Lionel Legacy K-4 Gear Issue

Well, you don't need belt drive for that.  My VL-BB pulled 70 cars and seemed it could handle a lot more if I was so inclined.  The is a point of diminishing returns with the gear ratio.  Something around 26-28 to 1 would be about right.  If the gear ratio gets much higher than that, you start having a whole new set of issues.

I did a couple of Williams brass steamers with 44:1 gearing.  Once you got past around 30 scale MPH, the motor was starting to really create some noise.  The scale speed topped out around 44-45 scale MPH at 8,000 RPM of the motor, and you could REALLY hear the motor.  I will allow for most running, the 30 scale MPH would probably be fine for me, but it's just the idea of being "limited".

Thanks for this VITAL LUBRICATING information RICKO and TED S, in all these years I have NEVER known about the existence of this intermediate gear shaft, and that it needs lubrication. Lucky I guess that I have had no reason to open up those gearboxes. My Legacy M1a does indeed have it also, and the recently made light 4-8-2, and the Legacy 2-8-0s built before the H-10s, and my Legacy 2-6-6-2 on the rear driver set only. My owner's manuals do not itemize this shaft and bearings as lubrication points, and it's hard to find even when knowing what to look for, sometimes completely hidden behind the drive wheel's counterweight. The H-10 manual does show a second point on the main driver rods though, to lubricate.  But these bearings all have a drop of LaBelle on them now and hopefully have not sustained damage in the years till now.  

Rick

Downers Grove Illinois

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Well, you don't need belt drive for that.  My VL-BB pulled 70 cars and seemed it could handle a lot more if I was so inclined.  The is a point of diminishing returns with the gear ratio.  Something around 26-28 to 1 would be about right.  If the gear ratio gets much higher than that, you start having a whole new set of issues.

I did a couple of Williams brass steamers with 44:1 gearing.  Once you got past around 30 scale MPH, the motor was starting to really create some noise.  The scale speed topped out around 44-45 scale MPH at 8,000 RPM of the motor, and you could REALLY hear the motor.  I will allow for most running, the 30 scale MPH would probably be fine for me, but it's just the idea of being "limited".

Yeah i understand. I just like the concept of the belt drive. and there is some reduction. Not sure the ratio. There are always extremes one way or the other with gear reduction. just need the right balance. Why hasn’t  this industry embraced brushless motors? they produce higher torque, smaller in size, higher rpm and quiet. 

Thanks, everyone.

I have to admit I tend to not lubricate my steamers very often...and some of my oldest models (15-20 years old now) have only received light machine oil...and I've rarely added grease to the drive chains via the ports. I've always been of the school "if it doesn't squeak or grind - don't oil or grease", but that maybe a recipe for trouble.

I'd love to see brushless motors come into use in the model trains.  I suspect the need to redesign the electronics for the motor has stopped many in their tracks.

I have an H10.  Are there any pictures of the 'intermediate drive shaft' that needs lubircated?

RickM46 posted:

I have an H10.  Are there any pictures of the 'intermediate drive shaft' that needs lubircated?

As RICKO posted above:
"  You can see this shaft spinning in the bushing behind the 3rd pair of drive wheels starting at about the :20 on this legacy Mohawk video ( not mine):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0y60BIICyng#  "

On the new H10, you can split the frame and work on individual gears, so they did learn something.

Yeah John  Same exact setup in many HO locomotives. Down to the square bushings. The drivers should be pressed on to a spleen. Makes even replacing the axle bushing easy. 

gunrunnerjohn posted:

I'd love to see brushless motors come into use in the model trains.  I suspect the need to redesign the electronics for the motor has stopped many in their tracks.

You are spot on.   We have moved to brushless in the r/c car racing world.    They need a special ESC (electronic speed control) and you have to watch the gearing.

From what I understand, DCC can't currently handle Brushless motors.  Also the current brushless in the size that might fit in our trains spin at 25K rpm at around 12V.

We love these in R/C racing as they also draw less amps, and we longer battery life.  They also get very warm/hot, so most of us have heatsinks installed as well when we make the conversions.

I can see that the H10 is better than the K4 in terms of serviceability.  But I believe that intermediate shaft is still captive in the chassis.  And the worm gear is still pressed onto the motor shaft.  So when the motor fails, you'll have to find an exact replacement  (or transfer the worm to another motor, which is very difficult to do.)

Also, there's nothing there to establish a precise mesh between the worm and worm wheel.  Hopefully thrust bearings are incorporated in the gear end of the motor, but i doubt it.  If the worm was pressed too far onto the motor shaft (or not far enough), there will be problems with the mesh.  Adding shims would be tricky.  Doing the opposite means removing material from the chassis with a file.  Take a little too much out and you've ruined it!

In all fairness some lower-priced HO locos are made like the H10.  But the best setup is a self-contained gearbox clamped around the worm wheel.  A separate gearbox also facilitates changing gear ratios, as does the 3rd Rail setup with pulleys.  So those of us who are willing to accept some motor noise in exchange for smoother performance can make that trade-off.

Regarding brushless motors... Marklin tried them in their HO product line about ten years ago.  Google 'Softdrive Sinus' or something like that.  They met with mixed reviews.  I think Marklin ended up dropping them and going back to brush (servomotors) with feedback speed control.  As an aside, Marklin cataloged locos with back-EMF speed control in 1995, well before Lionel or MTH.  So maybe their pioneering use of brushless motors is a harbinger of things to come.

I'm not really sure what the issues with brushless motors were, or why they weren't better accepted by the Marklin crowd.  I know brushless and battery power are now competing with small gasoline engines for use in R/C airplanes!

Soft drive Sinus?? .........sounds like a soothing way to clear up head congestion!...😂😂😂😂😂.........Pat

gunrunnerjohn posted:

On the new H10, you can split the frame and work on individual gears, so they did learn something.

Actually that's the same setup as the original 28086 h10/9 from 2001.

The only difference being the extra gears and shaft on the legacy version.

On the tmcc version, if the worm wears out you change it. If the axle gear wears out you change out the whole axle with the gear on it, fairly easy.

It's the gears in between pressed on the intermediate shaft that ride in bushings pressed into the frame that cannot be replaced, or at least....not easily. Which brings us back to the k4 situation.

I have a way to go yet to reach retirement when I can really enjoy my trains.i.e. kids will all be grown, etc.

I'm confident my nearly 15 year old tmcc Mohawk will still be running at that time. It's gearbox is as tight as the day I bought it ,as is my first run legacy M1b and pm berk.

The new legacy with the extra gears, I dunno. 

Ted S posted:

@Paul Kallus I don't believe the use of an idler gear is an inherently bad design.  If the bearings of the intermediate shaft are Oilite bronze, they should last as long as the bearings for the worm shaft and the main driving axle.  

Mine was lubed and it didn't matter. There was  a few visible shavings and the bushing itself was oblong. Gently pushing the Loco back and forth while powered down would rock the shaft end side to side 2 or 3 mm within the bushing.

Again, it was the "load" side of the shaft as one side of the shaft takes more of the load as the axle gear is offset so everything will fit. The opposite side showed no excessive wear.

This intermediate shaft  and bushing setup appears a bit smaller than the typical driven axle of a steamer where the gear is centered on the shaft distributing the load to both sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=667XSSxieXM

What happens when these locomotives get 5 to 10 years on them? My guess is that parts for it won't be available. Something has to change.

As Rick mentioned, lubing the intermediate shaft may not hurt but will it really help? The picture John showed in the initial post shows plenty of grease on the gears, yet the gears are still chewed down.

At the risk of beating this horse to death, does anyone agree that it'd be a good practice to either assuming one wants their locomotive to run a hundred hours or more: (1) not load these engines with too many cars, or (2) create lashups to thus distribute the pulling load. To me, this is logical as it means less load on gears = less wear, but what do I know.

Paul Kallus posted:

As Rick mentioned, lubing the intermediate shaft may not hurt but will it really help? The picture John showed in the initial post shows plenty of grease on the gears, yet the gears are still chewed down.

At the risk of beating this horse to death, does anyone agree that it'd be a good practice to either assuming one wants their locomotive to run a hundred hours or more: (1) not load these engines with too many cars, or (2) create lashups to thus distribute the pulling load. To me, this is logical as it means less load on gears = less wear, but what do I know.

If the gear box was engineered correctly in the design process there would be proper meshing. All this “running in” is doing exactly what you described.

There was tons of lube in the gearbox, that picture was after I scooped loads of grease out and cleaned the gears off good enough for a picture.