Lionel Hudson Family Tree

The Original 700E 1939 had a child out of wedlock and has a whole new line of Hudsons living in Transylvania

What about the 763E?

You seem to have the 1-700E as a step-brother rather then the cloned native American decendant with direct DNA to the original it was.

Joe

This is a great start Chris.

Where do the shrouded Hudsons come in? Are they a whole separate (bas*ard) line starting with the Commodore?

As production moved off-shore, was a 'standard' Hudson chassis retained from Michigan and used for the Korean and subsequent China streamlined Hudsons?

My understanding is that the 1-700E was all new tooling. I got this from the Gold Hudson thread now active https://ogrforum.com/t...=lastReply#lastReply

Any different info?

Good question!  Any idea where that fits in?

I would think between the original 700E and the 1950 773.

Pete

In doing more research I see a reference in another thread that the 763E was semi-scale.    If so it's out!

The 700E and the 763E were contemporaries. The 700E was full scale and the 763 was considered semi-scale with less piping details and the tinplate tender. I would have the 700E at the top of the pyramid and then the 700K and the 763E under that. The 773 stemmed more from the 763 than the 700 as it also didn't have all the piping and therefore the frame was not drilled for it.

Here's a list I found of other Scale Hudsons.  Need to find  ahome for them.

773 from 31739 (2005)

CC Empire State Express (2004)

Dreyfus #5453 18026 (1992)

Dreyfus #5454 18026 (1992)

Dreyfus #5450 18027 (1993)

Dreyfus #5452 28084 (2001)

Commodore #777 18045 (1996)

Commodore #777 18067 (1997)

Commodore #777 18063 (1999)

Commodore #264M 28012 (1999)

Commodore #265M 28024 (1999)

J3A #5444 28072 (2001)

J3A #5433 38041 (2002)

If the 763E was semi-scle does it truly belong on this chart?  Just asking...don't reaaly knwo what makes people consider is "semi-scale".

You're right!  I'm going to leave them and stick the 700K & 763E in and mark the SS ones as such.

The ESE, and Dreyfusses are J3s and should have their own grouping with the two unshrouded J3as, 5433 and 5444. Not really a strong connection to the 700E other than they were NYC Hudsons.

Pete

Chris

The 763E was a simplified version of the 1937 700e meant for 072. You can consider it as the 773 of the prewar era so it descends from the scale 700e. Also from the 700e would be the 700k which was a kit version of the 700E that lionel offerred.

In the postwar era, Lionel did catalog a 701 Hudson which never was made. Was it to be a 773 like loco or more like a 700E?

In the modern era, following the 1-763E was the Santa Fe Hudson variant of the 763E or 773? . There were also the hudson made from leftover CCHudson parts and the Hudson included in the PWC 13150 set re- issue . You might say this last one was derived from the 773 however it included an elongated tender like what was used with the 700E variants.

Also the C&O streamlined Hudson fits in there somewhere

>>If the 763E was semi-scle does it truly belong on this chart?  Just asking...don't reaaly knwo what makes people consider is "semi-scale".<<

The shrouded Hudsons not withstanding, the only other true Lionel scale Hudsons would be the 1-700E, the Gold Hudson and the VL Hudson. The 1-700E being the closest internally and externally to the original. Call it a near perfect re-creation.

All the others came with either undersized tenders, a silly oil tender or decorated with less boiler detailing, or both.  The original Hudson also included scale couplers and drivers. The 763 came in unprototypical grey and a vandy tender. A rare scale coal variation did exist but it too was painted in unprototypical grey.   

Joe  

I thought we re- defined "semi-scale" a few years back.  Why not re- draw your family tree to make a single family of all Hudsons that used the castings of the original 700?  That would then have the 763, 773, and the 1-700E all on the same tree.

My understanding is that originally "semi- scale" was the same casting with tinplate trucks, but now it has evolved to defining under- size rolling stock and locomotives - two vastly different definitions.

Ok.  Let's see what we have so far.  I changed the semi-scale outlines to dots to differentiate them.  I pulled a list of Hudson's supplied by pharmpod on another thread and crossed out those that are in the chart. 

I also added in everyone's updates (or at least most of them.)

Why would both VL Hudsons be a direct link to the original when that tooling originated with the 1-700E? 

Joe

I have the 1-700E as I understand from PaperTRW in the Gold Hudson thread "The locomotive tooling was new in 1990, but the tender was the original 1937 tool."

https://ogrforum.com/t...00-gold-scale-hudson

I guess it should be a separate tree with a dotted line to the 1937.

It fits in by using the same chassis, pilot truck and drive wheels as the 700E, except the drive wheels are painted silver and fitted with traction tires. Everything else was pretty much specially made. Lionel was trying to save time and money to get this engine out as fast as they could.

Chris et al, I like what you are doing.  I love the Lionel scale/semi-scale Hudsons.  When you reach consus, I plan to make a copy of your results. Dick

Then I guess you'll never be making a copy as I've yet see a thread that reached consensus!  

Seriously.  Thanks.  I think we're close.  Hopefully tonight we'll get even more folks adding their thoughts. 

When we're finished I'll upload a PDF so a high quality copy will be available. 

Chris: I agree with the others and thank you also for taking the time to research this project. PaperTRW would infact to be a great source to "proof" this when your done. I suspect there will be a few "*'s" with some additional facts that make them fit in a certain area that might not be obvious to the casual operator/collector.

Charlie

The trouble with doing a family tree is that a given Hudson can be "descended" from more than one engine: e.g., the 785 is descended from both the 773 (1964) chassis and boiler, and the 226E (not even a Hudson!) tender.

Similarly, only part of a given Hudson can belong to the tree, e.g., the C&O Hudson, whose chassis comes from the 773 family tree, but whose boiler and tender are unique.

Or both together, like the 1-700E, whose chassis descends from the 773, whose tender from the 700E, and whose boiler is new tooling!

(It seems like there are three major components you would want to keep track of: boiler, chassis and tender.)

Finally, you have the "adopted" Hudsons--entirely new tooling based on earlier designs. I think the post-2000 Hudsons would fit into that category, though I am not familiar with them. And, of course, there are several of these, which would form their own family tree.

Actually the thread title should refer to the "Lionel J1 Hudson" family tree. The

J3a (5433, 5444, Century, ESE) has been mostly left off. Unfortunately Lionel

(and everyone else) has neglected to offer a J2.

"Semi-scale" (should) refer to size, not detail level. The 785 loco (not tender) was every

bit as 1:48 scale-sized as the 700E, of course. "Semi-detailed" would be a proper term.

But, almost everyone, except me, says it.

I'm hoping for a new J1 from Lionel using the K-line tooling, with the motor

moved/enlarged and a tweaking of the boiler casting where it's a bit too "U".

Also, some of the early J1's used a near-buried Elesco FWH; nice variation.

I believe the engines you refer to are in the list of Hudsons included with the diagram (just not crossed off).    I'm all for adding them in.  I just don't know where they should go.  Any and all input is GLADLY welcome.  I also agree with the previous post by Nickaix.  If anyone has any info on relationships fire away.  I'll do my best to wade through it all and see what we come up with.    The diagram is already more accurate then when I started (after about 1 hour of research.)

What about OO scale Hudson?

"Semi-scale" (should) refer to size, not detail level. The 785 loco (not tender) was every bit as 1:48 scale-sized as the 700E, of course. "Semi-detailed" would be a proper term.But, almost everyone, except me, says it.

 

When Lionel offered the 763E in 1938, they referred to it as a "Semi Scale" version, thus coining that term at that time. Lionel's intention behind the terminology "Semi-Scale"was to denote a version that was less detailed and simplified than a Scale version . The first 763E's came with a 2263WX tender same as supplied on the 263E locomotive of the time. It was in sets with the 2600 passenger cars and 2800 series freight cars which were the best O gauge set cars of the time. The engine had larger flanges to allow it to run on tubular rail rather than the T rail that was intended for the 700E. There were additional simplifications. The size of the locomotive was the same as the 700E;the tender was not.

Later the tender was changed to the 2226WX . In 1941, when Lionel introduced its Scale freight cars , there were versions offered with tinplate trucks,box couplers  and other simplifications. These cars were used in sets with the 226E and the 763E. Lionel referred to these cars as "Semi-Scale" because of the changes and simplifications it made from the scale versions. 

The Madison cars it introduced in 1941 were referred to by Lionel as "Scale-detailed" ; the intent was to describe a product that detailing like a scale offering but was not scale in itself. The Madison cars had box couplers in the pre-war versions. In the immediate postwar period, Lionel continued to use the terminology "Scale -detailed to describe its new freight cars that were offered from 1945 onward through the 1940's.

So using Lionel's terminology as they used it in that time, the 773 and the 785 might be considered "Semi-Scale" because these items were simplified and modified to run on tubular rail and could be offered in sets with non-scale freight and passenger cars. We know that the engine part was scale dimensioned but the tenders were shorter than the 700E that was their inspiration.

Even the word "semi-scale" is an illogical terminology, IMHO.  Either something's built to scale or it isn't. 

"Semi-scale" makes as much sense as saying a woman is semi-pregnant.

As much as we would like terms to be accurate in their description, it a simple historical fact that collectors have been referring to the 763 as "semi-scale" for decades, and only because it lacks some details and the scale wheels of the 700E. It is nominally the same as the 700E in length, etc. You may disagree with the use of that term by collectors, but you can't argue away its traditional meaning in the past.

IMO if you cloud the Hudson family tree with tender variations also, it will more resemble the flight paths of a flock of drunken pigeons than a family tree.

Jim

I would agree with you re Semi-Scale Jim. I believe Chris' chart is showing the Scale and Semi-Scale branches with the appropriate descendants.

>>Even the word "semi-scale" is an illogical terminology, IMHO.  Either something's built to scale or it isn't.  

"Semi-scale" makes as much sense as saying a woman is semi-pregnant.<<

Depends on what you're comparing it too. 

If its the original 700E, (notice I said 700E, not Hudson) To be correct to the Lionel prototype it requires the same scale tender. (engine can't run without it) Only three Hudsons have been built to scale since. The 1-700e, Gold Hudson and the VL Hudson.

Me thinks if you exclude the tender or its size, given the real Hudson not the 700E ran shrouded and unshrouded with many different tenders, just about every PW & modern era Lionel Hudson would fit the profile as scale.

So IMO, it depends on what prototype you're comparing. The Lionel 700E prototype or the actual NYC Hudson prototype.

Joe 

Joe

Why does the Century Club 773 go directly back to the original 700e (1937)?

Also, why do the 783,784, and 785 all go to the 773?

Those three engines were made in a progression. Any modifications /repairs / reengineering made for the 783 would appear in the 784 and 785. And any additional modifications that might have been made for the 784 would also appear in the 785.

Finally, I don't think we would have ever seen the 1-700E (18005) without the 783,784, and 785.

Dennis Waldron has a great deal of expertise on the Hudsons, maybe he'll chime in.

Full circle. When OGR forumites defined semi- scale, a few of us submitted the above, and got pretty much over ruled.  I am delighted that the three rail community has opted to return to Lionel's original definition of semi- scale.

So on that 1-700E boiler - is there any difference other than sharper detail?  Did they open up the belly, as has been the custom of recent years?  Or did they duplicate the original?

Exactly my thoughts!!!  I love the 001  I have..

Let's examine frames.

There are 2 major frame types in the modern hudson, with some minor variations.

Frames based for pullmor motors, and frames based for can motors.

1) Pullmor motors

1a) Carryover from post war 773, includes:

8406/8606/18002

18005/18012

18056/18062

18058/38015

28062

38096-has metric threads

1b) Front of frame at flag staff holders are trimmed to fit the streamlined shells, includes:

18043

18045/18067

18063/28012/28024

2) Can motors

These frames have more detail, such as brake shoes between drivers, which could explain why side rods do not line up with pullmor motor side rods.

2a) Koh production for lionel 18026/18027/18029

2b) Korea production 38000

2c) Korea production 27072/28084/38041

2d) China production 11209/11218

The engines with the pullmor motors also share steam chests, pilot trucks, and trailing trucks, which differ from the same parts in the can motor frames.

Another view of geneology.