@Bob posted:Wasn't there some talk about these motors failing in the Vision CC2s 0-8-8-0's when pulling heavy trains?
Maybe but I don’t recall that. Good chance these particular motors are not made in Germany so all bets are off. The only thing I am aware of is comparable size motors don’t have as much torque as the Pittmans they replace, maybe 2/3rds at best.
Pete
I’d welcome the switch ( either back or forward) to Buehler……I was not impressed with the Cannons ……if they did switch unilaterally, clearly the big L saw the writing on the wall as well,….either that, or Buehler put in a vendor bid, and just so happened to beat out Cannon,……but ain’t it a Cannon in the new 2-10-10- whatever it is ATSF monster??….perhaps they’re using both as vendors??.
Pat
@Bob posted:Wasn't there some talk about these motors failing in the Vision CC2s 0-8-8-0's when pulling heavy trains?
It actually wasn't the motor. I talked to a tech that worked on few CC2s when they came out. He found the motor driver board was at fault. It was leaking AC to the DC motor which caused it to run hot.
@Norton posted:Maybe but I don’t recall that. Good chance these particular motors are not made in Germany so all bets are off. The only thing I am aware of is comparable size motors don’t have as much torque as the Pittmans they replace, maybe 2/3rds at best.
Pete
Here's the specs of the Buhler motor they are probably using, in case you were curious:
Lionel put Buhlers in the second batch of Legacy scale PM/PE berksires. I don't know of any other roadnames got them.
Having said that, between the heft of the loco itself and the option of a long freight train or however many scale PE passenger cars one might pull. You'd think we'd hear about a cooked motor.
I own the scale PE version.its been awhile since I had the shell off. I believe there is a flywheel on each end instead of just on the output shaft for whatever reason.
Here's a picture from Lionel parts:
Back to the topic at hand. If no one beats me too it. I'll see about popping the top of the gearbox on my h10 this weekend.
@harmonyards posted:Here’s the deal, …if you can open yours up, and it’s the same as the 2011 run, then it’s game, set, match, the entire line of K4’s is now suspect to failure, …..if you open yours up, and find a thick spacer next to the worm wheel, opposite the spur gear, then we know we have to back up to find where they made the change……see my point??…
Pat
Totally. I”m just not home this week to do it. Will do asap.
Very cool fellas, ….it’d be nice to put some of these questionable models to bed one way or the other…….
Pat
One question on the Mike's, the chassis should be identical (for the most part) and only the shells between light and heavy versions being the only difference? I know that when the discussion had come up about the difference between the two real life versions it came down to I think boiler length and size but the wheels, chassis and such would be the same? Does that make sense, it's not like it is the difference between a Mike and a Mountain(Mohawk) we're talking about?
Dave,
You'd be correct. The chassis between the light and heavy Mikes are identical.
The brass Hybrid Santa Fe Mikado from 2018 also uses this chassis.
Thanks to a cancelled call, I was able to grab some time to unbox and checkout my H-10. I tried to get a few photos from different angles that should hopefully help. I believe there being some variations in how these locos were constructed when delivered (mine came with the protruding tender hatch, etc.) Not sure if variations extended to the gear set up, but it might be worth getting more data points on the H-10.
There is quite a bit of slop in this loco. After being returned from Lionel, I had to reposition/align the gears for the engine to run properly. There's also a piece of shim like plastic by the motor that seems a bit small for it's purpose. I don't think there are any spacers in the gearbox itself.
It doesn't look like there's as much room for the gear to wander to the edge as there is in the K-4 gearbox.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:It doesn't look like there's as much room for the gear to wander to the edge as there is in the K-4 gearbox.
Maybe so, but I've never had an engine who's gears got misaligned after shipping like this H-10 did. It was a PITA trying to get everything lined up up again to get the thing running. Prior to doing so it would run a few inches and just bind up. Hopefully I didn't knock it out of gear again now that I've opened it up! lol
I'm curious if you have seen that happen before on other locos? I assumed it was because of the new gearbox design.
@Alex W posted:It was a PITA trying to get everything lined up up again to get the thing running. Prior to doing so it would run a few inches and just bind up. Hopefully I didn't knock it out of gear again now that I've opened it up! lol
Thanks for the tip. Maybe I'll just leave well enough alone and if it ever starts chattering I'll let Pat work his magic.
Being a smaller loco to begin with. I don't pull more than half a dozen or so cars anyway, and die cast cars are forbidden on my layout.
@Alex W posted:Maybe so, but I've never had an engine who's gears got misaligned after shipping like this H-10 did. It was a PITA trying to get everything lined up up again to get the thing running. Prior to doing so it would run a few inches and just bind up. Hopefully I didn't knock it out of gear again now that I've opened it up! lol
I'm curious if you have seen that happen before on other locos? I assumed it was because of the new gearbox design.
Clearly that batch of H10’s will benefit from a fix similar to the K4s…..thanks for posting the pics!….any gear wander is bad IMO, and if we can stop it, let’s do it….if that gear gets onto a leading edge, and not buried where the heel & toe meet, to be sure at some point they’ll go into self destruct mode……
perhaps if Dave sees this reply, he can now start highlighting or some sort of note on his master list of locomotives he posted for us to see,……put a great big “FAIL” next to the locomotive,…..that’ll make it obvious!…😉
Pat
@harmonyards posted:Clearly that batch of H10’s will benefit from a fix similar to the K4s…..thanks for posting the pics!….any gear wander is bad IMO, and if we can stop it, let’s do it….if that gear gets onto a leading edge, and not buried where the heel & toe meet, to be sure at some point they’ll go into self destruct mode……
perhaps if Dave sees this reply, he can now start highlighting or some sort of note on his master list of locomotives he posted for us to see,……put a great big “FAIL” next to the locomotive,…..that’ll make it obvious!…😉
Pat
Noted Pat though I didn't do all caps, bold works just as well.
@harmonyards posted:Clearly that batch of H10’s will benefit from a fix similar to the K4s…..thanks for posting the pics!….any gear wander is bad IMO, and if we can stop it, let’s do it….if that gear gets onto a leading edge, and not buried where the heel & toe meet, to be sure at some point they’ll go into self destruct mode……
perhaps if Dave sees this reply, he can now start highlighting or some sort of note on his master list of locomotives he posted for us to see,……put a great big “FAIL” next to the locomotive,…..that’ll make it obvious!…😉
Pat
No problem - happy to contribute. After the K4 project, let me know if you need an H10 as a test for the fix. More than willing to offer mine up - unfortunately it sits packed away most of the time these days.
Really appreciate all the work that folks like yourself, Dave, and John are doing to keep these engines running.
@Alex W posted:No problem - happy to contribute. After the K4 project, let me know if you need an H10 as a test for the fix. More than willing to offer mine up - unfortunately it sits packed away most of the time these days.
Really appreciate all the work that folks like yourself, Dave, and John are doing to keep these engines running.
All I do is comment about things, like posts, get engines upgraded, and just remember a great many things. Sunday I just flew through the catalogs trying to get all the numbers and such. Either way the engines would have come up as we did gave an idea of the really bad ones, but we still have others that are sort of unknown as their status.
You would think that perhaps after the 2011 offerings that some things would have been found out by Lionel and corrected, but there is the problem. How are they going to know if no one is telling them. There are a good number of engines on that list, and I have very few which consist of the back part of it, not the front. If no one has a portion of the middle, essentially we are left with sleeping giants(or monsters) that we may never know about. This is why this list is important to get to the bottom of.
That being said, I don't know if any of the engines on the list were not produced. However, as longs as one in the bunch from that year, we have some sort of footprint to what it would have been. See what comes out.
Low quality video of Lionel PRR k-4 6-11328 exhibiting what I suspect is gear misalignment being discussed here.
I sent the engine to forum sponsor The Train Doctor last month hoping they could solve the issue. So far I have not
heard from them that they have had an opportunity to evaluate the engine. How timely is this current post. Thank you all for the great information.
@PRRMike posted:Low quality video of Lionel PRR k-4 6-11328 exhibiting what I suspect is gear misalignment being discussed here.
Yikes! That's the same model I had.
On mine, the secondary shaft started wearing into the chassis bushing on one side. It was actually making small bronze shavings.
A real shame though, great looking k4 and one of the smoothest running locos I ever owned.
I think the K Line /Lionel legacy k4 tooling is the only one that catches the unique driver detail of the prototype. The Mth and Lionel tmcc k4 (and a half lol) just have the run of the mill spoked drivers.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
