I attached the .stls if anyone's interested. They are very simple designs. I'd suggest printing them raft stylet to preserve the thickness. Use at your own risk!
If you need to change the 2.5mm motor screws I'd suggest getting a laptop repair assortment of Amazon. The kit I have has several different length 2.5mm wafer head screws (along with M2 and M3 ones).
Thanks Norm, I think these will be useful. 
@Norm Charbonneau Thank you kind sir
Any word from Lionel yet on the tender doghouse light wiring fix?
@Norm Charbonneau posted:<snip> I do commend Lionel for making a back-drivable worm gear drivetrain. I think the first one I remember was in the CCII ESE Hudson and I think the general idea was to remove as much friction and backlash as possible for better closed-loop response. <snip>
Norm's recollection on this point is correct. I very clearly recall a discussion with Todd Wagner about this. BTW, in retrospect the CCII ESE J3 is one of Lionel's better efforts in Modern Era NYC Hudsons with a relatively reasonable (but, admittedly not perfect) set of 18" aluminum passenger cars to go with.
For what it is worth.
Bob
@Bob Bubeck posted:Norm's recollection on this point is correct. I very clearly recall a discussion with Todd Wagner about this. BTW, in retrospect the CCII ESE J3 is one of Lionel's better efforts in Modern Era NYC Hudsons with a relatively reasonable (but, admittedly not perfect) set of 18" aluminum passenger cars to go with.
For what it is worth.
Bob
I’d drink to that Bob, …and that engine spawned a couple of desirable shrouded Hudsons that for the most part, they got pretty right,….Some small minor details that a true modeler could easily correct, and actually enjoy doing, ……
Pat
Is Pat's shim installation (back of motor so it inclines at a different angle the same as Norm's fix (the shims go in the same location?) or are these different fixes? It's hard for me to tell from the pictures. And, if we don't have a 3-d printer are we out of luck or is there another method?
Is it premature to ask if the shim fix on the L1 will be required on the I1 as well? I don't have the L1, though the dealers pictures keep calling me, but I do have the I1 on order.
It's a shame those of you with the L1 have to go through this, but if you don't wouldn't the gears eventually strip? Moreover, does opening and modifying a new engine void it's warranty?
@Paul Kallus posted:Is Pat's shim installation (back of motor so it inclines at a different angle the same as Norm's fix (the shims go in the same location?) or are these different fixes? It's hard for me to tell from the pictures. And, if we don't have a 3-d printer are we out of luck or is there another method?
Is it premature to ask if the shim fix on the L1 will be required on the I1 as well? I don't have the L1, though the dealers pictures keep calling me, but I do have the I1 on order.
It's a shame those of you with the L1 have to go through this, but if you don't wouldn't the gears eventually strip? I am reluctant to to criticize Lionel, is it appropriate for them to issue a recall and do this? Before I get lambasted for saying that, Lionel is not a small business, at the least they're a medium sized corporation. Moreover, does opening and modifying a new engine void its warranty?
Yes, essentially one and the same, Norm’s approach is more elegant in design than mine,…..Norm made precision fit 3D printed shims, ….I used basically washers that I shaved down and measured the thicknesses of to get it right ….
Pat
For a one-off fix, just take some styrene sheet of the correct thickness and cut out a shim.
I thought the problem was the worm gear being off center. Use of a shim implies the worm is not cut far back enough.
Pete
@Norton posted:I thought the problem was the worm gear being off center. Use of a shim implies the worm is not cut far back enough.
Pete
Correct, my reading is the worm isn't cut enough and when you reverse you run into the uncut section.
Norm's picture of his shim, looks like it's just moving the motor back out of the mount.
The longitudinal centering of the worm gear and the worm wheel was the main issue I believe. Basically, the worm ran out of thread and became a screw with all of a screw’s torque prevailing properties in a reverse stall scenario. Not something you want in what was intended to be a low friction drivetrain.
The motor and worm angle is ok. Word of warning, keep an eye on the gaffer’s tape used to secure the wires along the fireman’s side of the can motor shroud. Getting it wedged in the motor mount/gearbox cover can cause the gears to not mesh well. The motor angle isn’t so important, the gear mesh is set by the (perpendicular) centerline distance of the worm gear and wheel which is best set vertically in this setup.
Gear mesh seemed fine with the original factory shim. This is controlled vertically by the thickness of the gearbox cover.
Worm centering across the worm wheel laterally seemed fine. This is also controlled by the gearbox cover/motor mount.
The 3D printed shim was designed to not change the motor angle, which would affect the mesh. Trial and error yielded the correct thickness, I had the motor shimmed out 2mm at one point.
I hope to finish the 1369 vid soon.
I received my Cumberland Valley Wayfreight set today, and when I went to put the locomotive in forward, I received a motor stall error message. Definitely odd to see given everyone has been having the reverse problem, but I’m going to try and do a factory reset and see if the issue persists. I’ll attach the diagnostic signal video I took.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:The 3D printed shim was designed to not change the motor angle, which would affect the mesh. Trial and error yielded the correct thickness, I had the motor shimmed out 2mm at one point.
Norm, does it make sense to shim it out a bit more than 0.3mm, that's a pretty thin difference between a problem and smooth running. Any reason you can see where maybe 1.0 mm would be a problem? I just like to have a tiny bit more margin available.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:Norm, does it make sense to shim it out a bit more than 0.3mm, that's a pretty thin difference between a problem and smooth running. Any reason you can see where maybe 1.0 mm would be a problem? I just like to have a tiny bit more margin available.
It’s gonna be trial & error, …I did some at .5mm, some at 1mm, …..just gotta see what’s going to work, ….beauty part of the back drive, you can try it before you buy it, …I also unplug the motor leads, and put a jumper harness on it and test it on DC power before I button it all up,…
Pat
I think I started out at 1mm, then went to 2mm before coming back the other way. Too far out and you risk disengagement in forward.
It was kinda wild how sensitive these were to set up properly. Makes me wonder how they would do this in production.
On the bench you can turn the flywheel manually while holding the drivers tight to simulate the lockup.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:I think I started out at 1mm, then went to 2mm before coming back the other way. Too far out and you risk disengagement in forward.
It was kinda wild how sensitive these were to set up properly. Makes me wonder how they would do this in production.
On the bench you can turn the flywheel manually while holding the drivers tight to simulate the lockup.
It is amazing that a couple of millimeters is the difference between the ends of the worm! Talk about screwing up a design! 
As for your question about production, it's quite obvious that they didn't set them up properly in production or we wouldn't be having this conversation! 
I appreciate you guys sharing the fixes, however I am not ashamed to admit, well, slightly embarrassed, that what you're discussing appears beyond than my admittingly average to below average skill set, given some health conditions that I don't want to get into. What are the remedies for blokes like me? Up a creek without a paddle? I will suggest the fix would make a great magazine article, though you guys seem very busy, and writing articles takes a good deal of time. Good thing we have a forum.
@Paul Kallus posted:I appreciate you guys sharing the fixes, however I am not ashamed to admit, well, slightly embarrassed, that what you're discussing appears beyond than my admittingly average to below average skill set, given some health conditions that I don't want to get into. What are the remedies for blokes like me? Up a creek without a paddle? I will suggest the fix would make a great magazine article, though you guys seem very busy, and writing articles takes a good deal of time. Good thing we have a forum.
Basically, we’re adding a washer to the bottom of the motor where it bolts to the motor mount… ….and now with Norm’s STL file, a mighty elegant washer at that!….😉
Pat
Isn't the real problem that they didn't cut the worm correctly?
The "shim fix" is just trying to use the threads that are cut toward the front that are cut all the way.
I'm wondering if the ones that "work" have the threads cut all the way.
@rplst8 posted:Isn't the real problem that they didn't cut the worm correctly?
The "shim fix" is just trying to use the threads that are cut toward the front that are cut all the way.
I'm wondering if the ones that "work" have the threads cut all the way.
Twist my arm either way, ….either they cut it too short, or it’s pressed on the motor not enough ….pick your poison, ….
BTW, …thanks for helping Mike with the K4 pics!!…..I told him what a jerk you are!!……..NO, that’s a joke man!!!
Pat
@Paul Kallus posted:I appreciate you guys sharing the fixes, however I am not ashamed to admit, well, slightly embarrassed, that what you're discussing appears beyond than my admittingly average to below average skill set, given some health conditions that I don't want to get into. What are the remedies for blokes like me? Up a creek without a paddle? I will suggest the fix would make a great magazine article, though you guys seem very busy, and writing articles takes a good deal of time. Good thing we have a forum.
Paul, I’m another bloke like you! 😄 I could probably do the washer fix without messing it up too much!
However, I didn’t buy an affected engine. I’m not sure why I started following, but the ride has been quite educational! 🧐
@harmonyards posted:Twist my arm either way, ….either they cut it too short, or it’s pressed on the motor not enough ….pick your poison, ….
BTW, …thanks for helping Mike with the K4 pics!!…..I told him what a jerk you are!!……..NO, that’s a joke man!!!
Guilty.
With a mismatch of 0.3mm, could the problem be due to variations in how far the worm was pressed onto the motor shaft? Or perhaps, the raw chassis casting was smoothed excessively before it was painted? Or, the engineers overestimated the thickness of the paint!? My kingdom for a real gearbox!!
@Mark Boyce posted:Paul, I’m another bloke like you! 😄 I could probably do the washer fix without messing it up too much!
However, I didn’t buy an affected engine. I’m not sure why I started following, but the ride has been quite educational! 🧐
Mark, I am leaning the same way...while this engine is a must have for PRR fans, it seems a guy would be getting in over his head, at least for me, for a $800 - $900 model. Factor in that John's engine was back at Lionel and they didn't know what was wrong. I just hope the I1 doesn't have this shortcoming.
@rplst8 posted:Isn't the real problem that they didn't cut the worm correctly?
The "shim fix" is just trying to use the threads that are cut toward the front that are cut all the way.
I'm wondering if the ones that "work" have the threads cut all the way.
It would be interesting to compare a working and non-working sample.
@Paul Kallus posted:Mark, I am leaning the same way...while this engine is a must have for PRR fans, it seems a guy would be getting in over his head, at least for me, for a $800 - $900 model. Factor in that John's engine was back at Lionel and they didn't know what was wrong. I just hope the I1 doesn't have this shortcoming.
Paul, I agree. I’m okay with taking apart an old engine, but not a new one and risk breaking something. I could void a warranty. Yes, hopefully the I1 doesn’t have the same problem!!!!
Knock on wood, my son appears to have ended up with one that works as advertised. Only issue was the lack of grease. It’s actually one of the smoother engines I’ve tried. Hopefully I didn’t jinx it by posting this, but I think it’s good to let people know they don’t all appear to be defective.
I really considered purchasing a L1. But the gearbox issue and the color issue convinced be buy a used engine instead. It was considerably cheeper and I will not feel bad if I have to open it up for repairs or send it off to be fixed. BTW after clearing up some minor shipping problems with the drawbar, pilot and headlight the engine runs great. If this was brand new I would be really upset with these issues on a brand new engine.
@Ted S posted:With a mismatch of 0.3mm, could the problem be due to variations in how far the worm was pressed onto the motor shaft? Or perhaps, the raw chassis casting was smoothed excessively before it was painted? Or, the engineers overestimated the thickness of the paint!? My kingdom for a real gearbox!!
My feeling is that the worms have to be installed onto the shaft with the same clearance within a pretty tight tolerance or the threads need to extend a bit further. Comparing this worm to some K-Line stuff laying around in my shop, these are a bit shorter than the old K-Line 2-start worms. These motors have very little ability to take up any thrust so the centering of the worm gear and wheel is critical. Still gotta wonder how these are assembled and tested. Seems like they would want to have these assembled without shimming each one individually. Wonder why other examples of this style gearbox don't exhibit this issue. 
At one point I considered milling a wide slot lengthwise down the cover to get a visual on the gears.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:My feeling is that the worms have to be installed onto the shaft with the same clearance within a pretty tight tolerance or the threads need to extend a bit further. Comparing this worm to some K-Line stuff laying around in my shop, these are a bit shorter than the old K-Line 2-start worms. These motors have very little ability to take up any thrust so the centering of the worm gear and wheel is critical. Still gotta wonder how these are assembled and tested. Seems like they would want to have these assembled without shimming each one individually. Wonder why other examples of this style gearbox don't exhibit this issue.
At one point I considered milling a wide slot lengthwise down the cover to get a visual on the gears.
I can't understand what would be the purpose of making the installation so critical, that seems like you're just asking for these kinds of problems! Why wouldn't you just cut the worm threads long enough to allow for some tolerance in assembly and remove any possibility of this happening? What did they really save by making the worm "just long enough"?
I just wonder how all the other ones like this didn't seem to suffer this lockup issue. The multi-start worm is kind of interesting though and probably helps to keep this drive loose/more compliant in back-drive scenarios.
@gunrunnerjohn posted:I can't understand what would be the purpose of making the installation so critical, that seems like you're just asking for these kinds of problems! Why wouldn't you just cut the worm threads long enough to allow for some tolerance in assembly and remove any possibility of this happening? What did they really save by making the worm "just long enough"?
More than likely, they used existing components in their arsenal, which saves them money in manufacturing. Combine that with a retooled chassis, and stuff just didn’t jive …..so the gear on the motor probably already existed, as well as the gears in the well, and they crafted, or attempted to craft the new gear box around those parts,…..and obviously they failed,…..as far as why aren’t more falling out, the inconsistencies in casting the drive block ( shrinkage, etc, ) more than likely plays a role in which ones fail, and which ones survive, ……
Pat
@harmonyards posted:More than likely, they used existing components in their arsenal, which saves them money in manufacturing. Combine that with a retooled chassis, and stuff just didn’t jive …..so the gear on the motor probably already existed, as well as the gears in the well, and they crafted, or attempted to craft the new gear box around those parts,…..and obviously they failed,….
Pat
I thought this was the same K Line chassis used in every other problematic loco, modified to accept the MTH L1 shell.
@RickO posted:I thought this was the same K Line chassis used in every other problematic loco, modified to accept the MTH L1 shell.
Nope, ….there’s clear evidence they worked the MTH chassis Rick. I pointed that out early in this thread. The grounding towers for MTH’s 3/2 rail option is still there, casted in the frame.
Pat
I stand corrected Pat. Oh wait, they used the MTH chassis?
That's a good thing,......oops, nevermind lol!
Pete, Lou & myself discussed this engine when I first opened up Dave’s and I could not for the life of me understand why they went the route they did. I wondered why they didn’t leave the bullet proof MTH chassis alone, and redesign the electronics around it, but I guess that big board needs a fair amount of real estate, so they did what they did for that purpose, ….had they left the MTH chassis alone, the board as it sits would have to live in the tender, ……
Pat
I think if Lionel did the Canon drive in this, the price would have been too high for being a less than perfect model with that mismatched tender. Also having a tether and crowding out the nice sound setup they have in the tender would not have made any sense at all.
BTW, now that I can finally start to enjoy these engines I do have to say the sounds are really good. There seems to be a new chip set on the sound board.
Pat and others, could it be that MTH merely sold or leased the shells and not the chassis design? I don't mean to steer off topic but isn't that what the legal issue was all about, or in layman's terms, the chassis = sub-assembly is "where the money = engineering is." If so, MTH was very smart as they kept the rights to make all these models using their sub-assemblies in the future.
As for some people not experiencing the gear lockup, could it be as simple as they're not running the engines under the same load in reverse? I admit when I test run an engine that is new, I only test it forward and backward, and not under load. This topic has taught me a lesson, or two!
@Norm Charbonneau posted:I think if Lionel did the Canon drive in this, the price would have been too high for being a less than perfect model with that mismatched tender.
The Lionel L1s with the non-doghouse tender aren't mis-matched.
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
