# prove my 682 is real



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

I could use some help in proving that my 682 is true and correct. ( I looked for help on OGR and got no replies) This was handed down to me from my uncle who purchased it new and I still remember when he bought it and how he would add a car every Christmas until he had a nice set, the only set he had. Anyway, I tried to sell this and someone insinuated because it didn't have the valve gear linkage it was not a 682. The pins for the original valve gear linkage are broken off where they connect to the shell, the part that the pins go into is round in shape. I also have 671, 681, and 2020 engines and all of these have a six sided shape where the pins would go in if they in fact had valve gear linkage which they don't. Does the fact that my 682 has the broken pins and the round part prove that it is a true 682 or does it not. To sell this I have to be able to let a buyer know, other than my family history, that it is a true 682 shell. I also purchased a set of reproduction linkage and I would like to know the best way to get the broken pins out of the shell so I can hook these up.

I'm hoping I can get some positive information here regarding the shell being true and if there are other features that are unique to the 682.

Thanks,

Hudson


----------



## TrainLarry (Jan 15, 2012)

A picture of the locomotive, and a description of it is located here. The heat stamped numbers on the cab usually is definitive proof that the shell is original. Modified or repro shells usually use silk screen painting for numbers and details.

To get the broken pins out, they need to be punched out from inside the shell, using a small punch and hammer.

Larry


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Thanks Larry. I don't see how I can get a hammer inside, it would have to be a pretty small punch and an extremely small hammer. The photo and description doesn't help, I have looked at Tandem many times. There should be at least one unique characteristic that would only be on a true 682 shell.

Thanks again,

Hudson


----------



## TrainLarry (Jan 15, 2012)

It seems that all the turbine shells are the same, except for the 682 where the shell was drilled for the valve gear linkage. The only definite way to tell a 682 shell in my opinion is the heat stamped cab number, as heat stamping is hard to fake. Since heat stamping leaves an impression in the material, any overstamp, even another heat stamp, would leave a visible mark of the original number.

If a potential buyer asks to authenticate an item and does not know how to do it themselves, they probably would not know an original if they had one in their hands.

You may need to pay an expert that is familiar with the turbine variants to authenticate your loco in writing, if selling it is your goal.

Larry


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

I'm going to attach another photo, comparing a 681 shell on the right, and the 682 shell on the left. The black arrows point to the part that the linkage fastens to on the 682 shell. This is part of the casting in comparison to the 681 casting it is completely different. Now the kicker, both of these have a cast part number inside the shell that is numbered 671-3. How is that possible? Both are different castings but both have the same part number???

Nick


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

hudson said:


> Now the kicker, both of these have a cast part number inside the shell that is numbered 671-3. How is that possible? Both are different castings but both have the same part number???
> 
> Nick


If the parts were made concurrently it would not be possible. 681 was made in 1950-1951, 682 was made in '54 and '55. The castings are the same simply retooled to produce the later version.

This method of production insures that all the 'old' parts fit the same. Significantly reduces production costs.


----------



## TrainLarry (Jan 15, 2012)

The castings are identical. The 'stud' you see on the 681 casting is machined away and a hole drilled for the valve gear linkage. That is why the same part number is cast into the shell. They ARE the same. My 681 looks the same as yours.

Larry


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Bob, are you saying that the casting was retooled to include the "stud" on the 682 therefore retaining the 671-3 part number?

Larry, all 681's look like mine, the 681 is not the casting with the hole drilled in it, the linkage hole is in the long stud on the 682 that's the one that is different which as Bob stated is a later model. They can't be identical as the longer stud was made after the 681 was out of production???

PS, I'll admit I'm getting a little confused now.

Nick


----------



## TrainLarry (Jan 15, 2012)

I think I got your pictures confused, sorry. My 681 looks like the left shell in your picture with the stud, but no hole through it. If the shell on the right is your 681 shell, then it is different from mine. The picture of the 681 on Tandem Associates' website seems to show the stud, which would agree with what I have. Could you post a close up picture of the valve gear mounting on your 682.

Larry

P.S. Possibly your photo descriptions are incorrect in your post?


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Larry, the 682 is on the left, it is the one with the long stud. I have two 681's and they both have the short stud as on the right photo. If you look at your 681 stud from the side looking straight at it, you will see that it is shaped like 3/4 of an octagon, it has 6 small flat sides. if you then look at my first photo on my original post here, that is the side view of the 682 longer stud, you will notice that it is a circle and does not have any flat sides. Without the longer stud, the linkage when attached and in motion would hit the side of the casting. If your 681 has a round stud it is different from both of my 681's. The tandem photo doesn't show the stud as it is hidden by the to of the linkage. Let me know if yours is round or 6 sided.


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

hudson said:


> Bob, are you saying that the casting was retooled to include the "stud" on the 682 therefore retaining the 671-3 part number?
> 
> Nick


Exactly. 671-3 appears to be a casting number, not a part nos.


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

I think I'm going to take apart my 2020 and 671 to see if they have the same casting number. The number that is cast into both of these does say "Part No. 671-3". If I can't get this solved I'm going to take a bunch of photos, inside, outside, top, and bottom and list it that way. I don't have a drill press to get the broken pins out and I don't see any way to hammer them out as they don't appear to go all the way through to the inside.

Thanks again,

Nick


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

According to the service manual the part nos. for a 671 body casting is 671-218, for a 2020 it is 2020-224.

Let us know what you find. altogether curious.:stroke:


----------



## BigAl56 (Dec 14, 2011)

The 682 shell is identical to a 681/671/2020. The main differences are the valve gear, the white stripe on the running board, and the actual number under the cab. The valve gear requires a hole drilled in just the right spot to accommodate the fastener and that would be a tough fake I would think.

It also takes skill to reproduce the white stripe on the sides and erase and repaint the number. From the photo I could not really tell if yours has the stripe down the side. A closeup of the 682 on the side and the painted running board stripe will help.

Overall, while a 682 is worth more than a 681 is it worth that much more to go through the repainting and drilling? I would be skeptical all but the most greedy collector would bother trying to fake a 682.


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Big Al, the photo attached to my original post is a pretty close up side view that shows what is left of the white stripe however I will add another one to this reply. Again, the "stud" where the original linkage was attached is longer than on the other three models that I have and it is also round. If you zoom in on the first photo you can really tell what I'm talking about. How do I explain that both of these units have the same part number cast inside the shell but have different "studs". The photo I'm attaching now clearly shows the white stripe and the pin/screw hole where the pin/screw is broken off.

I would appreciate your thoughts after seeing the new photo.

Thanks,

Nick


----------



## BigAl56 (Dec 14, 2011)

I sort of see the stripe. There is a lot of reflection from the flash. Can you get a clear closeup taken outdoors in sunlight of the cab number, stripe, and link stud?

I'm beginning to feel I've watched too many episodes of pawn stars.  

Based on the preponderance of evidence before me there's no doubt ....


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

I'll add four photos. The paint is not a reflection, it is there, I would guess about 60 to 70% of the paint remains on either side. The numbers are without a doubt heat stamped and not painted. Hopefully these photos will help.

Nick


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Looks like a 682 to me. The real thing.

I confirmed my coin toss (came up heads) with my magic 8 ball.

I asked it 10 times and the answers are as follows,


It is certain
It is decidedly so
Without a doubt
Yes definitely
You may rely on it
As I see it, yes
Most likely
Outlook good
Yes
Signs point to yes 

I wonder how tight the broken part is in there?

Take an appropriate sized nail (or something) and cut it down small then use a C clamp and slowly tighten it up. On the out side use a piece of steel tubing or something that is hollow inside so as to let the broken piece push through.


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Thanks Ed. The hole does not go all the way though the casting so I can't press them out however that is a great idea using a C clamp and piece of tubing. One pin/screw is broken off at the surface the other is in about 1/16". I tried using a micro philips head screw driver and it did nothing. I don't know if a extractor is made that small but I'll search for one. If it's a pin of sorts and not a screw it will most likely have to be drilled.

Thanks again,

Nick


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

Someone said you could punch it out? :dunno:
I figured you could press it out. 

I do have some real small easy outs, but you have to go real slow when your trying, or they break.
I wonder if a little heat would help when your trying the easy out?
Or just the opposite, stick it in the freezer for a while then try? 

Is it stainless steel that broke off in there?


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

Ed, I don't know if it is stainless or not. The one that is broken off at the surface appears to have rust on it but it's so small it could also be dirt. I have an old customer that still has a machine shop and if he's not too busy I think I'll ask for a favor and let him get them out or at least get his advice on it. Thanks again for your help, you may not remember but this is not the first time you have given me advice.

Nick


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

I believe I bought a few trains from you too? 

How come you didn't try here?
You like the suspense of the bidding wars?  

Just had to run outside the golf club in front of me puts on a nice fireworks display. :smilie_daumenpos:

Then there was another in the town next door, not bad.

Then a few blocks away someone must have had some professional fireworks.
In the area where it was is all residential and my town only has a show on Labor day down in the park.

I got to find out who that was, he must have spent $5 grand or so, as his show was good too.

I am getting blasted from all sides!
It is over now. Good shows, I love the fourth of July.:thumbsup:


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

You're right, you bought a box full of Lionel rolling stock.

Thanks again,

Nick


----------



## Dano (Aug 26, 2012)

Near as I can tell the broken pins would be broken bolts and will more than likely have to be drilled out. Sometimes a drill in reverse will turn them out if you are lucky.


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

I drilled it out using a variable speed hand drill very slowly and it worked great. The push in rivets were too small of a diameter for the hole so I used someones suggestion that had made this repair in the past and used epoxy. it worked very well, I managed not to glue the linkage to the stud and it runs great. 

Photo attached.

Thanks for everyones help,

Nick


----------



## Patrick1544 (Apr 27, 2013)

That 6-8-6 wheel arrangement was a Steam Turbine Engine and was driven by a central gearing system under the boiler. It did not have any valve gear.


----------



## hudson (Nov 10, 2011)

We all know that but in 1954 Lionel decided to add the linkage to spruce up the old 681.

It's all show and no go.

Nick


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

It looks good!

I'm still waiting to find out about the casting nos. though. What did you find on your other engines, same nos. or not?:stroke:


----------



## Kwikster (Feb 22, 2012)

Patrick1544 said:


> That 6-8-6 wheel arrangement was a Steam Turbine Engine and was driven by a central gearing system under the boiler. It did not have any valve gear.


Uh, wanna bet?
http://prr.railfan.net/photos/Baldwin_PRR_6200_Turbine_BuildersCard_front.jpg

Perhaps it was for a different reason than the valve linkages we're used to but there was a link on the first drive axle. Therefore, 682 was correct in having them.

Carl


----------



## Patrick1544 (Apr 27, 2013)

Kwikster said:


> Uh, wanna bet?
> http://prr.railfan.net/photos/Baldwin_PRR_6200_Turbine_BuildersCard_front.jpg
> 
> Perhaps it was for a different reason than the valve linkages we're used to but there was a link on the first drive axle. Therefore, 682 was correct in having them.
> ...


Ahh. Did not know that. My error. Guess it was for some other use on the machine.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I would think a 682 on the shell would suffice. Otherwise if the buyer is negative let him go and find one more willing. You know it is 682 what else could you sell it as? See my point.


----------



## teledoc (Oct 22, 2014)

Although this is an older thread, the question about the casting number, it is 671-3 on a 2020 and a 681 Turbine I have owned since 1953, which were brand new when purchased by my parents. As far as the 682 that was in question about being authentic, it is indeed 100% a 682. The finished product looks excellent!!


----------



## teledoc (Oct 22, 2014)

I have been reading the various posts on this forum, OGRforum, and CTT forum about the abundance of 681 to 682 fakes. One thing that was mentioned was the number inside the shells of the various S2 turbines from the Postwar (671,681,682, & 2020 all included). The part no. IS 671-3 on every single shell, from the 1946 non e-unit casting and the e-unit slot versions.

For RKENNY: You referenced the service manual showing number 2020-224 and 671-218. Those numbers a referring to the "trim package" of the two cabs, that being 2020-224 would have a 2020 stamped on the cab, and 671 stamped on the other cab. Other Postwar locos share the same casting; an example 675 & 2025, and others 1615/1625, etc. If you check the Service manual on the others that share the same casting, the numbers listed would be for the "trim package--STAMPING NUMBER", and not the true part no. associated. I have been analyzing this for the past few days, specifically with the INFAMOUS FAKE 682.

The MAJOR item to check is the "boss" that was added to the frame casting (another Lionel retooling, after the 681), that the linkage attaches to, with a Hex Head STUD, not a screw. Apparently through the years, legitimate 682's were damaged from people thinking it was a screw, and snapping it off, when trying to take the train apart. The quick and simple remedy was to drill out the old stud, re-tap the hole, and put in a hex head screw. A COLLECTOR would not even give the repaired item a second look, and simply walk away. The other thing to look at on the frame is the front drive wheel insert. Only the front wheel has a special insert that fits the linkage correctly. This insert has two flat sides that fits into the linkage. These are the primary items to check when looking for a legitimate 682. The body/shell is secondary, and I think could easily be faked, with a decent effort, by someone with good skills.

For HUDSON; I appreciate the photo you provided with a side by side comparison of a 681 shell and a 682 shell, which actually shows the added "boss" in the re-tooled casting. That alone should be enough to show what to look for, when attempting to purchase a legitimate 682.


----------

