Which Magazine is Better?

@Rich883 posted:

I agree with a hot Water, I subscribe to both, but I don’t know how many more Lionel dealer layout articles or a recap of what was new in 1952 I can consume...well befor I was born.....and I am not young.

 

I actually disagree. CTT for me is an opportunity for the history of Lionel, much of which we will never know. I would rather read about old trains, construction techniques, in depth articles on the many different dealer displays etc. For operating go get your modelling magazines. I collect for the pure toy value and connection to past owners and culture. No interest in electronic sounds, digital control with the lionel stuff.

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Also, don't forget that you have the ability to access all past issues from OGR. 

You're right, Trainmaster.  Unfortunately, I can't search through them.  I was trying to dig up an article I had published back when Myron Biggar ran OGR. 

@RJR posted:

You're right, Trainmaster.  Unfortunately, I can't search through them.  I was trying to dig up an article I had published back when Myron Biggar ran OGR. 

That's a shame. Also, I am very surprised that my old post popped back up. I figured that the firestorm of comments was over but I am mistaken. 

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Gave up because of a typo/mistake?  I'm positive they know what a Pacific is. 😀

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

@RJR posted:

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

Ok, now that is odd. Very odd for CTT since they have multiple minds who know about Lionel history. It makes sense for you to give them up because I have noticed the same thing when I had a subscription with them.

In fairness to Kalmbach, this was MANY years ago.

I don’t think either is better. I’m totally relaxed reading either one while sitting in my easy chair. I wish both had enough followers to permit monthly offerings. I also enjoy model railroader to fill in the empty month. 

@RJR posted:

No, it was not a typo.  The Lionel loco to which they were referring was in fact a 2-6-4.

Didn't Lionel refer to their 675 and similar postwar locos as Pacifics? That is my understanding. Incorrect, of course, but perhaps CTT was simply referring to the Lionel designation. CTT was always a collector magazine more interested in the history of Lionel than prototype trains.

I subscribe to both as they both are good resources. Which is my favorite? OGR, of course and for my own personal reasons!

Joe Gozzo

@RJR posted:

I gave up on CTT years ago, in disgust when an article pronounced that Lionel's Pacific was a 2-6-4.  Settled in on OGR digital because I don't have an accumulation of paper, and because I feel I owe OGR Co. something for their underwriting of this forum, which I enjoy and I'm sure is a costly expenditure for them

Prior to 1997, Lionel's post-war "pacifics" were 2-6-4s.  I got back into the hobby in 1995 and the only current, accurate K4s was MTH's (a PS-1 locomotive).  Lionel couldn't be bothered to produce an accurate K4s as they were too busy churning out Hudsons every 15 minutes.  Weaver and Williams had made accurate ones in the past, but I was unaware of them.

Lionel made the 2025, 226E, 2035, 2037 - all 2-6-4s.  Good grief, how many chances to get it right do you need?  CTT called it correctly.  Lionel didn't care - they sold.  It was that inaccuracy and MTH's $700 price tag led to my discovery and purchase of my first Williams K4s.

George

No matter what Lionel said, a 2-6-4 was still an Adriatic.  Some of those 2-axle trailing trucks looked lousy.

I think possibly why Lionel called their 2-6-4 a "Pacific" is because when they produced 2035 they loosely based it on a Pennsylvania k type locomotive. In order to save money, they used the same frame/wheel arrangement from their 2026 or 2036 locomotives. Instead of calling it an Adriatic they called it a Pacific since it has a Pacific styled body. Similar to their General. They called their 4-4-0 a General because that was what it was based on, instead of calling it an American class. On the situation of CTT, I think that why CTT called it a pacific is because that is what Lionel labeled it. 

@RJR posted:

No matter what Lionel said, a 2-6-4 was still an Adriatic.  Some of those 2-axle trailing trucks looked lousy.

I think you and CTT were not a very good match, anyway. CTT is (or was) for collectors of prewar and postwar Lionel and Flyer. People who don't take the accuracy of their trains too seriously.

I agree, though, some of those trailing 4 wheel tracks with the different size wheels almost touching look pretty silly in retrospect.