Does efficiency really make a difference, with the expense of going to one of the modern designs? In 30 years with can motors, I've only had one fail.
The Pulmor, if modified by (1) using a 5- or 7-pole armature, (2) placing a full-bridge rectifier between armature and field to make motor reversible when using command, and (3) changing the worm to single-screw for a better ratio, has possibilities.
However, what's the point of doing all that work for the AC motor when the DC can motors work so well in our application? As far as efficiency, does it really matter in our application? You might get 10-15% more efficiency with a universal motor, I'm not seeing that as an imperative to change motor types.
The old Lionel made hundreds of thousands of the "old" motors which are still humming and give good service with a little bit of cleaning and oil plus Magnetraction is so simple and low maintenance they will be around a long time. The "new" Lionel is always competing against the "old" Lionel and the numbers are on the "old" side. There are tens of thousands of the old ones still out there and always will be. So you can motor guys are just blowing smoke. Who really wants to see an engine creeping along ?? Real or toy. I looked at some new Lionels and MTHs today at te LHS and the ones that would look right on my layout are the small ones starting at $449. For that I can buy three good Josh Lionel models.
Obviously, many of us like the better detailing and nicer operational capabilities of modern locomotives Jim. 
Lionel seems to be making lots of the newer stuff and dropping the old stuff, that should tell you something.
There's room for every taste, if you like the "old" stuff, by all means enjoy it. I like the "new" stuff, and I'm enjoying it.
This is a great discussion.....as a non-technical person, I'm learning lots!
Thanks to all....
Peter
I thought Pul-Mor was aN AF term referring to the traction tires on their locomotives?
You can get an old Lionel to craw using square waves instead of sine waves. That is waht one can get with a PowerMaster and Cab1. Some other transformers with a sine output might help.
Dominic, if you're saying you can get Legacy low speed performance with a Pulmore motor and the transformer of your choice, I have to respectfully disagree! Not only does the new stuff get great low speed performance, it'll do it going up and down grades or if you drop off the entire consist and just run the locomotive.
There's nothing wrong with liking AC motored stuff, but let's not get ridiculous and try to compare the performance to a modern locomotive with a can motor and cruise control!
RJR posted:
The Pulmor, if modified by (1) using a 5- or 7-pole armature, (2) placing a full-bridge rectifier between armature and field to make motor reversible when using command, and (3) changing the worm to single-screw for a better ratio, has possibilities.
Not only these steps, but the commutator would need to be redesigned to a drum type from the current flat faced type. The drum type commutator has better conductivity and brush wear characteristics. The field would need to be redesigned for more complete interaction with the rotor. While not difficult work, it is a lot of work to put into the Pullmor motor. It would have little resemblance the old design.
Dominic Mazoch posted:I thought Pul-Mor was aN AF term referring to the traction tires on their locomotives?
Yes. Lionel bought out AF and applied the term to the universal motors.
RickO posted:...... and Ford hasn't offered a flathead V8 since the early 50's. Coal burning furnaces are long gone, phones no longer have cords, TV's now have a flat screen , video games had one joystick and one button etc.
Its progress and improvement. I'd be willing to bet Lionels existence today would have been sketchy had Mike Wolf not put the pressure on, offering the first highly detailed ( korean made) smooth running steamers in O guage back in the 90's.
Lionel had no choice but to follow suit to remain competative.
I can take or leave magnetraction, but pullmor motors are garbage.
I would be curious to know the numbers on the big ticket scale stuff vs the toy and or even Lionchief stuff.
Like many of us here, I'm not normal -
I've got more Ford flatheads than any other type of automotive power.
I have way AC open frame motors than can motors - still prefer the earlier.
Magnetraction has never failed me, where as I currently have 100% of my traction tire locomotives on the shelf awaiting me to overcome the anguish of selecting, purchasing, and installing traction tires as their originals have wobbled off...
I have no LED lighting on my railroad and use frosted color vs tinted/translucent lamps.
Tubular track and switches all the way - never had a piece of FasTrak
O42 is the largest minimum track curve path on my outer main line - I dream of a space to allow O72 minimums on all lines.
Legacy/TMCC/DCS/DCC - not present.
Oh, and I'm old young enough to be the child or grandchild of just about everyone here.
This is not a badge of honor, but simply my taste, and Lionel in its current form does not really wet my appetite. I will admit a curiosity into a LionMaster BigBoy and using PowerMasters for conventional control, but at their prices (even on the secondary market), I can do without (anyone want to donate? ).
Dominic Mazoch posted:I thought Pul-Mor was aN AF term referring to the traction tires on their locomotives?
Lionel acquired Flyer in 1967, MPC/General Mills acquired the manufacturing rights to the train lines in 1969, and in 1970 adopted, & adapted, the "Pul-Mor" moniker into "PullMor Power" and "PullMor" motors, referencing the rubber tire traction-ed wheels that the whole line was equipped with, and all motors were also of the open frame universal type, indigenous to Lionel trains.
When Lionel later produced DC only & can-motored locos, the more expensive open frame motors took on the "PullMor" moniker. I don't know exactly when this first happened, or even if Lionel started the practice. I have all of the catalogs, but would have to study them to find a first reference to them making a difference between PullMor vs. can motors.
So PullMor has been retronymed now to refer to the old 3 pole open frame AC-DC universal motors.
GregR posted:It was about one year ago, after the release of the 2015 Signature catalog, that I wrote of my disappointment with Lionel's decision to discontinue the use of the open frame AC (Pullmor) motor. None appeared in the 2015 catalogs for the first time in almost 115 years.
Yep, also gone are the rotary dial telephone, analog televisions with manual dial tuning, vinyl records, audio and video tapes, automobile carburetors, standard transmissions (not quite gone but getting close) and lots of other things from the era of the AC motor in Lionel trains. Time marches on and we can't stop it.
Postwar Lionel trains will run virtually forever if properly maintained, and they are easy to work on yourself (like cars used to be). That said, the new trains have performance that the old trains cannot equal. I won't be around to care whether or not those trains will still be running 40 or 50 years from now.
WBC. You're right. And, given the price of imported cans, the cost of such modification probably would never be recovered.
As an aside, some 20-30 years ago I modified a Lionel #624 loco to use DC on the Pulmor motor---bridge rectifier plus capacitor. It ran smoother, but not by much. Much smoother now with a can motor and DCS, as noted above.
The fact it has magnetraction means it can't pull too many car though my grades. Yes, I'm sure that after 65 years, the magnets are weaker.
I like pulmores to but the new technology of speed control and the Odyssey system just dint work with the old ac motors. I got my postwar to run and smell the ozone and I have the newer stuff, like em both, run em both. Like someone said earlier we are in a great time with the choices we have. Nostalgia is great but modern stuff now I'm sure will be nostalgic in the future.
BTW, back in 1946, what is now the Pulmor motor, with some variations, was called the atomic motor.
My thoughts- Magnetraction is a gimmick with limited usefulness on modern track systems, and it creates some problems of its own. Unrealistic aluminum side frames prone to stripped screws, wheels binding to the frame and intermediate gears, rubbing magnets, tendency to pick up tinsel and foreign objects near the track, etc. R.I.P. That being said, I really don't like rubber tires! IMO locos should be designed with interchangeable wheel sets, with one or two extra in the box, and WE get to decide between rubber or steel. This would be easy if brands L & M followed the standard design practice in other scales and used a two-piece chassis with separate gearbox.
Re: Pullmor/universal motors, I wish Lionel HAD engineered a 5- or 7-pole armature, revised commutator, etc. I'm sure performance would be competitive with modern can-motored stuff. Philosophically Marklin's product portfolio, tradition of durability and serviceability, and product development trends have closely paralleled Lionel's. Marklin also used open-frame motors for years. In the late 1990s they introduced an upgrade known as the "High Efficiency Five Star Propulsion System," consisting of a new 5-pole armature, circuit board, etc. Eventually they also tried an electronically commutated ("brushless") motor known as the Softdrive Sinus, to mixed reviews. Google these to see what I'm talking about.
Jim Bunte suggested a redesign of the Pullmor motor way back in 1992, at the dawn of the "scale era." When Lionel announced its Century Club and Postwar Celebration series I had high hopes. It's still possible, but now I'm looking to the aftermarket for this kind of upgrade.
Some locos with universal motors do perform very well. I once tested a Lionel 763 chassis which had been remotored with a 7-pole open frame motor dating from the '30s or '40s. It ran great!! The biggest problem with "traditional" locos powered by universal motors is their GEAR RATIO. With only seven torque pulses to the inch, at slow speeds the motor is eventually going to stall. The 773 with its mellow 18:1 worm gearing, and dual motored diesels with twice as many power pulses to the inch fare much better. A self-locking single screw worm isn't a good idea though. The momentum of the train helps keep things rolling smoothly. The fact that Lionel used back-drivable gears (and has recently reverted to them in Legacy products) means that two motors can "help" each other. For this reason among others, I would pick a 2343 over a Williams or PS1 MTH diesel with two vertically-mounted motors.
Pittman motors aren't all bad either. Most of the ones I've seen have seven poles and a replaceable brush cartridge (although it's doubtful that any home user would accumulate enough hours to require a brush replacement.) Lionel's custom developed Pittmans with their 15- and 24-volt ratings perform more realistically than the rock-stock 12V variety that you often see on a popular auction site. And as long as the worm gear isn't pressed onto the motor shaft, replacing the whole motor isn't a big deal. Good discussion all!
This is a great discussion. One additional point that has not been discussed is the role of manufacturing quality and fabrication tolerances in the performance of Pullmor motors. Most of you are familiar with how smoothly the early postwar Alcos and NW-2 switchers ran. Even the Pullmors made in the USA through 2001 ran relatively smoothly. Then the switch to China occurred. Overnight, these motors began running like coffee grinders, and got a bad reputation. Guess what? The Chinese did some sneaky, lousy things including:
1. Substituting 3mm metric armature shaft material in lieu of 1/8", resulting in bearing slop
2. Inconsistent number of windings on each armature field, causing wobble
3. Cheating on the brushes by reducing copper content, making motors run hotter and rougher
4. Inaccurately staked laminations
5. Armature laminations too close to field laminations.
6. Excessive vertical play
Then, add a significant increase in rough, noisy operation caused by modern transformer chopped sine waves, and you have a loco that operates like a piece of garbage.
If you actually rebuild one of the newer Pullmor motors and correct these issues, it will actually run smoother than a can motored loco in some of the cheaper Lionchief sets.
I can appreciate and enjoy all of these components....old school and contemporary...I run pw and modern traditional. I also like blondes, brunettes, and red heads...just don't tell my wife.
I am told the newer engines do a better job ?? How my old Lionels roll around my layout just fine when I crank the throttle up. Slow ?? I don't like slow-in model trains or real ones. Pulling cars ?? I have no helixs or grades on my layout and limit length based on my length of track. Hand held remote ?? Why when I can stand at a corner and watch my entire layout. That is the way I wanted it and designed it. So why invest a lot of money in systems and equipment that won't do any more than what I have. Plus I like old mechanical things. One last question ?? JLC made hundreds of thousands of trains-how many has Lionel LLC actually made ?? The new Lionel can't compete with the old so they are trying to establish an upper end of the market with various ideas and accessories, mainly based on electronics, that they and the Chinese can come up with. Sooner or later that will hit a dead end.
jim pastorius posted:I am told the newer engines do a better job ?? How my old Lionels roll around my layout just fine when I crank the throttle up. Slow ?? I don't like slow-in model trains or real ones. Pulling cars ?? I have no helixs or grades on my layout and limit length based on my length of track. Hand held remote ?? Why when I can stand at a corner and watch my entire layout. That is the way I wanted it and designed it. So why invest a lot of money in systems and equipment that won't do any more than what I have. Plus I like old mechanical things. .
I think you should continue to run exactly as you are, nobody is saying you shouldn't.
Its sad to see magnetraction and the pulmor's go.....Good thing I only own a few scale sets and engines....I will stick with Postwar, MPC, and LTI...They will run forever...this new Chinese junk they are importing will make nice paper weights in 5 years :-)
I predict:
1: Lionel will go to DC track power.
1B: Lionel will abandon 3-rail track.
2: Lionel will become a distributor of full-scale-only, high-end 2-rail hobby equipment.
3: At least 75% of the participants in this forum will cheer these developments from the rooftops.
Don't think it can happen? It may take five years; it may take fifteen years. But it will happen.
Who knew discussions about train motors could get so lively!
I don't discriminate between motors personally. I just don't expect my 50-year or older motors to handle low speed precision manoeuvres. It doesn't really worry me that pull-mor are no longer being made. They are easy enough to find.
The one thing that I don't understand about the OP's point is that, if the Chinese-made motors truly were garbage, then why is it so bad that they are no longer being made. Especially in light of the fact that reliable older motors are and will be for years available on the secondary market.
As for the Magne-Traction, I have never looked into how well it actually works compared to traction tires. (My BEEPs do deliver a good amount of tractive effort with one tire) I know that on many newer track systems Magne-Traction wouldn't work at all. In that light, it would seem to make more sense to go with something that would work across the board.
Just my two cents.
I not trying to convince anyone. This is just what I think
Magnetraction: I have a nice 736 that has it, pulls strong, starts nice. I have a nice 726 RR (Korean War) without the Magnetraction, hard to get moving, spins its drivers like crazy, not as smooth. You tell me ?
RJR posted:Does efficiency really make a difference, with the expense of going to one of the modern designs? In 30 years with can motors, I've only had one fail.
The Pulmor, if modified by (1) using a 5- or 7-pole armature, (2) placing a full-bridge rectifier between armature and field to make motor reversible when using command, and (3) changing the worm to single-screw for a better ratio, has possibilities.
Marklin does this to create their high efficiency motors. I've converted a few of my engines, very easy to do. I've wondered why Lionel hasn't done this as well other than the cost.
I see this can be a touchy subject. I don't own any locos with can motors at present. I think the only one I did own many years ago was a Williams SD-45. I operated mostly Fundimensions stuff and post war locos and rolling stock. One thing I can say about post war Lionel locos is that whenever i purchased one at a train meet, it ran as soon as I placed it on the track. I also had a 2343 F3 set with the horizontal motors. It ran like a charm. Smooth and slow was no problem.
Gentlemen,
I like all the different stuff, and run everything from Pre War toP2/ Legacy, I have no P3's however. My Pre War Tin Plate engines run so smooth via the DCS TR mode that it really amazes me. The slow speed control on both the Legacy and DCS P2 Engines is just fantastic, and my post war conventional's run smoother than ever, via the TR Z-4 mode also. Yes some are dated but that is part of the fun owning the originals. It's all great stuff!
PCRR/Dave
Surprised nobody has mentioned this in the thread. Or maybe I missed it?
Some of the Conventional Classics series (issued for about 5-6 years) all came with Pullmors and Magnetraction, right? Yeah, I get it that we're talking modern remakes of PW Lionel but I've got 3-4 sets (UP Anniversary, Orbiter Set, Alco Freight, et.al.) where I can enjoy these features.
jim pastorius posted:The old Lionel made hundreds of thousands of the "old" motors which are still humming and give good service with a little bit of cleaning and oil plus Magnetraction is so simple and low maintenance they will be around a long time. The "new" Lionel is always competing against the "old" Lionel and the numbers are on the "old" side. There are tens of thousands of the old ones still out there and always will be. So you can motor guys are just blowing smoke. Who really wants to see an engine creeping along ?? Real or toy. I looked at some new Lionels and MTHs today at te LHS and the ones that would look right on my layout are the small ones starting at $449. For that I can buy three good Josh Lionel models.
From above... Who really wants to see an engine creeping along ??
I for one one insist on scale 1mph and up especially for my MU's. MTH allows you to rpm your motive with a separate function and then throttle into the slow scale speeds just like real trains. Add the labored smoke function and it doesn't get any better. Also all my yard switchers creep and crank as i require. Creep aka slow speed is paramount for my operations.
Balshis posted:I predict:
1: Lionel will go to DC track power.
1B: Lionel will abandon 3-rail track.
2: Lionel will become a distributor of full-scale-only, high-end 2-rail hobby equipment.
3: At least 75% of the participants in this forum will cheer these developments from the rooftops.
Don't think it can happen? It may take five years; it may take fifteen years. But it will happen.
We already saw the results of a DC engine, it bombed on Lionel. It might make some 2 rail, but I doubt a dropping of a 3 rail line. More like 10% would rejoice.
GregR - Lionel actually catalogued the Cheesie SD9 which touted Odyssey speed control with a pullmor motor. I have two of them that I got real cheap, and they lack any speed control. That never happened. Interesting notes perhaps, they are simply GP7s with six wheel trucks, both units have super weak sound from the speakers, the sounds are unique, but weak. Always meant to change out the speakers. I ran them with ten blue Chessie boxcars I got from a forum member and the scale caboose The Odyssey with pullmor thing never happened. I've got the proof.
The thread is getting circular, time to unsubscribe. 
jim pastorius posted:Magnetraction: I have a nice 736 that has it, pulls strong, starts nice. I have a nice 726 RR (Korean War) without the Magnetraction, hard to get moving, spins its drivers like crazy, not as smooth. You tell me ?
There's something wrong with your 726RR. Here's mine:
Way off-topic from the original post, but I have a theory... Mr. Pastorius, what year is your 736? Is it an early version, or does it have a stamped-metal rear truck? Thanks!
I think it's a matter of what you like. But on my layout the new can motors just flat out run better. I seldom run my older AC motored locos. They just don't run as smoothly as the can motored locos.
superwarp1 posted:mlavender480 posted:superwarp1 posted:Would love to see the center rail and oversized lobster claw knuckle couplers go the way of the Magna-traction and pullmor motors. Change is good.
You're in luck! There are trains made just the way you want- they're called 2-rail!
Only problem with that statement. Lionel doesn't do 2 rail.
yes they do it's called american flyer by lionel 
I am glad MTH tinplate still offers the open frame A/C motor...I just like the look of it...its a work of art.
5 pole motors were mentioned by someone earlier in this thread. I know this is like comparing apples to oranges, but LGB uses 7 pole motors and run on DC. The slow speed ability if phenomenal. A few years ago I switched over to battery power. Best thing I ever did. Does anyone run "O" gauge trains on battery power ?
Mike W. posted:I am glad MTH tinplate still offers the open frame A/C motor...I just like the look of it...its a work of art.
There are a few AC motors left in the 2015 catalog but the majority of engines have PS-3 with can motors. With tinplate locomotives being the same price for an AC motor or a PS-3 with all the bells and whistles I think you will see even less offerings with AC motors in future catalogs.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
