Lionel PRR I1s 2-10-0 Decapod from 2023 Big Book

Well if its any consolation, here is the 3rd Rail one and compare it to the 3rd Rail J1 and Q2 tenders...

All photos by me.

@rplst8 posted:

But I wonder what that means for the MTH Q2 tooling. Did it also go to Lionel? Additionally MTH just announced a run of J1as a few months back. Are there maybe two (or three) copies of the tooling for the 180F84 tender they used with those?

Don't you threaten me with a good time!! haha I would love to see a Q2 get released by either company.

I am glad I wasn't the only one thinking the tender looked familiar. I have no speculation on where tooling landed though. I'm not connected enough to know at the moment.

@prrhorseshoecurve can't really compare anything. The one in the case has bad reflections, and the shelf photos are too blurry to tell anything.

Here is a list of tenders that were used behind the I1s/sa decapods.  May not be complete.  No 180F84, and the 210F82b says it was converted from a 210F75a.

Class 90F82,      original I1s tender when built.

Class 130 F 82,     formerly 13000 gallons,  82 1/4" deck - Lines East.  No. 3700.  (I1sa Loco).

Class 180 F 82,      No 6000.  (Converted from 180 P 75)  I1sa - Loco (Narrow cast steel frame).

Class 180 F 82a,    Converted from 180 F 79 for I1s, I1sa (Berkley Stoker) Nos. 373, 374, 375, 377 and 378 (N. and W. Tenders)

Class 210 F 82,     Experimental Nos. 7866, 7867 (I1sa Loco) (No. 7866 Berkley Stoker formerly 210 F 78).

Class 210 F 82a,  I1sa,   ("L.T.", Berkley, Duplex and "HT" Stokers).

Class 210 F 82b,  I1sa, (Converted from 210 F 75a).  Berkley Stoker.

Class 250 F 82,     I1sa,  (Converted from 250 P 84, #6100)  Berkley Stoker.

Class 250 F 82a,  I1sa, (Converted from 250 P 75)  Duplex Stoker or Berkley Stoker.

Not sure where it came from, but my notes have this statement:  "One of the PRR’s main heavy haulers – their I-class Decapods – burned roughly 8100 pounds of coal per hour during high-power/low-speed use. An average-sized tender could power it for about 4 ½ hours before refueling of coal was necessary. The Coast-to-Coast tenders allowed the locomotive’s use to be extended to over 7 ½ hours."  I wonder if they had a Honey Bucket or just hung their rears out over the side when they need to go

Here’s some comparisons - 3rd Rail Q2 and J1a tenders:

3rd Rail Q2 and I1 tenders:

Lionel made a pretty proper 210 F-84 for their TMCC  and later J1as:

So maybe Lionel could use their own 210 F-84 tool for the new ex-MTH Decs (close enough?). I hope Lionel got the Q2 and the M1b from MTH (Lionel's J1a is a bit nicer IMO). As much as I'm attached to my 3rd Rails, replacing them with modern Legacy versions would be OK with me over the next few years.

Here's a link I saved a while back: http://www.wsbcos.com/tenders.htm

One thing I did notice is that those long haul tenders are larger than the ones that Lionel had on the K4's they offered, at least it sure as heck does look longer. That's the one I'm ordering, don't need no short tenders, haha.

@Norm Charbonneau posted:

Lionel made a pretty proper 210 F-84 for their TMCC  and later J1as:

So maybe Lionel could use their own 210 F-84 tool for the new ex-MTH Decs (close enough?). I hope Lionel got the Q2 and the M1b from MTH (Lionel's J1a is a bit nicer IMO). As much as I'm attached to my 3rd Rails, replacing them with modern Legacy versions would be OK with me over the next few years.

Here's a link I saved a while back: http://www.wsbcos.com/tenders.htm

What was the issue with Lionel's M1b that you think the MTH model is better?

I think the MTH tooling is a bit newer and has more details. Lionel’s boiler seemed a little slender too. It would be interesting to see them compared, along with the 3rd Rails.

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

@EricTrainMan posted:

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

Yeah, that tender is wrong for the Hippo. It does at least have some detail differences though.

This is something I just had to swallow when I got my MTH J1a.

It’s not the end of the world, but I was mostly curious about tooling reuse.

I like @Norm Charbonneau’s idea of using the slightly closer tender from the Lionel J1. Smart cookie that one.

P.S. Norm, i’m not sure I would give up those 3rd Rail models what with their way more accurate tenders (among other things probably). Especially when you could have someone do an upgrade for you.

But if you do, I’d happily buy them from you!

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

One thing I did notice is that those long haul tenders are larger than the ones that Lionel had on the K4's they offered, at least it sure as heck does look longer. That's the one I'm ordering, don't need no short tenders, haha.

That’s because they are different, here and on the prototype. The K4s “coast-to-coast” tenders were closer to the M1b twelve wheel tenders. They had riveted bodies too AFAIK. The post-stoker K4s shared the same 75” deck height as the M1b too.

@EricTrainMan posted:

Here are the Mth Q2 and I1 tenders side by side. I1 in the back and Q2 in the front.

Personally, I’d be shocked if Lionel didn’t buy the Q2 tooling. That’d be a terrific model with legacy. From what I understand, Mth also licensed some tools that are being used across multiple models.

P.P.S.

After looking at your pictures and comparing again to the catalog illustrations, it appears to me that Lionel did indeed get the Q2 tooling and they paired that even more wrong tender with the I1.

In the catalog the hatches are transverse like the Q2 tender in your picture instead of parallel to the direction of travel like they should be.

@rplst8 posted:

Especially when you could have someone do an upgrade for you.

I think I’m good thanks, I do my own stuff:

This is my coast to coast 3rd Rail Dec. I am leaning toward keeping this and ordering a pair of the short tender ones with the modernized front end details.

@Norm Charbonneau posted:

I think I’m good thanks, I do my own stuff:

This is my coast to coast 3rd Rail Dec. I am leaning toward keeping this and ordering a pair of the short tender ones with the modernized front end details.

Sorry wasn’t trying to insinuate you couldn’t, I like the posts you did fixing the High Iron K4s and stuff. I was thinking for the loss you’d take on them it would probably cover the upgrade cost done by a third party.

After reading more about I1s tenders, it looks like they were initially delivered with a 90F82 tender then most received the 210F82a welded tenders before WWII.  While other tenders were used, like the 110F82a from M1s, the 90F82 ans 210F82a seemed to be the I1s primary tenders. Not sure why the 90F82 tender was not included in the other list of Decapod tenders I used above.  I added it.

Also, there are pre-war and post-war versions in the Lionel catalog, so make sure you get the one the best matches your era.  Of the 598 built, around a 100 never were "modernized" so either one will work post war.

Has anyone spoken to Lionel about the tender issue? I recall they were willing to make corrections to the Class A after it had been announced and people found detail discrepancies between models, think it would be worth a shot to ask for the right tender? I want one of the coast-to-coast versions but already have a 3rd Rail I1 and I'm not sure I'd like the visual of the different tenders when they're sitting in the yard together.

Can any rational argument be made for an I1 having a Q2 tender? I'm usually not that steeped in equipment details like this.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

Can any rational argument be made for an I1 having a Q2 tender? I'm usually not that steeped in equipment details like this.

Doesn't seem like it based on CAP's reply above...

https://ogrforum.com/...3#169655768995340713

Lionel has these listed as an O-54 minimum radius requirement.

Is that even possible? Has anyone ran the Mth version on O-54?

I'd be running on O-60 fastrack.

@RickO posted:

Lionel has these listed as an O-54 minimum radius requirement.

Is that even possible? Has anyone ran the Mth version on O-54?

I'd be running on O-60 fastrack.

The short tender, yes runs great on 054. I haven’t tried the long haul on 054, MTH rated them for 072. But what the heck, I’ll give it a shot and report back.

@EricTrainMan posted:

The short tender, yes runs great on 054.

Thanks Eric!  The short tender would be the one I'm interested in.

I was watching Mr. Muffins video on the catalog, and when he got to these he pointed out the ones with the headlight in the original position, at the front of the engine, not on top. I was curious as to what equipment trades places with the headlight in both versions? It's really hard to make out what it is, anyone have an idea?

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

I was curious as to what equipment trades places with the headlight in both versions? It's really hard to make out what it is, anyone have an idea?

I think it trades places with the dynamo.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

Can any rational argument be made for an I1 having a Q2 tender? I'm usually not that steeped in equipment details like this.

Well, you got me curious on this.  I would say no, a Q2 tender would not work with the I1.  Here is why I think that based on trying to decifer the convoluted tender data from "Pennsylvania Railroad Classification and Description of Locomotives and Tenders", June 2 1952 .

-The tenders with XXXF82 had an 82" high tender deck (only I1?) with the stoker engine on the engine.

-The tenders with XXXF84 had an 84" high tender deck (Q2/J1/production T1) with the stoker engine on the tender.

Could a Q2 tender be modified to work on an I1?  Probably, but not likely.

@rplst8 posted:

I think it trades places with the dynamo.

I guess that is what it should be. I don't see any other spots that have something that looks like a dynamo.

@rplst8 posted:

I think it trades places with the dynamo.

That is correct.  Apparently the dynamo was a high failure item so they moved it to a location where it was easier to get at.

I really do like the looks of these engines. I may decide to order two instead of one, but I think I'm going to have to really weigh my options on this. I definitely need some bigger Pennsy steam. Having a bunch of K4's, one M1, and one Texas, this will have more of a challenge or balance if you will to my New York Central fleet.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

I really do like the looks of these engines. I may decide to order two instead of one, but I think I'm going to have to really weigh my options on this. I definitely need some bigger Pennsy steam. Having a bunch of K4's, one M1, and one Texas, this will have more of a challenge or balance if you will to my New York Central fleet.

I will say, these look incredible double headed with the two long haul tenders. I run my Mth versions double headed and sometimes with the short tender in the rear as a pusher. Will try to post some videos

2 MTH Decs with an MTH Mike. They ran in perfect synch

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

I really do like the looks of these engines. I may decide to order two instead of one, but I think I'm going to have to really weigh my options on this. I definitely need some bigger Pennsy steam. Having a bunch of K4's, one M1, and one Texas, this will have more of a challenge or balance if you will to my New York Central fleet.

I'm in the same boat, as I have nearly a dozen K4's and only a Williams L1 and boardless older H9 for freight. Wish I had ordered an L1 last year.....

@CAPPilot posted:

Well, you got me curious on this.  I would say no, a Q2 tender would not work with the I1.  Here is why I think that based on trying to decifer the convoluted tender data from "Pennsylvania Railroad Classification and Description of Locomotives and Tenders", June 2 1952 .

-The tenders with XXXF82 had an 82" high tender deck (only I1?) with the stoker engine on the engine.

-The tenders with XXXF84 had an 84" high tender deck (Q2/J1/production T1) with the stoker engine on the tender.

Could a Q2 tender be modified to work on an I1?  Probably, but not likely.

Thanks for this info. I did a bit of digging myself for my own curiosity and I had no idea there were so many variations to the tender. I knew there was a K4 version without the dog house, but didn't realize there was more to it than that.

Can anyone definitively confirm that the Q2 tender is longer than a more standard coast-to-coast tender? It looks like it from some pictures posted here but I am not sure. I was thinking of picking up a J1a or an M1 tender shell (would need to wait for the next time they're made, none are in stock) and then swapping the shells. If the Q2 tender is longer, then that idea is, naturally, off the table. I'm starting to think about reaching out to the dealer I pre-ordered with and asking if I can substitute for a short-tender version. This is bothering me a lot more than it should!

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

Thanks for this info. I did a bit of digging myself for my own curiosity and I had no idea there were so many variations to the tender. I knew there was a K4 version without the dog house, but didn't realize there was more to it than that.

Can anyone definitively confirm that the Q2 tender is longer than a more standard coast-to-coast tender? It looks like it from some pictures posted here but I am not sure. I was thinking of picking up a J1a or an M1 tender shell (would need to wait for the next time they're made, none are in stock) and then swapping the shells. If the Q2 tender is longer, then that idea is, naturally, off the table. I'm starting to think about reaching out to the dealer I pre-ordered with and asking if I can substitute for a short-tender version. This is bothering me a lot more than it should!

The body of the Q2 180F84 16 wheel tender is 52’ 10” long.

The body of the I1 180F82 12 wheel “K4s coast-to-coast style” tender is 45’ 4” long.

The body of the K4s 210P75 12 wheel “coast-to-coast” tender is 50’ 2” long.

I cant find exact measurements for the I1 210F82 16 wheel tender. But I believe it’s roughly the same length as the Q2’s. However the coal bunker is much smaller and the hatches are oriented differently.

Edit: I did find one resource that says the 210F82 was 51’ 6” long. P.S. most of my info is based on the drawings found here: http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html

It’s hard to get an apples to apples comparison because not all the drawings have the distances drawn from the same points. To me, the tender deck details are more important, especially since they’ve been done right before.

I tried looking this up on a few sources, the Q2 tender had everything listed no problem. When it came to the I1, they didn't have the length listed, but all the other stats. This I thought very weird because you would have to have something to go by to get the other numbers.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

I tried looking this up on a few sources, the Q2 tender had everything listed no problem. When it came to the I1, they didn't have the length listed, but all the other stats. This I thought very weird because you would have to have something to go by to get the other numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "to get the other numbers."

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

Thanks for this info. I did a bit of digging myself for my own curiosity and I had no idea there were so many variations to the tender. I knew there was a K4 version without the dog house, but didn't realize there was more to it than that.

Can anyone definitively confirm that the Q2 tender is longer than a more standard coast-to-coast tender? It looks like it from some pictures posted here but I am not sure. I was thinking of picking up a J1a or an M1 tender shell (would need to wait for the next time they're made, none are in stock) and then swapping the shells. If the Q2 tender is longer, then that idea is, naturally, off the table. I'm starting to think about reaching out to the dealer I pre-ordered with and asking if I can substitute for a short-tender version. This is bothering me a lot more than it should!

Since the poster is talking about swapping tender shells on MODEL TRAINS, this discussion and research on prototype tender lengths is meaningless.  It seems like what he needs is for someone who owns an MTH long-tender Decapod, someone owning an MTH Q2, someone owning an MTH M1a/b, someone owning a Lionel M1 a/b, etc. to measure their model tenders.  That way, he can decide if a switch of tender shells on the MODELS is workable.

I don't have a dog in this fight, since my 3rd Rail I1, J1 and Q2 tenders are correct. 

@rplst8 posted:

I'm not sure what you mean by "to get the other numbers."

Well, if you don't have length listed, what do you do, average out for capacity for the other numbers? That is what I mean. The Q2 has the height, length, weight, coal load capacity, water capacity, all those numbers. If you are missing some numbers, what do they do, average it out? I understand that the I1's had different tenders, so maybe that is why there is no fixed length reported. So perhaps the website was using the average numbers for all the other stats but didn't list a length.

I'm not sure if one of the books I have on Pennsy steam goes into the Q2's as I think the majority are the K4's, M1's, Texas and some other engines I can't quite remember. The other Pennsy book I have covers more about routes than engines though there are some details on some, but I doubt covering anything specific.

@John Sethian posted:

2 MTH Decs with an MTH Mike. They ran in perfect synch

Great shot, John. Like you and Eric posted above, I also ran my MTH Premier Hippos double-headed, and many times at that on my last layout in Paoli, PA where I had a 30+ foot long layout run with mountains and tunnels, just awesome it was (am currently building a new layout in Honey Brook, PA). In fact, I have to say out of all my train running years running those two engines (I had the long-tendered versions) was the most memorable experience of running trains ~ perhaps the double-headed bipolars were a close second.

While I love the PRR engines with Belpaire fireboxes (the Belpaire was developed by engineer Alfred Jules Belpaire from Belgium way back in the 1800s to give more heat transfer), e.g., K4s, M1As, H10s, etc., there's just something about the Hippos that both stand out and complement the rest of their Belpaire cousins; kind of squat-looking yet powerful freight locomotives with all those smaller diameter wheels, and the MTH model had great chuffing sounds ~ likely due to the large resonance chambers, and last but not least was the well-done diecast superstructure with simulated rounded boiler (fyi, they're semi-round with a notch cut out for motor and electronics). The only aspect I didn't care for, which was a trademark for this and other PRR engines, was the Banshee whistle ~ kind of "nails on blackboard" effect to me, though the two forward and 3-backward toots via the DCS remote was pretty good (just don't hold that whistle button down too long without ear plugs

Now, how the heck can I raise the funds to commit to pre-ordering the Legacy version which, if I understand right, will have selectable whistle selection?! Selfishly, this is one model I hope takes a long time to reach the market; the more time the more pennies saved I admit however, ordering anything new these days comes with a risk that they'll be something wrong with the mechanics, or this or that will need fixing or will break; I've got a backlog of engines, and most are Legacy, that need one thing or another done to them. I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but this is the reality of our hobby that appears to be getting worse, not better as supposed advancements come down the pike. With that said, if I can figure out a way to budget for it, I'll bite the bullet and pre-order the Hippo.

@Bob posted:

Since the poster is talking about swapping tender shells on MODEL TRAINS, this discussion and research on prototype tender lengths is meaningless.  It seems like what he needs is for someone who owns an MTH long-tender Decapod, someone owning an MTH Q2, someone owning an MTH M1a/b, someone owning a Lionel M1 a/b, etc. to measure their model tenders.  That way, he can decide if a switch of tender shells on the MODELS is workable.

I don't have a I1 with a long tender or a Q2. But I do have an MTH M1b and J1a. The MTH J1a tender is known to be the same tender as the Q1 except for the details on the deck.

I will try swapping those tender shells (M1, J1) when I get back home on Saturday or Sunday.

That said MTH used a totally different shell and frame as far as I know. The M1 shell is riveted and I'm not sure if it's a 210X75 or 250X75.

@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:

Well, if you don't have length listed, what do you do, average out for capacity for the other numbers? That is what I mean. The Q2 has the height, length, weight, coal load capacity, water capacity, all those numbers. If you are missing some numbers, what do they do, average it out?

Ah, I think I see the confusion. The numbers I had for the 210F82 were from a forum post on the PRRTHS forum. Not the PRR diagrams site.

@rplst8 posted:

Ah, I think I see the confusion. The numbers I had for the 210F82 were from a forum post on the PRRTHS forum. Not the PRR diagrams site.

I wasn't saying your numbers were off, where I had looked is what I meant. I think part of the numbers were from Wikipedia, others where a site I have not been on before. I don't think the I1's were on the other site, but the Wikipedia.