Lionel 224e and 226e questions

It's a LOT heavier. 

I have three examples of the 224E, and all have silent e-units also. My runner up for quiet is the 2333. The loudest would be the 8030 and 8031.

Rob,

It's amazing how quiet that is. Closer tolerances pre-war?

Gandy,

My 736 is heavier than the 226, or at least close and even that runs at lower voltage.

-Roger

Make sure nothing is binding in the wheels or drive train. How is the grease? Compare rolling the wheels with your fingers to the 224, is there a big difference?  I had this issue on my own 224 and I had pressed one wheel on too tightly binding things up.  It ran but it needed 15V.  

I think the heavier body casting and frame on the 224 helps to quiet down the E unit. Have you taken the 226 apart and given it a good cleaning? The brushes may be worn out and the comutator may be dirty.

Richard

Richard,

The first thing I do when I get any "new" PW (or pre) engine is....replace the brushes and springs, clean the commutator and e-unit and then lube. So, I'm not thinking that's the problem. I have a feeling that the motor itself in that engine naturally uses more voltage. 

-Roger

Or......could it be the gearing? I'm comparing it's performance not just to the 224, but every PW steamer I have.

-Roger

Those series engine were the best.  My 225E is, by far, the best runner of any of my prewar/postwar engines.

Earl

Don't know about pre-war silence.  I have a 1941 224, which I got new that year.  E-unit buzzes very loudly.

Does the loco that needs more voltage run faster in one direction than the other? 

Buzzing e units can be fixed. did many years ago. May have pictures yet somewhere and will look for them.

Issue is the E unit plunger travel and being fed with AC. I recall glueing a thin piece of foam material to prevent plunger travel from allowing it to seat all the way upward. This also helped the plunger from failing to drop between cycles.

I will look in my files tonight. I think also in later years I added a full wave rectifier to feed the circuits with DC rather than AC to eliminate buzz altogether. I will look tonight after a round of golf.

I think the 226 was designed to run on higher voltage.  Mine is the same way.  As long as it runs without excess current draw it may just be normal behavior.  G

George,

I thought that was the case. It's very deceptive....it runs smooth and powerfully, but then you look down and see where the throttle is.

-Roger

There are two different styles of E-unit construction.

The older ones, are most easily identified by the paper wrapping on the coil. These e-units have a brass tube in the center, and use a plunger with a plain, flat end on top.

The newer e-units have an exposed coil wire that is wrapped on a plastic form. The center tube is part of the form. These e-units have a cone shaped depression cut into the top end of the plunger. There is a corresponding metal coil stop at the top of the tube, attached to the metal bracket that holds the coil.

In addition, the shape of the pawl is a little different.

I wrote this because when looking at techniques for quieting e-units, the type of e-unit probably makes a difference.

I do not know when the change was made.

This service manual page, dated 9-49 appears to show the older style.

This service manual page, dated 8-61 shows the new style parts, but the drawing of whole e-units still show the tabs from the brass center tube of the old style e-units.

I think the change was made well before 1961.

George,

What would you say should be it's normal amp draw running all by itself? I'll check it with the Fluke.

-Roger

George,

I just found this on the Bay.....

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LIONEL...;hash=item2c8186de8f

According to the description, the motor is the same in the 226,225, 224.  ??

-Roger

I'm not surprised that they are the same.  It wouldn't make econo0mic sense to have a number of different 6-coupled motor units.

Roger, you didn't answer the question I posed above, which I asked based on experience with 224 and other Lionel brush plates.

CWB:  There was also a version that could be used other than vertically, having a spring to return the solenoid to the released position.

quote:

CWB:  There was also a version that could be used other than vertically, having a spring to return the solenoid to the released position.

It's the earlier style with a spring added. The top of the plunger is machined to accept the end of the spring. It is shown twice on the service manual page dated 9-49. The only difference between the two is the length of the wire leads.

RJR,

Thanks for your responses.....sorry I didn't answer that question yet. I haven't had an opportunity to go downstairs and try it in reverse. I'll be back to you on that shortly.

Roger

RJR,

Okay.....just came up from running the 226. First I checked it for grease, lube, condition of the commutator (just to be sure). As I mentioned, I did all that maintenance when I bought that engine about a year and a half ago. It was all good. I also spun the wheels and there are no binds I could feel. Ran it forward, ran it in reverse. At 16V, it ran at the same speed in both directions. No hitches, no jerky jerk. 

So, as GGG found with his, maybe it just is more of a voltage hog. But....the fact that the engine is the same as that in the 224, I'm thinking it's either a weight thing or....gearing. I'm leaning towards gearing until told otherwise.

Roger

The gearing is the same.

The only difference between the 224E motor and the 225E/226E motor is the brush plate(and brushes).

Rob,

Well, then it's looking like it's a weight difference accounting for the increased voltage use. 

-Roger

Roger, thanks.  The reason I asked is that Lionel made several brush plates that are interchangeable physically but not electricly.  The wrong brush plate would show up in the loco going slower in one direction.

One pay to check the brush plate is to draw an imaginary line betwen the tips of the field magnet, and another between the centerlines of the brush holders.  These two lines should be perpendicular.  If parallel or at a 45-degree angle, the loco has the wrong brush plate.  It happened on my 224, when my father had a broken plate replaced while I was a kid.  Discovered the problem many years later.

Sorry I couldn't help and put you to some effort.

It's easy enough to check the gear ratios.  Count the number of revolutions of the armature to one of the driving wheels.

Does the 226E have a smoke bulb by any chance?

The 226E was a prewar production and did not have any type of smoking mechanism.  If this particular unit has one it has obviously been altered and that might explain the added voltage necessary to run the engine. 

That's what I thought, okhiker, but couldn't be sure if I remembered correctly. 

No effort, RJR. This Forum is a pleasure. The give and take on here is always amazing. People with common interests helping each other. It doesn't get better than that. 

Bottom line on this thread.....I've got a 224E with a dead silent e-unit and a 226E that runs and looks great, but just uses more voltage to do it. Nothing wrong with either of them, it's just the way they run. 

-Roger

I have researched my old notes and offer this information based on my years of working on Lionel E-Units. It is information learned and lifted from a variety of sources and there are other excellent experts on this site about these techniques.

First, let me say that my recollection of glueing a piece of matchbook cover to prevent total travel of the plunger to the top was placed on top of the pawl and its only purpose was to prevent the E-Unit from hanging up, not necessarily prevent the ‘BUZZ’.

Secondly, a simple easy method is to adjust the pawl. It works, but only on some units. E-units can be adjusted to eliminate much of the buzz by slightly straightening the arm that hangs down from the plunger that catches the e-unit drum. Just straighten out the arm a little at a time until most of the buzz is gone but the e-unit still cycles. If the arm is straightened too much the e-unit will be sporatic in operation.(hanging up) If this happens just slightly add a little bent back to the arm until it cycles properly, or add the glued on piece. With a little practice this may be all you need.

Finally, the electronic fix is the best but requires some work.

It is about 10 millimeters in diameter and rated at about 1.5 amperes, 50 volts or more.  The 4 leads are probably marked +, -, ~, and ~.

Disconnect the coil from the two terminals where it is now connected.  Connect the rectifier's ~ leads to those terminals.  Connect the coil to the rectifier's + and - leads.  So, before:

(e-unit terminal 1)---(coil)---(e-unit terminal 2)

After:

(e-unit terminal 1)---(~ rectifier +)---(coil)---(- rectifier ~)---(e-unit terminal 2)

I, however, mostly used this bridge rectifier from radio shack as usually there was plenty enough room for it in the cab interior.PN 276-1181.

The DC voltage from the rectifier may cause the e-unit to become magnetized which could cause the plunger to remain in the 'up' position and not allow the engine to reverse direction.

Earl

Earl, no doom and gloom please! The sky will not fall. I have done dozens of these over the years and it works and works well!

The 736 is post war based off the 226, but is a whole new and different animal. Post war motor is more efficient and there may have been gearing changes as well. 

Gandy

My 2343 had the e-unit plunger sometimes hanging up, apparently from residual magnetism, and it was always operating on AC. I had to stretch the spring to help gravity to pull it down again. Hmmm?

Gandy, if the 224 and the 226 had the same motors, no way is the 726 and 736 propulsion similar.  726 and 736 were worm gear with the motor shafts lengthwise.

The 726 had 8 drivers; the pix of the 226 show only 6.

I think there are a good many people that would dispute the fact that the post-war Berkshire motors were more efficient than the  226E.  The motor used in the 226E as well as the 224E and the 225E  engines is almost universally accepted as the best Lionel ever manufactured.   Just from a personal perspective I have a good selection of both the pre-war engines and the post-war Berkies as well and my observation is that the 224E, 225E and the 226E run much smoother and quieter than any of the Berkshires.  To be clear, I'm not bad mouthing the Berkshires because they are my favorite post-war steam locomotives its just the motors are superior in the pre-war engines.  .

OKHiker,

Well, the question remains.....does your 226E require more voltage to run (like mine and GGG's)?

-Roger

Hmm. It was always my understanding that the motors for the 224E and 226E were a little different. However, I would be shocked to find the difference is in the gear ratios. Lionel's 1938 catalog puts their spur-geared motor at 12:1, but I believe the actual ratio is less than 11:1. It would be neat to find out for sure. Turn the wheels slowly with your thumb and count the armature poles as they go by. Then divide by three, let us know what you get.

A few months ago I asked whether the 226E ran slower than its postwar successors on this thread:
https://ogrforum.com/t...98#24800664109750298

The consensus among responders at the time was that it runs about the same speed as a 224 or any postwar 6-wheel spur-geared loco. My guess is that your loco has hardened lube in its axle bearings, worn brushes, or a lack of brush spring tension. Measuring the average current (amps) when pulling a normal-sized freight on flat track is the easiest way to tell if all is well. If the current draw is a lot higher than your 224 it may be running hot, which will contribute to motor failure in the long run.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Lionel switched to fewer turns of a heavier gauge wire after the WWII, and especially after the adoption of sintered iron wheels with magne-traction. I'll bet burned out field windings were a pretty rare failure by the late 1940s. But taking into account manufacturing costs and everything else I guess Lionel's management decided that fewer turns of heavier-gauge wire were the way to go. Interesting topic! -Ted

You all may as well throw in Pre war 225 and early PW 675 into the mix as they all had the same motors.

In the old days for sluggish runner on a repair, I took the motor out, put it into a bath of mineral spirits, let it soak, brushed out all the old oil and grease, blew it dry, oiled it up and moved on to the next one.

Interesting though, the early 675 with iron tires had a wobble effect. Learned how to take the wobble out also. But that's another story.

I don't know when the O versus O-27 differences kicked in, but PW O engines had higher voltage requirements.  It only takes a few more or less windings in the Armature of Field windings to make the effect.  I guess it would have a different part number though.  Does anyone actually have an original parts manual for these engines?

If motors were identical, why use a different brush plate and brush?

Roger, I don't have specific Voltage measurements.  G

Ted,

The link you posted is incomplete and comes up blank. Could you resubmit it? I can't seem to find it on Search. Thanks

-Roger

Ok.....I just went downstairs to do a few measurements. I hooked a consist to the 224 that had enough cars in it to make the wheels spin if I accelerated too quickly. I measured 1.9amps once underway at constant speed. I then replaced the 224 with the 226 and at approximately the same speed, it measured 2.5amps (and of course, higher voltage to do it). I'm not thinking that's a major amperage difference. Am I correct in thinking that?

Roger

More measurements......these were measured with the consists running at approximately the same speed (visual). The voltage it took for each of these to maintain that speed varied:

736: 3.03amps

726: 3.09

2035: 2.5

681: 2.5

So.....the 266 is drawing LESS than the 36 and 26, but requires 3 or 4 more volt to do it. 

-Roger