Arggghhhh,
I am going nuts trying to figure out why my American Flyer #312, a 1946 model with smoke unit in the boiler has a speed issue.
Here is the current status of my efforts to resolve this issue.
I replaced the original reversing unit in the tender with a Dallee electronic unit last winter. The motor, however, is the original open frame motor.
I have been experiencing speed issues for months. It runs way too slow, I mean really slow, and even slower if it is pulling cars.
Today, I replaced the wiring harness with a new one because I had wondered if the wiring harness that I installed last winter had too small gauge wires. It made no difference, though, when I replaced it today with a new one from Portlines.
Next, I re-cleaned the motor for a second time in as many months, cleaning the motor fields and the armature once again. I replaced the brushes with new ones from Portlines cleaning out the brush tubes in the process. Put it back together except for the bolier shell and it still ran slow.
So, I put in up on blocks and watched it perform. Incidentally, I removed all of the linkages from the driver wheels to eliminate any mechanical binding problems. It still ran slow in forward, but considerably faster in reverse.
That is where I am at. I am stumped.
Darn, Christmas is in 23 days, and I am growing discouraged about the possibility of seeing this little guy run around the tree.
Any ideas, suggestions or advice?
Rich
Alton Junction
Rich:
Did you read this:
http://www.portlines.com/portlinesclinic20.htm
Did you do all that Doug has suggested in the above?
OBTW: "Here is where I am at." You ended this sentence with a preposition. A grammar infraction; up with which I shall not put. LOL
Regards,
Timboy
Timboy Rich: Did you read this: http://www.portlines.com/portlinesclinic20.htm Did you do all that Doug has suggested in the above? OBTW: "Here is where I am at." You ended this sentence with a preposition. A grammar infraction; up with which I shall not put. LOL Regards, Timboy
Ehhh, whatchutalkinboutwillis? What sentence ends in a preposition? LOL
Oh cripes, I wasn't sure that anyone would have an anwer to my question, and then you go and find a clinic called "The Faster In Reverse Syndrome".
Geez, when I read through it though, it sounds like I may be better off buying a can motor.
Now, let's see, where is that link at?
Thirty-five dollars, sailor. That plus shipping gets you a 1/2 speed AC can motor from Portlines. Why 1/2 speed? To get good "smoke" production. Why did I put the word smoke in quotation marks? Because it's not smoke in the true meaning; it's a vapor. Good vapor production is where it's at - to use commoner's lingo. I try to blend. LOL I'm invisible. LOL
Timboy, The Accurat Linguistics Expert
Actually both smoke and the stuff that comes out of a "smoke" generator are aerosols, that is, small particles of liquid or solid suspended in gas (the air). Steam, for example, is a vapor or gas and is invisible. The stuff that folks popularly call "steam" is actually an aerosol comprising tiny drops of water condensed from what was steam.
Bob Nelson
So did you replace the washers at the motor base?
Jim
Guys:
Aerosol 'em if ya got 'em! LOL
Hi guys,
Great commentary, but my question is did 312 get fixed?
George
Here is the text of the "Faster In Reverse Syndrome" on the Portlines web site:
This is not an uncommon problem, and there can be several causes. a) an overheated motor, requiring rewinding. b) poor centering of the armature plates within the field plates. c) too much "play" of the armature from front to back....should have some but not a lot. d) lack of at least one thrust washer on the front end of the armature, to reduce friction between the armature and the chassis bearing. e) worn bearing in either the chassis or the brush bracket (both ends of the armature), resulting in too much sideways "play". Replace as necessary....replacement, reproduction bearings are now available. f) the face of the commutator may not be flat. It is not unusual for brush-wear to create "cups" or indentations in the surface of the commutator, especially near the slots. When run in the reverse direction, the brushes now tend to get caught, or meet resistance, at those indentations, reducing speed.
If (b), (c), (d) and/or (e) do not correct the problem, then a can motor may be a good solution.
If (f) is the problem, you need to carefully "sand" the face of the armature flat again. The suggested way to do this is to attach a sheet of fine emery paper to a block of wood. Drill a hole in it to accept the short end of the armature shaft. Insert the long end of the armature shaft in the chuck of a drill press, being sure it is perfectly vertical. Now slowly lower the chucked armature down against the emery covered block of wood, smoothing the face of the commutator.
If (a) is the problem, then use of a can motor replacement may be the solution, especially since it would be cheaper than replacement with original motor components. If you wish to retain your original motor, then it can be rewound; we provide that service, and all components are machine-wound....not wound by hand.
Another suggestion that has arisen is that the problem can often be reduced or eliminated by adjustment of the smoke gear. First, be sure that the axle gear is properly centered so that it engages the armature worm correctly. If it is off-center, it will not engage the worm in a vertical position, resulting in undesirable torque. Second, be sure the smoke piston gear is firmly mounted....this may require driving the stud which mounts it to the chassis a bit further in. Finally.....and this is the suggested key to the solution....re-assemble so that the smoke-rod stud is in the aft (rear) position, and the siderod studs on one side are in the forward position. In other words, all the mounting studs are on the drivers and the smoke gear are lined up linearly, again reducing torque.
Can motor installation requires no permanent modifications to your engine.
I will check this all out, but this checklist may be more than I am able, or care, to handle. I am amazed that I was capable of replacing the brushes, not for the faint of heart. I just may wind up replacing the open frame motor with a 1/2 speed can motor.
Timboy Rich: Thirty-five dollars, sailor. That plus shipping gets you a 1/2 speed AC can motor from Portlines. Why 1/2 speed? To get good "smoke" production. Why did I put the word smoke in quotation marks? Because it's not smoke in the true meaning; it's a vapor. Good vapor production is where it's at - to use commoner's lingo. I try to blend. LOL I'm invisible. LOL Regards, Timboy, The Accurat Linguistics Expert
Hey, Admiral, I tend to agree on the 1/2 speed AC can motor from Portlines.
Sturgeon-Phish So did you replace the washers at the motor base? Jim
Jim,
No, I did not replace the washers at the motor base. When I take another look at the motor today, I will check this out. Thanks.
aflyer Hi guys, Great commentary, but my question is did 312 get fixed? George
George,
Not yet, regrettably. I will go through the Portlines checklist as best I can, then post my findings.
If the trhrust washers have worn it will cause it to slow, Get several and gradually add one at a time till you get the right combination.
Sturgeon-Phish If the trhrust washers have worn it will cause it to slow, Get several and gradually add one at a time till you get the right combination. Jim
In your earlier message, you asked if I had replaced the washers at the motor base. Are those the thrust washers that you are asking about in this current post? In that Portlines clinic, there is this comment: d) lack of at least one thrust washer on the front end of the armature, to reduce friction between the armature and the chassis bearing. Is this what you are referring to?
Also, here is a diagram of the #312 motor assembly. Is the thrust washer the item shown on the far left where the armature and motor field connect to the chassis?
In the Portlines clinic, there is this statement:
e) worn bearing in either the chassis or the brush bracket (both ends of the armature), resulting in too much sideways "play". Replace as necessary....replacement, reproduction bearings are now available.
Has anyone replaced these bearings? If so, did it solve the problem?
I would appreciate your thoughts and comments.
Rich,
I noticed in the video that you posted after the smoke unit rebuild that the brush bracket on your 312 is the 1946-47 tubeless type, and not the tube type that was used in the SIB 312s from 48 on.
The reason that I brought this up is that some brackets are designed to be used with an armature that has an oil slinger between the commutator and brush bracket. If the armature and bracket are mismatched, there will be excessive rearward play. This will only manifest itself while the loco is running forward since the armature spins counterclockwise and attempts to back out of the chasis. When the loco is run in reverse, the armature spins clockwise into the chasis, and any rearward play isn't an issue.
Could you post a pic of the commutator and the inside of the brush bracket?
green97probe Rich, I noticed in the video that you posted after the smoke unit rebuild that the brush bracket on your 312 is the 1946-47 tubeless type, and not the tube type that was used in the SIB 312s from 48 on. The reason that I brought this up is that some brackets are designed to be used with an armature that has an oil slinger between the commutator and brush bracket. If the armature and bracket are mismatched, there will be excessive rearward play. This will only manifest itself while the loco is running forward since the armature spins counterclockwise and attempts to back out of the chasis. When the loco is run in reverse, the armature spins clockwise into the chasis, and any rearward play isn't an issue. Could you post a pic of the commutator and the inside of the brush bracket?
If you are referring to the motor brushes, my #312 has brush tubes. In fact, when I replaced the brushes earlier this week, I used a slimmed down QTIP to clean the insides of the tubes. Or, am I not understanding you correctly?
The tubeless brush braket has brass brush holders that are open with the brush visible and use a lever spring. The tube brush bracket has brass tubes that contain the brushes and coil springs, and the end of the tubes are covered with a slide on brass cap.
green97probe Rich, The tubeless brush braket has brass brush holders that are open with the brush visible and use a lever spring. The tube brush bracket has brass tubes that contain the brushes and coil springs, and the end of the tubes are covered with a slide on brass cap.
Ahh, I see what you mean. You are correct, of course, in that it is indeed a tubeless brush bracket. What I incorrectly described as "tubes" on my engine are in fact brass brush holders that are open with the brushes visible and held in place by lever springs that press against a slot in each brush.
In your earlier post, you asked if I could post a picture of the commutator and inside of the brush bracket. I am not sure how much you want to see, but if you need me to photograph these two parts in an unassembled position, I will need to take the motor apart again. For the moment, I am reluctant to do this, even though I may eventually have to once again if additional repairs are needed.
You also mentioned that some brackets are designed to be used with an armature that has an oil slinger between the commutator and brush bracket. If the armature and bracket are mismatched, there will be excessive rearward play. I confess that I have no idea what an oil slinger is, but if you can give me a little more detail on what to look for, I can report back to you.
I can tell you this. I have owned this engine since it was purchased new in 1946 by my father, and the motor has never been disassembled for repair until this year by me. So, all parts are original, and there is no apparent damage or abuse. If the armature and bracket are mismatched, causing excessive rearward play, would that "mismatch" be the result of normal wear and tear? Or, would a mismatch only occur in the event that repair parts were faulty or installed improperly?
Thanks for bearing with me on this one. I very much appreciate your advice.
Edit Note: Jim, the following comment is made on the Portlines web site about troubleshooting an engine exhibiting the Faster In Reverse Syndrome. Is this related to your question and comments?
The oil slinger is a conical piece of brass on the armature shaft just above the commutator. It is visible with the locomotive upside down. The bearings could be an issue, but I've never seen them go bad. My dad ran some of his locos hard and over long hours, and they are fine. Since we know that the aramture and brush bracket are a matched original set in your case, I've got some more thoughts:
1. Does the commutator have a groove worn into it? I've got a 302 that runs faster in reverse due to a grooved commutator.
2. Have you replaced the brush springs? If the springs are original, they might have fatigued. Lightly apply pressure to the brushes with the motor running to see if it speeds up. If it speeds up, you've found the problem. If one spring has fatigued, the motor will run faster in one direction than the other.
I won't give up on this until we get this fixed.
green97probe Rich, The oil slinger is a conical piece of brass on the armature shaft just above the commutator. It is visible with the locomotive upside down. The bearings could be an issue, but I've never seen them go bad. My dad ran some of his locos hard and over long hours, and they are fine. Since we know that the aramture and brush bracket are a matched original set in your case, I've got some more thoughts: 1. Does the commutator have a groove worn into it? I've got a 302 that runs faster in reverse due to a grooved commutator. 2. Have you replaced the brush springs? If the springs are original, they might have fatigued. Lightly apply pressure to the brushes with the motor running to see if it speeds up. If it speeds up, you've found the problem. If one spring has fatigued, the motor will run faster in one direction than the other. I won't give up on this until we get this fixed.
I will address your second question first. I did not replace the springs. When I placed the order with Portlines, the kit included brushes and springs. However, wires were soldered on the metal mounts where the springs were in place. So, I decided to take the easy way out and leave the original springs in place rather than desolder the wires from the metal mounts to be able to remove the springs. Besides, the springs still seemed to be in pretty good shape. Now, though, after reading your comments, I went down to the layout, put the engine back on blocks, and pressed the eraser end of a pencil against each spring with the transformer set at full speed.. There was no difference in the speed, so I have to believe that those original springs are just fine.
As to your first question, when I first diassembled the motor to replace the brushes, the commutator appeared flat and did not seem to have a groove worn into it. I was looking for that since a grooved commutator had been mentioned in an earlier thread, perhaps by you. Now that the motor has been reassembled, I have been reluctant to disassemble it again because it was not easy to install the brushes. However, at this point, if it would help, I would be willing to disassemble the motor once again in order to examine and photgraph the parts. Would that be helpful? If I did that, we could also determine if there is an oil slinger on the armature shaft. Without disassembling the motor, I cannot see one, but that doesn't mean that it is not there.
Lastly, Jim, your comment about not giving up until we get this fixed was like a breath of fresh air. Although I have replaced the original drum and fingers reversing unit with a Dallee electronic reversing unit out of a sense of desperation last winter, I would really like to retain the vintage open frame motor if possible. Of course, at some point, it might not be cost effective if the major motor parts like the fields and/or armature need to be replaced. Let me know if you want me to disassemble the motor to examine and photograph the parts.
I was thinking about this as I was running a 282 this afternoon. It ran decent forward, but struggled to crawl in reverse. SInce it had been serviced and had new brushes, I decided to let it run by itself in reverse. After some time, it ran much faster at the same voltage where it previously struggled. It also runs much better going forward now as well. I am thinking that this allows the brushes to better conform to the commutator. Try letting your 312 run in both directions before going any further.
green97probe Rich, I was thinking about this as I was running a 282 this afternoon. It ran decent forward, but struggled to crawl in reverse. SInce it had been serviced and had new brushes, I decided to let it run by itself in reverse. After some time, it ran much faster at the same voltage where it previously struggled. It also runs much better going forward now as well. I am thinking that this allows the brushes to better conform to the commutator. Try letting your 312 run in both directions before going any further.
Kudos to you. Last night, I went downstairs to the layout and ran the engine in reverse. After several laps, it was clearly picking up speed. Then, I ran the engine forward with similar results. After a few laps, it was clearly picking up speed as well in the forward direction. I didn't post those results last night because I wanted to run the engine again this morning to confirm last night's results. This morning, it was running faster once again.
After I replaced the brushes and the wiring harness last week, the performance was still slow and a little jerky. That's when I put it up on blocks and observed the now infamous Faster In Reverse Syndrome.
I will say this. While it now runs faster, and sufficiently fast to remove my objections and my thoughts of replacing the open frame motor with a 1/2 speed can motor, it is still not as fast as when I got it up and running last winter for the first time in 40 years.
However, back last winter, I set it up on an oval track with 12 curved tracks and 4 straight tracks, one straight track between each 3 curved tracks. The engine nearly would come off the tracks. Now, my layout is a much larger oval, 3 straight tracks on each end and 7 straight tracks on each side. I have a track clip on each end of the layout and both track clips are connected to a 100 watt transformer (8B). What I do notice is that as the engine crosses the track with the track clip on it, the engine runs faster, then slightly slows down as it gets farther from the track clip. So, I suppose that part of my speed problem is the old track, inefficient track pins and insufficient track clips.
Here are some other things that I observed.
I have noted this before, but try as I may to keep the track clean, there is always a black residue that comes off the rails when you rub a cloth on the rails. That black residue gets picked up on the metal wheels of the tender. if you clean it off the wheels to get down to the shiny metal, performance of the engine improves. I also notice a few small flat spots on the pick up wheels and I have to believe that the flat spots degrade performance since the electrical contact is momentarily interrupted.
I clocked the engine last night. There are 32 tracks, each 10 inches in length for a total run of 26.666 feet. The engine and tender lapped the oval in an average 16.5 seconds. So the speed of the engine/tender is 100 feet per minute, for whatever that is worth. I wound up running the engine/tender along with four cars including a lighted caboose. The lap time was still pretty good, average of 18 seconds or less.
At this point, I am relatively content with the speed of the engine. With some more tweaking, I could probably get a little more speed, so I will play with it. One last thing that I should mention. I do notice a little side to side wobbling as the engine runs down the straightaway. I don't know whether or not that is a contributing factor to the speed issue and/or whether I should be concerned abou the wobbling. It is not real noticeable.
Thanks again, Jim, and everyone else who has contributed their thoughts.
Flyer steamers do tend to wobble just a little; with the worst one being the Atlantic. It can waddle like a duck sometimes. But it shouldn't be objectionable. If it is, then I would guess that one or more of your drive wheels are a tad out of gauge - too narrowly spaced, that is. I'll go ahead and say it: get yourself a new dime. The wheel flanges should be right on the dime edges. I hate that analogy. LOL
Also, pony up the buck-two-ninety-eight for a couple feeder wires to even out the track voltage. LOL
Timboy Rich: Flyer steamers do tend to wobble just a little; with the worst one being the Atlantic. It can waddle like a duck sometimes. But it shouldn't be objectionable. If it is, then I would guess that one or more of your drive wheels are a tad out of gauge - too narrowly spaced, that is. I'll go ahead and say it: get yourself a new dime. The wheel flanges should be right on the dime edges. I hate that analogy. LOL Also, pony up the buck-two-ninety-eight for a couple feeder wires to even out the track voltage. LOL Regards, Timboy
Tim,
Thanks for that info.
I might have never noticed that wobble except for the fact that I am now looking at everything under a magnifying glass, so to speak. I will do the dime test.
I will make that investment and pick up a couple of more track clips.
I am glad that was all that was needed to fix it. As for the wobble, my 1948 SIB 312 does the same thing. I haven't yet run my 312AC that I got last month, so I don't know if it wobbles.
richhotrain I clocked the engine last night. There are 32 tracks, each 10 inches in length for a total run of 26.666 feet. The engine and tender lapped the oval in an average 16.5 seconds. So the speed of the engine/tender is 100 feet per minute, for whatever that is worth. I wound up running the engine/tender along with four cars including a lighted caboose. The lap time was still pretty good, average of 18 seconds or less.
That was from this past Tuesday.
Today, I increased the feeder wires from 2 sets to 6 sets, putting feeder wires on each side of each switch on the two sides of the oval. I clocked the engine/tender at 14 seconds per lap. That translates to an increase from 3.6 laps per minute to 4.3 laps per minute, an increase of nearly 20 percent. The distance traveled increased from 97 feet per minute to 114 feet per minute.
At this point, I am pretty pleased with the speed and performance of this engine. If I bought new pick up wheels for the tender (there are a few flat spots on the wheels) and added a few more feeder wires, I'll bet that I could do a lap in 12 seconds, but that may be left for another day. For now, I am more than satisfied.
Why stop there? After all, they ARE called AMERICAN FLYERS!
LOL
Timboy Rich: Why stop there? After all, they ARE called AMERICAN FLYERS! LOL Timboy
Whatcha got in mind to get it under 12 seconds?
Well, what would our good buddies who win the "fastest locomotive" contest at local train shows do?
Speedy Gonzales
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month