Lionel 726 1946 version

It's a poor puller because it doesn't have magne-traction.  Only two drive-axles are

powered by the horizontally mounted motor.

If it had the same magnetized axles and gear configuration of the later 736, it probably

would have a lot more pulling power.

How much pulling power do you need?  These are classics with their nickel rims (not possible with Magne-Traction) and smooth drive.  If you want power buy a modern one with a can motor and rubber tires!

On the 1946 Berkshire, two axles are driven by the motor, for a total of four wheels.

All other postwar Berkshires have only one axle driven, for a total of two wheels.

The turbines follow the same pattern, the 1946 turbines have two driven axles, all other postwar turbines have only one axle driven.

Was it poorly designed and a poor puller?

Most of the materials I've read about the 1946 Berk say it was over designed.

Most of them are slow and noisy.

Surely the later Berks were cheaper to produce.

So I guess it was a poor design.

I never compared pulling power between the 1946 model and the 1947-1949 models. Any of them pull everything that I want to put behind them.

Still, if I liquidated my trains, the last piece to go would be a 1946 Berk.

The 1946 726 has a completely horizontal motor. It is not tilted like on every postwar Berkshire made later. The 1946 chassis is set up similar to the early F3 power truck except bigger and the drive powers 4 wheels - the first two and the last two. It has been my opinion that the drive train takes far too much power just to get the wheels turning. Since all 8 wheels and bearings can be removed from the bottom, there is also too much chance of something not being aligned properly during reassembly causing more drag. Because these engines were slow, kids in 1946 ran them at higher voltage creating a lot of heat. Many of the 1946 models I have come across have armature problems due to melted winding insulation. This slows them down even more. I don't believe lack of Magne Traction is the cause of their poor pulling ability. I have a 2025 and a 675 without Magne Traction. They are lighter and pull more cars faster.

My Greenberg guide says there is an early 46 and  later 46 version. Nothing about a poor puller.  My 726 RR doesn't have Magnetraction and is a strong puller.

The horizontal shaft, with a worm at each end to drive the front and rear main axles, is driven via a pair of spur gears, one on the shaft and one on the motor.  This makes it noisy.  My recollection from when I ran conventional is that I had to feed it more voltage than my 1950 #736.

quote:

My 726 looks pretty much like my 736s except there is a bloody great weight bolted over the drive gear housing.

Then it is not a 1946 model.

"726" was on Berkshires thrugh 1949.  1950 brought the 736 and Magne-Traction.  For 1947, the 726 was totally revamped.

Was it considered a poor performer or over engineered and Lionel decided to simplify manufacture? 

Ihave serviced a couple of the 1946 versions of both the turbines and Berkshires, they were really smooth runners, and like others have said, how much pulling power do you need? 

The 1946 Berkshire had two axles gear driven, the 1947 to 1949 Berkshire had one axle gear driven, but on both designs the side rods drove all the other axles.  So both locomotives have all eight drive wheels driven.  If the locos are properly serivced and lubricated, the only differnnce in pulling ability should depend on the weight on the drivers.

Only the front and rear axles/wheels need to be timed together on the worm shaft, it's very easy to do. The center two wheelsets are just along for the ride powered by and positioned by the siderods. As long as no wheels were pulled from their axles, there is no quartering that needs to be done.

quote:

Was it considered a poor performer or over engineered and Lionel decided to simplify manufacture? 

It has been almost seventy years since that engine was made. Any answer at this point would be pure conjuncture.

As I posted earlier, the 1946 model was slow and relatively noisy.
I think that model railroaders would have liked the slower speeds, but kids would have wanted it to run faster.

Look at the explosion diagram for a 1946 Berkshire, and compare it to the later models. Lots more parts had to mean it was more expensive to manufacture than the later models.

The tender is also a factor. The 1946-49 Berkshires all came with a heavy die cast metal tender. The 736's came with a much lighter plastic tender.

I have owned a number of 1946 Berkshires. Some ran better than others. The last one I purchased runs very smoothly and quietly.

The last one I purchased runs very smoothly and quietly.

That was my experience but the last time I owned one was in 1969. 

I think the only reason Lionel changed the drive in later Berkshires and Turbines, was to make the engines more profitable.  After all, they were a listed corporation with stockholders expecting them to be as profitable as possible.  Lionel sold a lot of Turbines and Berkshires and I'm sure the design change had a measurable affect on the bottom line.

CW is correct about the tender.  When I upgraded my 1950 736 to PS2, I switched tenders with the 726.  It's a very heavy die-cast job.

MY 726 is one of only 2 Lionel locos that I didn't get new.  To borrow a phrase, "It has been ridden hard and stabled wet."  Rather beat up mechanically.  Some day I may tackle fixing it up, as a challenge.

What I like abut the 726 Berks, either 46 or 47-48 versions, like a Timex watch, "They take a licking, but keep on ticking".  My pre-war 226E is the same.

Mike P

The old Lionel stuff ran poorly compared to 21st century command control locos, but they were certainly durable and ran & ran.

I usually park the heavy, die cast tenders and run the lighter ones. Will the 21st century locos be running as well 70 years from now??  I think not.

Probably not, but then neither shall I, if at all.

I had a 1948 726 at one time. More than a Timex, it ran like a fine Swiss watch. With that worm gear drive, it was quiet, and could run at low speeds very well.

C W, thank you for that.

The early 1946 Lionel 726 Berkshire may not be the greatest puller in the world but it truly is a one of a kind engine because it differs from the later 726s and 736s not only internally but cosmetically as well.  The very unique nature of this fine looking engine in my opinion makes it a keeper.  I have two of 'em and they both run smoothly and the smoke bulbs work pretty well too.  Sometimes I enjoy running them light with their big 2426 Tenders. 

I have an early 671 which appears to have the same design. A strong engine, a little noisy but the real ones were too. Plus, to read what the old time hoggers had to say, not every steam engine was a joy to run.

quote:

It would be difficult to change this timing.  It's just a matter of finding front and rear axles where the precise angle of the worm wheel teeth relative to the side rod boss is the same (also assuming that both worm teeth on the lower shaft start at the same point in its rotation.)  In short, it's mechanically more complex; there are a lot of variables potentially affecting operation which were eliminated in the 1947 and F-3 designs.

There seems to be enough play in the side rod holes to allow for any imperfections. But maybe this is why some engines run better than others.

quote:

I have an early 671 which appears to have the same design. A strong engine, a little noisy but the real ones were too. Plus, to read what the old time hoggers had to say, not every steam engine was a joy to run.

The 1946 671/2020 turbine is similar, in that the front and rear axles are driven. The 726 Berkshire is a little different. The chassis is split at the wheel bearings. If the bottom die case collector plate (and insulation) is removed, the wheel assemblies can be lifted out of the chassis. The wheel assemblies consisted of the wheels, axle, bearings, and where appropriate, the gear.

1946 turbines also have to be assembled carefully so the holes for the side rod screws are in proper alignment.

As noted, the side rods connect all drive wheels and therefore are the primary means of powering the locomotive.  There is a good deal of stress on those rods and as I learned from Lew English, more than forty years ago, the holes in the rods may, ever so slightly, become out of round.  I replaced the rods and performance dramatically improved.  To minimize such a problem from developing, frequent lubrication of this engine is extremely important.

It's worse after 1946, since the rods alone drive the forward 3 axles.

I recently went through a 46 726 for a friend and it is an extremely smooth runner.  In fact I didn't notice the noise you guys are talking about.  I degreased and regreased with engine assembly lithium containing molybdenum disulfide which is truly great lube, especially on spur gears.  Summing it up is it is smooth and quiet.

Thanks for all the good info. I have a 726RR, a 46 671 and  681 so I will keep my eye out for an earlier 726 or 736. Great engines. Might invest in new side rods.

Thanks for all the great ideas and thoughts.

I have the 1946 726.  I can pull four Madison Cars with ease.

My layout is '8x11' when I run freight I will add only seven

PW cars to the 726.  

It looks great with both Madison & Freight Cars going down

the number 1 track.  However, it is one year older than me,

and I will be sending it out for repair of a blown right

drive rod.  Not bad for a toy train that is 68 years old.

One last comment, the smoke unit works just fine, and is 

the original.  Old Josh and the crew in NJ knew how to make

em.

Many thanks,

Billy C

Would be pretty hard for the smoke unit not to work.  It's only a bulb with a dimple on one side to catch the smoke material.

I have seen the aluminum flapper worn out by the eccentric wheel post on the 2020/671.

The flapper is actuated by an eccentric arm on the 726, it is much more robust.

quote:

One last comment, the smoke unit works just fine, and is 

the original.  Old Josh and the crew in NJ knew how to make

em.

Does yours still have the smoke bulb? Starting in 1947, Lionel offered kits to convert them to use a heater type smoke unit. What do you use for smoke material? I've tried pellets and Lionel smoke fluid with my smoke bulb engines. I wasn't very happy with the results.

Do they still make the smoke bulb ??  I have never tried my old 726 that has one. I don't like smoke, I have enough problems with my sinuses.

Yes, Town and Country hobby had them made. They look correct, but I have not tried one.

Older reproductions were just automotive bulbs with a depression formed in one side.

Original smoke bulbs are actually quite common. At least the 18 volt ones are. They typically show up in 671-75 boxes, with 12 volt marking blotted out, and 18 volts stamped on the box.

It only makes sense that they would be plentiful. The bulbs were custom designed and made by GE. So there must have been a big initial order. The bulbs only fit three engines. They were obsolete almost immediately. Carl Shaw told me there wasn't even a full year of smoke bulb engines.

The GE numbers for the smoke bulbs were 797 (12 volt) and 799 (18 volt).
The Lionel numbers were 671-75 (12 volt) and 703-10 (18 volt).

It is somewhat difficult to find 671-75 bulbs in boxes that are not overstamped, and are actually 797 (12 volts). Same goes for 799 (18 volt) bulbs in the 703-10 boxes.

Here are some rough cut videos of a 1946 726...

The first one shows a 726 running light ...the train is powered by Z-4000

Next video is the same 726 pulling the cars that came with it in the 1946 2114WS

set...also note I replaced the smoke bulb years ago with a 1156 automotive bulb and in the video I put 3 drops of Mega-steam down the stack...if you look close you

can see a little smoke.

The last video is a older one from a years back of the same consist pulled

by a 1947 or 48 version of the 726...this one does seem to perform better.

The 1946 version would probably perform better on Lionel tubular track but the 1947 version doesn't seem to mind the MTH track.

My 1946 726 smokes with a Toy Trains Unlimited Smoke Pellet,

and as stated above by taycotrains three drops of Mega Steam

Smoke Fluid.  

It smokes as well as the 1947 version in the 3rd video above.

I have looked at the smoke unit and it is as described in RJR &

ADCX Rob's Post's above.  

I am still amazed that this primitive smoke unit still works, as

opposed to some modern smoke units that I have replaced with

MTH Fan driven units to get smoke.

Many thanks,

Billy C

Well curiosity got the better of me and I bought one. It did not run when I got it. The four insulators for the screws underneath were shot. I replaced the insulators, rewired it and cleaned out all the old grease and dirt. After all that, even on the non magnetic Atlas track the 726 would sit and spin with the same train my 736 handles very well. Time for more weight. I melted down old lead wheel weights and made two weights for inside it. One sits on the motor between the motor and the E-unit and the other fits around the outside of the original light bulb smoke unit. It's now easily pulling around 16 cars (4 postwar and 12 modern) plus the 2426w tender.

I also wrapped the headlight bulb in wick material and use smoke fluid instead of pellets. This works well as long as you don't drown it in smoke fluid. 

I couldn't be happier with this engine. I'll post a video of it when I get time. Thanks for all your thoughts on this engine.