Lionel 2022 Volume 2 Strasburg Mogul

Good Luck. Your asking them to change the Pilot to a custom one which will drive up the cost. I can see the spoked pilot wheel changeout though.

I agree it won’t happen but way more than the steps are wrong. Lionel has used spoke wheels on some Moguls in the past. TMCC CN Mogul 86 came with spoke wheels and steps. I think Lionel selected the wrong version for their illustration.

Pete

Thanks for the info. You are correct that The CN mogul has steps but the classification lights are on the boiler. When I looked at the parts breakdown for the TMCC versions, the pilot is a separate piece. So they could just switch out the pilot with the steps for the pilot without steps.

I started to modify my TMCC Mogul. Class lights are next. It would be great if Lionel uses the correct cylinders but I doubt that will happen. To me thats the biggest error.

Pete

The phrase “not even close” comes to mind. The model pictured is the same Whyte notation as Strasburg 89 but that’s about it.

The model pictured is based on a prototype that had rotary valves. Strasburg 89 is a CNR class E-10-a which was converted from an E-8 around 1913. At that time it got piston valves installed.

There are numerous other differences, most obvious of which is the length of the wheelbase.

Have Dave & Ryan done their little video spew about the new catalog yet?…..I know they usually stream live questions about products while they’re live, …..sounds like a bunch of good questions to shoot to them. Maybe they can make at least the easier changes and get it closer to what y’all want??…….

Pat

I understand it’s not an accurate model, but I thought changing a few parts that are tooled wouldn’t be too difficult but make it somewhat more visually accurate. I agree that using the different cylinders would help a lot, but that would require new tooling. As everyone stated, that will not happen.  I was just looking for a simple switch of parts.

I just found your thread Pete and that is an awesome job of fabricating  new cylinders!!

@rplst8 posted:

The phrase “not even close” comes to mind. The model pictured is the same Whyte notation as Strasburg 89 but that’s about it.

The model pictured is based on a prototype that had rotary valves. Strasburg 89 is a CNR class E-10-a which was converted from an E-8 around 1913. At that time it got piston valves installed.

There are numerous other differences, most obvious of which is the length of the wheelbase.

How far off is the wheel base?

Pat

I’d be more worried that it actually works unlike the last batch of moguls, than any cosmetic details which may be correct/incorrect

I have a mogul from the precious run, if this mogul is the same but with a different livery I will pass. But if they change the steps and the piston design it will stand out as being different than the previous run and I would be a buyer.

@harmonyards posted:

How far off is the wheel base?

Pat

Well, Pete's Lionel based Mogul is above. Here's a great profile shot of 89 ...

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/659156/

@rplst8 posted:

Well, Pete's Lionel based Mogul is above. Here's a great profile shot of 89 ...

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/659156/

Doesn’t look that far off for a 3 rail model,….so what’s the measurements that you based your statement on?…..I had front row seating while Pete built this engine, I don’t recall him being overly critical of the wheelbase…..

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Doesn’t look that far off for a 3 rail model,….so what’s the measurements that you based your statement on?…..I had front row seating while Pete built this engine, I don’t recall him being overly critical of the wheelbase…..

Pat

I wasn't criticizing Pete's model. In fact, I think he's done a great job making it closer to 89. What I am saying is that the Lionel mogul is a far cry from the prototype as pictured in the catalog.

But to answer your question with a listed wheel base of 14' and a driver size of 63" for 89, I'd say it's off by about 2 ft, and overall cab and boiler combination are probably 4 ft longer.

The steam chests I imagine won’t change (as much as I’d like them to like Pete did, which makes a world of difference), but adding the steps, changing the pilot wheels, class light mounting, and handrail mounting doesn’t sound like too hard to do in comparison to changing the steam chests. No it wouldn’t make it perfect, but those changes would absolutely help make it more accurate to what’s on the SRC now.

I have been away but here is a pic before I swapped out the spoke wheels that come with that CN engine. Also spoked just smaller. Bottom line Lionel can produce an engine closer to prototype, save the cylinders, just by using the current parts they have made already.
The steamchest is the only part they would have make new. No other mods have to be made using the correct steamchest.  Not a deal breaker especially if it brought in more buyers.

Pete

@Norton posted:

I have been away but here is a pic before I swapped out the spoke wheels that come with that CN engine. Also spoked just smaller. Bottom line Lionel can produce an engine closer to prototype, save the cylinders, just by using the current parts they have made already.
The steamchest is the only part they would have make new. No other mods have to be made using the correct steamchest.  Not a deal breaker especially if it brought in more buyers

Pete

Thanks Pete.  That’s pretty much what I would like to see, and wouldn’t add to the cost. Just use other parts to make the engine closer to prototypical.  I would definitely be in if they did that.

@Norton posted:

I started to modify my TMCC Mogul. Class lights are next. It would be great if Lionel uses the correct cylinders but I doubt that will happen. To me thats the biggest error.

Pete

Pete, where did you get the cylinders you used here?  That looks like a fantasic addition, very close to the real Strasburg #89.

While the Mogul model in Lionel’s latest catalog is being discussed, and aside from all the attention to ‘detail’ (or lack thereof), I note in the introductory paragraph on page 28 it states that it features “an improved back drivable gearbox” and on page 31 one of the orange highlighted features is “New Gearbox Design.”

Does anybody - particularly the likes of @Norton, @harmonyards or @gunrunnerjohn - know the specifics of what Lionel has done to improve the gearbox on this model?  It made me think of the ‘Spacer’ issue that Pat (@harmonyards) identified last year on previous models, and for which he came up with a solution.

Thanks to anyone and everyone who may know more about this particular aspect.

@PH1975 posted:

Thanks to anyone and everyone who may know more about this particular aspect.

Only Lionel would know.  I would contact them.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Pete, where did you get the cylinders you used here?  That looks like a fantasic addition, very close to the real Strasburg #89.

Thanks John. I had to make them using ones from a Harriman 2-8-0. Here are the details.

https://ogrforum.com/...c/strasburg-86-mogul

Pete

@PH1975 posted:

While the Mogul model in Lionel’s latest catalog is being discussed, and aside from all the attention to ‘detail’ (or lack thereof), I note in the introductory paragraph on page 28 it states that it features “an improved back drivable gearbox” and on page 31 one of the orange highlighted features is “New Gearbox Design.”

Does anybody - particularly the likes of @Norton, @harmonyards or @gunrunnerjohn - know the specifics of what Lionel has done to improve the gearbox on this model?  It made me think of the ‘Spacer’ issue that Pat (@harmonyards) identified last year on previous models, and for which he came up with a solution.

Thanks to anyone and everyone who may know more about this particular aspect.

We can only guess but it may be similar to the new ones. Hopefully they will include a spacer so the gear can’t move sideways. Keep in mind that the majority of engines with this gearbox do have the spacer from the factory.

Pete

I posted this in another thread but figured I'd add it here as well, below is Ryan at Lionel's response regarding details on the 2022 Strasburg #89

Thank you, I’m sure the Forum has been buzzing as we’ve been getting lots of emails.  In answer to your questions:

1. Spoked pilot wheels on all Strasburg versions
2. Front steps on all Strasburg versions (they were not on the original designs but that is being corrected.)
3. Steam chests will be as-is using the existing tooling.  Correcting this would be very involved.
4. The 1970s headlight will be in a proper position and not as shown in catalog.

Since it's a new gearbox, we don't really know what it might have.

Why is a new gearbox necessary? 🤔

Will the older locomotives with gearbox problems get a fix?

@rplst8 posted:

Why is a new gearbox necessary? 🤔

Will the older locomotives with gearbox problems get a fix?

@PH1975 posted:

While the Mogul model in Lionel’s latest catalog is being discussed, and aside from all the attention to ‘detail’ (or lack thereof), I note in the introductory paragraph on page 28 it states that it features “an improved back drivable gearbox” and on page 31 one of the orange highlighted features is “New Gearbox Design.”

Does anybody - particularly the likes of @Norton, @harmonyards or @gunrunnerjohn - know the specifics of what Lionel has done to improve the gearbox on this model?  It made me think of the ‘Spacer’ issue that Pat (@harmonyards) identified last year on previous models, and for which he came up with a solution.

Thanks to anyone and everyone who may know more about this particular aspect.

As Pete said, we can only guess how this box will be designed, ….and to discuss the back drive “ feature”, ……my theory on back drive is it’s more of a by-product than a feature,…..if you really think about it, and do the timeline math, this all goes back to the same time Pittman’s exodus ( in haste mind you) from the hobby world, …I don’t think the gene pool is too deep for a star stellar motor, ….add to that, right around the time of Legacy control, so now you have a million speed steps, but lessor motors that can’t produce the smooth low rpm torque, …..so to overcome this, they’ve adopted the compound gear box that we’re seeing show up in some engines, ….there are some locomotives with out compound gear boxes in the legacy steamer line, but they do have back drive as well,….with speed steps so low, it’s those first revolutions of the motor vs. engaging the gear box to roll the wheels that’s so crucial for legacy performance ( and marketing) ……..so if you eliminate that torque necessary to turn a gear box by making it fluid smooth, the motor can continue to spin, and reduce that dreaded cog affect ……I’ve used a couple legacy chassis in some upcoming builds, and I can tell you even with ERR speed step 1 is wicked smooth, naturally, this is the best of the best, legacy gear boxes ( for lack of a better term ) and Pittman power…..however, we’ve already proven performance upgrades in quite a few Legacy engines by ditching the Cannon for a Pittman, …one thing that hasn’t been mentioned when a few of us swapped out Cannons for Pittmans, was the performance upgrade we noticed, especially in the lower speed steps ….I don’t think any of us touched upon this, but I believe my buddy Lou did mention this when he voided the warranty on a large Legacy steamer,…but back to the Mogul, Pete’s the one that figured the first Legacy Mogul’s short coming and implemented the fix for those …..I believe he said they’re pretty smooth after dealing with clumsy rod bushings???…….so it’ll be interesting to see what they’ve done to this new mogul,…..We’ll have to tempt Alex M. Into opening one up for us!…☺️

Pat

One of the other attributes of back-driveable gears is it makes MU configurations work better as small differences in speed are better accommodated.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

One of the other attributes of back-driveable gears is it makes MU configurations work better as small differences in speed are better accommodated.

And that’s most likely true as well, ….my theory in a nut shell is they went to the gear box drawing board, since that’s the only variable besides electronics that they can control,….obviously the motors are vendor supplied, so they have to work around the given parameters of what lands on their doorstep,……and if the supplied motors basically suck in low rpm performance, they’ve got to do something to give it a helping hand, ….both through gear mesh, and electronics…

Pat

Great information. I came here with questions regarding the accuracy of this model. I believe I'll be getting the 2000s version, although I didn't pre order. Any word on arrival dates?

Most “back-drivable” gearboxes I’ve encountered require quite a bit of force to actually turn the motor over from the wheels. Usually much more force than any O-scale locomotive drivetrain could muster. I really doubt it will help in MU consists.

Put another way, if you put a back-drivable locomotive behind another locomotive and drag it around the layout with the latter, those wheels aren’t likely to turn on the former.

@rplst8 posted:

Most “back-drivable” gearboxes I’ve encountered require quite a bit of force to actually turn the motor over from the wheels. Usually much more force than any O-scale locomotive drivetrain could muster. I really doubt it will help in MU consists.

Put another way, if you put a back-drivable locomotive behind another locomotive and drag it around the layout with the latter, those wheels aren’t likely to turn on the former.

Ryan, you’re kinda looking at it from the wrong perspective, …..it has to do more with an inertia thing than more so from what you’re thinking,…..( if I’m thinking what you’re thinking 😉)  once the power is applied to a locomotive with back drive gears, it takes a lot less amps to get to motion. In addition, the locomotive is capable of rolling at all times, it’s not reliant on the motor to get past stall current to make it move ……as I’ve said before, I firmly believe back drive nowadays is more of by-product than a feature. There’s still no star-stellar motor choices out there…the choices are junk, junky, & junkyard…..

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Ryan, you’re kinda looking at it from the wrong perspective, …..it has to do more with an inertia thing than more so from what you’re thinking,…..( if I’m thinking what you’re thinking 😉)  once the power is applied to a locomotive with back drive gears, it takes a lot less amps to get to motion. In addition, the locomotive is capable of rolling at all times, it’s not reliant on the motor to get past stall current to make it move ……as I’ve said before, I firmly believe back drive nowadays is more of by-product than a feature. There’s still no star-stellar motor choices out there…the choices are junk, junky, & junkyard…..

Pat

Maybe I don’t understand what people are referring to when they’re talking about with back-drivable gears.

Typically, when something is geared such that you can turn the motor from the wheels, the overall gear ratio is closer to 1:1. Obviously it’s not 1:1, and probably not even 4:1, but it’s closer than say 20:1.

The lower the ratio, the more torque required from the motor to start the driving wheels. All things being equal, the more torque required, the higher the current draw. I say “all things being equal” because driver diameter and load (train length) affect this too.

@harmonyards posted:

There’s still no star-stellar motor choices out there…the choices are junk, junky, & junkyard…..

Pat

You missed one Pat!  The choices are Pittman, junk, junky, & junkyard…..

@rplst8 posted:

Typically, when something is geared such that you can turn the motor from the wheels, the overall gear ratio is closer to 1:1. Obviously it’s not 1:1, and probably not even 4:1, but it’s closer than say 20:1.

Actually, most Legacy locomotives has back driveable gears, and they're not even close to 4:1, they're a much higher gear ratio.  I just checked a bunch of my Legacy steam and diesel, I did find a couple without back driveable gears, the Legacy Mogul and a Legacy Atlantic.  However, a dozen others, steam and diesel, did indeed have back driveable gears.

It’s all over the map as far as what’s got back drive and what does not,……Im convinced it has to be a case by case study on what they do or did on a certain locomotive,……obviously Pittman’s mass exodus had a lot to do with it IMO,….my first thought is the engineers had to combat the dreaded cog at low rpm movements…….thus an ultra smooth ( and easy to rotate ) gear train helps the motor get moving, but more importantly, stay moving,……if it’s moving, and it’s own inertia is helping, and not hindering, the dreaded cog becomes a mute point with the now crappy motor vendor selection……..again, I think they study it case by case, toss the parts at a particular platform, and see what works & what doesn’t…I think from what I’ve been told about some of the MTH tooled locomotives, Lionel had left them alone, ( as far as gear boxes go ) so perhaps adding Legacy to those engines worked out how they wanted,……as more of them get into the field, we’ll eventually see what they did …..I’m sure the larger steam formerly of MTH are now Cannon equipped,….so at some point it’ll be interesting to see how the mechanics come into play, or if they were simply successful programming legacy to work with the MTH platforms & the lousy Cannon……(speaking strictly on the large steam ) ……

Pat

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, most Legacy locomotives has back driveable gears, and they're not even close to 4:1, they're a much higher gear ratio.  I just checked a bunch of my Legacy steam and diesel, I did find a couple without back driveable gears, the Legacy Mogul and a Legacy Atlantic.  However, a dozen others, steam and diesel, did indeed have back driveable gears.

I said “not even 4:1.”

Are these locomotives using a transverse motor or a ring and pinion? Like, no worm?

@rplst8 posted:

Maybe I don’t understand what people are referring to when they’re talking about with back-drivable gears.

Typically, when something is geared such that you can turn the motor from the wheels, the overall gear ratio is closer to 1:1. Obviously it’s not 1:1, and probably not even 4:1, but it’s closer than say 20:1.

The lower the ratio, the more torque required from the motor to start the driving wheels. All things being equal, the more torque required, the higher the current draw. I say “all things being equal” because driver diameter and load (train length) affect this too.

I think most folks are misconstruing anyways, …..honestly, I’m not seeing backdrive as a feature, …..I really think it’s just a by-product of the engineering process,…..it ain’t like the big L proudly promotes it like “ NOW FEATURING BACKDRIVE!!” …..

Pat  

@rplst8 posted:

Maybe I don’t understand what people are referring to when they’re talking about with back-drivable gears.

Typically, when something is geared such that you can turn the motor from the wheels, the overall gear ratio is closer to 1:1. Obviously it’s not 1:1, and probably not even 4:1, but it’s closer than say 20:1.

The lower the ratio, the more torque required from the motor to start the driving wheels. All things being equal, the more torque required, the higher the current draw. I say “all things being equal” because driver diameter and load (train length) affect this too.

It has nothing to do with gear ratio. With worm and worm gears its a function of the lead angle of the drive worm. That is if you look at a worm a faster rising helix has a greater lead angle. Lead angles greater than 11 degrees are capable of being back driven or turning the output gear, the axle gear in this case, will turn the driving gear, the one on the motor.

Less than 11 degrees and the axle is locked and only rotates when the motor turns.

Pete

I was of the impression that the backdrive helped with MU consists since the faster locomotive could use that capability not to have them fighting.