# New Lionchief Plus A5 0-4-0: Nice, with Two Small Surprises



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

I've always liked the Lionel conventional A5 0-4-0. It was scale size, an all metal loco and tender, and a very good runner: the only scale Lionel steamer that would run and look good on my tight all-36 inch curve uppermost loop. Lionel's A5 was a rather good model, too. It didn't wow you with lots of "separately attached detail," but that was mostly because the real loco was a pretty simple machine: there wasn't a lot of detail to separately attach, so to speak. I've had had two for the last several years, and they got a lot of run time, although last Christmas I gave one away to someone more needy that I. 

So when Lionel announced an LC+ version of the A5, I ordered two, in different Railroads, so they would have separate remotes, but making sure to order two that looked a like otherwise. Here they are, double-headed:







For the record:
1) Both arrived in perfect shape. They run perfectly in both conventional or switched to remote. 
2) Smoke is fairly good - not the best I have seen but okay. 
3) Sound is good. It is generic LC+ chuffing but that is not too bad. It's loud and deep and more than sufficient. Whistle and bell are generic: nothing special - I expected nothing more for the price, though. 
4) They are heavy and solid. I've always understood they are scale size, and they mix well with my scale locos, looking like the fit in: short, but tall and wide. TThey have "glass" in the windows and figures in the cab and all and a very good looking coal load.
5) Lights operate as I expected. 
6) With the remote, they run smoothly from really, really slow to faster than I will ever run them. 
7) You have to operate two remotes at once, but it is easy to double head these two - I had no trouble: more than two might present a problem, but two is fun. Once set to the same speed they run together nicely, and look good doing so.

*SURPRISE 1:* Lionel has a new type of LC+ connector on the A5. I don't like it as much as the old type, which connected the electrics _and _the coupling in one move. Now (shades of MTh before their wireless tether), you have a clip and round cable you attach first to the back of the steamer, and then the coupling. Why did they do this? I don't know. But all my previous LC+ steamers had only four wires coupling through the loco-tender coupling. This one has _six_. I figure that may be the reason. 








Anyway, the coupling looks durable, if very, very "PS2-like."








SURPRISE 2: Unlike all the other LC+ steamers I have, it has a front electrocoupler. I missed this in the catalog description, and it surprised me. Of course, the A5 was meant to be a switcher, so that is appropriate. Still, its nice and makes double heading them really nice and easy. 








These are just nice little locos! The A5 isn't big and impressive with a lot of "gravitas" like bigger locos, but its good looking for its size, scale, and runs and "fits" well on tight loops. I'm glad I have two. 








This LC+ version pulls particularly well for a small loco. Here its pulling 16 cars - half of them Menards boxcars not know for their low rolling friction. It gave no indication it was overtaxed pulling these around my layout are very low speed (about 5 mph), smoothly. Great puller!








And like I said, it's fun to double-head them! I've criticized Lionel in the past when they disappointed me, and this time they didn't disappoint me. These are lovely little locos, and good value for the money.


----------



## Spence (Oct 15, 2015)

Very nice looking engines. Enjoy your new purchases.


----------



## walter (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks for the review on these. Having front couplers, should make these a hit since they are switchers, they should have these. But the engine/tender coupling is very noticeable and takes a little away.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

I like the A5s as I do most small steamers. I have a K-Line with TMCC which is what Lionel has copied. I think the main reason for the wired tether is to take advantage of the tender pickup rollers to transfer track power to the engine and reduce the likelyhood of stalling on switches.

Pete


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2016)

Thanks for the excellent review, Lee. I like these little guys and may add one to my roster.


----------



## Fabforrest (Aug 31, 2015)

Love your reviews. Always a treat to read.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Very nice Lee, excellent review. If I didn't already have the K-Line A-5, I might consider one of these.

I suspect the 6 pins to the tender may be for extra functions, perhaps a working reverse light?


----------



## Mark Boyce (Jul 22, 2015)

Norton said:


> I like the A5s as I do most small steamers. I have a K-Line with TMCC which is what Lionel has copied. I think the main reason for the wired tether is to take advantage of the tender pickup rollers to transfer track power to the engine and reduce the likelyhood of stalling on switches.
> 
> 
> 
> Pete




Pete, I Have one ok the K-Line TMCC 0-4-0 also. I like it a lot. Thank you for the insight on the tether.

Lee, Very nice review as usual. Yes, double heading is always fun!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Mark, stalling on switches is not limited to small steamers. Its all about roller spacing. Club members have found their NYC L2 Mohawks are stalling on some of the switches on the modular layout. The double slips seem to be the worst offenders. I have been handing out single wire tethers for these which have wireless tethers and has solved the problem.

Pete


----------



## seayakbill (Jan 16, 2016)

Great review. I also have the K-line A-5, looks like a lot of us jumped on that band wagon back during K-line's hayday. I had Jeff Sohn repaint mine to the Pacific Coast RR.

Bill


----------



## njrailer93 (Nov 28, 2011)

i love these little steamers! great choice


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

The A5 seems like a great choice for small layouts. Sorry for the noob question. What do you mean when you say "I've always understood they are scale size"? Are they not the same scale as traditional O scale cars?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

There's "traditional" or "semi-scale" which is smaller than 1:48, usually up to around 1:56, and then there's 1:48 scale sized pieces. The LC+ A5 and Camelback are two of a very few LC+ steamers that are actually scale sized.

Many of the semi-scale locomotives are selectively compressed to try to make them look better than just a shrunken model.


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

Thanks. So my post-war stuff is traditional scale at 1:48 and the Camelback and A5 LC+ are the rare modern locos that is also 1:48 scale?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Actually, your post-war stuff is mostly semi-scale and smaller than 1:48 scale.


----------



## walter (Jan 31, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Actually, your post-war stuff is mostly semi-scale and smaller than 1:48 scale.


From what I understand, with all the steel used for the war effort. They shortened the rulers to conserve steel. Reason for post war items being slightly smaller in scale. :dunno:


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

ErnestHouse said:


> The A5 seems like a great choice for small layouts. Sorry for the noob question. What do you mean when you say "I've always understood they are scale size"? Are they not the same scale as traditional O scale cars?


Definitely not. Most "Traditional" cars and locos are not 1:48 scale but smaller. Although a few might be close: traditional cars vary, some are close, some not. Most are smaller than that. Frew if an traditional cars or locos will be larger than 1:48.

In the Lionel catalog on the upper corner of the page you will see either "O-Scale" meaning the model is 1:48 scale, or "Traditional" meaning, usually, it is smaller. Not a lot smaller but noticeable if put next to a scale model. 

What I meant is that back when the A5 has been sold as O-scale but up to recently, all Lionchief Plus steamers were not scale - only the Camelback is, the rest are traditional size. This A5 is short, but in height and width i'ts fairly large. A nice model.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Lee, is the A5 not scale length?


----------



## Stoshu (Jun 20, 2015)

_Bottom line Lee,
If you didn't have an A5 which one would you buy ? 
Is the new Lionel A5 better than the K-line version ? _


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Lee, is the A5 not scale length?


Yes, it is as I measure it. If I take the dimensions of the A5 as listed in steamlocomotive database on line, the driver wheelbase, overall length, etc., all are right around 1:47-1:49 -- as close as I can measure it. So I'm pretty sure it is a scale model. 

More important to me, if fits in around scale locos. Most of the LC+ locos, like the Hudson and Pacific, are nice locos but when you put them on a track right next to a scale Northern or Pacific, they look out of place. The A5 doesn't. It looks like a small loco, yes, but a scale small loco, because it is so tall and wide.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Stoshu said:


> _Bottom line Lee,
> If you didn't have an A5 which one would you buy ?
> Is the new Lionel A5 better than the K-line version ? _


I'd get the LC+ one. I had a K-Line version long ago. It was a nice loco, but I preferred my Lionel conventional one to it. The LC+ is just like the conventional one (sliding cab roof hatch, good detail, so-so smoke unit, just controls better.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

*Some additional comments* from running these little A5s all weekend. I really like them. Nice sound, good running, and they pull an amazing amount for a small loco.

*The smoke units are nothing to remark about*, unless like me, you are remarking that they are a bit weak. MTH and the better smoke units in the big Legacy locos have spoiled me. I guess there is not much room in this little puppy for a bigger, better unit. Regardless, these do smoke, just not as well as many others.

*The fifth and sixth wires* in the coupler are not, as GRJ suggested, for the backup light. The tender has a big one on its sloped back, but it does not operate on either of mine. I'm pretty sure the two extra wires in the tether (as compared to all previous LC+ steamers) are simply power leads from the tender to the loco: it only has four wheels, and compromised as they are by traction tires, electrical pickup is probably a concern. Unlike all other LC+ locos I have, the A5 tender has center pickups (the conventional one does to, Lionel didn't have to spend much here to re-tool) and I figure they just connected the two to get better running. 

*The connector clip can come loose* as the loco runs if not firmly pushed in, and I recommend after pushing it in, tugging on the other end of the cable and pulling a bit of slack cable out of the tender as you connect the coupler, so the cable is not pulling back on the connector: seems to loosen it over time otherwise. If the connector loosens too much, you loose the sound and the loco runs a bit rougher, too.


----------



## PatKn (Jul 14, 2015)

Another great review Lee. I also have the K-Line A5. The A5 is a nice little, affordable, scale engine regardless of the manufacturer. Because of its small wheelbase, the extra wires are probably a good idea.

A point of information for anyone who cares. The A5 is a Pennsylvania Railroad designation. The "A" class indicating an 0-4-0. From the pictures, it looks like the engines have the squared off, Pennsylvania unique, Belpaire Firebox. That also identifies it as a Pennsylvania or Pennsylvania related (Long Island RR etc) engine. That doesn't mean that I'm outraged at the Southern Pacific or B&O A5. I don't care and you should run whatever you like. This is a hobby and the trains are toys. I just wanted to add the information in case anyone is interested.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Bummer they didn't enable the backup light. I'm thinking of adding a wire to my LC+ Camelback to activate the light, the output should be on the LC+ board.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Bummer they didn't enable the backup light. I'm thinking of adding a wire to my LC+ Camelback to activate the light, the output should be on the LC+ board.


If you do, please post pictures. 

I ave wondered about making a simple rotational axle switch that detects backward movement and closes a circuit that you culd retrofit to a tender, so you could easily convert any tender to a backup light: when the tender started to move backwards it would turn the light on. Probably too much work to try, though.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

If the backup light is enabled on the board, I think it would be loads easier to simply run a single tether wire. However, for the steam version, I'm not 100% sure it's there, it is for the diesels.

I considered a backup sensor on a wheel, but it's not as clear cut as you might imagine. The simplest I could come up with is two optical sensors that are staggered and read a stripe on the wheel. With a measurement of the time between pulses, you could tell which one came first. With a more precision pattern on the wheel, you could perhaps simplify the timing, but I thought that might be more complex than just doing the timing with a uP.

I have a module that will actually accomplish the detection already, it does it by monitoring the motor voltage. The design uses an AC opto-isolator so it just detects any motor rotation. If I were to add a Schottky diode in series with the motor lead, it would only detect rotation in one direction. Then the one-wire tether could take the power back to the light. This would also be a ton cleaner, no junk hanging on the wheels.


----------



## Bob Phillips (Nov 25, 2014)

Gunnner

All this electronic stuff is mine boggling to me. I'm a wrench and impact man myself.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

No problem Bob, I use a fine tipped soldering iron.


----------



## highvoltage (Apr 6, 2014)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> No problem Bob, I use a fine tipped soldering iron.


And a microscope?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, it's not really a microscope.  Depending on what I'm working on, it's one of these two choices.


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

Lee Willis said:


> ...In the Lionel catalog on the upper corner of the page you will see either "O-Scale" meaning the model is 1:48 scale, or "Traditional" meaning, usually, it is smaller. Not a lot smaller but noticeable if put next to a scale model....


Found this great explanation very helpful and then stumbled on the explanation in the catalog. Geez, two scales in the same gauge. I get it. Never realized it but when my 248 is on the track, it's plain as day. No way a real 248 is taller and wider than a 1666. And then there's those lamp posts ... SMH


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Traditional versus scale is one of the more confusing aspects of O-Gauge - something you don't really run into much with O and N, etc. Nearly every manufacturers makes "traditional" O-Gauge locos but they often call them "non-scale" or "semi-scale," rather than traditional, as Lionel always does. 

Here is a very good example that illustrates some of the finer points about "traditional." The photo below shows two O-Gauge models of ATSF's big Hudson, number 3462. The one on the left is by K-Line. It is "semi-scale" and far smaller than the MTH Premier model of the same loco on the right, which is 1:48 thru and thru. Note the K-Line model is much smaller in all dimensions, and also that it plays loose with real modeling accuracy. The proportions of the loco are a bit different than the scale model which replicates the porportions of the real locl: the drivers on this semi-scale loco are reduced a bit less in scale than everything else on the loco (this is common on non-scale steamers). And the tender is not exactly the correct shape, and has six-wheels per truck, not eight as the scale model, and lacks the"Santa Fe" name above the road number. But that said, note that this K-Line loco is a very good, quality loco - traditional size does not have to mean "cheap." This loco is detailed and has TMCC and all the first-line features: its a very good tay locomotive, just made to run well and look good on track that won't necessarily take big scale locos. On the other hand the MTH Premier is scale, very detailed, and pretty close to perfectly correct as to . . . well, everything. One of my favorite models. It is much bigger, much heavier, and a bit expensive.









This second photo shows Lionel traditional and scale models of the Santa Fe map-slogan reefer. It emphasizes several things. first, scale proportions go out the window with traditional. The scale model (right) shows you the correct shape of the real thing, and also the right proportional size of doors, trucks and wheels, etc. The traditional model (left) is just as long, but about 1/4 inch narrower and not nearly as tall, as you can see. Also the doors are a bit oversized compared to the car's size etc. Still, it is a nice car and as long as it is not near a scale version of the same car, looks good enough.


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> ... The LC+ A5 and Camelback are two of a very few LC+ steamers that are actually scale sized....


I went looking for another loco that was Traditional to match what I have and found that the Lionel catalog lists both LC+ A5 and Camelback as Traditional scale.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

ErnestHouse said:


> I went looking for another loco that was Traditional to match what I have and found that the Lionel catalog lists both LC+ A5 and Camelback as Traditional scale.


I know, but the A5 and Camelback are scale or so close I can't tell the difference. This is confusing, I realize - one of those things you find out along the way -- but technically, within "the rules." Traditional doesn't mean it isn't scale, just that it's not guaranteed to be scale. I think these two locos were first made so long ago, before Lionel even made scale locos, that they are just classifed "traditional" just because of that alone. Not sure. 

I'm pleased with both because they mix well with scale locos and rolling stock - I normally run "all scale" trains on the layout.I have five other LC+ steamers that were traditional and too small to mix with scale, that I bashed/scratchbuilt new bodies/chassis mods for, to make them fit in around scale locos and cars: it was a fun project but I am glad I don't have to do it with all LC+ locos. Two are shown below.

The loco on the lower right is a stock (brand new, too, never run yet) LC+ Hudson, for comparison. The loco on the lower left, facing it, number 5702, was at one time an LC+ Hudson, too: I built a completely new body for it, taller, wider, and longer, replaced the pilot truck and truck under the cab with trucks better sized/positioned for this bigger loco, and replaced the tender with a "supersized" one with nine axles. This is a fantasy loco, an Adriatic, that is much larger than the LC+ Hudson as you can see (its about the size of s scale Southern Crescent Pacific). 

The loco on the upper track in the photo below was also an LC+ Hudson, and while a bit taller and broader now, you can see a close resemblence to the stock loco below it. Here, I merely replaced the cab with a taller/wider one, replaced the domes with bigger ones, added a taller stack, etc., and did bodywork on the tender. The result is a loco that can hang around scale locos and ook like a scale, if small, steamer. 







In fact, it is a scale steamer, off in dimensions by no more than a fraction of a scale foot anywhere: not a perfect model, but a pretty good model, actually, of ATSF 1856. What I am proudest of with 1856 is not doing all the work to modify the LC+ loco, as much as my research to find what loco to transform the Hudson into. I managed to find a class of loco, ATSF 1800 Prairie class, that had the right size drivers and driver wheelbase: the LC+ Hudson's drivers are 1:48th of the diameter and distance apart of the the 1800' classes. Driver size and distance is the one thing I can;t change easily when I bash a loco. I spent hours - many hours, searching through gobs of databases to find one that was not very far off.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

That still ranks pretty high up on my list of very cool and classy bashing jobs Lee, you did a fantastic job creating that locomotive. :thumbsup:


----------



## Fabforrest (Aug 31, 2015)

Yeah, blown away again. Oh, to have such skills. 

Might get be a curse, too, eh?


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

:appl: Wow. Thanks for straightening that out.


----------



## ErnestHouse (Sep 6, 2015)

It's hard to know if a loco is Traditional (1:56) and look ok with 1:56 Traditional rolling stock if the Lionel catalog says they are Traditional but they are really 1:48 "Scale". :smilie_daumenneg:

Are all Lionchief Plus 1:48 Scale? Here's one that caught my eye: http://www.lionel.com/products/western-maryland-6-82969


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

No, many of the LC+ locomotives are NOT 1:48 scale. Right now, the only two I know that are scale sized are the Camelback and the A-5.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

I think the Lionchief RS3s and NW2s are close to scale height and length but like the A-5 some dimensions are oversize to accommodate the motors and boards. 
Lionel is not the only one to take liberties with scale. All of the RS3s are too wide including K-Line, Atlas, and MTHs. Only Weavers is actually scale (in this case narrower).

Pete


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Good point Pete, I haven't really looked at any of the LC+ diesels closely, so I could have missed some.


----------

