First Pullmor motors disappear, and now Magne-Traction too? What is going on ?? !!!

Well, at least Lionel will never get rid of it's steam program! Btw I kind of prefer can motors and Traction tires.

MIKATT1 posted:

Well, at least Lionel will never get rid of it's steam program! Btw I kind of prefer can motors and Traction tires.

That's funny Dave. I sure hope they don't.... but you never know what's on the chopping block next! Well, I'm off to go run a can motored Williams diesel. I'm told if I force myself to run it for an hour a day, I'll eventually fall in love.

Grampstrains, you are absolutely correct. The LC+  RS-3's, GP-7's, and new FT diesels also have it as an unadvertised feature. My guess is that Lionel has been using up old stock as they go through the old F-3 power trucks which were magnetized. They even put magne-traction on the non-powered FT's, which ironically causes them to drag more. It's likely leftover parts from the conventional classics production runs, which didn't sell as well as hoped. Strangely, if you look at the regular Lionchief RS-3's, you'll see that they don't have magne-traction. They are jacked up on those unrealistically high plastic trucks with the can motor inside the truck and the zinc wheels w/ rubber tires. Anyway, as you noted, Magne-traction is not advertised, and for good reason. It's probably a temporary feature while the NOS trucks are consumed. If there is another good explanation for not advertising it, I would love to hear it!

Dave, I am with you on that. 

I agree 100%.  I don't have traction tires and don't want them-just another headache. I am happy with what I have.

Greg......I'm all for Magne-Traction and PullMor's......if they do the job.....

I bought the PWC 44 Missile Launcher set. After adding the sound car and a PWC 3535 Security Car, it has trouble on a straight-away, even on tubular track. Lionel heard lots of complaints.  Because of this, the remake PWC 45 USMC Mobile Missile Launcher has both as manufactured..

My LCCA New Haven Alco Passenger set remake of the 1958 set has a PullMor and Magne-Traction....It barely pulls the dummy A and four passenger cars on my Atlas track. I'm having traction tires put on so I can pull the regular set with the add-on cars.

I have the 20th Century Ltd New York Central passenger set from 83....2 Pullmors and Magne-Traction.....ABA and 7 passenger cars....It did fine on my old layout....But now I have Atlas track and it spins its wheels with 4 passenger cars....Traction tires are being added.

I would be happy if they kept Magne-traction and added traction tires. I'm up in the air about the PullMors....I guess I will have an opinion when I get my engines back.

Peter

The first MPC cataloged diesel with MT was either the first GG1, FM or the NH F3's.  That means for about 6-7 years there were NO engines with MT in the cat.  Therefore the streak ended near 1970!

...... and Ford hasn't offered a flathead V8 since the early 50's. Coal burning furnaces are long gone, phones no longer have cords, TV's  now have a flat screen , video games had one joystick and one button etc.

Its progress and improvement. I'd be willing to bet Lionels existence today would have been sketchy had Mike Wolf not put the pressure on, offering the first highly detailed ( korean made) smooth running steamers in O guage back in the 90's.

Lionel had no choice but to follow suit to remain competative.

I can take or leave magnetraction, but pullmor motors are garbage.

I would be curious to know the numbers on the big ticket scale stuff vs the toy and or even Lionchief stuff.

We are at a great time in the hobby.  Out with the old.   Pullmor is not desired my any serious operator.

Greg, I share your feelings about can motors and tractions tires, though I wouldn't say they are necessarily deal breakers for me personally. But what Lionel is doing makes very good sense for them. The nostalgia market is bound to shrink as time goes on because there will be fewer and fewer people around who remember the older technology...and fewer still who remember it fondly. In time, the sagging demand for older items will depress the price of original pieces to the point that Lionel will not be able to sell reproductions of them at a price point that will make them money. This has happened already to many pieces from the MPC and LTI eras, which you can buy for well less than their original list price--and in 21st century dollars, at that. It is bound to occur with Postwar eventually. You mentioned yourself that the conventional classics did not sell as well as hoped. There are so many Pullmor/MT equipped items on the secondary market that Lionel cannot hope to compete with its own past by making more of the same. They have to offer something new. You can argue that Lionel should offer some of the old-style trains, to keep the nostalgia market engaged with the company: but if that market will purchase only the old style-trains, the ones which Lionel seems to have trouble making money on, well, what's the point of keeping that market engaged? I would say that you should get into the collecting end of the hobby (which is what I have begun to do) because that is where you are going to find the things you like.

All kidding aside - I don't miss the magne - traction now that I have a relatively large layout.

I cannot begin to tell you how many times the magnets have picked up metal particles, metal shavings and parts from the railroad and have deposited them right in the gears of the locomotive. Very frustrating and lengthy clean - up.  The  can motors and traction tires are blessing in disguise. I will not purchase any locomotives with pull more motors and magne- traction.

No question that, with reasonable maintenance, the Pulmor would run almost forever.  But it wasn't smooth running and one could not run it slowly.  I put a can motor in a #624 from 1954, and it can crawl along at 2 SMPH, under DCS control.

The Pulmore motors and Magnetraction worked well for their intended use. Those A/C motors will last forever, are easily serviceable but since they are three pole the operating speed was always at the higher end. Had they been designed as 5 pole motors they would have run smoother and have the capability to propel the engines at slower more realistic speeds. As for Magnetraction vs traction tire; tires grab better but need replacement. Magnetraction lasts far longer.  As for my preference it would be for the American made high quality industrial grade Pittman can motor.  My early Williams Lackawanna FM uses them and they are "bulletproof". They run smooth, are reliable and long lasting. Trouble is that no train brand uses these quality motors anymore,

Dennis,

Did the Lionel 773 use a 5 pole motor? I ask as it's always described as being a smooth runner with a much lower top-end speed.

Would love to see the center rail and oversized lobster claw knuckle couplers go the way of the Magna-traction and pullmor motors.  Change is good.

I don't miss the open frame AC motors at all.  I still have a few, but the performance of can motors with modern electronics just puts them to shame IMO.  Magnatraction is kind of useless on Atlas track...

Add me to those that are glad for can motors and traction tires.  When I got my 1st locomotive with a can motor and traction tires I was blown away with how much better it ran.  It could go slowly, smoothly, pull a ton, and wasn't ridiculously loud.  And once I got my 1st locomotive with cruse, which you'll never get with an AC motor, I'll probably never buy another locomotive without it.  Like said above, if they don't sell why would (should) Lionel keep making locomotives with the features you are missing?

No love or nestalga here for the pull-mor or magnatraction.  Old technology that's had it's time.  I'm an operator and i enjoy the smooth and quiet operation of can motors and cruse control. To each his own.  Just like tubular track pull-mor's and magnatraction will be around for generations to come.  

Ditto on the death of Pulmore [or less-really!] motors. Most labor intensive and weak motors on a Lionel locomotive. Can motors are the way.

Regards,

Gary

Sorry Gary but you might as well go 2 rail.

Actually, I'd like to see a more scale sized coupler, though I suspect that's not going to happen any time soon.  I keep hearing about the possibility of a Kadee coupler sized electrocoupler, but they never surface.

GregR,

   I will not miss the old Pullmar engineering, however I have always liked the Lionel Magna-Traction.  As a kid I ran my old Northern Pacific GP7 up and down our Layout Trestles pulling lots of rolling stock, at a speed I probably should not have been running, no doubt the Magna-Traction kept the old NP GP7 on the tracks, at every bend.  IMO this particular engineering, especially on conventional engines, should not be eliminated.

PCRR/Dave 

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, I'd like to see a more scale sized coupler, though I suspect that's not going to happen any time soon.  I keep hearing about the possibility of a Kadee coupler sized electrocoupler, but they never surface.

The day kadee makes a couple that works with the legacy remote i will be switching ...Cant stand the lobster claws... As for tube track and pullmotors and magna-traction 1955 is gone...

superwarp1 posted:

Would love to see the center rail and oversized lobster claw knuckle couplers go the way of the Magna-traction and pullmor motors.  Change is good.

You're in luck!  There are trains made just the way you want- they're called 2-rail!

mlavender480 posted:

superwarp1 posted:

Would love to see the center rail and oversized lobster claw knuckle couplers go the way of the Magna-traction and pullmor motors.  Change is good.

You're in luck!  There are trains made just the way you want- they're called 2-rail!

Only problem with that statement.  Lionel doesn't do 2 rail.

superwarp1 posted:

mlavender480 posted:

superwarp1 posted:

Would love to see the center rail and oversized lobster claw knuckle couplers go the way of the Magna-traction and pullmor motors.  Change is good.

You're in luck!  There are trains made just the way you want- they're called 2-rail!

Only problem with that statement.  Lionel doesn't do 2 rail.

So? Other companies do... If that's what you want, buy from them!

Marty Fitzhenry posted:

We are at a great time in the hobby.  Out with the old.   Pullmor is not desired my any serious operator.

To each his own.  However, I do get a kick out of it when someone makes a statement that A pullmor is not desired by any serious operator.  I kind of think that is a hasty generalization and it certainly doesn't speak for all of the "serious operators" out there who still like the old Pullmors.

I run a lot of modern engines with can motors and traction tires and certainly appreciate their superb performance but I also still run a lot of post-war and early modern era locos with Pullmors and Magne-traction and still enjoy what they have to offer. No question they are from another era but as a model train enthusiast I like having and operating engines which illustrate the technological progression that has occurred in this hobby.  Try telling  pre-war enthusiasts  they are not "serious operators".  That dog just ain't gonna hunt. 

RickO posted:

...... and Ford hasn't offered a flathead V8 since the early 50's. Coal burning furnaces are long gone, phones no longer have cords, TV's  now have a flat screen , video games had one joystick and one button etc.

Its progress and improvement. I'd be willing to bet Lionels existence today would have been sketchy had Mike Wolf not put the pressure on, offering the first highly detailed ( korean made) smooth running steamers in O guage back in the 90's.

Lionel had no choice but to follow suit to remain competative.

I can take or leave magnetraction, but pullmor motors are garbage.

I would be curious to know the numbers on the big ticket scale stuff vs the toy and or even Lionchief stuff.

BTW The French military used Flathead Fords up to the 90's A slightly different casting and higher nickel cast iron  but very interchangeable

This is an interesting one.  I suppose when it comes down to it, if you want a post war engine, there are hundreds available in great condition on the big auction site.  Most of them even cost less than any new engine.   While I agree that the simple design is good on the pullmore, I think the benefits of DC can motors far outweigh this.  When it comes to magnatraction, I think it is neat, but tires offer better grip.  Sure they have to be replaced, but not very often.  The only thing I do miss about steel wheels on the rail is being able to spin the drivers when starting.  I don't know if it is prototypical or not but it is how I remember engines starting on old tv shows.  Now, if you want to use magnets to help hold your engine to the track around sharp curves, why not just glue tiny rare earth magnets to the underside of the engine?  They will work better.  I can't recall who it was right now, but I know someone around here used these to build a train that ran upside down.  

As with most things, if there is a market for it, someone will make it, but when it comes to these things, the market for low speed control and lots of pulling power is a lot bigger than the market for loud, engines that spin their wheels under load.   Probably plenty of product on the secondary market to keep the few happy that want the 70 year old tech.  

JGL

Yes, the Pullmor motor has gone to the wayside. Nothing wrong with universal motors in general. In the real world universal motors are more efficient than can motors which is why diesel-electric locomotives never used can motors (an most other industrial applications as well). Furthermore, to get even close to universal motors in terms of efficiency can motors must use fancy rare earth magnets that are very expensive. The problem with the Pullmor is that it was universal design from the 1930's and was never really updated; thus, it never improved upon performance from that of the 1930's. For those who sing the praises of the can motor keep this in mind, its day is coming as well.  The 60% efficiency of a can motor simply does not cut it anymore.   

In a way I laugh at the mangetraction comments and a way I cry at the the magnetraction comments as I watch my brand-spanking new Lionel Santa Fe ES44AC wobble down the track due to its tires while my 2343 is rock steady. 

Babble on Pullmore haters and Magnetraction  critics. just means more for me !! 

When they make a universal motor that works better than the current can motors, I'm all in.  Right now the choice is between the Pullmor motor and the can motor, that choice isn't hard for most of us to make.  I don't know of any options for your "modern" universal motor in any of the popular manufacturer's products.

I'm not saying that the old AC motors don't have a place, I still have a few of them.  However, I'm not searching frantically for new locomotives with a Pullmor motor.

And my 685, and 2243, and 610, and the list goes on...

I was under the possibly mistaken impression that Lionel's Fastrack has aluminum rails, hence, Magne-Traction is useless. But now I can't find where I got that impression. So, what metal is used for Lionel Fastrack?

Didn't Lionel actually consider making an updated Pullmor design around the year 2000? I think I recall seeing the prototype which was even intended to have speed control.  I think it was a 5 winding armature?

bimmer050 posted:

I was under the possibly mistaken impression that Lionel's Fastrack has aluminum rails, hence, Magne-Traction is useless. But now I can't find where I got that impression. So, what metal is used for Lionel Fastrack?

Melted down Chinese bicycles. 

If it weren't for the can motors, "big radius dollars" and all the baggage that these things brought, we wouldn't be on this Forum having these discussions. There would be no "Lionel", and I would be in another format, or out of the hobby altogether.

I have a few Pullmors; charming, if and when they do the job. But, really?  

GregR posted:

Didn't Lionel actually consider making an updated Pullmor design around the year 2000? I think I recall seeing the prototype which was even intended to have speed control.  I think it was a 5 winding armature?

You are thinking of the Odyssey motor which was (most likely) a synchronous motor design which had electronic communication rather than motor brushes. While there are a few prototypes around, Lionel could not mass produce the motor on their dated equipment.

gunrunnerjohn posted:

When they make a universal motor that works better than the current can motors, I'm all in.  Right now the choice is between the Pullmor motor and the can motor, that choice isn't hard for most of us to make.  I don't know of any options for your "modern" universal motor in any of the popular manufacturer's products.

I'm not saying that the old AC motors don't have a place, I still have a few of them.  However, I'm not searching frantically for new locomotives with a Pullmor motor.

Since universal motors top out at 75% efficiency why go back to that technology? The industrial place for the universal motor is that the universal design is very inexpensive (made of only copper wire and iron plates) while giving reasonable efficiency. However, compared to the 90%+ efficiency of induction and synchronous designs, both universal and can motors are completely lacking. 

bimmer050 posted:

I was under the possibly mistaken impression that Lionel's Fastrack has aluminum rails, hence, Magne-Traction is useless. But now I can't find where I got that impression. So, what metal is used for Lionel Fastrack?

Fastrack has steel rails.

GregR posted:

Didn't Lionel actually consider making an updated Pullmor design around the year 2000? I think I recall seeing the prototype which was even intended to have speed control.  I think it was a 5 winding armature?

 Yep, Jon Z. has spoken of his efforts to do add-on speed control with the standard Pullmor, but it wasn't successful enough to make into a product.  Apparently, the bugaboo was low speed performance.  The earlier Lionel effort must not have produced a workable product either, because it never made it to market.

The real challenge to speed control on a universal motor is the cogging created by using a 3-pole armature.  The ill-fated Odyssey Motor had more poles and more segments to the field.

Jon