My apologies Pat didn’t mean to get ahead of any one here.
Thanks again for keeping us straight and on track.
@harmonyards posted:Ok boys & girls, ….I’ve had some great correspondences with a buddy & fellow machinist in regards to the Mikados, ……specifically, the 2012 model year issue,….after some careful measurements, and some back & forth, these Mikados have the same set up as the K4s’s …..so in other words, the Mikes could potentially suffer the same fate as the K4’s ……again, our example for inspection is a 2012 model……later on, I’ll get some pics of the inspected model, and post up findings…..
Let’s jump back for a second, and talk about where this started, and what I feel is going on, and hopefully shed some light for folks,…..when we looked at a couple K4s’s, that were already damaged, what I noticed is the bushing they used to keep the worm wheel on track in the center where it belongs, can literally dig itself into the intermediate shaft bushing. ….I believe both the spacer bushing and the shaft bushing eat one another, not just a one sided game ……the combination of wear is what results in the shaft walk…….from an engineering stand point, the intermediate shaft bushing can not withstand being attacked from a side load….it’s strength is only in the shaft riding inside of it on a thin film of lubricant……in a nutshell, and to put it in layman’s terms, the shaft spacer and the shaft bushing are eating one another…..
Dave, can you add the 2012 Mikes to the fail list?….please?…😉
Pat
Updated, sorry I have been asleep for a good portion of today. Not much happening for me this weekend with this dang cold.
@zhubl posted:I have one of the brand new Pacific's that I opened and every thing looked good.
check my original reply HERE
based off of this I would hope that this issue was eventually taken care of but Pat is working to find out where the time period is where this issue started up until it was taken care of.
I'm a little confused. The number listed off that link is for one of the Reading T1's, not a Mike. You gave listed 2031300 which is the RBMN "WE THE PEOPLE" Legacy T1. Is the product number a mistake then?
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Updated, sorry I have been asleep for a good portion of today. Not much happening for me this weekend with this dang cold.
I'm a little confused. The number listed off that link is for one of the Reading T1's, not a Mike. You gave listed 2031300 which is the RBMN "WE THE PEOPLE" Legacy T1. Is the product number a mistake then?
Thanks Dave, ….hope you feel better,….I’m battling a blown out rotator cuff in my shoulder,…..so we’re both the walking wounded,..😉
Pat
Ouch
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:I'm a little confused. The number listed off that link is for one of the Reading T1's, not a Mike. You gave listed 2031300 which is the RBMN "WE THE PEOPLE" Legacy T1. Is the product number a mistake then?
My bad, 1 number off and it was kinda important 2131300
Did anyone have any of the 2011 Mike's from the list? As we know from Pat's post, the 2012 are in the group of bad gearbox like the K4's. Just curious if anyone does. Most of what I have is 2016 or later. It would be interesting if through all this that we are doing to see a transition from bad to hopefully better on Lionel's part.
Do I think that we would get so lucky? IDK. You would think that if they had their own engines running about that eventually something would blow up and they'd check it out. Of course the chances of that I would imagine would be very slim unless it was something like the VL Niagara that they ran like crazy at York until the traction tires came off. Like the old song, "Chances are....."
Drumroll please…
This is a recently purchased, brand new Legacy K4s from the Warren G. Harding Funeral Train set # 1922031.
Grease packing from the factory: 
Top view, maximum extents left and right:
“Worm view”:
I’ll let Pat @harmonyards be the judge…
Attachments
No spacer but even more troubling is there no bearing as well? Looks like just a hole in the diecast.
Pete
@Norton posted:No spacer but even more troubling is there no bearing as well? Looks like just a hole in the diecast.
Apparently, not designed to run all that long! 
It's odd they changed the frame and made it worse, that is really distressing! 
At least the older K4 has some bronze bushings in the frame for the gear shaft.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:At least the older K4 has some bronze bushings in the frame for the gear shaft.
I think they’re still there…
Attachments
@rplst8 posted:Drumroll please…
This is a recently purchased, brand new Legacy K4s from the Warren G. Harding Funeral Train set # 1922031.
Grease packing from the factory:
Top view, maximum extents left and right:
“Worm view”:
I’ll let Pat @harmonyards be the judge…
If this is the last, or next to the last K4 produced, then the entire family of K4’s is suspect in my eyes,…..the possibility of a failure exists ……will it fail would be the question on everyone’s mind, so with the fix installed, the solid answer is it can’t fail by side movement…..I’m judging these Legacy engines as good or bad IF we see a nice sized spacer alongside that worm wheel to prevent a shift. The above pictured K4 has no such spacer,….nuff’ said,…
Dave, would you do the honors please….fail the whole family of K4s’s….
Par
@harmonyards posted:If this is the last, or next to the last K4 produced…
AFAIK it’s the last to date.
Dave, would you do the honors please….fail the whole family of K4s’s….
Well, count me in line for your fix then. 
@harmonyards posted:Ok boys & girls, ….I’ve had some great correspondences with a buddy & fellow machinist in regards to the Mikados, ……specifically, the 2012 model year issue,….after some careful measurements, and some back & forth, these Mikados have the same set up as the K4s’s …..so in other words, the Mikes could potentially suffer the same fate as the K4’s ……again, our example for inspection is a 2012 model……later on, I’ll get some pics of the inspected model, and post up findings…..
Dave, can you add the 2012 Mikes to the fail list?….please?…😉
Pat
Well, ____, I have a no. 11282 Gt. N. Light Mike, cataloged 2011 vol 2, so the 2012 production. Bought it after that time, and as of now it's still on the shelf displayed and never run, but getting ready to be run. I plan to run it a lot. Pat, do you think this fix would be reasonably do-able for a novice, or would it be better to let you or a skilled repairman do it? I assume the latter. I'd certainly want it done right.
@breezinup posted:Well, ____, I have a no. 11282 Gt. N. Light Mike, cataloged 2011 vol 2, so the 2012 production. Bought it after that time, and as of now it's still on the shelf displayed and never run, but getting ready to be run. I plan to run it a lot. Pat, do you think this fix would be reasonably do-able for a novice, or would it be better to let you or a skilled repairman do it? I assume the latter. I'd certainly want it done right.
Unfortunately, the locomotives have to come to me,….I’ll explain why; there is no one size fits all solution that I’m seeing on pilot test subjects. The arm is one size, then I add a bushing, and trim that bushing on the mill to fit the specific gap needed …..as I’ve mentioned, I’m seeing variances up to .018” ………I sure was hoping for an “ infield “ fix where you guys could simply drop a part in and be done, but that’s not the case…..but on the bright side, the fix I’ve developed, is non invasive, so no wheel pulling, no heavy demolition…..to be perfectly honest with everyone, I have a good back log of custom work to get done, but I will be fitting in these Legacy gear box fixes. In the next couple of weeks, I’ll have a good supply of repair arms made, and I can knock out a few locomotives in a weekend….I’ll post up on this thread when I’ve got arms made, and we’ll let the trickle begin…..we’ll all work together and get all of these engines fixed up for good,…😉
Pat
@rplst8 posted:AFAIK it’s the last to date.
Well, count me in line for your fix then.
Ok, no problem,….if we study the last pic in your example ( thank you for exploding your locomotive BTW ) what I see that’s troubling, is if we look at the spur gear relationship, there’s already some “ walk off” going on,…….so realigning this relationship is what we’re after……now, I’m sure Lionel has an allowable amount of slop, but given how skinny the worm wheel is, being dead nuts on center I’d think is the key,…..had they made a big fat worm wheel, I doubt this thread would even exist…….our good friend Rick O might’ve hit the nail on the head, and perhaps only that certain run of 2011 K4’s suffer from an inferior material manufacture, but if we install the fix, we’ve taken all the guess work out, and removed that variable ….That tiny spacer is our enemy at this very moment, so let’s blockade it from ever being a worry,…..😉
Pat
I'm glad we're narrowing down the list of locomotives in need of attention. Great progress so far on all accounts!
And I hate to add to the dogpile of locomotives, but has anyone checked the M1A Mountain from 2014? I know Lionel has yet to rerun this (shockingly) and most people have nothing but positive things to say about it, but I think that one might need a check if that uses the same gearbox design.
@Mikado 4501 posted:I'm glad we're narrowing down the list of locomotives in need of attention. Great progress so far on all accounts!
And I hate to add to the dogpile of locomotives, but has anyone checked the M1A Mountain from 2014? I know Lionel has yet to rerun this (shockingly) and most people have nothing but positive things to say about it, but I think that one might need a check if that uses the same gearbox design.
Definitely needs to be investigated, to be sure the M1a’s use the same chassis as the Mohawks so hopefully we’ll get a good report card on these ….
Pat
@Mikado 4501 posted:I'm glad we're narrowing down the list of locomotives in need of attention. Great progress so far on all accounts!
And I hate to add to the dogpile of locomotives, but has anyone checked the M1A Mountain from 2014? I know Lionel has yet to rerun this (shockingly) and most people have nothing but positive things to say about it, but I think that one might need a check if that uses the same gearbox design.
@harmonyards posted:Definitely needs to be investigated, to be sure the M1a’s use the same chassis as the Mohawks so hopefully we’ll get a good report card on these ….
Pat
Ouch, another great Pennsy Locomotive? Well, I happen to have that engine(in the set) sitting a few feet from me where I am answering this. 6-81247 is the set number, I don't know what the individual engine number is. I could offer to send mine(engine only) down to Pat so he could take a look at it and see if there is any bones that need to be dug out of the graveyard, or if it is put to bed.
Updated the K4 list. This is very disconcerting to the future of any other K4 release because it seems that Lionel is either unaware, or turning a blind eye if the engines seem to work for a while. I guess when we get a little further on, maybe it would be an idea to push these findings over to Ryan and Dave at least so that future models don't suffer quietly until they blow up to the operators that love them.
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Ouch, another great Pennsy Locomotive? Well, I happen to have that engine(in the set) sitting a few feet from me where I am answering this. 6-81247 is the set number, I don't know what the individual engine number is. I could offer to send mine(engine only) down to Pat so he could take a look at it and see if there is any bones that need to be dug out of the graveyard, or if it is put to bed.
Updated the K4 list. This is very disconcerting to the future of any other K4 release because it seems that Lionel is either unaware, or turning a blind eye if the engines seem to work for a while. I guess when we get a little further on, maybe it would be an idea to push these findings over to Ryan and Dave at least so that future models don't suffer quietly until they blow up to the operators that love them.
It’d be nice if the big L gang chimed in, and I’d think we’d all welcome their response…..but truth be told, the majority of what we’re dealing with here are well out of warranty…..it beckons back to Rick O’s comments about possibly being a fluke condition with a particular batch of bushings,…..but again, my vote is on cheap insurance, and installing this fix removes the variable altogether…..so yeah, hopefully they’re seeing this, and taking notes for the future,…..I certainly don’t see the need to address any of the other Legacy models that have a nice fat spacer….so it is what it is, and we’ll fix em’ better than stock,…..
Pat
Well, we still need answers on quite a bit of stuff. All the K4's are in the dirt with the H10's, Mike's have a few that look to be bad with others in the air. Are the new Pacific's in the clear then or does that need a bit more looking at?
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Well, we still need answers on quite a bit of stuff. All the K4's are in the dirt with the H10's, Mike's have a few that look to be bad with others in the air. Are the new Pacific's in the clear then or does that need a bit more looking at?
The new Pacifics are good, ….one of the fellas kindly opened his up and posted pics….
Pat
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Well, we still need answers on quite a bit of stuff.
For sure, N&W Js , Reading T1s. MR s3. Just to name a few.
The only locos I can think of that don't have this gear reduction setup are the hudsons, niagaras and the 0-6-0s.
The 4-6-0s might have something similar. However the secondary shaft appears to be pressed into the gearbox. There are no bushings. Maybe the gears rotate on the shaft on this one?
Contrary to the saying Pat. You might HAVE to quit your day job, to handle all of these repairs. 😄
@harmonyards posted:The new Pacifics are good, ….one of the fellas kindly opened his up and posted pics….
Pat
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to read the comment back there, I thought it was a "we need a better look at it" sort of comment. I must have been half asleep.
@RickO posted:For sure, N&W Js , Reading T1s. MR s3. Just to name a few.
The only locos I can think of that don't have this gear reduction setup are the hudsons, niagaras and the 0-6-0s.
The 4-6-0s might have something similar. However the secondary shaft appears to be pressed into the gearbox. There are no bushings. Maybe the gears rotate on the shaft on this one?
Contrary to the saying Pat. You might HAVE to quit your day job, to handle all of these repairs. 😄
Ugh, more loco's.
And everyone is worried about the cannon motors, think this is a bigger issue.
@RickO posted:For sure, N&W Js , Reading T1s. MR s3. Just to name a few.
The only locos I can think of that don't have this gear reduction setup are the hudsons, niagaras and the 0-6-0s.
The 4-6-0s might have something similar. However the secondary shaft appears to be pressed into the gearbox. There are no bushings. Maybe the gears rotate on the shaft on this one?
Contrary to the saying Pat. You might HAVE to quit your day job, to handle all of these repairs. 😄
Based on what has been opened on this thread besides the K4 (early Lima Berkshire, NYC Mohawk, ATSF Northern) anything with a large motor in the firebox, dogbone driveshaft, and separate worm shaft has a nice big bushing next to the worm wheel to center it. The J, T1, and S3 are all probably equipped the same way.
This seems to be an issue with old K-Line tooled locomotives with a small 385 style motor facing forward towards the smokebox. Those seem to lack the proper bushing to keep the worm wheel centered.
So I decided to bite the bullet and see if I could open up my GTW 4070 model (2131330). The attached photos are the limits of the travel, not sure if it's good or bad. Something that I noticed that didn't really show up in the photos is that the idler gear has a bump out to the photo left rather than a separate bushing. Or at least that's what it looked like.
Edit: Photos taken looking towards engine rear. This put the motor up near the smoke box.
Attachments
Images (2)
Thanks for posting, nar. I bought the same Mike about a month ago.
I can’t really tell by the photos, but if there’s nothing to keep that gear from shifting, we unfortunately might have to chalk up this batch of Mikes on the bad section of the list…and the rest of them, for that matter…
@Mikado 4501 posted:Thanks for posting, nar. I bought the same Mike about a month ago.
I can’t really tell by the photos, but if there’s nothing to keep that gear from shifting, we unfortunately might have to chalk up this batch of Mikes on the bad section of the list…and the rest of them, for that matter…
IDK, it is very hard to tell if there is any movement in there at all. It looks tight, but given that there is little lighting to see the sides where the gears touch the gearbox walls, hard to tell.
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:IDK, it is very hard to tell if there is any movement in there at all. It looks tight, but given that there is little lighting to see the sides where the gears touch the gearbox walls, hard to tell.
I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the not movement itself that is the problem, but rather the spacer bushing riding up against the shaft bushing and grinding it down. For models with a lot of travel, they get more movement. For models without much travel, they eventually still will probably get additional play, but maybe never enough for gear disengagement. For models that have a spacer bushing larger in diameter than the shaft bushing, it will probably never be a problem.
@naresar posted:So I decided to bite the bullet and see if I could open up my GTW 4070 model (2131330).
By the way, nar, what motor was in the Mikado when you opened it? Was it a Canon or a Buehler?
@Mikado 4501 posted:By the way, nar, what motor was in the Mikado when you opened it? Was it a Canon or a Buehler?
Wishful thinking? All the USRA mikes have a Mabuchi 385s like the K-Line Mikes these came from.
Pete
I almost forgot about that. Whoops!
Well, I’ll take the Mabuchi over Canon,anyways.
@rplst8 posted:I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the not movement itself that is the problem, but rather the spacer bushing riding up against the shaft bushing and grinding it down. For models with a lot of travel, they get more movement. For models without much travel, they eventually still will probably get additional play, but maybe never enough for gear disengagement. For models that have a spacer bushing larger in diameter than the shaft bushing, it will probably never be a problem.
This is what my findings were from the get go on page 1, then re-emphasized on page 4……more than likely, the ill fated 2011 batch of K4s’s suffered from some sort of portly manufactured bushing material that simply accelerated the disintegration, but I can’t see any of the gear boxes WITH THIS particular design lasting without some side shifting. That’s the idea behind the “fix” ….we’re taking away the variable, and now the two pieces can’t meet up to kill one another…..😉
Pat
@Mikado 4501 posted:I almost forgot about that. Whoops!
Well, I’ll take the Mabuchi over Canon,anyways.
That’s like asking for a butt whoopin’ then asking to be beaten with a pipe….🤣🤣🤣
Pat
@naresar posted:So I decided to bite the bullet and see if I could open up my GTW 4070 model (2131330). The attached photos are the limits of the travel, not sure if it's good or bad. Something that I noticed that didn't really show up in the photos is that the idler gear has a bump out to the photo left rather than a separate bushing. Or at least that's what it looked like.
Edit: Photos taken looking towards engine rear. This put the motor up near the smoke box.
Thank you for your assistance!…..do you still have this thing blown apart?…..can you take a Q tip and clean out some of that grease along side the brass worm wheel?….hard to tell pass or fail from this pic,…..maybe a little better lighting if you could also please??..
Pat
@harmonyards posted:Thank you for your assistance!…..do you still have this thing blown apart?…..can you take a Q tip and clean out some of that grease along side the brass worm wheel?….hard to tell pass or fail from this pic,…..maybe a little better lighting if you could also please??..
Pat
I do not but I feel confident enough that I could open it back up probably tomorrow evening (Wednesday).
@rplst8 posted:I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the not movement itself that is the problem, but rather the spacer bushing riding up against the shaft bushing and grinding it down. For models with a lot of travel, they get more movement. For models without much travel, they eventually still will probably get additional play, but maybe never enough for gear disengagement. For models that have a spacer bushing larger in diameter than the shaft bushing, it will probably never be a problem.
Well, the thing is gears not being properly aligned with movement will wear out of what normal wear they would have. I think of my grandfather's old tractor when the clutch was not fully engaged and trying to shift from 1st to 3rd. Like my cousin used to say, "If you can't find'em, grind'em. While this wear wouldn't necessarily kill the engine right away, it would time much shorter than if it was fixed like what Pat has offered I would imagine. Dead before it's time as it were.
So here's a question, the K4's are from the K-Line tooling with a modified gearbox, are the Mike's also from K-Line(I think this is already a yes though anyway, but figured I'd ask). Are there any other models that we know that are from the K-Line toolings that we have/haven't discussed? Granted, this is just asking, and doesn't necessarily mean that would be the coffin nail for any of the engines, I am just curious.
@Dave NYC Hudson PRR K4 posted:Well, the thing is gears not being properly aligned with movement will wear out of what normal wear they would have. I think of my grandfather's old tractor when the clutch was not fully engaged and trying to shift from 1st to 3rd. Like my cousin used to say, "If you can't find'em, grind'em. While this wear wouldn't necessarily kill the engine right away, it would time much shorter than if it was fixed like what Pat has offered I would imagine. Dead before it's time as it were.
So here's a question, the K4's are from the K-Line tooling with a modified gearbox, are the Mike's also from K-Line(I think this is already a yes though anyway, but figured I'd ask). Are there any other models that we know that are from the K-Line toolings that we have/haven't discussed? Granted, this is just asking, and doesn't necessarily mean that would be the coffin nail for any of the engines, I am just curious.
The Legacy Mikes are derived from former Kline tooling,…Lionel used quite a few former Kline tooled locomotives for its Leagcy line,…..so far, it appears the line in the sand is where the motor is mounted in the Legacy engines,……some former Kline engines have had a full role reversal, and the gear box has been redesigned with a rear mounted large motor…….so far, the ones we’re seeing issues with, or potential issues, are the ones that retained a forward facing small Mabuchi 385 ….
Pat
@harmonyards posted:This is what my findings were from the get go on page 1, then re-emphasized on page 4……more than likely, the ill fated 2011 batch of K4s’s suffered from some sort of portly manufactured bushing material that simply accelerated the disintegration, but I can’t see any of the gear boxes WITH THIS particular design lasting without some side shifting. That’s the idea behind the “fix” ….we’re taking away the variable, and now the two pieces can’t meet up to kill one another…..😉
Pat
Sorry Pat, wasn’t trying to steal your thunder. Just getting it straight in my head, and thinking out loud. Lol.
@rplst8 posted:Sorry Pat, wasn’t trying to steal your thunder. Just getting it straight in my head, and thinking out loud. Lol.
Ain’t looking for thunder, …..was agreeing with you. …😉
Pat
