Pulmore Noise Abatement in a 602

Some of the sound is caused by your power pack, try using a postwar 1033 or larger.

Those jumpers are kind of light as well. I've toasted jumpers like that with PW engines. (Steam, but still only 1 motor)

If more power doesn't quiet it, it may need a clean up & lube or bushings replaced, etc. or it may just be a loud growler (the pulmore diesel nickname)

Those O-27 switchers came from  the factory with poorly fitted bearings for the armature and in addition to that there was only a single ball out of a ball bearing to act as a thrust bearing. Some modern electronic transformers can magnify all the problems. A postwar transformer may help but the loco needs new armature bearings. Even with new bearings it's never going to be a good runner all the stamped frame NW2 switchers run lousy. Of the NW2 locos only the diecast frame versions run quiet.  And as a bonus they came with coil couplers and it's easy to convert them to TMCC.  I have ERR AC commanders in three of them.  You know as a kid I thought the growling sounds were cool. Kinda, sorta, the first version of RailSounds circa 1957.    BTW larger wire is not going to do a thing to help this loco but running it on DC will quiet it down a good bit.   Problem is if you have any whistles or horns they will blow continuously.   j

Chuck Sartor posted:

Some of the sound is caused by your power pack, try using a postwar 1033 or larger.

Stuck a ZW in place of the CW-80, no difference.

I can tell you that without the shell installed, things are much quieter, but not as cool looking - it's like a megaphone!

Adriatic posted:

Those jumpers are kind of light as well. I've toasted jumpers like that with PW engines. (Steam, but still only 1 motor)

If more power doesn't quiet it, it may need a clean up & lube or bushings replaced, etc. or it may just be a loud growler (the pulmore diesel nickname)

Jumpers replaced  with some very heavy gauge speaker wire, no difference. That motor has been cleaned and lubed many times in an effort to quiet things down, no real difference except for the temporary dulling of the noise when red n tacky is applied, then noisy after the grease wears down/slings of/settles in. 

JohnActon posted:

Those O-27 switchers came from  the factory with poorly fitted bearings for the armature and in addition to that there was only a single ball out of a ball bearing to act as a thrust bearing. Some modern electronic transformers can magnify all the problems. A postwar transformer may help but the loco needs new armature bearings. Even with new bearings it's never going to be a good runner all the stamped frame NW2 switchers run lousy. Of the NW2 locos only the diecast frame versions run quiet.  And as a bonus they came with coil couplers and it's easy to convert them to TMCC.  I have ERR AC commanders in three of them.  You know as a kid I thought the growling sounds were cool. Kinda, sorta, the first version of RailSounds circa 1957.    BTW larger wire is not going to do a thing to help this loco but running it on DC will quiet it down a good bit.   Problem is if you have any whistles or horns they will blow continuously.   j

I agree with your comments - I did manage to get my hands on a NOS brush plate (two new ones, actually) and much to my dismay they did not get rid of the problem - it got a wee bit quieter, but as you heard in the video, it's certainly not gone. I was also a bit surprised that with a new brush plate and new brushes that the "runs better (faster and quieter) in reverse" syndrome didn't totally go away.

The motor frame is quite straight, the bottom plastic bearing plate has the ball in place, and the plate has been glued in the position that resulted in the least noise and best operation, at least while under no load on my bench. The brush plate was also tweaked for least noise and smoothest starts - not much play there, but a twist in one direction or the other as the screws are tightened almost always makes a difference.

And I certainly concur with your thoughts on the stamped frame motors - IMO they are by far the worst runners of the lot. That said, I have had a couple that were smooth and quiet, but never as smooth and quiet as the earlier diecast frame motors. Since I did find a couple that worked pretty well, that at least let me know the potential is there for all of them - I would like to perfect the tweaks, but am running out of ideas.

I have used DC in the past on the e-unit to get rid of that noise, and it definitely did the trick. But unregulated and with a large filter cap in place, the DC climbs well above the track AC and the e-unit runs really hot. Never tried that on the motor, but I may install a full wave bridge one day when I have it apart (again) and can isolate the grounded field wire. The horn disappeared long ago due to battery corrosion, but I would wire the bridge downstream of any future horn reinstallation.

Thanks for your comments

This is probably not the answer your looking but this kind of falls in the category “It is what it is” That old AC motor is never going to be that quiet no matter how much hair you pull out of your head!   I would look for a Williams switcher pre or post Bachmann with 2 smooth and quiet can motors and a electronic E-unit.  Train world and other forum sponsors have very good deals on Williams engines.   You might be able to take the body off you post war switcher and use it on the new unit but you may need to do some simple modifications.   

Chris Lonero posted:

This is probably not the answer your looking but this kind of falls in the category “It is what it is” That old AC motor is never going to be that quiet no matter how much hair you pull out of your head!   I would look for a Williams switcher pre or post Bachmann with 2 smooth and quiet can motors and a electronic E-unit.  Train world and other forum sponsors have very good deals on Williams engines.   You might be able to take the body off you post war switcher and use it on the new unit but you may need to do some simple modifications.   

Thanks Chris - I have 3 Williams engines already, and even the single motor Williams would easily pull the Seaboard 602 around the track if it were running in the opposite direction - and silently! Besides, the 602 needs to remain intact - special 1957 memories, and all that. 

The slow speed seems fine to me. I think it’s simply the electrical noise that comes from pullmor motors. Bad bearings and incorrect fits would not allow the slow speed you have. Tell people the noise is 1st generation railsounds. 

romiller49 posted:

The slow speed seems fine to me. I think it’s simply the electrical noise that comes from pullmor motors. Bad bearings and incorrect fits would not allow the slow speed you have. Tell people the noise is 1st generation railsounds. 

You make a good point Ron, for a Pullmor motor, it does run fairly smooth - just loud for my ears. It is the one of the 2 sounds that I can hear in my head when thinking about Lionel engines, the other being the horrible bleat from the bicycle horn under the hood 

Hi, I think your problem is your bottom black bearing plate, your armature is out of alignment, put a small shim on one side or the other,I'm not sure which side but I have had this problem too and the shim seems to work, give it a try, good luck,  Brian Whitten ,Buxton Station.

GeoPeg posted:

Chris Lonero posted:

This is probably not the answer your looking but this kind of falls in the category “It is what it is” That old AC motor is never going to be that quiet no matter how much hair you pull out of your head!   I would look for a Williams switcher pre or post Bachmann with 2 smooth and quiet can motors and a electronic E-unit.  Train world and other forum sponsors have very good deals on Williams engines.   You might be able to take the body off you post war switcher and use it on the new unit but you may need to do some simple modifications.   

Thanks Chris - I have 3 Williams engines already, and even the single motor Williams would easily pull the Seaboard 602 around the track if it were running in the opposite direction - and silently! Besides, the 602 needs to remain intact - special 1957 memories, and all that. 

I don’t blame you. If you have an engine that has some meaning and history by all means leave it be.  I have a Jersey Central Trainmaster from 1956 that my brothers ran when they were kids.  I take it out for a spin every now and then and I wouldn’t change a thing on it! 

That is the sound I love to hear about Lionel postwar engines!

BUXTON STATION posted:

Hi, I think your problem is your bottom black bearing plate, your armature is out of alignment, put a small shim on one side or the other,I'm not sure which side but I have had this problem too and the shim seems to work, give it a try, good luck,  Brian Whitten ,Buxton Station.

Hi Buxton Station - you may be correct, but I have been down that road already. As I mentioned above, I shimmed, twisted, shoved and pulled the bottom bearing plate while the motor was running to find a position where noise was at a minimum, and rpm's were the highest. When found, I applied super glue to the bearing plate, then held it for a while … a long while if your hand starts to cramp! When the glue had dried, the results were as you hear them now - definitely quieter, easier starts, but still has the throbbing buzz that so many seem to love! 

GeoPeg posted:

I can tell you that without the shell installed, things are much quieter, but not as cool looking - it's like a megaphone!

I'm no expert, but considering all of the foregoing discussion, I'd try the sound insulation route to help minimize the noise. Get some thin removable foam (like you see used to pack delicate items in boxes - you can get it at places like JoAnne's (cloth/sewing retailer), probably hobby shops and packing materials places) and line the inside of the shell with it.

These locos were never intended to be anything but toys. No pretense of scale.  The motor truck frame is stamped and every joint in it has some movement and as the armature rotates it is alternately pushing and pulling on all these joints.   That's why the diecast truck is so much quieter. The armature on these stamped frame locos also is not well contained in a vertical plane ,end play, add to that some runout in the bearings and you have a nice hand massager. With the cab off push down on the frame then back and forth and watch the armature move up and down.  The point where the armature poles line up best with the stator laminations will be the place where the motor is most efficient and quietest.  These stamped frames simply do not hold the armature in the ideal location.  With AC current and very slow speeds the armature tries to bob up and down in it's bearings. I have run these motors on DC and this bobbing effect does not happen however it does rise and fall due to direction of rotation and the worm drive armature interaction. But no bobbing.  There are two types of cheap stamped motor frames the one we have been talking about is the one with the plastic bottom bearing plate with the built in pickup rollers.  Many years ago I tried installing new lower bearing plates in these locos and noise improved some but not enough to justify the effort.  Plainly. it is not a very good design.  The second type of cheap stamped motor frame is the one shown on top in my photo. I have actually had some luck tuning this type, with new bearings and stacking thrust washers so there is only 1mm or less up/ down  end play. Problem with this style is only one of the axles is driven. However if you add a center rail pickup you can put two of these on a locomotive. and it becomes a fairly good puller and also a lot quieter than the type with the plastic plate.  But outside of the nostalgia of running your favorite childhood toy, forget about it.    j

The only thing that comes to mind here is to first lub the worm and mating gears, and next check the armature end play.  As other have said, these are naturally noisy, and the vertical motors are the loudest of all.  Some of the steamers with the horizontal motors are very quiet.

The armature end play can make a significant difference in the noise level, so if it's bobbing up and down a lot, that could cause it.  I'm not sure if this model has the setscrew on top of the motor to take up the armature end play, if so, adjust for about 1/16" or less end play.

JohnActon posted:

The point where the armature poles line up best with the stator laminations will be the place where the motor is most efficient and quietest. This had occurred to me, but I never really attempted to perform such a vertical alignment. If the armature sits too low, I wonder if it would be possible to stack a 2nd ball bearing in the bearing plate? Then shim the top as needed.

There are two types of cheap stamped motor frames the one we have been talking about is the one with the plastic bottom bearing plate with the built in pickup rollers. This does not look like mine, I am unfamiliar with any stamped frame that has roller pickups in the motor truck the way yours does - was that a custom installation? Certainly the bearing plate is custom! Mine looks like this:

 

Many years ago I tried installing new lower bearing plates in these locos and noise improved some but not enough to justify the effort. I have often wondered, but it looked like a real frame warper to get the old one out & the new one in. Thanks for trying it for me 

The second type of cheap stamped motor frame is the one shown on top in my photo. I have actually had some luck tuning this type, with new bearings and stacking thrust washers so there is only 1mm or less up/ down  end play. I have a few of these, all a bit noisy, but mostly because of bearing wear - Using the tip of my finger, it's very easy to move the armature sideways in almost any direction and see the slop in that worn bearing. So you have replaced the bottom bearing? Did you just drill out the old and press in the new? How do you prevent mushrooming inward such that the armature would no longer fit? Bearing source? I agree that vertical motion is critical - I recently stopped a very noisy motor from being just that, by adding 1 nylon thrust washer and a really thin metal washer, source unknown - did the trick!

 

Looking at the type with the bottom motor plate bearing (single drive axle), I have also observed worm and worm gear wear due to poor alignment from the factory. I have applied a temporary Mickey Mouse fix for that by sliding the worm gear over a bit to expose fresh metal. This type of motor also seems more prone to excessive side play in the worm gear axle, a factory error I presume. Shimming the axle takes care of that.

Thanks John, your observations and experiments are really interesting and have offered a bit more insight.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

The only thing that comes to mind here is to first lub the worm and mating gears, and next check the armature end play.  As other have said, these are naturally noisy, and the vertical motors are the loudest of all.  Some of the steamers with the horizontal motors are very quiet.

The armature end play can make a significant difference in the noise level, so if it's bobbing up and down a lot, that could cause it.  I'm not sure if this model has the setscrew on top of the motor to take up the armature end play, if so, adjust for about 1/16" or less end play.

Lube done and redone. As I commented below, I too have noticed that end play can be critical on these motors. Sadly, on the 602 there is no setscrew to adjust, strictly thrust washers. I try to get the absolute minimum amount of end play, but that's a variable when it comes to these motors.

I guess if there is a moral to these stories it might be something like, "Never design a model train engine that uses a worm gear, unless you throw in a rock solid diecast chassis." I keep coming back to that as the root cause.

Lube done and redone. As I commented below, I too have noticed that end play can be critical on these motors. Sadly, on the 602 there is no setscrew to adjust, strictly thrust washers. I try to get the absolute minimum amount of end play, but that's a variable when it comes to these motors.

I'd think that a Modern era brush plate with a set screw on top would fit.

C W Burfle posted:

Lube done and redone. As I commented below, I too have noticed that end play can be critical on these motors. Sadly, on the 602 there is no setscrew to adjust, strictly thrust washers. I try to get the absolute minimum amount of end play, but that's a variable when it comes to these motors.

I'd think that a Modern era brush plate with a set screw on top would fit.

That's an interesting thought. I have some here that are currently in service, and nice and quiet. Guess I'll have to rob Santa Fe to pay Seaboard - that is the old saying, right? Thanks, good suggestion.

GeoPeg posted:

JohnActon posted:

The point where the armature poles line up best with the stator laminations will be the place where the motor is most efficient and quietest. This had occurred to me, but I never really attempted to perform such a vertical alignment. If the armature sits too low, I wonder if it would be possible to stack a 2nd ball bearing in the bearing plate? Then shim the top as needed.

There are two types of cheap stamped motor frames the one we have been talking about is the one with the plastic bottom bearing plate with the built in pickup rollers. This does not look like mine, I am unfamiliar with any stamped frame that has roller pickups in the motor truck the way yours does - was that a custom installation? Certainly the bearing plate is custom! Mine looks like this:

 

Many years ago I tried installing new lower bearing plates in these locos and noise improved some but not enough to justify the effort. I have often wondered, but it looked like a real frame warper to get the old one out & the new one in. Thanks for trying it for me 

The second type of cheap stamped motor frame is the one shown on top in my photo. I have actually had some luck tuning this type, with new bearings and stacking thrust washers so there is only 1mm or less up/ down  end play. I have a few of these, all a bit noisy, but mostly because of bearing wear - Using the tip of my finger, it's very easy to move the armature sideways in almost any direction and see the slop in that worn bearing. So you have replaced the bottom bearing? Did you just drill out the old and press in the new? How do you prevent mushrooming inward such that the armature would no longer fit? Bearing source? I agree that vertical motion is critical - I recently stopped a very noisy motor from being just that, by adding 1 nylon thrust washer and a really thin metal washer, source unknown - did the trick!

 

Looking at the type with the bottom motor plate bearing (single drive axle), I have also observed worm and worm gear wear due to poor alignment from the factory. I have applied a temporary Mickey Mouse fix for that by sliding the worm gear over a bit to expose fresh metal. This type of motor also seems more prone to excessive side play in the worm gear axle, a factory error I presume. Shimming the axle takes care of that.

Thanks John, your observations and experiments are really interesting and have offered a bit more insight.

 

George, I had totally forgot about the frame you are showing with magnetraction. I have a couple of those also and what applies to the other two styles also applies to the frames with MT. The bottom plate with built in pickup rollers is indeed original Lionel.  I glued it in the frame back when I was about 15.   I traded all the kids in my neighborhood out of their trains and this one ran very poorly. I hooked wires to it and held it up while slowly adding power and could see the bottom plate vibrating so I smeared epoxy into the joints along the sides and once cured the loco ran better on startup and at slow speeds.  Not very well but better.  That is when I started fooling around with thrust washers to center the armature in the stator. By then I was becoming interested in slotcars and had some Pittman open frame  motors pulled apart that I robbed the thrust washers from.  I think you called that robbing Pittman to pay Pullmor.  Guilty on multiple counts ! Very nasty habit, some sort of character flaw goes back to my childhood.  Think it must be rampant amongst this group.   I had noticed on the Pittmans that with the washers removed the motor had about an eighth of an inch end play and if you powered it up the armature and stator  laminations would center themselves  ( 5 pole DC Pittmans with laminated fields)  If you held them vertical and varied the power they would slide up and down towards that center point. I also noticed that as the armature started up when the brushes pass over the plates of the commutator and the current path was changing that the armature at certain slow speeds would bob up and down without varying the power.  Now add AC to that mix and the worm and worm-gear loading and unloading multiple times per revolution and you have what we are dealing with.

George, adding a second ball into the lower bearing pushes the shaft up almost out of the bearing. If one could adapt a full ball bearing to the shaft below the worm that would cure the problem. You have to ask yourself,    "is it worth it ? " 

Very cheap micro ball bearings on eBay let us know how it works out.   j

The early style MPC motor used in 1970 are pieces of junk. From what I remember, going back many decades, Lionel had problems with that new style motor and in '71 sent a service bulletin to service stations advising them not to try to repair it, but to replace the motor truck body with the improved version. Along with poor running performance, they had pick-up problems. If the old motor was running OK, but stalled at switches, Lionel would send the service station free GP style pick-up collector assemblies if you had 8030 Illinois Central GP-9's to add to the non powered truck.

Oh, PS: did you notice the missing drive gear?

Almost forgot, replacing the lower bearing in the motor truck with a single drive wheel.   I used a bearing from a slot car that I drilled to match the diameter of the shaft. I had to ream out the hole left behind from punching the original bearing out.  And though the hole was a force fit for the bearing I added a little MetalSet epoxy around the bottom after the motor was back together and running OK .  This was the same stuff as JB Weld back in the late 50s early 60s. Dad used to buy it at the Marine supply store and I would steal it from him because it was so **** expensive.   j

If the old motor was running OK, but stalled at switches, Lionel would send the service station free GP style pick-up collector assemblies if you had 8030 Illinois Central GP-9's to add to the non powered truck.


My 8031, purchased new at Savoy Merchandise in NYC had roller pickups on the motor truck and Postwar style pickups on the dummy truck.

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING IT TOOK MY WOR D*a*m*N AND REPLACED IT WITH *

Chuck Sartor posted:

 

Oh, PS: did you notice the missing drive gear?

Yes these frames came out of a junk box

I would suspect the the 8031 would have it. By 1971 they were adding them at the factory.

I traded all the kids in my neighborhood out of their trains and this one ran very poorly.

I'm guessing you were not popular with the other kid's moms n' dads! But good on ya for being so entrepreneurial!

I also noticed that as the armature started up when the brushes pass over the plates of the commutator and the current path was changing that the armature at certain slow speeds would bob up and down without varying the power.  Now add AC to that mix and the worm and worm-gear loading and unloading multiple times per revolution and you have what we are dealing with.

George, adding a second ball into the lower bearing pushes the shaft up almost out of the bearing. If one could adapt a full ball bearing to the shaft below the worm that would cure the problem. You have to ask yourself,    "is it worth it ? "

Doesn't seem so, does it? I will check my ball bearing supply, I know I have other smaller and larger ones.

Great stories, by the way. Sounds in some ways, similar to my own youth. I built my first "electric motor" from a kit when I was in 4th grade. Hand wound everything and used a couple of Bell Telephone gigantic 1.5 volt dry cells with Fahnestock clips on top, batteries my dear grandfather had provided for me - yep, he worked for Bell back in the day. I graduated to disassembling train engines, but it took another 20 or so years to start reassembling them. Then another 30 or so years to where I could afford the parts to do it right 

JohnActon posted:

Almost forgot, replacing the lower bearing in the motor truck with a single drive wheel.   I used a bearing from a slot car that I drilled to match the diameter of the shaft. I had to ream out the hole left behind from punching the original bearing out.  And though the hole was a force fit for the bearing I added a little MetalSet epoxy around the bottom after the motor was back together and running OK .  

Yikes! I was afraid that might be the case! So now I have to decide do I want to keep my poor running 2024 ALCO as is? Or do I go for it with robbed bushings and a new double tube of epoxy? Hmmmm, the flanged bushing that didn't work out in the brush plate I was repairing might just find a new life! I'll have to check some diameters...

JohnActon posted:

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING IT TOOK MY WOR D*a*m*N AND REPLACED IT WITH *

Ha! That will teach you, you have been censored!

Your 2024 should have its lower bearing above the worm. I would think you could shim it as you please. On the lower end, i'd try 671m-23 washers.

Just curious, does your 2024 have one driven axle or two?

One traction tire or two? If two, are they on the same axle?

Or you might have a different motor altogether, it was very common to put 2024 and 2041 shells on older chassis. They were cheap and plentiful in the early 1970's 

C W Burfle posted:

Your 2024 should have its lower bearing above the worm. I would think you could shim it as you please. On the lower end, i'd try 671m-23 washers. Actually, the vertical shimming is but one aspect. More importantly, I have a lot of side play in the worm - it's visually obvious that the armature is a loose fit within that bottom bearing. That's the bearing I want to replace in the 2024.

Just curious, does your 2024 have one driven axle or two? Only one

One traction tire or two? If two, are they on the same axle? Two tires, same axle

Or you might have a different motor altogether, it was very common to put 2024 and 2041 shells on older chassis. They were cheap and plentiful in the early 1970's My motor looks just like the one in John's top picture above, except I have two traction tires.

Thank you. I believe that is the correct motor for a 2024.

I believe the 2041 should have two driven axles with one traction tire on each wheel set.

GeoPeg posted:

JohnActon posted:

Almost forgot, replacing the lower bearing in the motor truck with a single drive wheel.   I used a bearing from a slot car that I drilled to match the diameter of the shaft. I had to ream out the hole left behind from punching the original bearing out.  And though the hole was a force fit for the bearing I added a little MetalSet epoxy around the bottom after the motor was back together and running OK .  

Yikes! I was afraid that might be the case! So now I have to decide do I want to keep my poor running 2024 ALCO as is? Or do I go for it with robbed bushings and a new double tube of epoxy? Hmmmm, the flanged bushing that didn't work out in the brush plate I was repairing might just find a new life! I'll have to check some diameters...

I have been sitting on this idea for some time. Perhaps it's time to pass it along, a couple of close friends know about it, but I have not told many.   Back in the seventies I was restoring a set of 2343s and the motor bearings were wore out.  Remember this is before the internet and I could not find replacement bearings.   For this technique to work the bearing must be firmly pressed into the frame and able to withstand a considerable amount of torque.  I took a sheet metal screw and screwed it into the bronze bearings from both ends of the bearings. The size of the screw is critical I used a Mic reading on the armature shaft as well as numbered drill bits in the bore to find the step where one went through easily and the next size up would not go in. I chose a screw about  2-3 thousanths larger than the bore of the bearing, measuring across the top of the flutes.  Coming in from each end of the bearing left a diamond crosshatch pattern in the bore of the bearing and helps hold a pocket of oil.  What this all does is leave a furrow on each side of the groove that the screw flute makes.  Once I tried to put the armature back in it was so tight that I had to twist and push hard to get it all the way in. And I did load the bore of the bearings with oil before pushing the armature back in. Tight as it was I knew not to try and power it up. I sat there spinning the armature by hand till it would flywheel a bit after a vigorous spin. Those motor trucks are still running smooth to this day I have used this technique once since then and it may be a better solution to repairing the lower bearing in this power truck. My only concern is that the bearing  twist out of the frame before you can drive a screw all the way through. Perhaps a coating of  JB Weld around the outside edge of the bearing may help.     J

John, I have to say, you were a creative lad! And the thought processes were obviously running. Between your recollections and the idea of the flanged bearing, I just had to grab the engine and look again. 

As I look at it, it's kind of pitiful. The armature shaft moves vertically probably 1/32" or more, The armature shaft has a visible gap between it and the motor plate bearing it rides in. My notes from previous repairs state, "If you use your fingertip to move the armature back and forth while the engine is running, it makes a BIG difference in the amount of sound."

The axles …. this one really stunned me when I first saw it - there are no bearings, they just drilled a couple of holes through the sheet metal frame and stuck axles through there. Admittedly, they dished out the sheet metal to add some rigidity, but still... come on, no sleeves, no nuthin? Needless to say, this area is worn. You can not only see the gaps around the axle, but you can contort the drive axle such that it totally messes with the worm gear.

The wheels were gauged properly, but there was considerable side movement of the axle possible (was the frame too narrow?). To fix this, I added a spacer between the non-geared drive wheel and the sheet metal frame. This solved the side movement problem, and now kept the worm centered on fresh metal on the worm gear, but the axles can still wobble where they pass thru the frame. 

Somewhere in the middle of all this during a test run, I saw what poor traction this thing had, owing mostly to it's light weight and single traction tire. I literally was getting wheel hop when pulling any kind of load. So I had the bright idea to add a second traction tire. Now I get less wheel hop, but even with a really light load, it makes a racket going around the tight O27 curves - kind of like a car with the old fashioned 4 wheel drive (locked differential) making turns on dry pavement - just a solid axle trying to make a tight turn. 

Sorry CW, I gave you bad info earlier, having forgotten about the addition of the 2nd traction tire. The engine came to me with just a single tire. 

Reportedly, this was the last production engine that the Old Lionel ever made, just one year only, and of course that year was 1969. Whenever I see or hear someone talking "cost cutting" I will always think of this engine.

Well, I have taken this thread far astray, but as always there were things learned and some unique ideas passed between us, so no regrets at all  

GeoPeg posted:

Reportedly, this was the last production engine that the Old Lionel ever made, just one year only, and of course that year was 1969. Whenever I see or hear someone talking "cost cutting" I will always think of this engine.

That explains it all.