whole point of all of these discussions on the 1937 5344 is that after 77 years of exposure to different environmental and operating conditions, the cast zinc Metallurgy (which was not good to begin with) most likely is compromised. The locomotive may look good overall but cracks and deterioration in the frame and body may be within the metal and not necessarily visible on the surface  If you run or mishandle one of these rare 700E engines, the high value can be lost in a hurry. That is why collectors most always keep this prize as a shelf queen and seldom run this engine.

I'm in the process of restoring one, and it's true some are fragile I got mine in 

pieces, but it's coming along nicely. Will I run it after it's done a little but it will

when I find the tender will go on a shelf.

 

Tin 

I have had more problems with "zinc rot" on modern truck castings than my 700e which does get run on occasion.

No doubt there are solid 5344 engines. I believe it all comes down to the impurities in the casting run, the quality of the paint and the environment in which the engine was stored. If your 5344 is pristine it is indeed one of the rare few.

As for modern engines I am leery of anything made in China. We know little about their process and even less about what goes into their castings. IIRC, MTH had a problem with deteriorating truck frames a while back.

I had an engine with bad truck side frames (zinc rot) that was made in the late 1970's.

From what I have read, it is caused by impurities in the alloy.

I recently bought a K-line heavyweight passenger car online, and when I received it the truck castings had disintegrated while being shipped.

Tony R. - I just came across this post while searching for something else. You say " the ones made after 1939 are the ones with the stronger casting , Lionel didn't add as much Zinc to the metal mixture as the 1937 to 1939 Hudsons".

 

Pray tell, where did you learn this information (or misinformation)??

 

Dennis

I just serviced/repaired a Postwar 681 Turbine.  The frame casting is swelling and cracking.  It was binding up the drivers.  The apron no longer fits.

 

While I have seen this before on Turbines I believe it is rather unusual.

 

I do have a brand new, Service Station replacement 681 chassis with driver bushings.

 

I don't know if it is more valuable as a collectable piece for someone who collects Service Station tools and parts or for a diorama or simply use it as a replacement for a worn out chassis?

A couple of questions for John:

 

1 - Is it your 681?

2 - How is the condition of the rest of the 681?

 

If it is a customer's engine there would be no question in my mind - keep the chassis as a collectors item. 

The rest of the 681 would have to be a nice, original (not repainted) in order for me to use the chassis on my own loco.

 

Otherwise, I'd look for a good used one. Lots of people part out 681 turbines.

 

It is not that the chassis is of particular value - I'd put it's worth no higher than its parts value. It is an unusual item, and of interest to me.

 

I have an NOS grey 2023 chassis, in the original factory mailing box, in my collection. I wouldn't consider using it.

By the way, ZAMAC is about 95 percent zinc, 3.9-4.3 percent aluminum.
Check this Eastern Alloys web site for details.

CW, the 681 was a customers.  I did as you would have done.  I had a ruff 681 with a usable chassis.  I serviced the chassis and put the customers 681 boiler and cab and other miscilany on it.  Good to go.

Just curious, does your NOS 681 chassis have the rear sheet metal ladders/apron, and/or the "T" shaped front truck guide mounted?

 

When I wrote that I had a 2023 chassis, I meant that I had the die cast metal frame, not a complete running chassis with trucks, motor, etc.

I had one 1937 Hudson and two 1939 Hudson's back in the 90'. They all had were C7 with no zinc pest that I could see.

 

I parted out all three and when taken apart there was no signs of problems. 

 

The 90's were a great time to part out pre and post war locomotives, though I only dealt in c7 or better examples The business was great. 

CW, the chassis is just the bare frame-no apron or truck guides.  The only additional pieces on it are the eight main driver bushings and the two steel side frames for magnetraction.

John: thanks!

 

I think my 2023 frame bas the shell locks and ladders mounted. I have not looked at it in a while.

 

 

Yes you have the handle on it and man you have / had a lot of friends , no
matter what , the early casting of the 700E do contain more Zinc than the
later castings , do you agree ?. and the early castings are the ones to
crack and crumble more than the others , do you agree on this ?.

Tony





In a message dated 7/17/2014 3:58:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
alerts@hoop.la writes:

Yes the early 700E's are more prone to crack and sometimes crumble but believe me I have seen many others made later with some of the same problems. 

 

In saying that, I know a fellow who has a early 700E that is in perfect condition with no signs of zinc pest. 

Sorry Tony, but no I don't agree.

 

The problems that you see in the standard gauge parts, later in some Hudson's and later even in some postwar items appear visually to be the same - but they are different. For years some of the old crows would simply say - ahh zinkpest, which is lead contamination, and they wouldn't be saying it because they actually knew, but rather they were echoing what someone else had told them. Zinkpest originated in Europe, well be for the US began molding zinc, and yes in Europe they had a lot of lead contamination. Smelters in Europe were adding lead for elasticity rather than aluminum to reduce Zamak's tendency to be brittle. Lead, unfortunately tends to decompose or decay - which is what was their engineers referred to as Zinkpest.

 

By the time Lionel started molding products, zinc had already been refined to a 99.99% purity and plenty of documentation exists to support this. But let's define the three periods. During early prewar production (1929-1934) Zamak (not zamac) was only in its infancy so there were still a lot of impurities. More importantly though, mold practice in the US was not nearly as refined as it was in Europe. The issue of Zamak impurities was nearly resolved by the time the 700E was ready to be molded, but the actual molding practices including the construction of the molds was still in its infancy. Cutting to the chase here, when the 700E was being molded, there were a couple of issues. The most important was how the part was molded. Once the mold was shot, the operator would flood the exterior and then interior of the mold with water from a hose. The part would be removed, the mold would be closed and anther shot done - with this process repeated time and again. All the while, this flooding caused water H2O to be trapped in the mold. Without getting into the physics behind the problem, one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom. When Zamak is shot at 1200 degrees, the oxygen burns leaving behind the hydrogen, which is absorbed into the Zamak. You can see evidence of this by looking at some Hudson shells starting with the 700E and right through to the 773 and you'll see pimples on the surface of the shell. This is caused by several factors, but the three most important is the Zamak temperature during the shot was too cold, the mold was cold and the mold was wet and had not been blown dry.

 

When Zamak cools in cools from the exterior surfaces inward - hence when the Zamak is the right temperature the hydrogen tends to be trapped in the cooling layers, often where you see sharp corners like where the boiler meets the cab or the running boards meet the boiler. Hydrogen is not inert, it tries to expand, and when it does, fissures occur - followed by cracks and/or separation. This is why some parts (or engines for that matter) that are stored in cool locations tend to survive while those stored in hot and dry locations begin to crumble. Remember now, were talking about 50 or 60 years. The other major problem at Lionel began with Mario Caruso and his miserly ways - ordering workers to save the gates, runners, sprues and flash from prior runs and adding it back to the kettle rather than sending it out to a smelter for refining. This added contaminants to the mix. Lionel had the exact same problem during the 50's and 60's.

Tony,

 

I would like to better understand what you are saying. Zamac 5, in this country, meets the requirements of ASTM B86 and would be 3.5 to 4.3% Al, 0.75 to 1.25% Cu.,  and 0.03 to 0.06% Mag. The remainder would be 99.99% pure zinc. There are several allowable impurities, limited to no more than 0.004%. If there was an increase in the amount of zinc, it would make significant reductions of the alloying elements on a percentage basis.  The tools available to metallurgist today make determining the constituent mix of an alloy fairly easy, accurate and inexpensive.  I would hope someone with one of these deterioration locomotives would have the metal analyzed to determine exactly what the alloy composition is.

 

The other issue is that zinc and it alloys are it is a crystalline structures. This structure can change over time, especially at elevated temperatures. This change could have lots of impact on the metal including a loss of ductility.

 

Are you saying there was more metal in the dies, or that there was more zinc in the alloy?

 

Thanks for the additional information.  

Which ZAMAC did Lionel and other toy train manufacturers use?

I thought they used ZAMAC 3.

I'm saying that the 37 to 39 Scale Hudson's had more Zinc in the mixture
than the 40 's mixture , and remember once the mixture was made if it fell
within their guide lines , it was used , so not ever batch was the same ,
they were toys and production had to be met , they were in business to make
money so they couldn't reject every batch that's money out the window .

Tony


In a message dated 7/17/2014 6:15:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
alerts@hoop.la writes:

 

That would depend on what was being molded. Lionel used both Zamac 3 and 6.

Oh now it's us Italians fault that the mixture of too much Zinc was used ,
or is it the fact this was a company that made toys and with all companies
they have to make a profit , every batch of molten metal could not be 100
% perfect , bodies that were checked by inspectors , now remember these
inspectors were human not computer robots so if a few some what bad castings
got out well it happened my friend . And thank you Mr. Wizard on the
formulation of the Zinc mixtures , very good , thank you .

Tony


In a message dated 7/17/2014 5:48:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
alerts@hoop.la writes:

Actually the Italians had nothing to do with anything other than maybe Joshua's and Mario's tool factory in Italy.

 

quote:

That would depend on what was being molded. Lionel used both Zamac 3 and 6.

 

Dennis: I could not find anything on Zamac 6, perhaps it isn't made any longer?

 

Another question: I've always thought that the trucks on the Lionel electronic set had a copper tinge to them. I see that Zamac 2 has 3 percent copper. Did they use Zamac 2 for those trucks, perhaps for better conductivity?

As bad as the legal profession is in terms of BS, this thread is worse.  At least in the legal profession, facts in the record generally have to come from either testimony of those with direct knowledge (and with the other side having an opportunity to examine) and claims about the law have to be cited to a competent authority.  Here we have folks going on, back and forth in a pointless ****ing contest, and really the honest truth is no one knows who is correct.  That's not to say anyone is lying, but rather that the statements are unsupported, and as such they are not reliable.  But keep it up, the internet is great for showing off to a bunch of complete strangers with nothing better to do how much you know.  Meanwhile, those of us who actually enjoy the O gauge hobby, instead of showing off about how much we know, are going to go back to enjoying the trains.  My kids want to run ours before they head off to bed . . . .

 

Thank You Perry Manson for the Legal info .

Tony


In a message dated 7/17/2014 7:39:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
alerts@hoop.la writes:

During the 1930's through 1945 Lionel used Zamak #2, #3 and #6. Normally #2 and #3 is used for small parts, while #6 is used for items with larger surface areas and intricate shapes. Todays Zamak #5 is the #6 of the late 30's and early 40's.

Some of us want to learn the reasons for the things that happen, while others enjoy sharing what they have learned. Some, on the other hand, merely intrude because the have no knowledge to share nor do they wish to learn anything. Just a sign of the times.

Thank you again.

 

I am interested in how our toy trains were manufactured, and the reasons the companies did things.
I've learned a great deal that goes well beyond trains due to this hobby.
I am still learning.

Dennis, I read all your posts.  You are a wealth of information on the Lionel Corp.  I hope you are working on a book.

Thanks John. I've thought about it but time is not on my side.

 

Totally agree.  Dennis in the past has shown to have a sizable wealth of knowledge regarding Lionel and its production history, particularly regarding the 700e Hudson.