New Lionel Big Boy features?

For what it's worth, a buddy of mine purchased the Lionel Legacy/Vision Line (or whatever it was called) "high end" UP Challenger, when it came out a year or two ago. Upon testing it on my home layout, we experienced the same "issues" on turnouts, that you describe. I finally rotated the pick-up roller assembly on the tender, 180 degrees, in order to "widen the spacing" by about 1/4". That finally solved the "cutting out on the turnouts" problem.

However, that model had "squeaking" issues, and no matter how much we lubed it, the darned thing still squeaked. He eventually took it back to his dealer, and either got his money back or received something else of equal value (pretty good dealer, I'ld say).

Alex

Unfortunately I have the same issues.  It wouldn't be as much of an issue to me if you could just blow the whistle and get the sounds back.  But as of now you have to do the reset which stops the engine and so on.

I seem to recall either at the LUG meeting or somewhere else this was brought up that the response was Lionel may be able to change it so a whistle command would wake the sound back up.  Right now I think we have to rely on the battery backup, which I have never needed before.

Alex....what do you mean.." I am trying to decide whether to order a new Lionel Vision Big Boy".....????   You and I already know you are going to order one...those gold coins are burning a hole in your pocket my friend!! 

In my case, I have two Big Boys already and honestly don't need another one.  Even though I feel Lionel's Big Boy will be "the Big Boy of all Big Boys", the JLC version and even the most recent MTH version will work just fine for me. 

Alex....I solved the problem of drop outs in the switches...or should I say my friend Craig solved that problem for me with a simple micro switch that powers the dead spots.  I think you already knew about that but I don't remember if we talked about it in detail....

Alan

Not sure what 3 rollers would fix that 2 rollers wider apart wouldn't fix

Unfortunately there appears to be no standards between manufacturers as to electrical conductivity through switches. One would think that uniformity would be paramount! Wouldn't it be great if manufacturers could sit down together and settle on some standards, such as with HO and N !

I own 2 Lionel Big Boys already, the original and the JLC.  I just ordered my VL BB, literally minutes ago.

Like others, there are features I like (sound/smoke) and others I could do without (alternate chuffs/coal load). 

Personally, I think it is going to be an epic Lionel locomotive.  Possibly surpassing the legendary Vision Line Challenger.  I never thought I would say that. We all know how great the VL Challenger is, so I am making a bold statement.

If you are on the fence about this, look at the Lionel youtube video of the VL BB.  After watching it, I think you'll place an order!

An excellent idea, however when the subject of those "drop outs" with that Challenger was brought up at one of the York meetings (LUG ?), the response from the Lionel representative was to the affect that "Lionel locomotive models are designed to operate properly on LIONEL TRACK!", i.e. they were NOT concerned about any issues with ANY OTHER manufacturers track or turnouts. That response was posted on the OGR Forum as part of the report provided after every York Meeting.

Yep that was their cop out. bunch of garbage really.

The good news is ;  a sure a simple swap of rollers to increase the reach over frogs and crossings can be done.

I had an issue with an Lionel Atlantic losing power over a Ross curved switch. Replaced it with an M1A roller and no issues. Thanks to a "Forumite" suggestion here.

The issue with drop out is with the AtlasO track especially the earlier releases were horrible. I had the same issue and finally switched to Ross track and switches  and the drop out issue went away. 

FWIW, I've never had a sound drop-out issue with any TMCC Lionel engine over Ross switches. Is this an issue with Legacy engines?

Installing a battery might be a good idea. 

I also have to disagree that Lionel's statement regarding operation on other brands of track is any kind of 'cop-out' or 'garbage'.  How can you reasonably expect a manufacturer to allow for faults in a rival manufacturer's products?  Would you expect Ford to design for you wanting to use parts from a Kia in your car?

You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Yes, I certainly would expect EVERY manufacturer to produce models that are capable of proper operation on every normally available track products. Remember when Lionel produced those diesel models, many of which were Legacy, with wheel flanges that were WAY too high, and they jumped through turnout frogs? Even Steve at Ross Custom Switches, had to weigh in on THAT mess. 

Not really a good analogy Nicole.  That would be like Ford saying they won't support a problem with your suspension because the road it travels on was not paved by them.

The fact is, all layouts out there in existence use a wide variety of track systems, not just Lionel track, and therefore Lionel needs to factor that into the equation when designing their products.

There must be close to ten (if you include Super O, T rail) fairly common, different track systems out there (Lionel has three, MTH two, K-Line, Atlas, Gargraves, Curtis, Ross for instance).  I don't think it's reasonable, or even necessarily technically possible, for a manufacturer to test and assure compatibility of their new locomotives with the many different geometries inherent in each of a dozen track systems.  And testing may reveal that making a loco compatible with one's own system renders it incompatible with another major system. The potential combinations and permutations are staggeringly large in number. A bit much to expect perhaps?

Well, I disagree. It certainly IS possible, and certainly has been done previously. For example, those Lionel diesel models with the "too high flanges". Why was that change made? Lionel models produced previously did NOT have those problems, and models subsequently produced do NOT have any "flange height" problems! Soooooooo, how did those "slip through", without any testing?

Now, concerning the pick-up roller spacing "issue", previous Lionel articulated steam locomotive models did NOT have any "drop-out" issues. Even the previous UP 4-6-6-4 models, nor the UP 4-8-8-4 models, worked fine. Soooooo, again, what has changed, and why?

OK, I agree that I may not have used the best analogy above.  But my point was that Lionel cannot reasonably be expected to allow for every possible combination of track configurations and brand that may ever exist. I'm sure that they do spend a lot of time and effort trying to ensure that roller spacing is optimal for a variety of brands of track, but the possible combinations are infinite. The best that they can be certain of is that it will function correctly on their own products.

Other manufacturers have similar problems too. I have a Williams locomotive that would stall in one particular switch configuration on my layout because of the roller spacing. All of my Lionel locomotives had no trouble at all in that location. I made a small modification to my track configuration and now they all work perfectly.

I agree with Landsteiner and Nicole.  It's entirely unreasonable to expect that a given manufacturer can, or even should, pre-test a product on every available (and commonly used) track system; every combination thereof; and every switch and track combination thereof that could possibly be used together.

No, not in the least. When Toys are manufactured they go through a rigorist test procedures, drop test, paint toxicity, paint adhesion, hot, cold. How hard is it for a well know manufacture to add popular track permutations on a circle loop and run the product around to confirm important geometries like wheel flanges, electrical pick up, wheel gauges to name a few.  To sit back and say, well you should have bought our track, is just passing the buck on future and current product improvement, at least these products should run on major manufactures track that has been produced in the last 10 years.

IMHO 2K is not a small chuck of change... make it right. 

What the manufacturer's can do is what Lionel and MTH have already done with many locomotives, add rollers.  Most of the newer Legacy diesel stuff, as well as MTH diesels, have quad rollers.  Even steamers have three or four rollers on the locomotives.  Perhaps adding dual rollers on each of the tender trucks would be the ticket here for the Big Boy?

Look at Scott Mann at 3rd rail products. Really exceptional beautiful models in brass, but he test them on tin plate 3 rail track to satisfy his customers, and up hold the product.

And I have lots of issues running the 3rd rail stuff on Atlas and Fastrack, probably for that very reason!

And, Lionel do explain in their manuals that installing a 9V battery prevents sound system problems when a small dead-spot or piece of dirty track is encountered.

I fit 9V batteries in all of my Legacy locomotives. They are not expensive, and last for ages if you are running in command mode.

On a different note, I see that we have reached the 'imagined' complaints stage regarding this new locomotive in record time. Vociferous complaints before it even appears in the catalogue, let alone actually being available, has got to be a 'first' for this forum. 

The Point is I am sure some manufactures are not making excuses, and that they are improving their products, and not ignoring an issue.

LOL. But in the light of products getting more expensive can we ask that old problems are fixed? Thus we still would be going out and hand cranking our car over in the morning!

Alan,

Yeah, I'll probably order a new Big Boy - at least I have a few months to save.

FWIW, I have one single issue with one Atlas turnout with one specific engine, which engine is not Lionel. Other than this occasional problem with said Atlas turnout and said engine, all other 45 Atlas turnouts work just fine. All my problems with turnouts involve RCS curved turnouts.

And back to my original subject . . . thank you for your replies - I'll try turning around some of the troublesome collector rollers - good idea.

Thx!!

Alex

On a different note, I see that we have reached the 'imagined' complaints stage regarding this new locomotive in record time. Vociferous complaints before it even appears in the catalogue, let alone actually being available, has got to be a 'first' for this forum. 

Actually, you sell us short, we've gotten here before I'm sure.

Odd statement. I have about 20 Sunset/3rd Rail steam locomotive models, and my layout is ALL Atlas O. I have NEVER had an issue with any Sunset/3rd Rail product, either my own, or many other people's models, on my layout. I have even removed the factory equipped pick-up roller assemblies from three Lionel steam models, and replaced them with Sunset/3rd Rail pick-up roller assemblies, in order to correct issues with the Lionel pick-up rollers.

I normally avoid these threads but, what the heck....I am with Nicole on this one. Since there is no industry standards for O gauge trains and track then we cannot expect the manufacturers to ensure their products are compatible with all brands of track.

I have a Lionel TMCC C420 that stalls out where I have double Fastrack switches. At first I was very angry that they weren't compatible, but I have accepted the fact that I can't really complain that the engine isn't compatible with track that didn't even exist when it was made. Now I also apply this logic to compatability products between manufacturers.

As far as Lionel is concerned the product works just fine on the track system it was designed for. If it doesn't work with another track, then it is up to the hobbyist to come up with a solution. I have solved the problem with my C420 by adding a teather to a car with an extra pick-up roller. 

Jay in Ottawa

Yep

The problem is due to Lionel's design where the rollers on the locomotive supply power for the motor and TMCC boards (but none to the tender) and the rollers on the tender supply power to the sound boards, coupler, backup and marker lights (but not to the locomotive).

The fix is deadly simple: buy a Miniatronics or other brand mini-plug connector, pop the boiler off the locomotive and the shell off the tender and wire a connection between the pickup rollers via your new mini-plug connector which becomes a tiny tether between loco and tender.  Problem solved since there are now a bunch of rollers across a span of a couple of feet.

But wait!  That would require actually diving in and FIXING the problem rather than whining about it. 

It's much easier to blame the manufacturer of track or locomotive or the phase of the moon or whatever.

uhum and void your warranty!

I had to smile when I read this...

Car-related experience...  The 1977 issue of Oldsmobiles (and probably other GM cars) that had the silver paint job experienced massive flaking/deterioration of the paint.  Actually, I believe it was most of the metallic colors that had this problem. 

Anyhow, GM quietly established a re-paint program for their disgruntled customers.  The payout was prorated based on a list of criteria. 

I remember my appointment at the Oldsmobile dealer to have my car 'assessed' by a GM field representative.  With his official clipboard in hand he quietly strode about my 'flakey' car, looking very grim, indeed.  He then turned to me and uttered the words I'll never forget:

"This car has spent a lot of time outdoors, hasn't it?"

You know, there is just no cure for stupid.  I was not in a very good position to remind him of that as I would have liked.  After all, upon the tip of his pen rested my compensation for a re-paint.  Not a good time to question one's intelligence.

I did calmly reply, however,...' 'That's where most cars spend most of their life: outdoors.'

True story. 

Ergo, for any car service personnel to deny repairs because they didn't control/specify/build the roads that the car ran on would be intuitively preposterous, but in reality a possibility!  After all,...

Nuts tend not to fall far from the parent tree.

Sorry to get this thread off the track!  I couldn't resist.

KD

"Ingeniero No1:

Yes! It most certainly would, and keep each other company.

We **TEST** Ross, Gargraves, Atlas, in addition to the Lionel track on our products in our test labs.  It is not possible to get every roller configuration perfect for every possible configuration; for example, I have on my test layout a configuration with a Lionel crossover next to a Lionel turnout that creates a spacing for a dropout on a few of our tenders.

On the Challenger and Big Boy tenders, adding a 3rd collector will block the sound port.  We don't ignore the issues, we compromise within our means to try and cover as much ground operationally and still deliver the features.

Additionally, we have changed the RailSounds software to wake up on Chuff commands.  This change has been in the steamers for some time now, so no need to stop the loco with a "Reset" to wake the sounds up.  And there is the battery option when needed.

 Instead of complaining to lionel, whose trains work fine on their own track, why don't you complain to Atlas or Ross and tell me to fix the dead spots in their switches.  They are not the big engine manufacturers, so if they want people to use their track maybe they should be the ones testing their track with all the manufactures engines.  They are the ones trying to compete with lionel's and mth's track business.  Or you could just buy a battery and be done with it.   I mean if lionel had to redesign and then charge more for their engines you'd probably complain about that too.  Some people will never be happy.  You should be greatful we have some of the most detailed and technologically advanced trains ever.