First Look at Lionel’s Strasburg #90

That's going to be a beautiful set with the coaches.

Thanks for sharing the pix.

I have the coaches, this one is on order!

Looks great! I preordered the 1990’s version, can’t wait to get it!! 😁

The boiler looks more boxy and U shaped than I anticipated just after the smoke box, I hope they improve on that. Either way I am glad I pre-ordered.

Can you take some more pictures of the lionel booth especially the acela.

Thanks

James

@SGP posted:

The boiler looks more boxy and U shaped than I anticipated just after the smoke box, I hope they improve on that. Either way I am glad I pre-ordered.

As long as folks want more stuff crammed into a small boiler, they're going to have to accept the U shape.

Rusty

Yep, two smoke units, the Legacy RCMC, etc., you just get what you see.

Looks great!! I'm glad I ordered one!

Is this the dreaded idler gear drive system?

@rplst8 posted:

Is this the dreaded idler gear drive system?

Oh my. Looks like Lionel added a second set of extra gears to that gearbox. No thanks.

Everything else just has one extra shaft with bushing in the chassis.

This started showing up in second gen Legacy stuff with the Canon motors. My first gen Pittman powered locos have the traditional worm and axle gear setup.

I wonder if these extra gears are compensating for something the newer Canon (and Mabuchis in the smaller stuff ) cannot overcome in order to achieve smooth slower speeds?

I'll leave that for Pat and Lou to discuss.

If Lionel reigned in the side play, tightened the rotational tolerances a bit ,and if roller bearings in the chassis were practical I would be less apprehensive.

I'm going to be very unhappy if this is like the Legacy K-4!   I've gotten really proficient at ripping all the stuff off the K-4 chassis to install it on a new drive block!  I keep an extra new K-4 drive block in stock it's happened so often!

I can't wait to see Dave demo this!

I noticed that the drive wheels looked a little small so I took a tape measure to them and measured them. The sample has a driver diameter of 1” and according to the prototype, the scale proportions should have drivers of 1.167 inches. Has anyone else noticed this?

@M J Breen posted:

The prototype sample of Lionel’s strasburg 2-10-0 #90 is on display at the Big E train show today - my understanding is this is NOT a preproduction model, just a prototype for engineering purposes - photos are posted for your enjoyment

Looking at these photos, I can see why it’s priced the way it is.  Simply beautiful. I don’t have a layout that would accommodate this size of locomotive and the cars so I can’t get one…but I can dream.

@Ricky S posted:

I noticed that the drive wheels looked a little small so I took a tape measure to them and measured them. The sample has a driver diameter of 1” and according to the prototype, the scale proportions should have drivers of 1.167 inches. Has anyone else noticed this?

I have also thought this.
Since I, and many of you, have stood next to the real engine in Strasburg, I always thought the drivers in the catalog photos and now in real photos seemed a bit small. Is this a deal breaker for me, no, but would be a nice fix if they are truly smaller. 

I do believe this is going to be a great locomotive and I can’t wait to get my hands on the 2000s version I ordered.

@rplst8 posted:

Is this the dreaded idler gear drive system?

What I hope is Lionel designed the chassis to easily access the gears like they did the H10. From what I’ve seen so far, the model is looking fantastic, but I hope it matches performance wise when all said and done.

I think it will turn out ok. I agree with all of you that it is a beautiful engine and I look forward to seeing the final products.

@Ricky S posted:

I noticed that the drive wheels looked a little small so I took a tape measure to them and measured them. The sample has a driver diameter of 1” and according to the prototype, the scale proportions should have drivers of 1.167 inches. Has anyone else noticed this?

This was mentioned when the first drawings showed up in a thread about this locomotive.

Did they add a swinging bell to this or am I imagining things?

I've heard nothing about a swinging bell, and I expect the answer will be no.

I had thought that when Ryan and Dave did their YouTube show on that catalog with the Strasburg 90 they said that the engine body was so narrow that some things couldn’t be added.  With Whistle Steam and the standard smoke, any other steam (like cylinder steam) and the bell would not fit.

This looks like a very nicely detailed engine.

I don't understand the thought that because the drivers seem to be 0.167 inches smaller using a tape measure (for heavens sake) could be a deal breaker.   

You cannot tell me he can measure with any degree of accuracy using a tape measure up against the model to less than 1/16".   I'll give him +/- 1/16 at best but not to within 1/64's of an inch.

Besides, where is it stated that this is an "exact" replica of the engine in Strasburg?  After all these are 3 Rail models and I give Lionel a great deal of credit for the details they've added to it.

Also could someone please explain the issue with the proposed prototype drive system as I'm not aware of what the concerns may be?

@Allegheny posted:

Also could someone please explain the issue with the proposed prototype drive system as I'm not aware of what the concerns may be?

The Legacy K-4 with a similar drive system has had many reliability issues.  I've replaced a few of the drive blocks on those because you can't get into the gears to fix anything without pulling wheels, etc.  It's been more cost effective for me to replace the drive block as long as they're available rather than all the labor to attempt a fix of the old one.

@Allegheny posted:

This looks like a very nicely detailed engine.

I don't understand the thought that because the drivers seem to be 0.167 inches smaller using a tape measure (for heavens sake) could be a deal breaker.   

You cannot tell me he can measure with any degree of accuracy using a tape measure up against the model to less than 1/16 of an inch up against a model.   I'll give him +/- 1/16 at best but not to within 1/64's of an inch.

Besides, where is it stated that this is an "exact" replica of the engine in Strasburg?  After all these are 3 Rail models and I give Lionel a great deal of credit for the details they've added to it.

Also could someone please explain the issue with the proposed prototype drive system as I'm not aware of what the concerns may be?

Visually, the drivers look undersized to me.  Whether or not that's a deal breaker is up to the individual.

I suspect the slightly undersized drivers will be less noticeable on a painted model.

However, what really draws my eye is the rods, both with the model and catalog renderings.  Comparing the model with prototype photo's, the model's rods look "clunky" to me.  Even on this old brass HO model, the rods look more delicate.

Lionel's been able to go out and measure the prototype, they're not working off some grainy old photograph.  Lionel keeps talking on how they've been working with Strasburg to make this model as accurate as possible.  With that and for $1899.99, should not the customer expect a higher level of accuracy?

Rusty

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

The Legacy K-4 with a similar drive system has had many reliability issues.  I've replaced a few of the drive blocks on those because you can't get into the gears to fix anything without pulling wheels, etc.  It's been more cost effective for me to replace the drive block as long as they're available rather than all the labor to attempt a fix of the old one.

Dear GJR,

Thank you for the explanation as it is greatly appreciated.   I hadn't heard that there was a reliability problem with that design.

The looks of the unpainted brass version is a killer model.  Simply beautiful.

@Allegheny posted:

This looks like a very nicely detailed engine.

I don't understand the thought that because the drivers seem to be 0.167 inches smaller using a tape measure (for heavens sake) could be a deal breaker.   

You cannot tell me he can measure with any degree of accuracy using a tape measure up against the model to less than 1/16 of an inch up against a model.   I'll give him +/- 1/16 at best but not to within 1/64's of an inch.

Besides, where is it stated that this is an "exact" replica of the engine in Strasburg?  After all these are 3 Rail models and I give Lionel a great deal of credit for the details they've added to it.

Also could someone please explain the issue with the proposed prototype drive system as I'm not aware of what the concerns may be?

I am not sure that this was a criticism as it was an observation.  Trust me, I was in no way trying to criticize Lionel here.  I have been waiting for this locomotive for years, and I ordered my engine as soon as I was able to get to my LHS.

I think it was just something that was noticed, and I know I was curious if it was true.

Dear Carl,

No need to justify your thoughts to me.

You are welcome to criticize any manufacturer that doesn't meet your standards on this wonderful forum. 

Unfortunately the engineer in me can't allow criticism when it comes to measurements taken with inaccurate device like a tape measure to that say of a caliper.   

As noted these are 3 Rail models and we must expect that they will contain many inaccuracies within them.   All we can do as the buying public is determine if the number of inaccuracies out ways our tolerance level.   

If it does, we do not purchase the model.

If it does not we are as happy as a pig in the mud!

I would like to hear the reasoning for the wheels being the wrong size, that seems to be a pretty basic measurement.

@Allegheny posted:

Dear GJR,

Thank you for the explanation as it is greatly appreciated.   I hadn't heard that there was a reliability problem with that design.

The looks of the unpainted brass version is a killer model.  Simply beautiful.

That gearbox is in pretty much every Lionel steamer these days, including the large articulateds. Whatever the issue with the K4 was, with mine it looked like defective( too soft) bushings in the chassis. Hopefully it has been resolved as I've not seen gearbox complaints on any other models"yet".

The other issue is the excessive side play in the design. I posted a video showing how the gear faces can make less than 50% contact because there is too much sliding back and forth. Maybe Lionel has already addressed this as well.

The final issue is grease making it to all of the gears from the grease screw. Adding grease sparingly won't won't do it. Two gears ride on the intermediate shaft so the worm has no direct connection to the bottom gear.

If John has seen no other models aside from the k4 affected. Maybe the immediate failure occuring in the k4 has been solved. I'm curious as to where these gearboxes will be in 10 years from now.

Having said all that. These look like a nice model, and I'm looking forward to seeing photos and videos from folks when they arrive.

Yeah, that was a great video you made Rick showing what is a completely crazy way to slap together a gearbox. Just seeing the side play in the gearing is just nuts. I can imagine clocks becoming unsprung as it were like how that is portrayed in cartoon, just nuts. Let's hope that #90 doesn't have any issues with anything including gearing.

@Rusty Traque posted:

Visually, the drivers look undersized to me.  Whether or not that's a deal breaker is up to the individual.

I suspect the slightly undersized drivers will be less noticeable on a painted model.

However, what really draws my eye is the rods, both with the model and catalog renderings.  Comparing the model with prototype photo's, the model's rods look "clunky" to me.  Even on this old brass HO model, the rods look more delicate.

Lionel's been able to go out and measure the prototype, they're not working off some grainy old photograph.  Lionel keeps talking on how they've been working with Strasburg to make this model as accurate as possible.  With that and for $1899.99, should not the customer expect a higher level of accuracy?

Rusty

Rusty,

You have a very good argument that for $1899.99 one would expect a more exacting model.   

By nature I do not consider myself as a rivet counter because I intrinsically understand the issues that most manufacturers face when producing a product.   

I understand the give and take at times for the lack of details vs. when they are an inaccurate size.

Having been involved with manufacturing and designing products there are many factors which come into play that dictate the final out come of the product.

In the case of the rods, we don't know what it would cost to make a correctly sized set vs. using something they already have available to them.   I imagine the costs are staggering and it may also be that that component is only usable for that model only as it can't be retrofitted for another similar type of engine.

Single use components are extremely hard to justify and only drive up the final cost of the model.

I'm certain that the engineers at Lionel must have discussed the pro's vs. con's of the rod design since it is one of the major features of a steam engine.

For myself, when it comes to modeling, close is good enough vs. not having a model manufactured at all.

@RickO posted:

If John has seen no other models aside from the k4 affected. Maybe the immediate failure occuring in the k4 has been solved. I'm curious as to where these gearboxes will be in 10 years from now.

I've only had that particular issue with the Legacy K-4, it seems that "may" be a unique case.  However, I'll believe it when I see some running time.

@Rusty Traque posted:

Visually, the drivers look undersized to me.  Whether or not that's a deal breaker is up to the individual.

I suspect the slightly undersized drivers will be less noticeable on a painted model.

However, what really draws my eye is the rods, both with the model and catalog renderings.  Comparing the model with prototype photo's, the model's rods look "clunky" to me.  Even on this old brass HO model, the rods look more delicate.

Lionel's been able to go out and measure the prototype, they're not working off some grainy old photograph.  Lionel keeps talking on how they've been working with Strasburg to make this model as accurate as possible.  With that and for $1899.99, should not the customer expect a higher level of accuracy?

Rusty

I think the drivers look even smaller due to the different color of the tires/rims on the prototype compared to the middle of the wheel.  That said, that HO brass version you linked is a true thing of beauty.

All three rail drivers have smaller tires than their two rail counterparts. Flange size is the reason.

Pete

@Norton posted:

All three rail drivers have smaller tires than their two rail counterparts. Flange size is the reason.

Smaller in what dimension?  And what does the flange have to do with it?  Understood that the flange is larger, but if anything I think that would cause the tires to be both larger in overall circumference and width.

The flange diameter determines wheel diameter. If the prototype has 60” wheels the flange diameter is 1.250” whether its two rail or three rail. Its the tire that get reduced. Not to split hairs. This is just an example. I understand 60” drivers refer to tire diameter.
Try putting two rail wheels and three rail wheels with 60” tire diameter on the same engine with the same axle spacing. Three rails wheels with big flanges simply won’t fit unless you increase the axle spacing to a non prototypical dimension.

Pete

@Norton posted:

The flange diameter determines wheel diameter. If the prototype has 60” wheels the flange diameter is 1.250” whether its two rail or three rail. Its the tire that get reduced. Not to split hairs. This is just an example. I understand 60” drivers refer to tire diameter.
Try putting two rail wheels and three rail wheels with 60” tire diameter on the same engine with the same axle spacing. Three rails wheels with big flanges simply won’t fit unless you increase the axle spacing to a non prototypical dimension.

Pete

Admittedly I've never compared them side-by-side.  What you say makes sense if all drivers are flanged, but the center drivers on 3-rail models are typically always flangeless.  The flanges may still be too large for that to be enough for the prototype, but I thought 2-rail flanges were typically larger than the prototype as well, just not by as much.

2 rail 5 foot gauge wheels do have larger flanges per NMRA standard. Proto 48 are supposed to be scale. Its true a flanged wheel would fit next to an blind wheel in most cases but two flanged wheels won’t.
Currently three railing a two rail engine. The big flanges requiring a lot of modifications to fit and its only because there is a blind driver between them that they do. Here is a picture showing the drivers. I think you can see if the center driver was flanged it would hit the other two.

One reason the middle wheels on Lionel’s Strasburg 90 look so small is the lack of flanges and black frame paint.

Pere

@Norton posted:

One reason the middle wheels on Lionel’s Strasburg 90 look so small is the lack of flanges and black frame paint.

However, there was a post about someone measuring the sample at the Big-E show and saying the wheels were not scale sized to the prototype, I think that's the point being made about this particular model.