Lionel and MTH Pennsylvania J1a 2-10-4 External Comparison

Thanks.  This is interesting and quite useful.

 

I have the new Lionel Legacy Texas but not in the PRR version/roadname.  I think the level of detail is about the same as your Lionel though - I don't think the recent locos generally have any more/better detailing.  The improvements if any seem to be in the electronics, etc.  

The "superheater" is a actually the feed water heater (the locos were superheated, though, and the access hatch is the plate -behind- the stack), a Worthington SA.

The loco has no "faceplate"; it is a smokebox front (sometimes  a "boiler front", but this
is not really accurate).

The Portland Rose,

Many thanks for your excellent comparison. Very comprehensive and, as Lee Willis said, very useful. You took a lot of time and made the effort to do something great for the OGR Forum.

 

Eliot

I like the appearance of both locos even though the rivet counters would refer to the MTH version as somewhat fanciful with the Q2 tender.  The larger coal load would seem a practical application for such a monster locomotive.  If coal usage rates on the locomotives of Microsoft's Train Simulator are any indication, it seems like large steam engines with equal amounts of space for coal and water would empty their coal bins quicker than the water tanks. 

 

Another image of the front area of no. 6170 (MTH) showing the red valve handle up and to the right of the builder's plate and angled toward the camera.  The valve handles in this area are different between the Lionel and MTH J1a.  The Lionel handles are larger and point straight out from the side.  The MTH handles are much smaller and angled forward.  The MTH add on piping detail really stands out in this shot.  The Lionel piping detail is cast in on their original J1a.  I hope they separately applied it in their latest release.

 

The front end of the Lionel J1a with larger valve handle pointed outward and molded in piping detail.  The front pilot facing looks more accurately shaped with more of a protruding curvature at the center than that of the MTH model but without the molded in hose detailing of the MTH model.  Notice also the thicker handrails on the Lionel J1a.

 

Thank you all for your comments and enjoyment of these photos and for being fans of great electric trains and railroading!!

In looking at this real life photo of no. 6170 at the North East Rails website (PRR Steam Roster)(http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr6170.jpg), it appears Lionel got the pilot right on their model while MTH got the small valve handle angled forward right on their model as well as the firebox detail.  Photos of the J1as on the North East Rails website do not show them with fireboxes loaded with rivets but, instead, having two rows of rivets following the exterior lines of the firebox so the MTH model appears to more accurately model the firebox.

Very nice write up.

 

I feel the very large tenders were built to eliminate at least one water or coaling stop which takes away from train schedule.

 

Can anyone provide any more insight on the front couplers and is they are working or simple plastic non working dummies for looks?

The front couplers installed are dummies but both Lionel and MTH include a working coupler in the box to replace the dummy couplers for lash ups.

Thanks for the comprehensive study.  Since I am somewhat a rivet counter I will point out that the tender on MTH's model is indeed a rerun of their Q2 tender.  As far as I know, this tender was never used on the J1 class.  The rear drivers protruding underneath the firebox is also an unforgivable error in a scale model.  I've heard that this resulted from reusing the drivers and/or frame from a Santa Fe locomotive.  Can you measure the diameter of the drivers and the total driving wheelbase (center of axle on driver set #1 to center of axle on driver set #5) on each model?  I'm curious as to whether the drivers, spacing or both are different between the Lionel and MTH.

 

I have the earlier-produced (1996) 3rd Rail version of this locomotive and would be happy to post similar views of it for comparison, but I'm stuck in the hospital at the moment.  Thank goodness for laptops!  If this thread is still active when I get out then I will take and post photos.

 

Again, nice job on the comparison.

Lee....very well done....Thank you.

 

Bob....get well soon!

 

Peter

The frame and drivers on the MTH loco are the killers.  The wrong Q2 tender

could be subbed for a correct 210F84a tank.  One area where Mike did a

little better is the diameter of the boiler front and smokebox.  The Lionel

model comes in a wee bit too small. The Sunset 3rd PRR J1 is OK in this

regard, and also features the correct Tandem drive between Nos. 3&4

drive axle.

OH NO:  The L word again!  (L***-**)! 

If I recall correctly, the J class was built with existing C&O 2-10-4 Design as directed by the War Department.

 

Is it even possible to compare the J to one of the C&O engines?

The two locos C&O and PRR are similar in many ways , but not close to identical.

Even below the skin ther are some large differences.  The frames used on the

first 25 PRR J1 locos were bult-up bar and sectional frames almost identical to

the pattern used for the C&O version. After that the PRR used one of three

different cast steel frames from GSC, Eddystone.  These frames also included

roller bearings for the drive axles, while the older frames used friction bearings

and these may not have been upgraded later. All pilot and trailing trucks for

both roads used friction bearings.  OF course the tenders were radically

different.  Both locos used cast spoke driver centers; the C&O used 69" tires

while the Penn switched to 70" tires for longer life.  Actually, the 1930 loco

is technically a Lima/ AMC design, not so much C&O.

The one area where the Lionel PRR J1 totally rules, is in the sound set. This is even

better than the new Legacy sound, because it's real PRR J1 sound...most likely

from AL Shade's tapes.  Even has a cab chatter reference to Tiro, Ohio, on the

PRR Sandusky line.  Even has the famous Rox-in-a- Box exhaust tempo, although

it comes in at about 45 SMPH...about twice the correct speed-thanks to the two

chuff set-up on this chooch.  I'll never be gettin' rid of MY 6496...bank on it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah4aTR89WqM

 

 

 

 

I did somthing just like that.. I made a youtube video compairing BLI PRR Q2 to westside PRR Q2..Westside had better and deeper detail ..but BLI and some extra details to there tender..My opion Lionels trains are better detailed more true to there scale looks compaired to MTH. I'll name 1 train that a big flop to MTH.. There semi scale S2 turbine.. There parts add is very miss leading too.. the pic they show is lionels S2.. MTH S2 was very miss porptioned,Big fat headlight and small drive wheels!

MTH's catalog picture of the Premier J1a shows the correct tender.  I have to pose the same question as when Lionel made the American Flyer 3977 (and 3710) Challenger with a coal load in the tender - how difficult is it to modularize assembly of a tender deck to make an accurate model?  Remember, the overall proportions of the Q2 tender and the J1a tender appear identical but the coal bunker of the J1a is significantly shorter than the coal bunker of the Q2.  When we are asked to pay $1,000 for these models and a proper tender is more than a mere matter of "rivet counting" is this too much to expect?  Can a "separately applied" tender deck be fitted through the base of the tender body for both the Challenger and the J1a in the assembly process??

 

 

 

MTH shows a photoshopped KTM HO scale loco...most likely a Westside, with

the tether added  to give the illusion.  The give away is the tender trucks,

which altho a PRR pattern of four axle trucks, were never used on any of the

J1 2-10-4s.  Note too, that the rear driver is well outside the front of the

firebox, and not hiding inside it, like the MTH production unit.

Several members called the MTH 2-10-4 a J1a. Doesn't exist. I have it and it is a J1, therefore there will be a difference between the two just like the M1a and M1b MTH and Lionel models. Doghouses are different sizes, so might be why the coal bunkers are different. Not sure what was proto back then.

It is true that the MTH model in the original post used a cab number for a J1 while the Lionel model has a cab number for a J1a.  However the only difference between the prototype J1 and J1a was in the locomotive frame which made the J1a's a couple of tons heavier.  There were absolutely no external visual differences between the two.  The J's are not "just like the M1a and M1b" which differ in the thermal siphons that are visible on the firebox sides of the M1b.

 

The J1 and J1a used a 210F84 tender that held 21,000 gallons of water.  The Q2 had a 180F84 tender that (only) held 18,000 gallons, hence the longer coal bunker on the Q2 tender.  MTH saved some money by re-using the Q2 tender on their J1 instead of producing the correct tender.

Thank you for the info!  Very interesting.

Yeah.  Very nice comparison.  Do either of these models have a round boiler belly?

 

i have heard that the PRR oxide color does (did?) look a bit orangey.

Do either of these models have a round boiler belly?

 

Don't know about the Lionel or MTH, but 3rd Rail's J1 has a round belly. 

I've been inside both of the tenders.  I installed a doghouse light for my MTH. Both MTH J1 and Lionel J1a tenders have flat bellies. I find it incredible how much each MFR differs. Unless I research it, or read the forums, I never know what is right, or wrong. I see a lot of non proto stuff being done on things like what we are talking about to sound, etc.  As far as the MTH M1b and Lionel M1a the doghouse and marker lighs are different. Lionel has a bigger doghouse on the M1a and marker lights on the pilot as well as at the top by the headlight. I am thinking that was possibly the same in the real world. Maybe not. I never owned a Lionel M1b, so never had the opportunity to own that nice engine. Saw it on Ebay once and they wanted way too much.

I need to unpack this Lionel J1a, the first version that came out with RS4. I had EOB and a TAS Turbo Smoke unit fitted in it, then swapped it all out for ERRCo Cruise and no smoke. Also pulled those awful LED markers. I put two magnets and a reed switch on one of the tender wheels for a 'close enough' exhaust rate. I find that I prefer the old RS4 sound sets. I heard the Legacy version of this engine and the sounds were not that great.

 

 

These pop up from time to time for $600-700, a good deal for a solid engine.

Norm - 

 

Looks great; the LED's are nice in that they are NOT there.

----------------------

Several years back I got one of the Lionel "C&O" (hah) versions for freelancing - you know, they did the C&O tender, cab, pilot, smokebox front - but the PRR boiler.

Good used price; great loco; bad model.

 

I actually retrofitted a modified PRR smokebox front on it: added a visor on the headlight, removed keystone and replaced it with a rectangular number board. No LED's. A very good-looking loco for freelancing. The C&O tender has a shape that I prefer to the PRR unit, also. 

 

Theoretically, another RR ordered copies of the C&O T1 with their particulars specified,

as did the Pennsy. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.