Lionel AC-4 Cab Forward 6-11143

There are two AC-4s on ebay, both made by Sunset/3rd Rail.

Lionel did a scale Cab Forward model with several road numbers in 2014. Pictured below is the fabulous fantasy Daylight version.

I have one of those. It's from around 20 years ago and has obsolete QSI OEM electronics. The power supply is inadequate for the current draw of a big articulated pulling 20-30 cars for any length of time. It's also one of the most fragile locomotives Sunset/3rd Rail ever made. Detail is exquisite, but it should be handled as little as possible. Mine is the rare variation with the as-delivered gray boiler, and it's a beautiful piece, but not very practical compared to a modern Lionel product. One of these days I'm planning to upgrade my AC-4 to PS/3, but if Lionel came out with an AC-4 with a gray boiler I might just change my mind and buy that instead. 

What was so special about the 2010 version that you can't get with the 2014 versions?

Its a different locomotive, the legacy version is an AC- 12, the topic of the poster is an AC-4.

Cosmetically speaking there are detail differences, most signifigant is the vanderbilt tender on the AC-4. I'm sure there are others.

Paging John Korling!.......

The "2010 version" of what? I haven't seen "2010" referred to in this entire thread.

I would be in for an AC4 if done as illustrated with the early SP Lines lettering. I have always liked the flat faced Cab Forwards even more the later classes. This is one of few engines that would make me fall off the NYC wagon.

Pete

Are you aware that MTH has already offered an SP AC-6, that looks just like the model pictured above? In fact, MTH offered their version with either the "flat front" cab, or those few road numbers that were up-graded to the "modern" cab. I have have one with the "modern" cab, and it is a superb runner (it also came with the 'Lines' lettering, which I had changed and then weathered).

I am aware of the MTH engine and if one comes along at the right price I will snap it up.

SP is not my primary road in O so I will be a little more patient.

Pete

Yes they did produce an "AC-12" Cab Forward a 4-8-8-2, I own the more prototypical all black 4294 version. This is a great engine that got overshadowed by the delivery of the VL Big Boy around the same timeframe. The AC-4 cataloged in 2008 is a Cab Forward and likewise a 4-8-8-2 they were both owned by SP, but they are NOT the same locomotive. The AC-4 and the AC-12 where both built by Baldwin but the AC-4 is the first of generation of 4-8-8-2 Cab Forwards built by Baldwin in 1928. This list includes the AC-4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -10, -11, and -12. The AC-9 of course the 2-8-8-4 that was reversed and burned coal. The AC-4 being built in 1928 versus 1943 for the AC-12 shows the technology improvements in steam locomotives. The amount of piping and exposed details on the AC-4 would be impressive on a Lionel train. Not to mention the older tender most SP locomotives used prior to the AC-12.

I was tempted by the 2014 Cab Forward, but since I already had the VL-BB coming, I resisted spending another wad of money.

Its a different locomotive, the legacy version is an AC- 12, the topic of the poster is an AC-4.

Duhh! That's what I get for not reading more carefully.

Just to clarify the history of the Lionel Cab Forward: The AC-12 was first made in 2005 with TMCC. MSRP was $1549, which makes the 2014 MSRP of $1699 look pretty good - only a bit under 10% increase in nine years, and the new one has far superior Legacy electronics. I've seen the old one run and it's a great engine with excellent sound, but of course the sound quality on Legacy is superior. (Authenticity is another thing and I'd rather not reopen that subject on this thread.)

There was a Lionmaster version sold in 2007, also an AC-12. MSRP was $849.99. I've never seen one run so I can't comment on its operation.

I have the MTH AC-6 with the modernized cab and I second everything Hot Water said about it. The 3rd Rail version is more detailed but the MTH engine is much better in operation. 3rd Rail actually made the AC-4, AC-5, and AC-6, very similar locomotives but differing in detail. My 3rd Rail AC-6 also has the modernized cab; I think the AC-6 was only available that way and the other two had flat-front wooden cabs. 

The SP AC-9 semi-streamlined Yellowstone was not a 4-8-8-2 cab-ahead (not "forward", on the SP, originally; so far as I know, the SP men referred to them typically as "cab-in-fronts" or "cab-aheads") that was "reversed" to a 2-8-8-4. It was a completely different locomotive, built by Lima rather than Baldwin (who built the cab-aheads) for service in, I believe, New Mexico and other eastern areas, originally burning coal, but later changed to oil for Coast Lines service. The SP cab-aheads and the SP Yellowstones shared little but an owner and being articulated steamers.

======

There was an MTH AC-6 with PS-1; looks very much like the AC-4. The detail that stands out for me are the compressors on the AC-6 - they are on the smokebox front, rather than the engineer's side as on the AC-4. Many other smaller details differ, but the overall looks of the AC-6 and the AC-4 are very, very similar, down to the Vanderbilt tender. An older MTH PS-1 AC-6 upgraded to ERR CC and RS would be a sweet loco, and possibly very affordable. The detail is correct but simplified by today's standards, which is fine by me. They passed my needs years ago. I'm a "correct basic" details sort of guy.

Mine has yet to be upgraded. 

I would like a Legacy AC-4 with smoking whistle and whatever cool effects Lionel could add.  I had hoped the AC-12 would exhaust smoke/steam in time with the improved air pump sound effect, maybe on the AC-4 they could work that out.  That looks cool on the Pentrex videos I have.

Yes, the AC-9 was a yellowstone configuration of 2-8-8-4, which is reverse of a 4-8-8-2 configuration for the AC-4,5,6,7,8,10,11, and 12. The AC-9 was also built by Lima. It was built for coal and converted to oil. The Cab Forward nomenclature is a common term today, true it varied over time and had more than one nomenclature. I never said differently in my post. Were you expanding on my post or trying to say I got it wrong?