Thank you for the helpful replies. I am going to tear it apart on the bench tomorrow and do another thorough cleaning of the armature and brush tubes. I can't remember whether I replaced the springs or not, but I believe I did. I'll add new brushes as well. I didn't replace them last year as the old ones still had plenty of material left.
Rich: Why not? The last thing in the world I would try to tell you is how YOU should run YOUR trains. When I rant, I am telling you how I run MY trains. I don't really care what YOU do. I am always willing to try to help you do what YOU want to do.
Timboy
Timboy Hi Rich: "sacriligious"? No! Would I do it myself right now? No! Seriously, replacing vintage open-frame motors with modern can motors is a mixed bag, as we used to say. They run with less draw on old transformers. That said, the smoke box can suffer from a lack of too much voltage. Enter 1/2-speed cans. That would seem to mitigate the smoke box problem. Downside? The 1/2-speed cans are not offered with a flywheel to my knowledge. What does a flywheel do? It allows the loco to coast through bad places on the track. What happens when you put a can motor in a loco and the can motor doesn't have a flywheel? It can come to a crashing stop when you least want it to; just like the Franklin can suddenly go into reverse (for a different reason). Okay, let's add another variation to this party. Electronic reverse units. Some have a capacitor that can again cause the loco to coast through bad spots on the track. Some don't. Bottom line. Do you want to run vintage-style Flyer loci as they came from the factory or do you want to do something else with them? If you want to do something else with them, then why not just pony up and buy new stuff that looks great and runs great as well. MY BOTTOM LINE? Keep 'em as original as possible or buy all new. Have a set-up that will allow you to run vintage or new if you must have both. Usually, a toggle switch or two is all you need. Alternate bottom line. Rehab old loci to run on DCC. That is an under-the-hood modification. The Flyer "look" will be maintained AND they will run like a race horse on steroids. Going with DCC is the single best reason I can think of right now to replace open-frame motors with can motors of any kind. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. That's my thoughts. Your's may differ. They always do. OBTW: TMI? Welcome to MY world and now you know the demons I have wrestled with over the years; winning and losing. OMG! LOL Regards, Timboy
Hi Rich: "sacriligious"? No! Would I do it myself right now? No! Seriously, replacing vintage open-frame motors with modern can motors is a mixed bag, as we used to say. They run with less draw on old transformers. That said, the smoke box can suffer from a lack of too much voltage. Enter 1/2-speed cans. That would seem to mitigate the smoke box problem. Downside? The 1/2-speed cans are not offered with a flywheel to my knowledge. What does a flywheel do? It allows the loco to coast through bad places on the track. What happens when you put a can motor in a loco and the can motor doesn't have a flywheel? It can come to a crashing stop when you least want it to; just like the Franklin can suddenly go into reverse (for a different reason). Okay, let's add another variation to this party. Electronic reverse units. Some have a capacitor that can again cause the loco to coast through bad spots on the track. Some don't. Bottom line. Do you want to run vintage-style Flyer loci as they came from the factory or do you want to do something else with them? If you want to do something else with them, then why not just pony up and buy new stuff that looks great and runs great as well. MY BOTTOM LINE? Keep 'em as original as possible or buy all new. Have a set-up that will allow you to run vintage or new if you must have both. Usually, a toggle switch or two is all you need.
Alternate bottom line. Rehab old loci to run on DCC. That is an under-the-hood modification. The Flyer "look" will be maintained AND they will run like a race horse on steroids. Going with DCC is the single best reason I can think of right now to replace open-frame motors with can motors of any kind. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
That's my thoughts. Your's may differ. They always do.
OBTW: TMI? Welcome to MY world and now you know the demons I have wrestled with over the years; winning and losing. OMG! LOL
Regards,
Tim,
As always my thoughts differ, LOL.
But, seriously, I appreciate your comments.
I wonder if there isn't a middle ground between running vintage American Flyer as original equipment or buying stuff that looks great and runs great as well. If a modern can motor can do the trick, why not swap the older poor performing vintage motor for a new can motor inside your vintage engine in order to keep it running and the memories flowing.
My thoughts. Yours may differ. They always do.
RichHotRain
Alton Junction
Hector,
Did you install new springs when you replaced the brushes? Weak springs will cause weak performance. Also be sure that the metal wheels on the tender are clean and bright and that the contacts are applying pressure to the axles because these two issues aren't always apparent on the bench.
The specifications for the 342AC are:
"Tested at: 12 volts A.C....using 140"oval of track.
"(A) Motor to be tested with Remote Control Unit at 12 Volts and not to draw more than 1.55 amps.
"(B) Locomotive to run at a minimum of 9 RPM or 9 times forward around 140" oval of track per minute.
"(C) Locomotive to run at a minimum of 8.5 RPM or 8 1/2 times reverse around 140" oval of track per minute.
"Load: Not to draw more than 2.1 amps while pulling 4 box cars.
"Motor: Universal A.C. or D.C."
Neither the resistance of copper wire nor of any properly made solder joints will increase with age. However, other types of connnections that might exist (like the faston connection to the fuse block of my car's horn circuit yesterday) may indeed increase in resistance over time (48 years).
Bob Nelson
Hi Hector: Me yet again. Does the chassis even have a bushing for the armature shaft? If not, then that could explain the armature getting thrust out-of-line when power is applied and the loss of "umph". I don't know where you got that piece from. I've had them where the bushings have been removed. Why? Because a can motor that doesn't need one used to be housed there and now there is an open-frame motor again that does need one. I think the thing I'm driving at the most in my post is that there is a reason and that reason can always be determined either by direct observation or by testing with a meter. Be the detective of the defective.
Timboy Hi again: Some other thoughts. I would pull the open-frame motor out and inspect the chassis where the armature shaft goes through it. I wonder if there could be some - I don't know - cat hair or something in there fouling things up. I would look at the worm drive for the same thing. I have experienced brushes that won't seat properly on the armature face and I have tracked that down to a dirty brush tube. One quick swipe with a pipe cleaner or Q-tip and problem solved. It could be as simple as that. Maybe an armature bushing has come part way out? Maybe some gunk in the brush plate where the armature shaft is? Could it also be a field out of alignment that causes the armature to be whacked out of line so slightly that it's extremely hard to see and only manifests itself under power? Not common in steamers, but possible, I guess. Anyone else? Regards, Timboy
Hi again: Some other thoughts. I would pull the open-frame motor out and inspect the chassis where the armature shaft goes through it. I wonder if there could be some - I don't know - cat hair or something in there fouling things up. I would look at the worm drive for the same thing. I have experienced brushes that won't seat properly on the armature face and I have tracked that down to a dirty brush tube. One quick swipe with a pipe cleaner or Q-tip and problem solved. It could be as simple as that. Maybe an armature bushing has come part way out? Maybe some gunk in the brush plate where the armature shaft is? Could it also be a field out of alignment that causes the armature to be whacked out of line so slightly that it's extremely hard to see and only manifests itself under power? Not common in steamers, but possible, I guess. Anyone else?
I cannot add anything to what you have already said, but I have similar speed and pulling problems with my old AF steam engine. I agree with you that age and time probably have a lot to do with this kind of performance issue with the motor.
Would it be sacriligious to replace the 60+year old motor with a modern can motor?
Be gentle on me !
Rich
Hi Hector: For me, a bench test only serves one purpose; it tells me that the reverse unit cycles properly, the motor spins freely under voltage in forward & reverse, the smoke box produces smoke and the head lamp lights up. What it doesn't tell me is how that loco will perform on the track under load. For that test, I place my loco on the track with from 3 - 5 cars. I have deduced that the bench test shows the loco off to the max because; 1) as we both pointed out, it is not under load and 2) there is no appreciable wattage drop from the transformer directly to the tender wheels via short leads whereas there is an appreciable drop through the bus wires, feeder wires and the rails themselves - not to mention any extraneous things are concurrently operating from the fixed voltage post.
Assuming that you have properly lubed the loco and checked all points of friction - including a gummed-up gear box, then that leaves only one thing that I can think of; the open-frame motor itself. I usually keep a spare AC open-frame motor or three that I know works well installed in the correct loco. Those armature and field coils were wound some 60+ years ago with enameled wire that was rather state-of-the-art back then. Perhaps over the years the resistance value in either or both pieces has increased a lot. Rewinding a field is no big deal for me. I've done it successfully several times. I would not attempt to re-wire an armature. Frankly, unless it is some freakishly unique piece, I would just toss it and replace it if I determined that it was not up to spec. Resistance values for both pieces are known and published if you want to test them with a meter. I don't have those values. Perhaps someone else on this list with some books can look it up for you. There was also a factory test set of specs for each loco under load. I think the load was 3 cars on an oval of Flyer track. Again, I don't have those loco test specs.
So that is what I look at when faced with a situation as you have described. Perhaps someone else on this forum can give good input.
I've got an American Flyer 342 that was given to me last year. It needed re-wiring, brushes and an overall cleaning and lube. I re-wired around the tender as the step motor was not functional so the engine would at least run in the forward mode. I re-assembled and tested on the bench with everything working flawlessly. Problem is even at full throttle (15V AC) it would go around the track about medium speed. This year after dusting it off from the box and setting in on the track, I find it's got even less torque or pull.
Question, do you think the motor/armature is at fault? Like I say it runs great on the test bench, but when you place it on the track even under its own weight without cars, it just has no ummphhh! I have to practically push it around the track for it to go......
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