# Review: Lionel Legacy Union Pacific 2-8-0 # 618 (6-82183)



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

*When it rains, it pours. After a long dry spell, I had a pre-ordered MTH loco come in a few days ago, and yesterday, two new Lionels arrived. I will talk about the other one or those two tomorrow. For now, today is about this one.*


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Objective review Lee. I have an earlier TMCC version of this engine but lettered for NYC and came with a small square tender so no shorting problems. I got it second hand and paid about 1/3rd of list of the Legacy version. I like smaller engines and only a few have been made for NYC so this will work for me. When I suggested on another forum that these engines are comparable to MTH Railkings in detail it was suggested otherwise. For the price it could be a lot better.

Pete


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Lee,
I bought the same model-your opinions are shared. 

I'm not a "Negative Nancy" but I'm a little disappointed in this particular locomotive. 

Mine also has the fitment issue at the tender; which is completely wrong for a UP Harriman. I knew Lionel missed the mark by the catalog, but I ordered it.

A few other QC issues....

Not impressed for the dollars involved. If you're on the fence about one, wait for them to be blown out. Mine may get returned.


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

Excellent review Lee. Yep, locomotives in that price range should be perfect out of the box.

Bill


----------



## walter (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks for review Lee, was contemplating on one. Glad I didn't bite. Very disappointed by the lack of details being a Legacy model. Making me consider more and more going to MTH, and their system. 
That engine alone, and being marketed as a Legacy, shows Lionel's quality is going downhill.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

walter said:


> ....
> That engine alone, and being marketed as a Legacy, shows Lionel's quality is going downhill.


Though it's diappointing to receive a model like this, I really think Lionel QC is better with Mike R at the helm. At least other Legacy items have been flawless, for me, maybe I'm lucky.

The NEW Lionel FEF is an absolute winner! Sounds incredible, smokes like a grandma playing poker and one of the smoothest operating locomotives ever. I didn't think it could beat the 1st issue, but it not only does that, it leaves it in the dust!

Every now and then, a model slips through. I think this UP 2-8-0 is one of those.


----------



## L0stS0ul (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks for the honest review. Amazing that design problem went out the door.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2016)

Wonderful review, Lee.


----------



## Bill Webb (Sep 14, 2015)

Thanks Lee. Sounds like you have been bitten by a Chinese dragon with a Lionel logo. Maybe one of the presidential candidates is correct? Mike better manufacture more than some rolling stock in NC.

Hope the next review is better but tell it like it is.


----------



## santafe158 (Jul 14, 2010)

I'm not sure where you got that UP never owned any 2-8-0's. Yes they acquired some in mergers (such as the prototype to your model 618), but they also had many new ones. UP 428 at the Illinois Railway Museum is one of those. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any railroad from back in those days that didn't own a consolidation somehow.

Here is some information about UP 428 and other UP 2-8-0's

http://www.irm.org/railwire/rw170a1.html


The main thing that sticks out to me on the Lionel models is that they neglected to include the smokebox support braces that run from the smokebox down to the pilot. A very simple detail that I would expect on an $800 locomotive.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Nice long and detailed review. I considered that locomotive, but I decided that since I have an older Lionel with a PS/2 upgrade, that was close enough.


----------



## Spence (Oct 15, 2015)

Lee; your very fortunate that you have the talent to fix this problem. I on the other hand would never be able to find the problem let alone fix it.
For an $800.00 list price however there's no way you should have to fix the engine right out of the box. What's happen to Lionel's QC? :thumbsdown:


----------



## SDIV Tim (Nov 19, 2015)

Lee, thanks for your review, it's sad that Lionel is cutting corners and has been for ever. I am probably going to do a coin toss between this or some Railking ES44ACs or possibly wait and see how the Lionmaster Class As turn out to be.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

santafe158 said:


> I'm not sure where you got that UP never owned any 2-8-0's. Yes they acquired some in mergers (such as the prototype to your model 618), but they also had many new ones. UP 428 at the Illinois Railway Museum is one of those. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any railroad from back in those days that didn't own a consolidation somehow.
> 
> Here is some information about UP 428 and other UP 2-8-0's
> 
> ...


Thanks santafe158. I should have been more specific: UP didn't seem to have owned any just like this one. I could not find photos that matched well. They did have locos with vandy tenders, which is good, but this loco, small as it is, looks a bit longer and, well, different, than any I found photos of. I suspect it may just be such a lousy model that you can't tell what Lionel had in mind. As you observed, no smokebox braces. I'd assume it had some. What else did they leave out and what details did they just not bother to even try to do right?

I prefer running small locos on my layout so I looked forward to this for over a year. I'm bitterly disappointed in this model.


----------



## PatKn (Jul 14, 2015)

Thanks for the review Lee. It's nice to read an honest, objective review. At these prices you should not have to make repairs out of the box.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

One of the more disturbing aspects is the apparent obvious design flaw of the tender pickup roller, how did that get by?


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Lee & GRJ,
Mine has the same problem with the pick up. Shorts everything out. 

I have the TMCC version but haven't compared the tender pick ups. It's a great runner, BTW.

Actually, I think I'm going to send the Legacy version back. More hassle than I want to deal with right now.


----------



## santafe158 (Jul 14, 2010)

The tender is definitely wrong for a UP locomotive, but the locomotive itself pretty closely resembles UP 618, which was a second hand locomotive as you said.









Several railroads owned 2-8-0's of that type which were based on the Harriman Standard Design. Southern Pacific was another big one. Obviously not all of the 2-8-0's UP owned were of the same design. 428 that I mentioned being in Illinois is a somewhat different engine from the 618.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

The real 618 was close enough that Lionel could certainly claim there 618 was a model. I imagine they had the model, scanned through old UP photos 'til they found one that looked close, and through in the only vandy tender they had (fascinating tender in that photo, by the way). 

Anyway, it is what it is. Thanks for all the help I do appreciate it. Good info. .


----------



## santafe158 (Jul 14, 2010)

I have the feeling the Lionel model was probably based off of the Southern Pacific version of the Harriman locomotives rather than the UP prototypes. Close enough for many people, but not quite true to the prototype in some details. I think one detail I hadn't thought of that makes your model not quite look like the prototype is that the prototype appears to have a somewhat extended smokebox. As I recall, this was a somewhat common feature to western coal burning locomotives and helped them burn poorer quality coal used in that region. That being said, the prototype 618 is a coal burner unlike how Lionel modeled it.

I think I'm beating a dead horse here though. I'm sure we could sit here all day discussing details of the model that are or aren't based on the prototype Lionel chose to number the models


----------



## captaincog (Oct 7, 2012)

I have the SP TMCC version that likes to short on O36 turnouts and several reviews of it new it the day noticed this also. Does the new one do this? I am curious.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

captaincog said:


> I have the SP TMCC version that likes to short on O36 turnouts and several reviews of it new it the day noticed this also. Does the new one do this? I am curious.


I will test it for sure, captaincog. Of course, first I have to fix the $#@!**&??! Vandy tender first, so it doesn't short out ALL the time. Then I will get to the switches. It does not using the NYC tender I tested it with, but then . . .


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

A few of the SP 2-8-0s did have small square tenders but they would have still been oil burners and of course, lettered for..........SP












Pete


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Lee,
I checked my TMCC version of this loco.

The tender pickups are opposite of the Legacy version. In other words, they're 180 degrees out. The axles are no where near the pickups.

I will look at my Legacy version later and see if this can easily be accomplished. The TMCC version is held in place by a screw....


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Thanks 86TA355SR. I'm not sure what I'm going to do but hope to get to it this weekend.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

It looks like you could rather easily grind off enough to clear the axle, I'd be more concerned about stuff like the lousy fitting top on the tender, that's low class!


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> It looks like you could rather easily grind off enough to clear the axle, I'd be more concerned about stuff like the lousy fitting top on the tender, that's low class!


That and the fact that I will have to grind off the center pickups makes me really think Lionel just isn't paying much attention to its $800 list price locos any more. Rather worrisome!

The various inaccuracies in the loco as a model of the actual 618 don't bother me at all, actually, but this does. 

I'm actually consdering switching out the trucks for three axle trucks. I realize that is even more historically inaccurate, but it might look better, and I think I have some. I hope to get to it tomorrow, although I admit I'm feeling lazy . . .


----------



## c.midland (Sep 22, 2015)

Lee, Your review was both bad news and good news. I was really hoping to get this engine. It's about as close as any manufacturer/importer has gotten to the loco. I want to model. Having just had to replace the water heater, money became tighter this month, so in a perverse way, I'm glad I spent some time reading the on-line reviews and comments. 
This is the second engine engine I've decided to pass on due to one of your reviews. The first was the Williams semi-scale pacific. I appreciate your honest reviews.


----------



## rlomba8204 (Sep 20, 2015)

I had a similar issue with a conventional classic Hudson passenger set I got for one of the kids, and spent Christmas morning debugging the damn thing. Turned me off to Lionel and I have not bought anything from them since.

I think your review is fair given your experience. 

This is one of the reasons- space being the other- that we have basically stopped buying new trains. Too many instances of problems. Some people blame the electronics but I blame a lack of plain old quality control.

The only reason I now favor MTH is that if we need to get something fixed (one of my boys really wanted the new SD60E first responders locomotive), I can drop it off in person at MTH, since I live only 20 minutes away. This way I can register the complaint in person and have them deal with it.

Final thing I would do is to cut/paste this thread and send it to Mike Reagan at Lionel. Do they not care that the lack of quality control is alienating their customer base? Do you need to buy a VL product to have basic quality control? The problem they should realize is that when they screw up the more basic starter sets and LC/LC+, they alienate many customers who in time would have moved up the products line. It's their business to run, for better or worse.


----------



## balidas (Jun 3, 2011)

I prefer brutal honesty over pantywaisted political correctness every day. I don't see myself buying an $800 locomotive anytime soon but at least now I have an idea what to look for. Thank you.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Lee,
I took photos of the TMCC pick up over the weekend, just can't seem to find time to upload them. Will try tonight.


----------



## Todd Lopes (Nov 11, 2015)

Great Review Lee. I like the look of the engine and tender, but sorry to learn of the issues.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Sorry it took longer than expected. As you can see, the TMCC version mount 180 deg out from the Legacy model.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Wow. Thanks. It is 180 deg around. Funny how they changed it. You have to wonder why.


----------



## highvoltage (Apr 6, 2014)

Lee Willis said:


> Wow. Thanks. It is 180 deg around. Funny how they changed it. You have to wonder why.


Error during assembly? Don't think it was an intentional change. That and the misaligned top make me think their QC is poor.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Its not just that the pickup roller is reversed, the mounting point is different. Lee could flip the pickup around but it would then be visible under the tender between the trucks.
Most Lionel trucks have raised bolsters which mount right to the frame, not a body bolster. These trucks appear to have flat bolsters, which is more prototypical but require a different pick up roller. Lionel does make pickup rollers that don't have the knee bend but rather the roller moves vertically. Sometimes found on cabooses or operating cars.










Pete


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> One of the more disturbing aspects is the apparent obvious design flaw of the tender pickup roller, how did that get by?


Here is my theory.

The MTH designer who determined that exposed solder joints of the PS3 drawbar could be located a fraction of an inch from the trailing truck was let go by MTH. He found employment at Lionel where his first assignment was to design the pickup placement for the UP tender.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Well, my planned repair worked, but made no difference. 

I finally got to this repair this morning. I did verify what I thought was occuring. With the tender upside down on the workbench, I could create a short (make my multimeter read zero resistance) just by rotating and pushing on on the center-most axle of each truck Lightly back and forth: It did not take much force. 

So I removed both center pickups and ground about 1.5 mm away from the end of each base and reattached. THIS proved difficult - not impossible but difficult: it is a tedious three-handed job because there are three insulating parts that have to fit just so into the truck frame and around the center pickup assembly. You really need three hands to hold everything as you re-assemble it. But I got them both attached, verified there were no short circuits nor could I cause any pushing on the axles, etc., and I put the tender on the track, and hooked it to the locomotive. 

And it worked - for about thirty feet, after which the whole thing died and my ZW-L's red light came on and stayed on. No intermitant short this time. I played with it but the red light would stay on. 

So back to the workbench. There was a short, a permanent one now. I managed to unscrew the wires to the trucks and verified both were short-free, which left no good alternatives I am afraid. I could find nothing wrong with the pickups or trucks for that matter. So I opened up the tender. As I pulled the bottom chassis off, the unmistakable smell of "burned board" wafted up to me. There is nothing else quite like it, and this was mighty strong. I just gave up, reattached the chassis, and the tender went into my spare parts box, where I doubt I will ever used anything from it. 

Did my repair cause some problem inside the tender? I don't think so. I never opened it up and was gentle replacing the trucks (which still have no shorts in them, I verified that) have no idea how I would have hurt anything. But regardless, I'm royaly P.O.'d at Lionel . Royally, I say! We are not amused and we will carry quite a grudge for a long time.


----------



## PatKn (Jul 14, 2015)

That's a real shame. When you buy a new engine, for a decent amount of money, you expect a certain amount of quality. :smilie_daumenneg:


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

That is a bummer. If was a typical short the transformer breaker should have tripped before anything burned. I wonder if the board has two power feeds from each pickup roller like some K-Line boards had. If for some reason there was a difference in potential between the rollers it would fry the trace that connected them. If so the burned trace can be jumpered with a wire. Not so bad.

Pete


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Now I'm worried-mine was shorting out too.

I'm just going to return mine. To much hassle otherwise....


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

That sucks Lee!  I would be pretty unhappy too!


----------



## rlomba8204 (Sep 20, 2015)

Why not have Lionel fix it? Even now, while probably out of warranty it is still repairable. Throwing a locomotive or its tender into a parts box strikes me as a real waste. Not excusing the QC failure but if Lionel fixes enough of these there will be incentive to correct the problem. Moreover that strikes me as a more productive response than throwing it in a scavenge and being unhappy about it.

Finally, it is almost unfair to Lionel to not give them an opportunity to make it right but yet to complain publicly. Not life or death serious obviously, but every company has issues with QC from time to time. Again, not excusing it but that is why you have a warranty. Given the chance, I am confident Lionel would repair this defect.

It is your call obviously, but it strikes me as a less than satisfying resolution of the issue.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

I agree its worth sending it to Lionel or better yet dropping it off personally if its not too far from you. They should realize by now they have a problem with this engine. 

Pete


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

I'm not throwing it away. I just threw the tender away (or into the spare parts bin). But I'm not going back to Lionel: why ask the people who designed something with this many flaws in it to try to fix it?I have zero confidence they could fix it to my satsifaction. 

I am in the process of finding another small Legacy tender. That should not be too difficult. In the mean time, it is running on the layout today with the tender from my Lionel 2-6-0, which I showed in photos at the beginning of the thread. I'm going to do some light repainting on the windows and such on the loco, too, and neo-lube the driving rods, etc., and lightly weather it. It is not a bad little loco althrough it will never be a favorite.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I can fix it for you Lee, it would obviously cost more than a warranty repair.


----------

