601-101 Motor rebuild gone wrong

Check the phasing of the commutator comparing to a similar motor..

Also the armature may be dragging on the field. 

Armature is not dragging - moves freely by hand, and when I can coax it to spin, no scraping sounds and no signs of bare metal on the armature laminations.

Not sure what you mean by "phasing of the commutator". To the best of my knowledge, this is the original armature that came with this motor, so... no rewiring has been done other than soldering and unsoldering the field wires.

I assumed the armature was rewound.

So no rewinding of motor field or armature?

Do all measure to specs? and measure open to ground? 

And e-unit wiring ok?

The armature was not rewound, it appears clean, all crud cleaned from between the commutator plates, no burns or darkening of windings.

Good question on the resistances - I don't know the spec for the armature or field, but I did just happen to have another 601-101 sitting around, that works fine - we'll call it motor #2

Motor #1 - winding to winding, all 3 windings are 1.2 ohms each

Motor #1 - field winding 3.3 ohms - wire diameter measures 0.014" or approx. #27 ga wire

Motor #2 - winding to winding, all 3 windings are 1.5 ohms each

Motor #2 - field winding 1.0 ohms - wire diameter measures 0.025" or approx. #22 ga wire

Despite being nearly identical in all other respects, it is very obvious the two motors I have are wound with different wire. That said, I don't see any alarming flags that would suggest an open or a short.

All measure OPEN to ground.

No e-unit is being used to test, I just wired the brushes in series with the field - when field OR brushes are reversed, motor changes direction as it should. Very SLIGHT difference when operating in one direction vs. the other - in forward, nearly impossible to "flip" the armature into a sustained spinning motion. Easier to do in reverse.

The only action that seems to make any difference is physical adjustment of the brush plate - if I loosen the screws while holding the brush plate into position, and then give a slight twist to the brush plate, it seems to have a very noticeable impact.

The field is staked into position, but I think that could still be a cause of the problem - knowing that very slight tweaks to the brush plate can make some pretty major changes in operation, I would assume the field would be the same  ... except I have no way to move it now that it's tightly staked into position.

I'm considering removing the field/brush mounting studs that my friend made for me and replacing all of that with some 3.5M hardware - long screws and nuts, just to do some testing. I believe doing so will allow enough movement of both the field and the brush plate to prove or disprove my "positioning" theory. I just hate to destroy the studs that were custom made by my friend. On the other hand, the motor is useless the way it sits.

Open to other things I might have missed or simply don't know about.....

Swap the armatures?

And this is why I like this forum, so others can slap my forehead and say, "Why didn't you think of that?"

Swapping completed, results are that armature #2 operates in motor assy #1 MUCH better than the original armature. It will actually spin into motion in both directions, but is way stronger and quicker to start in forward, as opposed to reverse (or is it the other way? Doesn't matter.) Armature #1 behaved differently tonight, having the same pronounced directional aspect, but even in the forward mode, had nowhere near the speed and torque of armature #2. Also armature #1 wouldn't start on it's own in reverse - couldn't even be "flipped" into spinning motion.

I wanted to test the opposite swap by putting armature #1 into motor assy #2, but as you can see, things are a little too disassembled at the moment - replacing pinion gears, still need to press the wheels back on.

Meet my friends: motor #1 on the left, #2 on the right

The difference in field wire is obvious to the naked eye: #1 on left 27ga, #2 is 22ga

Armature #1 on left - wire size hard to tell due to the heavy coating Lionel applied to the windings, but I think it may be smaller than the one on the right.

Ar

So how do you guys figure out if the motor on these PW NW2 switchers are 601-101 or 601-100??  I've got a couple of these but can't find where to tell which is which.  I'd like to rebuild my motors as well but don't know how to find part numbers.

Not sure I can help with your "which is which" question, but I'll tell what I know. Greenberg's Repair and operating Manual for Lionel Trains 1945-1969 shows on pg 51 that a 601-101 motor truck has two magnetic axles and that a 621-101 has one magnetic and one plain axle. When he says motor truck, I take that to mean an entire assy, including armature and brush plate. Another source here does not quite agree with that, stating, "Often confused with part number 601-101 in Lionel's and third party parts manuals, the two parts are different. The 601-101 is a basic motor truck without an armature and a brush plate. The 601-100 motor truck is complete and operational." So you be the judge.

If your motor truck assy (complete) has two magnetic axles, I would refer to Olsen's site here to get you started on some part numbers.

What I have found on these Type II or 600 series motors is that over time the staking of field plates on the aluminum base does not stay "square" and the armature is not properly aligned; slop develops over time and the armature will not spin; will binde, will buzz and heat up!  I have got them to run by (believe it or not) by using my hand to apply torque to the field  plate assy  or the axle side frames to align the plates (usually side to side) to the base plate; they are not screwed in place but staked; these loosen up over time and misalignment prevents the armature from rotating.  Once you find the "sweet spot" either stake it again (not easy) or epoxy it in place (clean all surfaces super clean!).   Just my personal experience to get these going; good luck; Falcon70

Thanks Falcon70, that's pretty much the conclusion I have come to, I just haven't twisted as much as you have. I will give it a more vigorous try next time I have a chance to work on it. I found out being retired doesn't mean I have all kinds of spare time!!

The only revelation of this so far is the big difference between two similar armatures. But take a look at these side by side comparisons, especially the positioning of the commutator with regard to the poles on the armature - they are quite different! There is absolutely no evidence that either one of the commutators has moved at all, they are both well fixed. So how can such radically different positions be used on these two? More importantly, is one right and one wrong? Who knows the answer to this one?

If the brushes are in a different spot relative to the field coil for the different motors, the commutator would have to be in a different orientation as well.  It would be hard for one to move that far without breaking some of the coil wires.

Exactly my thought - that's why I carefully inspected both armatures, looking for any signs of movement of the commutator - stretched wires, loose wires, etc. There are no such signs. The brush plates for both motors are identical, showing p/n 2321-115 on both of them. I suppose the original motor could have been defective since day 1, but I had a lot of years of racing it down the track at full throttle, so that doesn't seem very likely.

What am I missing here?

You got me, I don't have enough experience with the old motors to sort this one out.   I wonder if it's a case of a 180 degree orientation for some reason.

I've had similar problems with the early MPC motors of the same construction.  The armature turns a fraction of a turn then sits there.  If I try to reverse the motor, the armature will turn about one-sixth a turn and just sit there.  The armature checks out OK, i.e same resistance between commutator plates and not grounded to the shaft.  I swap out an armature from a similar engine that works and it works in the original motor so I conclude it is the armature.  But I haven't figured out why.  This thread means I'll look into it further.  Any ideas?

Mr Geopeg; good info on the comeback; obviously one binds completely; are they both the same length?  same number of plates?  Just free styling; from your good pics do both brush plate bearing inserts have the same depth?  From my lousy eyesight it appears the RH brush plate pic has a deeper recessed shaft bearing; just guessing.  Jeff Kane from Train Tender has helped me these motors; hope it works our for you; Falcon70

The armature on the right has the split between commutator sections centered over each pole piece - that is the one that works the best, and that appears to be the design shown in every Lionel armature photo I can find on the internet. The one on the left, well, it's 60 degrees off from the one on the right.

Despite being bagged up together for years (since early 60's), I suppose it is possible that somewhere along the way the original armature could have been lost, and this was just another one I got somewhere - my memory is just not that good! Assuming that to be the case, the question becomes what motor does this belong to, and did Lionel ever set the commutator 60 degrees off on any of their armatures?

Does anybody have an armature similar to the one on the left where the splits on the commutator are centered between the pole pieces instead of over the pole pieces? Does it work ok for you?

Curious why all this is in the control system forum?  You might get more help on the 3rail or electrical forum.  G

Regarding your armatures: This is where Bob Hannon's first book is invaluable.

According to the book, all 200 series and 600 series armatures should have the slots centered over the windings, not over the space between the poles. (Actually they appear to be just slightly off center) If so, then the one on the left either had the commutator plate shifted, or is not from one of those motors.

There are three known armatures, 600-125, 1055-118, and 222-120.
They are all wound with the same gauge wire #28, and as I wrote above, all have the same commutator positioning. The difference seems to be in the profile of the shaft.

Leafing through Bob Hannon's first book, I don't see any candidates for the armature with the slot centered over the gap between pole pieces. I will grab the second book, and see whether I can find something that might match.

Update: Leafing through Bob Hannon's second book, I don't see any candidates either.
Some armatures have the slot positioned in a slightly different location, but not centered over the gap between poles. These armatures are quite different than the 200 / 600 series diesel motor armatures in other aspects.

The issues mentioned point to a bad or defective armature. Seems to me the problem armature has been rewound previously, and a poor job of it. By swapping the good armature into the motor base you were originally working on and having it work perfectly eliminates any problems with that base thus leaving the armature the only possible culprit.

Tin

I have had similar problem with a early ALCO motor truck. After racking my brains out I found that the 600-10 Ball bearing was missing in the bottom armature support. Once installed all was fine. Just something simple to look for.

CArolina Shagger posted:

I've had similar problems with the early MPC motors of the same construction.  The armature turns a fraction of a turn then sits there.  If I try to reverse the motor, the armature will turn about one-sixth a turn and just sit there.  The armature checks out OK, i.e same resistance between commutator plates and not grounded to the shaft.  I swap out an armature from a similar engine that works and it works in the original motor so I conclude it is the armature.  But I haven't figured out why.  This thread means I'll look into it further.  Any ideas?

If you still have the "defective" armature, take a picture that shows a clear view of the commutator and one or more of the poles (windings), and post it here. I would like to see if the splits in the commutator line up with the center of the poles.

GGG posted:

Curious why all this is in the control system forum?  You might get more help on the 3rail or electrical forum.  G

I thought I was in the 3 Rail Forum, am I not?

KRM, double-checked, the bearing is sitting quite happily in the bottom bearing plate.

Played and played and played with it last night, no luck. With enough tweaking, bending, twisting, bottom bearing plate shoving, top plate twisting, both armatures will eventually run, sometimes even start up on their own, but not with the torque needed to move the engine (original armature) or move a few cars (new armature.) Loosening the brush plate and giving it a clockwise twist to the extent it will allow, gives a noticeable performance boost with both armatures, but that basically is just going from nothing to a little something.

I think the entire thing must be out of square, so I think the next step is to knock out the new standoffs and try some long screws - that should allow a great deal of movement of both the field and the brush plate, not to mention the armature.

Thanks for all the ideas and suggestions, we'll see what happens next.

GeoPeg posted:

GGG posted:

Curious why all this is in the control system forum?  You might get more help on the 3rail or electrical forum.  G

I thought I was in the 3 Rail Forum, am I not?

You are now, I reported the topic and asked them to move it.

The armature was not rewound, it appears clean, all crud cleaned from between the commutator plates, no burns or darkening of windings.

Compare the two armature's solder joints and how neatly the wires are attached to each of the commutator segments.  It appears to me that someone did some work on the armature that has the incorrectly positioned commutator.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that I also checked that last night. The solder joints just looked cold to me, despite the consistent resistance measurements. I went after the two worst ones, solder sucking and wicking the best I could. Seemed impossible to clean them up. Finally removed the wires from #1 and tried to see just exactly what kind of structure they were soldered to. I have a 140 watt Weller gun and it did the job, but I swear the heat wicking from that joint was unreal. I reassembled everything, rechecked resistance - exactly the same. Retested the motor - exactly the same. I would LOVE to see the individual components of that armature and the manufacturing process!

It's just odd - when you first turn the current on, the armature may move a little EITHER WAY, then sits there, humming. If you shove it along with your finger, after about a 1/4 turn it suddenly snaps to another standstill position. Somewhere in the course of playing with it, I saw one of the brushes arcing and turning red in a way that was clearly a bad contact with the commutator. I also found at least one totally dead spot where nothing happened - no juice flowing at all. So I recleaned the commutator and both of those problems disappeared, but I was back to a totally weak motor, that won't spin up on its own in at least one direction, sometimes both directions!

I'm waiting on a splaying tool from HH so that I can finish tightening the side frames on the other motor, then reassemble and test both armatures in it. What do you want to bet they now both act up in what was a good motor?

I don't have extensive knowledge of Lionel motors, but I do understand "real" motors so I offer the following.

1. In the motors under discussion, with the brushes aligned with the centers of the field poles, the gap in the commutator should definitely align with the armature winding as shown in armature #2. To use the common man's explanation, assuming the armature winding in question is attracted to the pole piece, once it is centered under the pole piece you must shift current to a new winding or continued rotation tries to pull against the magnetic attraction! The only way to energize the next winding is to transfer current to the next commutator segment, which is what happens when the split passes under the brush. Now, you COULD wire the commutator segments to the coil 180 degrees away from the split, things like that are sometimes done in larger motors, (they call it the throw of an armature) but I can't imagine why it would be done in these motors. Do you have a photo that shows how the coils are wired to the commutator segments?

2. I am highly suspicious of the 3.3 ohm resistance of the field. That sounds much too high.

3. I am suspicious of the red enamelled wire. I am not sure I have ever seen that on original PW Lionel, but others have vastly more experience with PW than I.

4. If the motor worked, why has it laid in pieces for 60 years?

My best guess is that this is a mismatched set of parts, or possibly the original motor was inexpertly rewound or the subject of an experiment. The vast majority of these motors work just fine even when slapped carelessly together.

Just my $.02 worth.

PLCProf posted:

I don't have extensive knowledge of Lionel motors, but I do understand "real" motors so I offer the following.

1. In the motors under discussion, with the brushes aligned with the centers of the field poles, the gap in the commutator should definitely align with the armature winding as shown in armature #2. To use the common man's explanation, assuming the armature winding in question is attracted to the pole piece, once it is centered under the pole piece you must shift current to a new winding or continued rotation tries to pull against the magnetic attraction! The only way to energize the next winding is to transfer current to the next commutator segment, which is what happens when the split passes under the brush. Now, you COULD wire the commutator segments to the coil 180 degrees away from the split, things like that are sometimes done in larger motors, (they call it the throw of an armature) but I can't imagine why it would be done in these motors. Do you have a photo that shows how the coils are wired to the commutator segments.

2. I am highly suspicious of the 3.3 ohm resistance of the field. That sounds much too high.

3. I am suspicious of the red enamelled wire. I am not sure I have ever seen that on original PW Lionel, but others have vastly more experience with PW than I.

4. If the motor worked, why has it laid in pieces for 60 years? Lack of interest  until now.....

My best guess is that this is a mismatched set of parts, or possibly the original motor was inexpertly rewound or the subject of an experiment. The vast majority of these motors work just fine even when slapped carelessly together.

Just my $.02 worth.

Thanks for your two cents!!!  I have slowly become convinced this is NOT the original armature that came in the train my dad gave me in 1957. It appears to be rebuilt as evidenced by the following.

Two of the coils are wired the same - they are twisted neatly at the ends, then wrapped up and over the electrical contact and soldered. The third coil appeared to have three wires - a twisted pair and a single wire. Doing a bit of digging with a probe, as I pushed away the padding under the commutator I saw why; one wire of the twisted pair was broken, so the third wire appears to be where someone else (not me) unwound a turn and soldered it into place. You can just barely see this in the photo below - there's a small stub of one wire in the twisted pair, just sticking out between the coil and the soldered joint.

Secondly, the color of the wire is suspicious, but even more so is the thick, epoxy-like coating on the windings. In my limited experience, I have not seen any other armatures coated like this.

And finally, I agree, the high resistance of the field is obviously due to using a much finer wire, #27 as close as I can estimate, on the field winding - also the same red color!

So this was in my opinion, a reworked armature. The question remains who did it; Lionel or a third party? Certainly will never know that answer.

As to the rest of the motor, I think the fact that a known good armature doesn't work right in this old truck pretty much speaks to a very bad parts alignment issue. The truck has been disassembled/reassembled to replace the pinion gears, the top plate was removed to re-stake the side frames (and replace the pinion gears), the field mounting studs were removed and went AWOL (had to make a new pair on a lathe), and the bottom plate has about .017" of slop from side to side - the only good things is the frame pieces do appear to still be straight.

I will play with this some more, but for now this looks like a write-off for me. I bought a spare (working) motor for less than what one fellow wants to rewind the armature .... and I have no sentimental attachment to the armature, so....

Thanks again for the suggestions - this has been an education, as always!!

So this was in my opinion, a reworked armature. The question remains who did it; Lionel or a third party? Certainly will never know that answer.

I seriously doubt Lionel ever reworked armatures.
The cost of the time required to repair a defective armature probably exceeded their cost to make one.

C W Burfle posted:

So this was in my opinion, a reworked armature. The question remains who did it; Lionel or a third party? Certainly will never know that answer.

I seriously doubt Lionel ever reworked armatures.
The cost of the time required to repair a defective armature probably exceeded their cost to make one.

Very true! That means I must have come across this one just somewhere along the way during the two or three year period when I regained interest back in the early 70's.

Armatures and fields are wound in the factory on automated machines.  That looks like a hand winding.  A pretty good job if the commutator was not in the wrong position, neater than I'd have probably done it.

 

As to the rest of the motor, I think the fact that a known good armature doesn't work right in this old truck pretty much speaks to a very bad parts alignment issue.

Don't rule out the high-resistance field winding. At a typical motor current of 2 amps the resistance in that field alone will eat up almost 7 volts, if that 3.3 ohms is a valid measurement.