Lionel 224e and 226e questions

Guys, does any of this really matter. You are dealing with all kinds of motors, engines, years of gunk buildup etc. This has become apples and oranges comparisons. Maybe that is good for alternative interests, but the post issue is about the MOTOR inside 224.225, 226 & 675 (pre magna traction). Only difference in BRAND NEW versions of these engines is the weight of the engine and weight and size of the tender. All DIFFERENT. Take away the gunk, clean the bronze bearings, re-oil and then do drawbar tests. The tender on the 226 is heavier than the 224 or 225 and way heavier than the 675.

GGG - I have parts books stashed away. I will try and dig them out. Too much stuff around here.

 

Hugh,

As I started this thread, I disagree. One of my 2 original questions was why does this engine require more voltage?  It hasn't been answered. My engine has new brushes and no hardened lube. It was suggested that if it's running at a high amperage draw, something was wrong with it and could burn out the motor. Apparently, that's not the case. Comparing it to those other engines appears to show that it's not excessively drawing current. 

 

-Roger

Standard deviation.

Amen! Enjoy, Hugh

Roger, I can think of one check that hasn't been run.  Take the two locos, hold the wheels so they can't turn, apply about 10 volts, and check amps w/ same AC ammeter.  The let wheels turn about 1/8 turn and see if there's a difference.  First test shows if there's mechanical binding.  Second shows if there's an armature issue.  All tests should be done with headlight bulb removed, as they have different current draws.

 

When replacing brushes, also replace brush springs.  Heat & age may have weakened them. 

 

If the 226E has been running for 75 years and has no problems, I wouldn't sweat it unless there has been some change.

 

Lionel made several versions of the side frame 6-driver motors, so it can't be assumed they are identical without carefully checking them, including counting the gear ratio.  As I noted above, brush plates may be mechanically interchangeable but brush locations differ. 

 

There are some references in the posts to the #726.  Do be aware that the 1946 #726 differed markedly from later models.  I have one of the BEASTS.  The Lionel "Atomic" motor, had a horizontal shaft, driving through a spur gear, a horizontal shaft that had a worm on each end, driving #1 & #4 axles.  Very noisy.  While I haven't seen the 1947-1949 726' I'm reasonable sure that the mptor setup wa slike that in my 1950, with the motor slightly canted and driving only #4 axle through a worm on the motor shaft.  My 736 drew much less current than my 1946 726.  (It now draws even less, since it now has a can motor and PS2.)

 

 

RJR,

My gut feelings about this is that there's nothing wrong with the 226, but I find it very interesting in locating the source of it's differences in voltage need. I will do the tests you suggest, but have a couple of questions. I thought I'd have to take off the shell, but I can access the bulb on the 226 through it's boiler door and the 224's bulb can be accessed just by removing the front truck. So, to get this straight.....don't connect them to a consist and merely hold them in position while applying voltage and check the amperage? Then manually turn the wheels 1/8 turn and do it again? Am I correct on this. If so, I'll do it as soon as I hear back.

 

Thanks!

 

Roger

Yes, you're correct. Let me refine the 1/8 turn item a bit, and withdraw that recommendation.  The idea was to let the wheels move just enough so that different parts of the commutator are under the brushes.  The more I think about it, this test is probably useless and I'd say forget it, since at time the brushes may be contacting either  2 or 3 parts of the commutator, which would give different readings.  What I was trying to detect would be whether one coil of the armature had failed. 

 

An ohmmeter with the brush plate removed would be a better approach.  Touch the probes to 2 section of the commutator, trying all possible combinations, plus touch on probe to shaft and other to each segment in turn.  The former should be approximately equal in all combinations Latter test should be 0 in all.

 

Do the 224 & the 226 have their brushes on the same side of the loco?  Don't laugh, in my stable are both kinds.

 

I think your gut feelings are correct

I'll be back with results in 10 minutes. I'm hoping I can do most of the commutator test (which I've done before on other locos) without removing the shell (depends on access). 

 

Roger

RJR,

First I checked the commutator segments. I couldn't cross check them as I'd have to take the whole thing apart. But I checked each neighboring segment pair and I checked each segment to the armature and they all came out the same.

 

Second test: I put each engine on the track (without their bulbs). Advanced the e-unit to forward, set the ZW at 14V and held the engine in place. 1.8amps for both of them. 

 

Roger

RJR,

I just looked back at your post. I didn't get zero when I had one probe on the armature shaft and the other on a comm. segment. I got numbers like 4.0.  Same for all

 

Roger

Roger,

I'll try again to post the full link to that original thread.  (If this doesn't work you can click the link under my name to see my previous posts.)

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/t...98#24800664109750298

 

Did you ever get a chance to compare the gear ratios?  Turning the wheels by hand won't hurt the motor, in fact it's a good way to look for binds, tight spots and burrs on the gear teeth.

 

Based on the amperage readings you shared I would say your 226e is operating normally.  A thorough cleaning and fresh lube might reduce the operating voltage a little, but if you're happy with the way it runs now I woudn't take it apart.  I'm not surprised that the Postwar locos you tested had higher current draw because they all have smoke units and magne-traction.

 

I've enjoyed this thread so far, and would love to have more technical information about the prewar motors and their differences.  -Ted

 

 

Ted,

Yes, this is all fascinating stuff. I am going to get a gear ratio off it after dinner tonight and I'll post what I get.

 

Does this reasoning make sense to you?  When I measured the current draw for both engines at the same voltage, it was the same. Because they have the same motor? I really should have tried the same with one of those PW engines. If the current draw IS the same in that test because it's the same motor, then under running conditions, the higher voltage readings for the 226 would have to be because of weight or gear ratio. Is that reasoning off?

 

Roger

Ted,

The link worked this time. Great discussion there too, but the problem is the same. A lot of people assuming the 224 and 226 run the same because they have the same motor. No actual measurements. We need to hear from more people who have both engines and their comparisons will hold more weight.

 

Roger

Roger, based on your locked armature test, I would say there is nothing wrong with the motors or wiring.  I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning.

 

 

Ted.......I measured the gear ratios on both engines. 10:1 for both. So, where does that put us? Weight difference?

 

Roger

Hello all...  I will weigh in here with a couple of facts:

 

1) there are two slightly different motors 

     224  same motor frame but has a 1666E brush plate and armature

     225-226  this is the same for both and has different brush plate and heavier       armature

     1666 also has the same frame 

2) increased voltage use comes from more winds on the armature I believe, 

3) Gear ratio is identical on all locos at ~11:1

4) Amps comes from the load...more load=more amps.

I'm chewing on your comment, Roger, that you got 4 ohms from each commutator segment to the shaft, on both locos.  Thhe shaft is connected to the outside rails.  Were the brushes in at the time?  If so, that would explain the reading, for the commutator would then be connected to ground through the field winding,

Better do a fact check HERE.

RJR,

The engine was on my lap on it's side, not on the tracks. I only did the ohm check on the 226.

 

-Roger

Well, I guess I'll muck up the water a little bit more.  I just finished running my 224E, 225E and 226E and found that they all run at about the same speed at 10 volts.  That was the extent of my testing.  I was somewhat surprised because the 226E is bigger and heavier than the 224E and 225E and has the firebox glow as well.  Additionally, it has the larger 12 wheel tender while the others run with 8 wheel tenders.  None of these engines have been serviced recently so I can't comment as to whether one engine is in better shape than another.  However, there is no question that servicing affects motor efficiency. 

I don't really know what kind of impact this will have on your question but in my opinion I don't think there is anything wrong with your 226E.  Some engines in the same series just run better than others.  I have a bunch of 736s and the disparity in their running characteristics even after a complete servicing is hard to figure but they all still run when I operate them so I ain't gonna sweat it. 

Uh, oh. Not what I wanted to hear, but it's much appreciated. Thanks for testing them. I just tried running mine at 10 and it creeps. Smoothly and quietly, but much slower than the 224.

 

Roger

 The 224 has a different part number for the motor assembly than the 225 or 226.  I guess the deviation may actually be in the field winding though, since the armature is listed as the same.   Of course we have to trust the edited copy of the document by olsen.  Seems weird to make a totally different motor if the only thing you changed was the brushes and plate. G

Huh??? Roger claimed his post war 736 used less power than his pre war 226. How did that morph into a 726 and 736 comparison?

 

Gandy

Gandy,

No, the list above showed the 736 and 26 about 1/2amp higher. 2.5amp vs 3 and change.

 

Roger

The part number is different because the 224E assembly includes the 289E brush plate assembly. The field windings are the same. Olsen's pages match mine(on this topic).

I love the trucks on the 226E's tender.

Rob,

 

I'm not exactly sure where you obtained your information that you state is fact, nonetheless it is incorrect.

 

The same motor assembly is used in the 224, 224E, 225, 225E, 226 and 226E, which includes the same armature, PN 226E-41. The 224E uses a different brush plate, but it has nothing to do with a 1666/1666E - the PN is 289E-23.

 

The windings of the field are of the same count throughout as are the windings of the amrature.

 

Having said this, some motors tended to draw more amperage because the silk and cotton wrap on the armature windings has been overheated, or due to the way the engine was stored, the material has begun to rot. Very much like old telephone wire, you begin to get cross-talk at the windings as the armature heats up. The only accurate way to test this is to unsolder the wire an one segment tab - separate the ends and then due a resistance test.

 

Dennis

Funny, I got my information from Original Lionel Parts guides....And from looking at unmolested examples here in detail.  I didn't add the part number for the brush plate (289E-23, which is correct) but it WAS used on the 1666 and 224 - others too.

 

As far as the armatures go, i held in my had 2 complete and separate original armatures in my hands, they were different.  I did not unwind them however... Then looking at locos at my disposal, all 224s were different from 225s and 226s, leading to my voltage comment.  Also I compared it to some 1666s and 1668 ( because there are common components) and the armature look the same as the 224.  The frame it self is similar with differing axle centers, pickup style, and mounting hard points, but the rest of it is remarkably similar.

 

Each compete motor from Lionel had a different part number, but had many common components.

 

So, You might want to check your information sources.

Rob,

I think my references are pretty solid given that they are original Lionel service manuals, parts lists and service bulletins. I don't use the half-baked K-Line or Greenberg manuals as they are inaccurate. Aside from these, I also have assembly manuals and drawings that detail the individual pieces that make up the basic motor housings or motor frames. As it pertains to factory assembly, the basic motor housing for the 224, 225 and 226 are the same. When Lionel changed the brush plate on the 224, the motor PN became 224E-25. With respect to the armatures, you make no reference as to where they came from - presuming that they came from let's say a 224/224E, they may appear difference, but from the winding department point of view at Lionel, they are the same. Indeed, there may be a difference in the design of the commutator as Lionel was moving away from the clamp style commutator to the embedded style. Likewise on the wire used, cotton/silk wrapped wire was being phased out as coated wire became available - coated wire was developed as part of war production. I presume also that when you say frames are similar with differing axle centers, pickup styles (collector assemblies)  and mounting hard points, you are comparing the 1666/1668 to the 224 etc. But that is an apples to oranges comparison.

Originally Posted by DennisWaldron:

Dennis I have the same references, minus build sheets. I agree that the frame/ housings are the same.  The only observed differences are the brush plate (springs etc) and the armature.  Short of having electrical specs for windings (or unwinding them) on the rotor, I can only comment that I see a difference in 224 armatures vs 225/226 armatures and this is what I referred to. The differences are the same across the locos and motors I observed. There is no silk or cotton wrapped wire on these motors.

 

I think the book edited by Bob Osterhoff is a good reference, and Bob researches his work carefully.

Which of Bob's books are you referring to?

I have a 685 that is in great shape, and it draws more current than most spur gear locos, and starts at a higher speed. Upon examination, one of the idler gears is worn, or else the pin the idler gear spins on is worn, causing the loco to not operate as smoothly as some. It works well and pulls well, but has a higher voltage requirement to start out, then you can throttle back a bit, and it will still run about the same speed. I have a postwar guide by Robert A. Hannon, that gives resistance and dimensions for postwar trains only, the armature should show 2.2 to 2.3 ohms of resistance between commutator segments, and 1.4 to 1.5 ohms of resistance for the field assembly. Given that these locos were probably put away after Christmas, and gotten out after Thanksgiving, sometimes without lubing and oiling, the wear and heating of the wires and insulation on the field and armature could be slightly compromised. Since repairing and rebuilding these are not fun and involve a lot of skills that are not frequently seen, I would run it and enjoy it. 

Take motor out and with hand see how loose the 2nd intermediate gear is on its stud by gently trying to wobble it .

 

I have a 675 made in 1947 similar to the 224-226 motors and the 2nd intermediate is very wobbly on its stud and with power applied it pushes out and

rubs against back of the wheel and takes more volts to run engine compared to same

exact motor as in my 2025 made in same year. At first it baffled me why it was needing more voltage to run.

 

Without fixing it eventually the teeth on it and the teeth also on wheel will wear more than normal.

 

 

 

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

Sounds logical.  What would be the fix?

To properly fix wobbly intermediate gear would be to take it in and have new stud

and new intermediate gear installed.

For now mine just sits as i cannot do it myself.

 

 

<input id="mac_address" type="hidden" value="" />

But are those parts available?  And how easy and how costly to replace?

 

(These questions are not intended to be critical.  I believe you are correct.)

If somebody has a technique to refasten those gear studs, I'd appreciate reading about it.

Dieseler (and RGR),

 

In order to replace the stud and the gear, you need to pull the wheels, brush plate and armature to access the back side of the stud, remove it, install a new one and clinch it into place. Then reinstall and quarter the wheels and add the armature and brush plate.

 

Send us an email if you would like these motors repaired.

 

Dennis

dewaldron@justtrains.com

Dennis,

 

That might be my issue. I wobbled the gear and it moved. Not sure it's excessive, though. I tried the same on the 224 and my 2046 and they moved as well. Not sure if as much. It does seem to touch the inside of the wheel, but not much more than the 224. I'm going to open it again and look at my brushes and springs. I am getting another set of those. I'll consider the gear option

 

-Roger

Dennis, are the studs and gears available?  Sounds like it would be costly