The "brushless" motor was actually an induction stepping motor with an 8-pole rotor and a 9-pole field. (I counted the number of motor leads when I saw the one at York). The rotational speed is determined by the frequency of the power fed to the motor. As you suggested, the speed control would have been quite precise.
It was about the size of a Pulmor motor without the commutator. I assumed the gear arrangement would have been the same, and the starting torque about the same. Using this information I was able to determine the frequency range used, and graph the motor response.
As it happened, the frequency was sufficiently high that the inductance of the motor windings limited the amount of current that the motor could draw, in more or less inverse proportion to the frequency applied, and thus to the speed. This relationship graphed as being quite linear. Thus this motor would have had the same limitation as a diesel-powered prototype.
I actually liked this concept, because long trains or high speeds would require multiple units, just as in the prototype. Realism at its best! Alas, Lionel apparently had intended it for some flagship model of a large UP unit with 4-axle trucks and cast frames... The discovery that two of these motors would have to be stacked vertically on each shaft to move this behemoth apparently did not sit too well with the bookkeepers, I think. At least those were the rumors at the time. This engine may have been involved in the patenting of a differential mounted in the truck, possibly related to the multiple motor problem.
--Frank