The silence from Lionel is deafening. Is @Dave Olson or @Conrail6358 reading this?
@harmonyards posted:The legacy Berks ( former KLine tools ) show the same set up as Pete’s pics of the Mohawk, ….a generous bushing on the open side, …..seems maybe Lionel saw the writing on the wall after the K4s …..so we can cross off the Legacy Berks, ….
Just rereading this again.. man the gearbox is much more heavy duty than the K4s’.
@rplst8 posted:The silence from Lionel is deafening.
No comment .....but...most, if not all of these are out of warranty. Even the worst offenders, the 2011 k4s survived a year.
What would they have to say...oops?
In all fairness. I emailed Mike Reagan about this issue after he moved to TW.
It was the only email of the few exchanges I've had with him over the years that never got answered. Maybe it was just a coincidence, who knows?
I'm just so thrilled that I only own 2 locomotives with this design. The rest are well built TMCC and early Legacy locos with the good ole' 2 gear design.
@rplst8 posted:The silence from Lionel is deafening. Is @Dave Olson or @Conrail6358 reading this?
As far as Lionel is concerned, the only model with a problem is so far out of warranty, I doubt it’s a concern for them…..what we’re doing with the rest of the models is adding our own insurance policy,……as a manufacturer, they’d have to see repeated failures of in-warranty products. I’m not defending the big L, just giving a dose of reality…….when your car goes out of warranty, and it breaks down, you either fix it yourself, or go to an independent garage, or even perhaps the dealership,……it’s going to be up to the independent techs, the dealers with techs, and the plethora of talented DIY guys to keep our favorite machines in operation…….
let’s recap here what we know to help keep any hysteria from getting out of hand: in a nutshell, the only KNOWN failures are on the 2011 run of Legacy PRR K4s’s …we’ve identified a few other models ( with your help too ) that ONLY exhibit the possibility of a failure due to their design & close relationship with the 2011 run of K4s’s ……the purpose of identifying those “ potential “ trouble makers is to offer the insurance policy to simply remove that variable all together……
Pat
Very well said Pat. The main take away for me is that my locomotives(which haven't been run yet for lack of a big enough layout) will be able to not suffer from failures that would eventually happen without the fix that you have come up with, with tinkering about and help from the fellow forumites that know well more than me about things like this. Wow, that is a really long sentence, but I don't care because it says all that needs to be said.
So, what direction are we looking towards now? K4's versus Pacific's is a question on my mind. Are the Pacific's more or less a different design like a USRA(or other design) versus what a K4 would be(or is), or are they essentially the same chassis? Still a ton of Mike's on the list as well. Hmm, where do we put our feet?
I believe the S1s from last year have the same gearbox setup. I have not had time yet to open mine up to check it. I see on the side the same bushing and shaft as others have shown for the K4s.
@RickO posted:No comment .....but...most, if not all of these are out of warranty. Even the worst offenders, the 2011 k4s survived a year.
What would they have to say...oops?
Admitting there was an issue with the metallurgy of the first run (if that's actually the case) would provide some reassurance that the rest of the models - and future ones - are unlikely to have problems.
I just bought my K4s - so it's technically still under warranty. Lot's of other models use it too - not sure if any have been cataloged recently but I'd guess they were. Would just be nice to know the new ones are "safe".
@rplst8 posted:Admitting there was an issue with the metallurgy of the first run (if that's actually the case) would provide some reassurance that the rest of the models - and future ones - are unlikely to have problems.
I just bought my K4s - so it's technically still under warranty. Lot's of other models use it too - not sure if any have been cataloged recently but I'd guess they were. Would just be nice to know the new ones are "safe".
As I’ve said many times, why worry your self to death over it, add the fix, and completely remove the variable……won & done ……😉
Pat
It is interesting that the principle engineer from Harmon Yards has already come up with a fix.
Not a peep from the Pennsy shops. These are their K4s.....I guess now we know why the hudsons are better😄
Oh the irony, that Lionels legacy hudsons are one of the few modern locos to still use the traditional gearbox.
This has been a great thread Pat! You can't beat ,all of the great contributions from everyone, and a solution to boot.
@RickO posted:It is interesting that the principle engineer from Harmon Yards has already come up with a fix.
Not a peep from the Pennsy shops. These are their K4s.....I guess now we know why the hudsons are better😄
Oh the irony, that Lionels legacy hudsons are one of the few modern locos to still use the traditional gearbox.
This has been a great thread Pat! You can't beat ,all of the great contributions from everyone, and a solution to boot.
Rick, I couldn’t agree with you more,……it’s really good to see the brightest minds on the forum, come together, have a good clean discussion, with whining to a minimum,…….identify the deficiency, classify potential offenders, discuss the defect, find a solution, and implement the solution with results …..to quote Ron White, ….it’s gonna be a good day tater!..
Pat
Yeah, this has been one great topic, can't argue with that one bit. What is going to be funny is like what Rick was saying, Hudson's being better, moreover though, that the Pride of the Pennsy has to go to the Harmon Shops for repairs/replacements/fixing. I for one know that there are a few for starters that will eventually be heading that way, but that can wait until we are at the point to schedule fixing these things. What is next on the engine chopping block pray tell?
I didn’t really think about the irony of an army of Pennsy engines heading to a NYC shop ……this would be worthy of some pics of Harmon flooded with K4’s …….no??…
Pat
Okay, Mikado 4501 was asking about the motor, so I looked at that this time.
Overall, and @harmonyards if you have ideas about how to better light or better angle, let me know, I'm leaving this disassembled for the moment. Yes I tried to clear some of the grease but I couldn't fit a qtip and had to rely on a folded paper towel. Photo pairs show idler gear shoved one side or the other.
First two are oriented front of the engine to the right of the image.
Second pair is roughly down and towards the back of the engine.
Attachments
Images (5)
@naresar posted:Okay, Mikado 4501 was asking about the motor, so I looked at that this time.
Overall, and @harmonyards if you have ideas about how to better light or better angle, let me know, I'm leaving this disassembled for the moment. Yes I tried to clear some of the grease but I couldn't fit a qtip and had to rely on a folded paper towel. Photo pairs show idler gear shoved one side or the other.
First two are oriented front of the engine to the right of the image.
Second pair is roughly down and towards the back of the engine.
You did great!….photos are fantastic!….we can clearly see there’s no large spacer….Dave, would you do the honors?….another fail……
to recap what we’re seeing, and where the dividing line in the sand is, if we’re seeing a large spacer as in some of the other Legacy offerings, those engines will definitely be ok, with no actions required IMO…..if we’re not seeing a generous spacer, as is the case with the above photos, then those locomotives could stand to have some help,….it does look like the gear box is tighter in wall width than the K4, however, again, IMO, these still will benefit from a fix now, rather than finding out down the road they are developing issues,…..again, remove the variable, remove the worry,…..
Pat
@harmonyards posted:You did great!….photos are fantastic!….we can clearly see there’s no large spacer….Dave, would you do the honors?….another fail……
to recap what we’re seeing, and where the dividing line in the sand is, if we’re seeing a large spacer as in some of the other Legacy offerings, those engines will definitely be ok, with no actions required IMO…..if we’re not seeing a generous spacer, as is the case with the above photos, then those locomotives could stand to have some help,….it does look like the gear box is tighter in wall width than the K4, however, again, IMO, these still will benefit from a fix now, rather than finding out down the road they are developing issues,…..again, remove the variable, remove the worry,…..
Pat
Is that the whole family of Mikado's from where we started all the way to present day?
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Is that the whole family of Mikado's fr where we started all the way to present day?
Which model year is nareasr’s example?….I think he mentioned it maybe?…
Pat
You'd better mark all of them, Dave - considering this is one of the batch that Lionel made most recently in 2020, and Pat already got info from his buddy the early 2012 ones have it, too, I think it's fair to say all the LEGACY light, heavy and Santa Fe brass hybrid models have this gear box design.
I'll likely hit up Pat sooner than later about this fix, since I plan on getting some decent use out of my new Mike.
Yeah, it is the latest batch. That is all the way from the get go or dang near.
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Yeah, it is the latest batch. That is all the way from the get go or dang near.
I’d concur fellas,……that’s the whole family of Mike’s then….
Pat
Yeah, this was one of the most recent batch.
