Is the Lionel Pullmor Motor Officially Dead?

I agree with you ZW.  One of the things that kept me going in this hobby was the education I gained in servicing and repairing my own engines.  I really do derive a great deal of satisfaction out of resurrecting a supposedly dead motor. 

 

There is no question that the pullmors, both old and new, do not run as quietly and smoothly as contemporary can motors and they don't quite measure up in slow running speed as well but I still like that throbbing growl the old pullmors produce along with their pungent and time transporting aroma of ozone.  Additionally, with the advent of DCS, TMCC and Legacy I have been able to operate several of my old engines with remarkably realistic slow speeds.  I must confess that there is no question but that nostalgia plays a large part in my affection for the old pullmors.  New pullmors are a different question altogether.  As has been posted the ability to manufacture a new pullmor which is as capable as the old ones has apparently been lost and I can firmly attest to that fact.  . 

 

Fortunately there seems to be a never ending supply of the old pullmors which will allow us "Old Goats" to continue to work on our sacred relics.  Lastly, the great thing about the toy train hobby is that there is still some diversity in motive power propulsion which will continue to keep us all interested. 

If you have a CC engine that you really like it might be worthwhile to repower it with an original PW motor.  I see a lot of them on the bay.

Here is my two cents - story short, I have collected every TMCC Geep and have 5 PWC sets.  These are all pullmor equipped.  In fact, I consider my Geep collection a study in the pullmor motors offered from '99 to the last one - Rock Island.  There were a few years you could tell the quality fell off.  That being said, I knew I was going to be running my Geeps, most often in some kind of lashup or MU scenario.  So I broke them in.  I may be wrong, but to me a motor that needs oil, needs to be broke in.  I followed a break in procedure with each engine.  Most of my TMCC pullmor equipped Geeps will start at the one notch speed step on a Cab1.  With a properly set stall.  It takes playing around to know each engine.  That is fun.  Also, I will say, that a consist of pullmor equipped engines glide around a layout, whereas can motored engines are too clinical, too exacting  with the speed control, which is just not as fun, or in my opinion as realistic as actually operating the engine.  Knowing it's characteristics and then working together.  Right now I'm into prewar, pre pullmor, even more fun!  These motors have been chugging for eighty plus years.  I may be going backwards instead of forward.

Still the point is often missed: we (The Can People) do not care for the AC motor because

of the way it acts. Not because it "can be repaired" (and apparently needs to be) or

because it reminds us of Christmas in 1955 (my 2055 Hudson year), but because it's

a toad, in many instances. We aren't Reds, really. Much, anyway. And my "fancy electronics engines" tend to work just fine, thank you, some after 2+ decades of casual care.

 

The thing that irritates me is the occasional Pullmor loco that just runs really well.

Not up to good DC-motor standards, mind you, but dependably and even fairly slowly

when asked to. My Commodore Vanderbilt and "Plain" 5344 Hudson, both Pullmor/TMCC

locos, are pretty good. Good enough that I don't have any thought of converting them.

 

At least until that toad needs real work. (Reminds me of the VW Beetle owners who bragged about having an extra engine and were able to swap them out in 2 hours. Funny, the

cars I drove never -needed- the engines swapped out.)

oops...wait for it. 

 

 Did they have twice the motor?

Much like can vs traditional motors in trains, its a different design who's traits are more desirable to some than others.

You forgot about how they are slow no matter what you do to them.

embed looks like it might not work..again...Not one of mine, but an incredible launch...30 seconds of shame VW-vs- Mustang

 

 

I hope not!        Pullmors have been around for 115 years. Will today's can motors last that long?   I personally doubt it. I have some pullmor motored engines that are just as quiet as any can motor ever could be.

 

I'm old school & do not like anything that cannot be fixed with basic tools & knowledge.

 

At one time, it was not acceptable to buy anything that did not last......Can Motors are a byproduct of a throw away society which should never be at all. They should be engineered to last if the toy train companies want to use them or at least serviceable without throwing them away.   Just my two cents.

Please let the pulmore motors die. They had their time but technology has past them by. 

There is no comparison between the can motor and the pulmore motor. The can motor is by far superior. 

Ugh. So called AC motors are in fact 'universal motors', they can run on AC or DC.

 

The only reason for the 'complicated electronics' associated with can motors is because our three rail trains run on AC. If they ran on DC, you could run one wire to the center rail, and the other to the outer rail, and boom, you are done. Nothing new here, it is what has been done in two rail O scale, HO, N, and probably several other scales.

 

Way back when CTT came out, in an early there was an interview with the operator of a toy train museum, he said for reliability he bought Williams engines, took out the electronics, and ran them DC.

It would appear that a lot more than the "Pullmor" is dead.

Can motors are more efficient and less expensive to make than the series wound Pull More motors. As to the quality and repair-ability, that is a price point issue with Lionel.

 

Twenty years ago, there was by then a well established, universal acknowledgment that Pullmor motors were the gold standard, while can motors and grimy tires were relegated to the underworld of entry-level sets. Three rail enthusiasts embraced rugged trains, and enjoyed quality features like open frame motors and magne-traction. At that same time, scale train enthusiasts, mostly HO, dismissively turned their noses up at our trains, labelled us collectively as "tinplate" people, summarily left us alone and went back to counting rivets or whatever they enjoyed doing.

 

Today, there is a tremendous divide in the hobby. While there remains a great number of traditional O gauge operators and collectors, the introduction of three rail scale products has brought a different type of hobbyist under our collective tent. Many individuals who, in the past, would have otherwise favored HO trains, are now O gauge enthusiasts.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I respect scale trains, including the necessity of their can motors, and admire the patience of their owners who repeatedly replace thrown tires, and who, whilst donning white gloves, can spend ten minutes contemplating the precise location where it is safe to lift their train, without having 7 detail pieces break off. For my part, I enjoy placing a durable train on the track with my unwashed hands, running it, hearing it, smelling it, and drinking a beer the whole time!

Nicely said.  All this over complicating of toy trains has led me to liking pre pullmor - prewar standard gauge trains lately.   Less stress, more fun.

I'll take Pullmor motors every time.

 

First, I've inherited good sized collection with ~50-60 locomotives (all post war) so I'm sorta forced into it .

 

Second, I'm not into the diorama aspect of model railroading so don't care about scale speeds, etc. I'm into it for tinkering and testing limits and just making things go go go.

 

Third, it is awesome that I can take NIB locomotive from the '50s and it will run as good as new. That will NOT happen with solid state e-unit-powered DC locomotives ~60 years from now.

 

Fourth, I have retrofitted a post war GG-1 with traction tires and it pulls better than plenty of modern DC motor stuff (~3.5 lbs) and has good low speed performance.

 

Fifth, Pullmor motor robustness/quality is light years ahead of hobby DC motors. They can take more current, are serviceable, and just generally much more robust.

Our society has become allergic to maintenance:  anything that has to be maintained is too much of a bother.  The manufacturing side of this trend--I will not venture a guess as to whether it is cause or effect--is to make as much as possible disposable.  The advantage is that we can spend a little more time running the trains.

 

OTOH:  the only toy train motor that I have ever had fail was a can motor.

I have mixed feelings on this.  On the one hand, being able to fix things is nice, and the metal frame motor is tough as a brick s*** house, but on the other hand, the can isn't really any "less fixable".  Sure they are not designed to be repaired, but I really doubt the pullmor was engineered to be torn apart either, I think there would be a few less pressed and riveted parts if that was the case.  In both cases it seems more likely that it was the most affordable way at the time to make an adequate product.  

 

This argument might be a little better if Lionel had stuck to one can motor for most models, but still holds up fair enough:  The idea of throw away parts is nothing new, in fact skilled craftsmen that repair one off items is a pretty un-american concept.  We got to be the most powerful nation in the world, in part, due to the industrial production offered by the use of interchangeable parts.  I really don't know which design is better in the grand scheme of things, but just because something has one part to replace instead of many more smaller ones does not necessarily make it a bad design.  

 

“I tell you, sir, the only safeguard of order and discipline in the modern world is a standardized worker with interchangeable parts. That would solve the entire problem of management.”  --Jean Giraudoux (French Novelist, Essayist and Playwright, 1882-1944)

William,

Nothing beats the ozone rush you receive running Std & O-Gauge together first thing in the morning.  Oh, how I miss it.

Pullmors are fine, but I have never had issues with can motors either.  The only issue with which I would be concerned is if Lionel, MTH, or WBB are using different can motors throughout the line which might eventually become unavailable.  If they stick with one or two sizes (say a 385) any long-term issues with can motors become more academic because if they fail, they will be available and easy to replace. 

quote:

 Sure they are not designed to be repaired, but I really doubt the pullmor was engineered to be torn apart either, I think there would be a few less pressed and riveted parts if that was the case.  In both cases it seems more likely that it was the most affordable way at the time to make an adequate product.  

 

Lionel published repair manuals, offered tools, including a press outfit, and made most parts readily available. I think they were engineered to be repaired.
I would certainly agree that some stuff was more repairable than others, and certain types of damage/wear called for replacement instead of repair. But in those cases, one could probably still get the replacement from Lionel.

Where is Clyde Coil?

Who?

MR Coil? I doubt he's laying that low...

Maybe sleeping?!?!.... ...

I like cans in the new stuff...but PWC and CC gotta be "Pul-Mor" or whatever they want to call the universal, wound field AC/DC motor.  Of course since there's no more PWC or CC......problem solved!   For Lionel.

Well, given modern wiring the pullmor unfortunately does not agree well with modern electronics.

 

Given I still run both the O-27engines of early MPC era (who like going air born for some reason above 14 volts, never knew trains liked to fly), and a modern scout set with the can motor, labeled at no more than 10 cars, both are fun, and fit with how I run trains. I always liked the old motors how they added some sound effects to the train, like background in location, with out the inherent annoying static and strange sound balancing that is a risk. (the scout set sounds considerably better to my ears on smooth sin wave, makes me wonder what Lionel tested them on)

 

Dead no, mainstream in use well not any more. Standardization is what made the industrial revolution take off. Here Lionel did the same with reusing parts to make many products in the post war era. So Con motors today really do need to to be standardized for drive trains and smoke units. They should do it for the benefit of all when it comes to cost.

Everyone knows lionel put pulmors in steams, diesels and accessories.  Not knowing much about Pulmor history I've always wondered if Lionel maintained the same sized Pulmor motor over all the years. 

The question is, are all pulmors the same or are some Pulmors bigger and more powerful then others? 

Thanks

Joe. 

Hi JC642

 

Throughout their history, Lionel did in fact, make different sizes of Pullmor Motors for different sized engines. Standard Gauge Engines had Huge Fields & the Armatures were about the diameter of a 736 Armature, only difference being that early standard gauge armatures had drum commutators & later versions had the disk version. Motorized Units such as the Gang Car used the same size motor as the pre & postwar whistle tenders. The prewar O gauge engines had armatures & fields that were thicker than their O-27 cousins. So, yes, there were many different sizes of motors depending on how small or big the engines were & how much they were expected to pull. Take care.

 

Some excellent points. To make a proper running and long lasting Pullmor motor requires selection of quality materials commensurate with the design. Early in my career I sold universal motor components. For instance the carbon content of the steel laminations has to be precisely controlled. The intended performance of a motor corresponds to using steel with a very low carbon content and copper for the windings with high purity. As indicated in your post the armature shaft must have a specific diameter and hardness to handle the torque and speed. Individual machine balancing of the rotating assembly is also very critical to smooth operation. IMO, none of the correct parameters on the Chinese CC Pullmor motors are being met. Hence they are not Pulmors but look alike copies similar to many other things that are made offshore.

Thanks, I wasn't sure but I always suspected the old growling Pulmor in my PW #164 sounding like it could pull stumps was more powerful then others that were much more quiet.

Joe 

Keith,

I'm sure glad that you brought this fact to everyone's attention, Thank you!

While I don't think its technically correct, I really only consider the plastic cap motors to be "Pullmor". and the dual field windings are the biggest pains. 

Few know about those first Atomic powered Pullmors.  Scary stuff....

Joe

Since I may not have read each response to the thread topic, this point may have already been mentioned, but here goes.  The term "pullmor" was first used by American Flyer in the early 50's as its answer to magna-traction. If memory serves me right, they adopted a logo depicting an elephant to illustrate the motor's "pullmor" power.  Lionel co-opted the term, to describe the classic open frame motor, following its absorption of American Flyer.  I don't recall the word ever being used until after the Lionel Corporation licensed out the toy train business to General Mills in the early 70's.

I think Goody has it correct. As far as I know, Postwar Lionel did not use the term pullmor. Use of the term started in the Modern era.

After General Mills took over Lionel in 1970, there was talk of calling the motors, 'Brute' instead of Pullmor.

 

The name "Pullmor" did in fact come from American Flyer for its tire-traction & not their motors. Goody was correct about the term "Pullmor coming from American Flyer, although not correct about the use of the term though. It is okay as it is known where the description came from.

 

 

I would like the following individuals; Adriatic, JC642, Goody, CW Burfle & 1688torpedo to know exactly how much their knowledge is appreciated. Here I am college educated with little memory recall remaining. You my dear friends are bringing facts back that I thought I had lost in the dark regions. To each one of you a very special, Thank you!

Pappy, if you have doubts to your own value, please think again. If it wasn't for folks like you, I would know much less than I think I do.(think I do!)

 But thank you kindly for the praise. I cant think of many others I would rather hear that from.

 

I remember talk about "Brutes" in Michigan, but not until it was mentioned again.

I thought the atomic motors were the whistles with red or white plastic case, and a red, or black with a "red ring", impeller that could be seen through the air intake hole. My Grandfather flipped mine over one day and said Oh, an Atomic whistle, see the red. So is that right?  Or did he just date mine to the "atomic years" in his head that easy? 

  I remembering Gramps had a dark ruby red cap in the cab of a showcase steamer. But don't remember which number engine. And bright red caps on a couple A diesels.(Army?) A grey top FM TM Lacky workhorse that had one red cap, & one white cap. Its double heading mate had a black cap and a white cap with grey and red swirls. "The Odd Couple". The other pair were red tops, and a third lone grey top at the yard for heavy lifting into the western villages locol loop. The TMs usually ran along the "inside" of the four wide, 14x28ish main line loop. Various Santa Fe War bonnet head end variations, on the outer edges. (But a Hudson, and a Berk ruled the eastern city). The Pullmor examples that are there, are some of the hardest pulling engines in the Lionel fleet. My Army engine, not so hot.

Guess, I loved even the trains I say I hate .         

The pullmor is also a design element in the 50 Gang Car.  

The new batch of pullmors that everyone is referring to are the ones starting with the move away from Sanda Kan...with the CC line of trains?

 

The pullmors on the 1997 and earlier PWC stuff seem high quality.  Some think they were actually made in MI in 2001 and shipped in bulk to China.