I guess I didn't use the tubes as bearings in the conventional sense (as used in bushing postwar flyer PA's). Since the gear was attached to one wheel on the outside the the Ives locos I fixed, I enlarged the ovalized hole (being sure to try to file it out so the center would would bring the wheel gear to be the exact difference from the intermediate gear it was before the wear took place) to just ever so slightly larger than the tube (i.e., a loose fit, not pressed in). I cut the length of the brass tube to be the exact length of the whole axle when the wheels were put back on. Fortunately with Ives the inside diameter of the of the tube was perfect for the outside diameter of the original axle (Flyer axles may not be just right?). The meant I also enlarged the hole on the frame on the opposite side, which was also ovalized, but not as much. Then I oiled both the outer layer of the brass tube where it passed through the frame AND the inner part of the tube and original axle. This worked well for me, since some fun-loving kid had run the heck out of his loco years ago with out lubing them, and had not only worn out the bearing hole, but had worn grooves in the axles too. I figure this way, if the brass wears (hopefully more likely to wear than the steel frame or axle), I can easily replace it. If there were a gear in the center of the axle, you could cut a separate tube for both sides . Or, if the bearing hole on the side of the opposite side of the frame away the gear was not worn nor a groove worn in the axle, you could cut the tube long enough to butt up against the frame and not go through to the other wheel.
Here is the Hudson. It is in maybe average condition. The motor does not run right off, but the wheels turn fairly freely (given all of that linkage they are pushing) and the drive wheels look to be OK.
The lead truck wheels will need to be replaced as will a couple of the trailing truck wheels.
The cab roof is bent in one corner. I don't think I will try to straighten it as I'm afraid it would snap off.
Boy these Hudsons are BIG. The tender is huge compared to anything else I have.
Here is the 2-4-2 (641) which I thought was a big engine. It pales next to the Hudson, especially the tender.
So it looks like I will have to pull the motor on the Hudson and check the wiring, brushes etc., and clean and lubricate. Hopefully that will do the trick. I think the e-unit may also need some servicing.
All in all though, a pretty impressive engine.
The two passenger cars (coach and observation) look to be in good shape.
Looking at the size/length of the Hudson set I'm thinking the minimum diameter curve for this set might be at least 42" (I don't have Flyer track, but think the min diameter curve on that track is 40").
Craig
Yes, JDET1, that is what I hoped might work. Thanks for your description. Are the tubes you used pressure fit into the holes or did you use something else to keep them in place? I ordered and received stainless tube, but comments from M636C and Gray Cat have led me to realize this may not be a good choice. So I'm thinking I will need to buy some brass tube and a taper reamer.
The metric flange bearings I ordered will not work. The 4mm ID is too small and the 5mm ID is too large (as is the 3/16" ID).
Northwoods, I hope to post the pictures of the Hudson and 2-4-2 later today or tomorrow. Too many other things have been popping up.
I haven't done this with Flyer, but I used standard brass tubing on 2 Ives locos that had worn "bearings" (one had scored axles as well). The "bearings" were originally just holes punched in the steel frame sides. The locos would often require a push to get started , made a grinding noise when they ran, and would sometimes stop when the gears did not mesh perfectly. The first one I did started fine afterwards and reduced noise about 80%. I used a taper reamer to enlarge the hole to fit the tubing. The second one I used a round file worked very carefully. This one ran like it was brand new -- perfect starts and no grinding noise at all. I did lubricate the tubing well, inside and out (sort of "double slip bearings"). I have been very pleased with the results.
My understanding is that the bushes should be of soft material to wear in place of the axle.
If you use stainless steel which may be harder than the axle material, the axle will wear in contact with the bush rather than vice versa.
If it is significantly easier to replace the axle rather than the bush, this might be a good move. If you want to preserve the axle rather than the bush, stainless steel might not be a good selection.
M636C
Thank you Northwoods Flyer for your (as always) very helpful information and pictures. The number thing makes sense to me now.
If UPS tracking is correct, I will receive the Hudson and tender tomorrow (Monday). I will post pictures. Yes there are cars, but only two (coach and observation). I am not sure of the condition of any of them, but from the description will likely have to replace the lead and trailing truck wheels (already ordered from Geo Tebolt). I will be interested to learn about the identifying marks.
I absolutely agree Northwoods that these are impressive (and gorgeous) locomotives. I just love the appearance and detail of American Flyer steam locos. I recently purchased a Type VIII 2-4-2 which is also a real beauty - a true work of art. From the information I have gleaned about these (mainly from Binns Road), there were different numbers associated with each year they were made. It is stated there: "The loco is a Type VIII that was produced between 1931 to 1937. However, the loco itself did not seem to have a particular catalog number. It was available under several catalog numbers as a locomotive-tender combination: 641 (in 1936), 1687 (1937), 3302 (1931), 3323 (1934), 3324 (1935), 3326 (1932-35). The catalog numbers varied according to the tender." The one I bought was listed as a 641 and the tender as a 3199 Type 4. I really have no reason to doubt those. I'll also post pictures of those in case you have more information.
Thank you Gray Cat and NWL for your comments and suggestions on my motor repair idea. I thought stainless mainly because of durability. I'll have to try a few things and see if any look to be useful. One aspect of course is in measurement and clearance. I believe the axles are 5/32." I drilled out the bushings (without altering the opening) in the frame. I believe the opening is 9/32." Using my calipers I learned that the opening is really about 0.300" whereas 9/32 is 0.28125." The axle measured pretty close to 0.156." I have ordered stainless tube with an OD of 0.25" and IDs of 0.180" and 0.194." So I'll have to see how the axle fits with these. One thought I had was to wrap the outside ends of the tube in copper foil tape (like used in stained glass) to thicken the tube to the 0.300" diameter of the frame hole, and then maybe put a spot of solder on the tape inside of the frames to hold the tube in place. As an alternative, I have also ordered some flanged ball bearings that have an ID of 4mm (0.157") and an OD of 7mm (0.276") as well as a set of 4mm X 8mm (0.315"). I'll also try these out for fit, both with the axle and opening. Sorry for all the detail here. I will post what I find, including some pictures if any of these solution turns out to be useful.
In a broader sense I have entertained the idea of a forum thread called something like "Repair and Restoration Tips and Ideas for Prewar O Gauge American Flyer." My internet searches have indicated quite a bit for "S" scale but only bits and pieces here and there for "O" scale. While I recognize that alteration of these trains is controversial (i.e. in terms of collector value), I think there are many folks who buy these things on eBay or find them at garage sales, in attics, or at auctions; find them to be in less than operable shape; and would be interested in returning them to operation. The thread could provide a number of things that I think could be useful: specifications of types (particularly locos and motors); specifications of measurements; parts descriptions, pictures and numbers; electrical diagrams; links to parts suppliers; repair tips, ideas, and procedures; and restoration links(e.g. there is a nice two part youtube video on restoring a 1681) to name a few. This actually seems a bit daunting and I'm not even sure a forum thread would be best place. I have received a bunch of good help on this thread and would reprint (with permission of course) those things - for instance the invluable information y'all provided to me on changing the wheels on an electric loco. Anyway, this is just something I have thought about. I suppose a Greenwood guide might supply some of this.
Southern Colorado Marx Flyer While I realize this isn't a repair or restoration site, it seems like I often have these sorts of questions. If there is a better forum that y'all know about to ask these things, please let me know. I have, though, always received good information here. So here is the question. I have recently started to work on a motor from an aluminum Zephyr 9900. Pulling off the wheels I found - alas - "ovalized" bushings. I know one option is to break apart the motor chassis and replace the bushings (if you ccan find them). But I have the general idea that is not the easiest thing to do - actually putting it back together. So here is my plan. I have ordered some stainless steel tubing with an O.D. larger than the bushing openings and an I.D. just right (I hope) for the axle. My plan is to drill out the bushings just enough to insert the axle tube. I only have a drill press, so I know this is not best in terms of precision. I'm thinking though that since the tube will cross between the bushings that if it is pretty much level it should be OK. The centers of the axles will stay the same. Has anyone tried this? Is it a terrible idea? I have brass tubimg that would work, but thought stainless would be better than either brass or aluminium. I doubt that the train will be running regularly (of course if I even get it to run) so heavy durability is not an issue. Thanks for any comments you may have. Craig
While I realize this isn't a repair or restoration site, it seems like I often have these sorts of questions. If there is a better forum that y'all know about to ask these things, please let me know. I have, though, always received good information here.
So here is the question. I have recently started to work on a motor from an aluminum Zephyr 9900. Pulling off the wheels I found - alas - "ovalized" bushings. I know one option is to break apart the motor chassis and replace the bushings (if you ccan find them). But I have the general idea that is not the easiest thing to do - actually putting it back together. So here is my plan. I have ordered some stainless steel tubing with an O.D. larger than the bushing openings and an I.D. just right (I hope) for the axle. My plan is to drill out the bushings just enough to insert the axle tube. I only have a drill press, so I know this is not best in terms of precision. I'm thinking though that since the tube will cross between the bushings that if it is pretty much level it should be OK. The centers of the axles will stay the same.
Has anyone tried this? Is it a terrible idea? I have brass tubimg that would work, but thought stainless would be better than either brass or aluminium.
I doubt that the train will be running regularly (of course if I even get it to run) so heavy durability is not an issue.
Thanks for any comments you may have.
Craig,
I have a friend who does something similar to what you are proposing. However, what he does is to drill out the bushings to a slightly larger size and then he puts in an oversize axle. According to him, this takes care of the slop in the bushings. However, instead of a drill press, he is using a lathe and boring through both sides of the engine at the same time, which makes it so that the axles are still level.
NWL
Southern Colorado Marx Flyer So here is my plan. I have ordered some stainless steel tubing with an O.D. larger than the bushing openings and an I.D. just right (I hope) for the axle. My plan is to drill out the bushings just enough to insert the axle tube. I only have a drill press, so I know this is not best in terms of precision. I'm thinking though that since the tube will cross between the bushings that if it is pretty much level it should be OK. The centers of the axles will stay the same. Has anyone tried this? Is it a terrible idea? I have brass tubimg that would work, but thought stainless would be better than either brass or aluminium. Thanks for any comments you may have. Craig
So here is my plan. I have ordered some stainless steel tubing with an O.D. larger than the bushing openings and an I.D. just right (I hope) for the axle. My plan is to drill out the bushings just enough to insert the axle tube. I only have a drill press, so I know this is not best in terms of precision. I'm thinking though that since the tube will cross between the bushings that if it is pretty much level it should be OK. The centers of the axles will stay the same.
Although softer and perhaps harder to work with in terms of "press fit" I think I would go for the brass. SS is awful hard stuff! I would imagine there is a reason you never see SS bushings on anything.. and it probably has to do with lubrication. Plus now the axle instead of riding on bushings at two points will be riding the entire length of the proposed SS tubing, sounds like a good deal more friction. Bronze will become oil soaked to a degree, I wonder if the same is true of brass. Are there any bronze bushings you can find? Also if you had a brass tube with a smaller ID than the axles, you could make up a jig to hold the chassis and line bore the brass for a perfect and true fit. It would take some set up time, but that's the beauty of a drill press.
As to getting the train running, remember we are only the temporary caretakers of these wonderful toys.
just my two cents.
Lover of all things Gilbert, truly a man ahead of his time.
Southern Colorado Marx Flyer
Craig;
Even if the wheel configuration for Flyer's "Hudson" isnt exactly correct it is an amazing piece of work for the time that it was produced.
The Northwoods Flyer Collection
of
American Flyer Trains
"The Toy For the Boy"
I have recently picked up a locomotive that I have seen described as a Hudson. I'm not sure yet if it is a 1680 or 1681 (or what the difference is between the two).
From what I have seen (example below from internet stock photo)
American Flyer "Hudsons" have a 2-6-4 wheel arrangement. I believe true-life Hudsons actually had 4-6-4 wheel arrangements. I wonder if American Flyer thought that maybe the second lead truck wheels were hidden behind the steam chest/cylinders and therefore not necessary. I also know on some AF models that the front wheels on the trailing truck were also "implied" rather than actually there.
This is great thread.I have a 202 that my grandfather gave me years ago. Did not know what is was until you posted the pics.Thank you.
The Dixie Queen
1930-1931 Set # 1314
The Dixie Queen is a set cataloged with an illustration in 1930 and mentioned as an available set in 1931 without any illustration.
I'd agree with Nationwidelines and with you concerning the signal differences and punch press feed. The same problem with hole punched base blanks being incorrectly fed into the base bending tool is the easiest way to account for the left and right crane locations on the long base #97 freight station.
While my sample size is small, the impression I have is that it is far easier to find left handed freight stations that it is to find left handed signals. It may be just the sample or perhaps it was more difficult to make a mistake when feeding the signal head punch press.
#2218 - #4218 Block Signal
It has taken awhile but I wanted to follow up on NationWideLines observations about the variations in the Block Signal. The more common signal has the light head on the right side.
NationWideLines,
You are correct in your belief that this variation marks the change to a single post mast.
Northwoods,
I realized that the latest variation that you posted was missing. I believe this variation represents the point at which the double post mast was changed to a single post mast. Your variation with the two arms on the same rivet is interesting. I have also see a Flyer clock with two faces riveted to the same post. Likely the two blades stuck together and the assembler did not catch it.
I have a variation with two red arms, no green arms.
In addition to the semaphore arm being used on the 235 water tank set, it was also used on the 237 station set.
I was not aware of that variation of the #208 Semaphore. It does indeed seem as if Flyer was using up parts that they had on hand.
As I was going through items that I had stored I came across another variation. It turns out there are two variations of this variation.
Great to see you found your camera! I find the blue mast variation of your 208 semaphore to be quite interesting as I was not aware of that variation.
Here is another variation of the 208 semaphore. This one is shown in the artwork for the 240 Equipment Set, but did not come with my 240 Equipment set. A standard variation with the lithographed arms came with my equipment set.
This one is unique in that the arms come from the earlier and more deluxe 2011, 2012, 2015 semaphores. My guess is they were using up extra semaphore arms on this version after they had discontinued the previous mentioned semaphores, but who knows.
#208 Semaphore
Back on page 71 Nationwidelines posted photos of some early versions of the #208 semaphore. I am finally getting around to posting some additional variations.
The #208 Double Arm Semaphore was cataloged from approximately 1916 to 1931. I don't have any of the very early black and white versions that Nationwidelines has documented, but I do have some of the variations with colored posts. I'll follow NWL's assumptions that these are from 1925 and later.
This is my example of the brown version
excellent tip on checking the paint around what might at first appear to be missing parts. with close examination it's not that difficult to spot places where pieces were never assembled. i have a great example where a "missing" boiler band slot is completely painted over, though that was a later known variation.
of course, vs a design change, in this case as you mention, it was basically a matter of what was on hand... or not. wonder if some depression era suppliers weren't delivering(?) i'm guessing even the companies who successfully weathered these years may have been affected by the many who did not.
Another Leftover
Back on page 62 and further back on page 12 or so I made note of the "leftover" aspect of #3190 and #3180 engines that would suggest a 1932-1933 build timeframe. As I've mentioned previously, the leftover nature of these engines seems to have evolved based on what was left in the parts inventory.
Recently I was able to photograph this leftover variation. Unlike most of the "leftover" engines I've seen this one actually has an engine identification rubber stamped on the underside (3180) and I believe it might have had a headlight visor which is now missing, however the other tapped holes on the superstructure are paint filled. What makes the engine interesting is the tender. It has no brass details and the intact nature of the paint around the attachment holes indicates it never had any. The only adornment are decals both on the sides and the top and, as you can see, on the sides they were applied right over the slots which would have been used to hold brass plates with "American Flyer" identification. The engine, on the other hand, still has brass plates under the cab window.
after suffering through a camera glitch, a computer problem, another camera catastrophe and a final computer crash, at least i've challenged the adage that bad things happen in 3's. ...it's really 4's. (although i won't even mention the number of glasses i broke this month) anyway, now back in play-form, it's time for more Flyer (and Marx when i get another few minutes).
here is my favorite factory flub, ...and you'll just have to take my word for this one.
Here is an odd one, that is what it appears to be, a product of low quality control. One has to wonder how this got by at least two people at the factory? (Assuming that the person operating the press was not the one assembling the product)
1916 Set #2
Back on page 60 of this thread Overlandflyer posted a picture of a set box and made some reference to its contents. I have a similar set and the set box not only has the external label but it also has pictures of other train sets for sale printed on the inside.
Set Box Top
Inside of Set Box Top
My box too does not have external markings but the contents, with one exception, exactly match the 1916 catalog description for Set #2 - engine, tender, #1107 passenger car, #1108 baggage, and the oval of track.
There are cardboard spaces for the engine and two cars and someone added a cut out cardboard buffer to protect a second #1107 passenger car which was most likely a post-Christmas or post-birthday addition.
Northwoods Flyer Help! I have just spent a goodly amount of time looking for a post here on the thread and I can't find it. At some point one of the contributors posted some information about the 2218/4218 Block Signal that illustrated a variation that had the light on the left side rather than the right. The common Block signal looks like this The post discussed that there was a variation that had the lights on the left side and that meant a completely different head to the signal was manufactured. I was sure that it had been posted here, but I have not been able to find it. Does anyone know where it is on the thread? (Boy do I need to update the index) I am begining to believe that I might have read about it on another thread.
Help! I have just spent a goodly amount of time looking for a post here on the thread and I can't find it. At some point one of the contributors posted some information about the 2218/4218 Block Signal that illustrated a variation that had the light on the left side rather than the right.
The common Block signal looks like this
Son of a gun, I have one!
Sorry I don't know where the thread is.. but.. I read what you are saying about a different head being manufactured. Could they have just flipped that head over and moved it to the left? Can't see the back but from the front it looks like it's the same whether upside down or right side up? Sure doesn't seem like Chicago Flyer would go to all the trouble to "manufacture" a different head. Flip it, put the decal on then put the bulbs in to fit the application! Might work.
overlandflyer finally got all my photos restored and had a chance to catch up on some of these postings.
finally got all my photos restored and had a chance to catch up on some of these postings.
I don't know what you had to do to get your photos back, but I am grateful that you did. This thread is fascinating: I look forward to seeing it any time it updates. I'm grateful to all who contribute!
208 Semaphores
In speaking with Northwoods Flyer recently, he indicated that he was going to post photos of the 208 semaphores next. I thought I would pre-empt his post as I have a number of very early versions of the 208 semaphores.
First is the 208 semaphore c. 1915-1916.
This semaphore has some very unique characteristics that are found on only the earliest Flyer semaphores that date to the 1915-1917 ? era. First and foremost, the base is very heavy and made of cast iron. Second, the lower semaphore arm features a fish tail cut. This item can be matched to the artwork in the 1915-1916 Flyer catalog. This version features a black base and lower portion of the mast, with white upper portion of mast.
I believe this to be one of the first accessories that was produced by American Flyer, as their 1914 catalog shows only foreign made items and their 1915-1916 era catalog shows mainly foreign buildings and accessories, with the exception of the 107 and 208 semaphores. I also belive that this item was heavily copied from the Ives 107 semaphore of the era, down to the fact that in the 1915-1916 Flyer catalog, the single arm semaphore features the same number (107) as the Ives single arm semaphore. Items that are identical to the Ives piece are the cast iron base and the semaphore arm. Flyer changed the number of their single arm semaphore to 207 in their next catalog.
Next in the line is the 208 semaphore c. 1918-1919 This item features a stamped steel base and does not have the fish tail cut to the lower semaphore arm. The semaphores of this era feature a dark colored base and lower portion of the mast and then a white upper portion of the mast. Of the two versions shown below, the first features a dark blue base and lower portion of the mast and the second features a dark greenish colored base and lower portion of mast. The greenish colored base appears original and does not appear to be the result of fading.
I am not sure how long the dark colored lower portion of mast and dark base semaphores were produced. I know that these features were shown in the 1919 era and 1922 era catalogs and that a single color mast and base are shown in the 1925 catalog. There are at least 2 variations of early (c. 1925?) single color base and mast 208 semaphores. There is a gray variation and a brown variation.
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