Finally, after a year, I was able to locate a leading truck for a GG one that I can tell was not from the original years of manufacture in the mid-1950s. It does not have a coil coupler. But when I swapped it in, it did eliminate most problems that I have with the units operation, so I'm very pleased.
I also posted this information on a discussion of replacement springs, because one of the ideas which I had was that a small spring surrounding the hook on top of the truck might help damp down the bouncing.
But it does seem that the GG one and the turbine steamer as well. I have a truck which is prone to vertical movement which can lead to derailments.
Post pics or better yet a video of it running!
My GG1 is running much better than it was, although I think it ought to be better. No doubt I think there May be frame damage, and that has given room for more vertical bounce on the pilot and lead trucks. However, I have 2 others and they donot run flawlessly either.
Also, my frequent junctions of Gargraves and 022 switch rail are not helpful, but I do notice that sometimes the pilot derails in the middle of 022 switches--a problem that is not due to
muxining different manufacturers products.
But the 2 weights have brought the loco back to be mostly reliable by reducing the bounce.
I have seen mentioned in CTT that the GG1 pilots can be trouble because they are unweighted, and some steamers have exhibited the same trouble.
To me, it is a design failure for what was sold as a toy to require a high degree of craftsmanship to perform in a way to be satisfying. I will cop to not being the best craftsman; honestly I am a guy who would rather play with his trains than work on them!
As usual, comments welcome--just be gentle regarding my last bit of candor.
You're welcome! Hope it works!
I got the tire weights. They are very small with adhesive backing. i put on two at a quarter ounce each. Maybe will put on two more if height allows. Seems promising.
thanks for a good suggestion
stuartmitHe suggested I locate some flat lead material and epoxy it on top of truck to add weight. But after quickly checking Home Depot website, I have no idea where to procure it.
Try an auto parts supply store. I watched a video where a toy train fan used some stick-on tire balancing weights to add some weight to a Lionel engine for better traction. Stick-on weights are also available from Amazon, WalMart, and Harbor Freight.
For just plain lead you can try a gunshop that sells supplies for muzzle-loading firearms, however that may be more lead than you need. Plumbing supply outfits may have sheet lead still available.
No new progress here. I will return the truck I bought to the vendor who has been co-operative on that score. I located another pilot truck which is original Lionel of the correct design with coil coupler. But the guy who has it told me in his experience my GG1 likely will continue to experience the problem. He was familiar with the flopping of the unweighted pilot trucks. He suggested I locate some flat lead material and epoxy it on top of truck to add weight. But after quickly checking Home Depot website, I have no idea where to procure it. I will call my local hobby shop when it opens. Accepting all suggestions.
I should apologize for "blogging" my problem solving attempts, but keep hoping for a crowd solution.
i put the new truck on but didn't completely cure my problem. I have mentioned similar trouble with other locos with unweighted pilot trucks--my 671 turbine and my Hudson. On the other hand, I don't have have trouble with locos which are lighter but where the trucks support the unit's weight, even single motor units like 2023 alco.
Let us hope so!
Just received replacement truck and not exactly what I expected. First and very noticeable is a thin spring loop mounted on top of truck, projec under the hook/tab so that it will fit below the chassis and then reduce the vertical travel of the pilot truck. But I can't test it until later. Also very noticeable is the fact that on both my 2360 GG1 and 2340, the couplers were electromatic coil powered which are activated by use of the sliding shield, but this piece has magnetic coupler. if the replacement unit works, my local will certainly be a mix-and-match job. But maybe it will run!
If I look carefully at the design of the system to guide the pilot truck, the hook/tab which engages the chassis is approximately 1/4" high and the truck can bounce upwards to that amount. That allows plenty of vertical travel with nothing to impede it, or damp the motion down somewhat. also a rise in the Bakelite floor of the flangeway pushes the truck up, and any vertiCal discontinuity at junctions of track sections can create an impact whose force drives the truck up vertically, and can create a derail, and additionally a curve track on a grade with any slight deformation can allow the unrestrained truck to climb the outer rail. All these situations could be solved with some sort of spring perhaps placed toward the front of truck. but how do I keep it position?
I Investigated the use of the solder around axles to add weight to combat flopping around or bouncing, but it was not as simple as they pointed out at the Hobby shop, and I didn't undertake that effort.
I tried to borrow the spring out of my 773's trailing truck, but removal involved more than I thought that I could handle; I believe there are some ppermanently riveted elements to it, and I don't have the tools to restore that, so I may look for some springs on the market to install around the hooks that the pilot and trailing trucks for the GG one are suspended from. also, going back to my original observation of a belly in the chassis, I will try to use a few washers around the screws holding chassis to frame to push the ends back toward rail head to force trucks back down toward railhead.
a trip to hobby shop found no spring 773-69 which is used in 1950 Hudson, but the owner was familiar with the problem of the pilot easily bounced around, and even pointed out another common source of trouble. The flangeways in 022 switches are shallower in the vicinity of the frog, and he has ground the bakelite down to create greater depth for the wheels. But he has had success reducing the bouncing of the un weighter truck by coiling solder around the axle. So maybe I'll try that.Or i will take by GG1 over their for some coaching.
Seems logical , definitely worth a try!
Wonder if adding a spring from pilot or trailing truck of steam loco surrounding the tab than suspends the truck from the chassis woukd help. On steam locos, the spring keeps the lead and trailing truck, which have no real weight on them, down on the rail head. Maybe that would work here as well if short enough. Any thoughts?
Ok hope you can get the issue ironed out!
No problems with body shell where mounting on chassis is concerned.
Something is knackered up but it is subtle and not easily corrected .What is the condition of the body shell?
I worked on the unit today, and my friend who was leading the way, noticed the trucks were not touching on all four wheels; there was perhaps 1/16" or a bit more, gap on one of the four wheels. It is possible the belly i see in the frame is not the cause of my problem. So have to see if my repair guy can correct that. I believe the same was true on both ends with either truck in the leading position; the performance was a bit unsatisfactory on a dead flat loop of track on my friend's layout. And my layout has track where the track is not all perfectly flat, and so every point where a level higher track gives way to a grade right at the point of intersection of two sections, we get a "drop-off" or "step-up" and frequent derail. I have another mid 1950's gg1 which doesnt do this. In the reverse sense, anywhere where i have a transition from Gargraves to 022 switches which I use, the loco "climbs" a mini hill in transition. for a bit, the drive truck angles up as it goes across the boundary, and this angle results in the pilot truck lifting up and off the rails. The pilot truck eventually drops back to the rail head once the boundary is crossed, but particularly on the curved leg of the switch, the pilot truck does not drop down between the rails as is necessary, and a derailment is the result. Probably I needed to test my track laying with the GG1 so I could shim the junctions as I went; now it will be a pain in the a** retrofit job.
"Bother" as Winnie the Pooh said.
Thanks very much. In looking at my copy of Greenberg's repair an operating manual for Lionell trains, 1945 to 1969, I see the ballast weight referred to in the section on the 2332GG1. But I don't see it on the 2360 exploded view of parts, nor is it in my locomotive, so that is not a route to salvation.
I do now have in hand, a replacement frame, and a friend of mine is going to help me to move all the guts of the locomotive off my present frame, which I think has become deformed, and remount all on this frame I bought on eBay. I did go as far as to remove the locomotive chassis as a unit including all motors and E unit, etc., from the locomotive cover, and set the new frame in the locomotive cover. It definitely sits differently, and seems not to have the belly in it that I perceive to be in the one that I have currently. So I am hopeful this will cure the problem , although after an awful lot of work.
There is no question that when I look closely at the current leading truck, it seems to be floating above the rail, and although the flanges do barely dip below the rail head, that surface of the wheel that should roll directly on top of the rail is not down on it.
So I struggle on! Thanks for advice.
I don't know if this is pertinent to your situation but this comes from a Ray Plummer "Questions & Answers" column in the October 2000 issue of CTT. It concerns traction problems with a 2332 GG1. I'll quote it:
CTT readers (delete) and (delete) suggest that one way to improve perfomance in Lionel no. 2332 GG1 electrics is to ensure the lead weight is properly installed. They note that "the 2332 originally came with a lead weight that is supposed to be located over the pilot closest to the motor truck."
If it is placed on the other end the motor truck will not have as much traction.
(delete) concurred, adding that years ago he bought one of the classic engines and restored it, but noted that it didn't pull as many cars. He later discovered he had improperly installed the weight when reassembling the locomotive and that once corrected the locomotive could pull up to ten cars. (end quote)
I wonder if this might help with your tracking issues as well?
stuartmit Ha! I'm. 77! I will have to find a grandchild! maybe
Ha! I'm. 77! I will have to find a grandchild!
maybe
Or a friendly neighborhood teenager! I think todays kids know more about IT than us geezers will EVER know!
But on the other hand they'd be stumped by a rotary dial phone!
Can you post some pics?
Have replaced bent axles in a pilot truck but still not trouble free, although better. Frame still has a look to it as if it was bowed from end to end. Don't know how it could have gotten that way; if loco was dropped and landed straight down, the impact would would have been taken by the coupler, but not by the frame to any great extent. That's because of the way the 4 wheel trucks are mounted. Also, I Was reading the article in CTT re GG1 tune up which describes the pilot truck as troublesome. So maybe the derailments I have experienced can't be eliminated because of my mix of dissimliar track (Gargraves with 022 switches); even with adapter pins at the junctions. and I really don't have any thing good for the side of switches where non derail control rails demand a fiber pin; occasionally at those location, I remove the fiber pin, use an steel Gargraves adapter pin, and cut a gap into the Gargraves track 2" up the track. This guarantees smooth transitio, if a longer control rail. But frequently I get a derailment in the middle of the switch!
I'm thinking of buying a resale steel frame from parts guy, swapping in, and looking for better performancr, but that's a lot of work for an uncertain outcome.
Yup. Lionel used a lot of stamped sheet steel frames. During the post-war year's, the frames were finished with a black oxide, similar to gun bling.
stuartmit is original frame aluminum? I very much doubt it, to my knowledge they used sheet steel. One way to check is use a magnet, if it sticks it's steel. If it doesn't it's something else.
is original frame aluminum?
I very much doubt it, to my knowledge they used sheet steel. One way to check is use a magnet, if it sticks it's steel. If it doesn't it's something else.
Sitting in meetin but paying no attention
frame is sheet metal.
Don't have my repair manual or CTT article with me. But I Think if I could do it only disconnecting the wires passing through the frame, then frame replacement might not be too bad—I believe there are only 2 wires which pass through the frame, the current pickup wires I believe to a terminal on e-unit But leaving ALL other elements wired together even as they are removed remove motor mounting screws and move geared trucks. Then unscrew everything else on frame—e unit, horn etc, still on frame and move all together to new frame, still wired together, and re-solder pickup wires Hmmm. Could that work? Want to minimize soldering
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