The Lionel Problem

I would have to say: LionChief Plus, semi scale.• S or 027 •  I like the engineering, one transmitter to one engine. This design, makes for a lot of model rail road fun.

Cheers from Michigan

I would think an SD40-2 would work well, road names forever and good era for rolling stock that is already available.  In legacy please...

 

Shirley this could have the preorders needed to make this feasible for Lionel.  

 

Ben 

While I am not in S, I agree with Ben. An SD40-2 would be very versatile.

Anyone remember when Lionel teased us with an SD-40? Early 90s I think. I have an American Flyer catalog somewhere with a Conrail SD-40 on the cover.

And a reissue of the Hudson.........and a D&RGW PA set which was cancelled only to be produced several years later.

SD 40-2 would be nice, or I'd prefer a GP40 or GP38-2 since they would look more at home on branchlines and industrial jobs which fit into layout rooms better.

 A 57 foot mechanical reefer would be a great choice since it was used from the 1960's thru today in various paint schemes and with different refrigeration units and most layouts can use reefers for some kind of food based industries....DaveB

I do remember the SD40 Conrail that Lionel had as the cover sheet for their American Flyer 4 pager.  I was always disapointed that they never made that one.  My guess is if they made it today they would do it with Legacy and a little more detail.  The one lesson I hope they learned is don't release 8 to 12 new SD40's at once instead do 2 to 4 only so we can save up to buy new items.  As for myself I really want more modern Rolling Stock for my SD7- and ES44's to pull. 

I could probably rattle off about a dozen things I'd like to see in the Flyer line up, but it doesn't mean anything until we can confidently see that Lionel has it's act together regarding the Flyer line.

 

I seriously want to see Lionel succeed with the Flyer line, in whatever form it takes, but as I've noted in the past they seem to run into trouble with anything that's not 3-rail O.

 

They've come close several times, then blow it big time on something simple.  It's like Sisyphus pushing the boulder up the mountain. 

 

Other companies managed to walk the tightrope between Flyer and Scale successfully.  I don't understand how a company like Lionel has so much difficulty I doing it.

 

Rusty

Good Day, 

 

For road power I agree the SD40-2 would be a fantastic presentation. Adding to that, I would suggest the GP40-2. Both of these engines could be offered in many railroad names.

 

For freight cars:

 

Trinity Rail / Aluminum R.D. VII Coal Hopper / 4,252 cu.ft.

Trinity Rail / Rapid Discharge Hopper / 2,402 cu.ft.

Trinity Rail / 40' Five Unit Articulated Well Car / 40' cars would operate on a small radius too! Many 40' containers could be offered! 

Transfer Caboose

 

Regards, 

Frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trinity Rail / Aluminum R.D. VII Coal Hopper / 4,252 cu.ft.
Trinity Rail / Rapid Discharge Hopper / 2,402 cu.ft.
Trinity Rail / 40' Five Unit Articulated Well Car

 

 

Hi Martin, 

 

Thanks for the heads up. I would have thought the 40' well cars would make the 20" radius. Will these cars operate on a 24" or 27" radius?

 

Regards,

 

Frank 

27" yes (24" probably - i dont' know for sure).

 

Keep in mind that a prototype for a single-40ft-well car is 62ft long.  Double stack cars of any container size or configuration are going to need broad curves. 

So, this has boiled down to yet another wish list, eh?

 

Here's a thought to guide your desires: If it's not in the O Gauge line, it won't be in the Flyer line.

 

Rusty

Ok......................89' Auto Racks! 

 

Cheers, 

Frank

 

So my thought is to increase "S" products they need to know what we would buy but also what would result in the most repeat sales to defray new tooling cost.  So with that in mind what does everyone think Lionel should be making? 

Lionel first needs to build some trust with its customers. Announcing--very indirectly via a Facebook reply to an inquiring poster--just a few weeks before the scheduled delivery that it never even bothered to create the molds for a new product is a slap in the face of interested parties. The business decision made sense because there were too few preorders due to customers being gun-shy over the cylindrical hopper issue and "non-fix." But failing to say a thing is an insult.

Lionel can build trust a number of ways that cost very little. First, they need to talk to the S Gauge market by attending trade shows or consulting a few forum members who have offered some good tips already. They need to promise and deliver a working product that appeals to American Flyer, high-rail, and scale customers. That could be as simple as non-fantasy cylindrical hoppers with the correct height and trucks with high-rail wheels that are easily swappable for scale wheels. (Hint to Lionel: the wheel problem can be fixed by fixing the wheels. A different coupler or shiny paint don't stop derailments.) Make the trucks and scale wheels uniform enough that the same parts can be used for future products and allow the investment to pay off over a number of products. Once the S gauge community sees a fix that works, Lionel can then ask for pre-orders for a mechanical reefer or the other suggested products with some confidence from prospective buyers that: 1) Lionel can deliver products that work; and 2) the products can show up on time. This takes very little effort, but it does take time. Perhaps Lionel is already working on it. If so, they ought to tell someone. (The hoppers' trucks are beautiful even if faulty. It was a shame I had to replace them.)

A new round of SD70s and ES44s in additional road names and multiple numbers would work as "new" product with only the investment of an alternate cab part with headlights in the nose. The only change would be to painting new numbers and changing a plastic piece. Even the existing ES44 would work in Norfolk Southern black and white as long as it appeared in more than one number. "New" product with almost no additional development cost should be a very inexpensive step to take, and Lionel has already worked out all the bugs for the diesels in their line-up.

Lionel could also consider re-introducing Pacifics, Mikados, and maybe even a U33C with a "springing" pilot as long as all incorporate the AC/DC/DCC flexibility that the newer locomotives have. The tooling must still exist, so development costs are minimal. This would make more sense and excitement than issuing another AF boxcar with a new candy bar name on it or replacing the brakeman/zombie with a vampire figure.

New, modern freight cars are essential. But relying on pre-orders to determine potential is risky at this time because Lionel does not talk to its own customers and has stumbled badly with both the hoppers and the reefers. The company and its customers need to build a little trust in each other before the company can invest in entirely new products. It does not take much on their part other than realizing that the S gauge community is different from the O gauge community in some significant ways.

The AC/DC/DCC flexibility, the detail work on the Y-3 and the diesels, and the improved SD70/ES44 truck design have not gone unnoticed. When it's right, it's excellent. It would be a shame if Lionel backed off of a commitment to S gauge when so little extra work could improve matters after the company has already fixed some of the more difficult issues. Better communication with the S gauge community is at the heart of change.

        Oh, and don't call me Shirley.

Mark

       


I knew someone would say that!

How about a mountain type steam locomotive in lionmaster plus.Plain you can add your own railroad name.Or maybe a sd40-2 in seaboard system.

Tokelly sums it up very well.
It is a matter of trust.
I have $65 invested in a hopper stashed under my rr that is a piece of excrement. 
I have many times that amount in 2 SD70ACe's and love them.
I have a CP ES44 due in a month (hopefully).
I do wonder how any company can put out such great work and such poor work.
You wouldn't be working for me very long with that type of agenda.

Lionel choked on a 57' Flyer car, I doubt they'd consider an 89' car at this time.

Yep.  I'm in a grumpy mood today.  I've used a lot of electrons defending Lionel on Yahoo S Scale and I feel like Lionel's pulled the rug out from under me.  Color my ego bruised.

Bingo.  Not only did they cancel the reefers right before scheduled delivery, it was also 2-3 weeks after posting on their blog how wonderful the new Flyer reefers were going to be.

 

I've been saying for years they need to go where S folks go and talk to us.

 

Rusty

 

 

Start with more track radius options to build a new railroad, then add new locomotives and cars.

I'm up late so I'll chime in. This is about the 500th wish list we've done on here and I still don't think it will move the needle but hey, why not...

 

I'm in for just about anything new. New non-articulated steam (Hudson, K4, etc...) would be welcome, but I highly doubt they will invest the $. More realistic would be a re-release of the Pacific's and Mikado's. John Z. ran that one up the flag pole for us so maybe it stuck?

 

Diesels, I'm in for any new EMD or Alcos. Favorites: SD40-2, GP30, SD7/9, RS-1, RS-3, Century series, etc...

 

How about some nice new passenger cars with interiors, LED lighting, and telescoping draft gear to pull close on the straights?

 

Deliver the FT turnouts and offer a new 27"r turnout. Instantly they would have the most complete Hi-rail track system on the market.

 

I'm not holding my breathe though.

Union Pacific FEF-2.  Lionel could use the locomotive shell from the previous offering and combine it with their Challenger tender and include a set of attachable elephant ears.

Jonathan,

 

I do agree with you.  When I started this thread it was more about cost vs profit for Lionel.  What we want has to be balanced against their cost to tool it vs the revenue they get in return.  If Lionel is right now risk adverse then I would think your idea of Passenger cars with interriors and LED lighting would cost less to tool then a new engine and since there usually 4 to 6 differnt cars in a set yield much more profit for Lionel with less risk.  Of course that is subject to them tooling them properly so they do not derail or have other problems.  I also agree they should do a 27"r turnout to open the door to longer cars.  As much as we complain that Lionel needs to reach out to us (and they should) they need to feel good about investing in S so the next step they take has to be a good one.

 

--Rocco--

Just an FYI - the Sd40-2 referenced above was in a flyer from 1998:

 

>> If the well cars scale out to 62' and won't track 20" radius curves how is it that the 72' AF passenger cars take the same curves with ease?

 

Articulated well cars are coupled very close together and share the same truck.  Passenger cars are coupled farther apart and have only their own trucks.

 

>> The 62' car I was referencing was a theoretical single-well car that holds 40 ft containers.  The articulateds was a different prototype.

 

Well, in that  case, I cannot explain why a 72' passenger car will work while a 62' freight car will not.  Sounds like a good question.

"Well, in that  case, I cannot explain why a 72' passenger car will work while a 62' freight car will not.  Sounds like a good question."

 

  I think the answer is it depends on how much  compromise one wants to make to get a 62 foot car around a 20 inch radius.  Lionel O-27 cars go around 13.5 inch radius but look like crap doing it.  A better question to me is why anyone would want to run a 62 foot car around 20 inch radius. 27 inch in S scale is still a tight radius and compares to 36 inch in O scale or 20 inch in HO which are common minimums for those scales. The easy solution is not compromising the cars appearance it's educating would be S modelers to the realities of model railroading and the concept of matching the scale and era of equipment to the available space. I'm using 20 inch minimum radius on an N scale layout in a spare bedroom and it still look tight with long modern cars :> ......DaveB

I couldn't have said it better myself, daveb.  That's the real answer to the question.

Actually, any car of any length can go around any radius curve.  It is theoretically possible if both trucks can swivel 360 degrees.  Worst case, the car will simply spin around its center point.  The problem is that ACG switches have a tall lantern housing alongside the curved route.  Long cars will hit the lantern housing and get knocked off the track.  One solution would be for Lionel to make new switches without the tall lantern housing.  Something similar to ATLAS in HO.  This would open the door for all kinds of longer cars.  Modern folks would be ecstatic.  Traditional folks are happy with shorter cars.  Win-win for Lionel.  Win-win for customers.  Win for S.

 

Appearance factors are highly subjective and each person will make his own decision regarding the appearance of his layout.  At least the opportunity for using longer cars can be made available with proper forethought.

To help build the case for R27 and the modern age.

 

Modern 50' cars (give or take a couple of scale feet) on R20.

They'll run, but they don't look so good (even with body mounted Kadees, don't try this on an R20 reverse curve, though.)

 

There's even plenty of clearance with a 53' car and the SHS switch lantern.

 

Break out the AM 75' Budd cars and things get painful.

Plus, the Budd car rubs against the relatively low switch stand lantern.

 

Some things to consider when asking for longer cars...

 

Rusty

Too tight curves 

 can cause derailments..DaveB

Lionel has the solution for longer freight and scale size passenger cars. The technical aspect has already been solved. Just look at the 24" long O scale Autorack. They run on 27"r in O scale thanks to the telescoping draft gear... that works out to just over 20"r in S. It might look silly on that radius, but it could be done. The turnouts are a consideration of course. I expect that the FT switches will have a low profile stand though.

 

 

ok, anything can be forced to go around any radius curve if you apply enough technology and don't care how ridiculous it looks.  And if you don't care how high the MSRP is and you don't care if nobody buys it!

 

I'm sorry I started all this by responding to Swafford's assertion that 40ft-well articulated cars would easily go around 20" radius curves.

 

Let's move on from this tired issue that has plagued o-gauge as well as s-gauge since forever!!!

It did take some time, but many O Gaugers did evolve beyond O31 curves over the past 20 years.  I'd wager it was driven more by new people entering O rather than the traditionalists. 

 

S will eventually likewise evolve beyond S20 as a standard.

 

Granted, there are still plenty of O folks who rightfully enjoy their O27 and O31, but I don't think they have any realistic expectations of running 85' cars and full scale locomotives on them.

 

Even as an S Scale person, there are things that won't run around the 33"-34" radius curves I have on my mainline.  Even though the American Models SF 4-8-4 will trundle happily around those curves all day, my River Raisin SP 4-8-2 won't.

 

Rusty

 

Rusty