was the gold standard of the PW and later era...open frame AC motor...most MPC diesels have them,but you need to check,the can motor was just coming in...good luck...joe

I’ll let others comment on exactly what construes a Pullmor......there’s a great many debate about the actual subject....however, when looking at locomotives most 3 rail diesels, and I say most, even if DC can motor equipped, will run on AC....just because it has a DC motor, it doesn’t mean it’s DC only......the box the locomotive comes in will give you the first clues with the features listed on the flap.....words like “ maintenance free motor(s)” usually means can motors.....MPC era diesels can be tricky, as this is about the time you’ll see can motors making their way into production.....if you’re unsure, ask the seller if they know, or post an item # up here before purchasing, and the Postwar/ MPC/ LTI gang that are very knowledgeable will probably tell you more about a particular piece than you’ll ever want to know......

Pat

The Pulmor motors were very durable.  Problem is that they were only 3-pole motors, and therefore not very smooth at low speed.  This was compounded by the fact that Lionel worm gears were designed so that turning the wheel would rotate the motor, meaning the the motor made fewer turns per wheel revolution than do modern can-motored units.

@Mannyrock, here is what LOTS has to say about it:

https://www.lots-trains.org/ht...or___can_motors.html

The boring answer is Pullmor motors are series connected universal motors. They will run on AC or DC without added circuitry. They have a wound rotor, wound stator (field), and brushes. Most AC powered power tools have universal motors for their relatively high starting torque.

Pete

In purely operational terms, a modern 5 or 7 pole can motor knocks the old open-frame AC motors into a cocked hat, for smoothness, power and all-round controlability; it’s that simple. 

I’ve got an MPC semi-Scale Hudson with open frame motor and reversing lever sticking out of the boiler, and a couple of PW steamers with air whistle tenders and they are fun, they say “classic Lionel” like nothing else, but it’s like the modern air whistle vs the older type; the modern one just works better. 

@harmonyards posted:

I’ll let others comment on exactly what construes a Pullmor......

Pat

A.C. Gilbert coined the phrase for American Flyer in 1953.  Lionel/MPC started using it because Lionel bought up Gilbert, but no Postwar Lionel ever had a "Pullmor" Motor.

Rusty

It has been pointed out repeatedly that universal motors will run on AC or DC. As a reminder, universal motors can easily be circuit configured to act like can motors and reverse direction based on DC polarity.

The name Pullmor Motor now seems to be associated with the motors where the front frame is die cast and Lionel put two bearings in it so no bearing was required in the brush plate. This design slowly changed as time went on and Lionel was in full cost cutting mode.  The first official use of the “Pullmor” name associated with Lionel trains is in early 1970s after General Mills took over. 

@Rusty Traque posted:

A.C. Gilbert coined the phrase for American Flyer in 1953.  Lionel/MPC started using it because Lionel bought up Gilbert, but no Postwar Lionel ever had a "Pullmor" Motor. 

In the 1970 catalog, all Lionel power had traction tires, and Lionel called them "Pullmor Motors", with "Pullmor Power".  Two features.

@Rockershovel posted:

In purely operational terms, a modern 5 or 7 pole can motor knocks the old open-frame AC motors into a cocked hat, for smoothness, power and all-round controlability; it’s that simple. 

I’ve got an MPC semi-Scale Hudson with open frame motor and reversing lever sticking out of the boiler, and a couple of PW steamers with air whistle tenders and they are fun, they say “classic Lionel” like nothing else, but it’s like the modern air whistle vs the older type; the modern one just works better. 

 

Consider the era they were introduced. Lionel had been using AC power almost since day one. Solid state rectifiers hadn't been invented yet. Imagine an electronic E unit with vacuum tubes. Magnets didn't have the flux density they have today.  A DC motor would have had to be twice as big as a Pullmor for the same torque.

Pete

Pullmor - 2 'L's and no 'E' on the end - is the correct spelling.

Hornby Dublo introduced the highly regarded “Ringfield” motor in 1960, a similar concept https://www.brightontoymuseum....ry:Ring_Field_motors - but by then, they had changed to 12v DC 2-Rail to compete with other British manufacturers. 

Earlier 3-Rail locos were open-frame designs similar to Lionel, but Hornby had abandoned 20v AC when they moved away from O Gauge, so no reverser needed. 

I think the real reason Lionel stayed with AC was that domestic current in the US is 110v, so a simple single-stage transformer suffices, and the size of O Gauge locos means that accommodating the reverser is not a problem. It also means that controlling features like whistles using a DC offset is not technically difficult; these features were not usual on European or British models until the advent of DCC

@Rockershovel posted:

In purely operational terms, a modern 5 or 7 pole can motor knocks the old open-frame AC motors into a cocked hat, for smoothness, power and all-round controlability; it’s that simple. 

I politely disagree.  The MPC small Hudson isn't a good example to judge by.  In terms of a realistic crawling start-- and I'm referring to the intial  few inches of movement -- AC "Pullmor" motors do it better.  Especially if there are at least two of them helping each other (which partially overcomes the lack of poles.)  If Lionel or anyone else had developed an updated five-pole version of the Pullmor motor, that would be the obvious choice!  Still hoping for that.

With the exception of Lionel's Legacy products, the diesels with two vertical can motors tend to surge from zero to about 4 scale MPH in an unrealistic fashion.  Sometimes they buck and jerk if you try to run them any slower.  To me, what happens after that is less important, because the illusion of mass is already ruined. 

It's true that the small motors are geared lower... but not low enough.  The old Pullmors were 8.33:1 and the tiny can motors are about 10.5:1.  So the smaller motor still delivers less starting torque to the wheels.  And in this case two motors aren't really better than one because the worm gears in the trucks are self-locking.  So the two can motors can't really "help" each other; at least not until BOTH motors are fully in the linear portion of their speed-voltage curve which happens around 8-10 mph.

The diesels made in the early 50s are better quality than the ones from the '70s.  But if you get a pair of '70s Lionels in good working order and doublehead them, you should get reliable and fairly realistic performance.  My $.02.

Uh oh.....who let Ted in??....y’all forgot to lock the door!....

                          😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

just kidding Ted!...

Pat

Here Is the Trademark Filing:

This takes care of usage time frame and spelling

https://trademarks.justia.com/...ullmor-78232506.html

IMHO, PostWar universal open frame motors are much more robust than MPC and later open frame universal motors. Maintained the PostWar motors run great, even after 50-75 years of service. And they have a sound and ozone smell that can motors will never have. Nuttin' like the growl of a dual motored PW F3 or Trainmaster FM, IMHO.

Question: I don't think can motor engines were ever produced with the magne-traction feature. Why is this?

@bmoran4 posted:

...This takes care of usage time frame and spelling...

Word Mark

PULLMOR

 

First Use Anywhere Date

1979-03-30

First Use In Commerce Date

1979-03-30

That 1979 date might be a typo meant to be 1969.  The 1970 catalog seen here clearly shows usage of the terms "Pullmor Motors" and "Pullmor Power".

@Lionelski posted:

Question: I don't think can motor engines were ever produced with the magne-traction feature. Why is this?

It's not generally well known, but these do exist. Many of the higher-end diesel locomotives with can motors from the early 2000's have both traction tires AND Magne-Traction.

TRW

Since it’s been mentioned, I have a couple of early PW locos (a 2-4-2 and a 2-6-2) and they are definitely smoother off the start, than the MPC one. 

Here is a picture of the motor in my smoothest running engine, an inexpensive Lionel 8010 plastic Sante Fe Diesel from 1977.   What type is this please?   

And, why did they make the upright bright metal tab, upon which the three position top switch is mounted, swivel back and forth on a single sheet metal screw?  I see zero purpose for that.   You can't tighten the screw down to keep it from swiveling, so it gets loose when you operate the switch, and then the top tab of the switch ends up getting wedge against the sides of the plastic slot for the lever in the top of the body and become very hard to operate.

@Mannyrock posted:

Here is a picture of the motor in my smoothest running engine, an inexpensive Lionel 8010 plastic Sante Fe Diesel from 1977.   What type is this please?   

And, why did they make the upright bright metal tab, upon which the three position top switch is mounted, swivel back and forth on a single sheet metal screw?  I see zero purpose for that.   You can't tighten the screw down to keep it from swiveling, so it gets loose when you operate the switch, and then the top tab of the switch ends up getting wedge against the sides of the plastic slot for the lever in the top of the body and become very hard to operate.

I can't swear to it Manny, but I thought that the 8010 motors had cheapened white nylon brushplates by 1977.

I think that you have a Frankenstein engine wherein the motor was replaced with a PostWar one. Might also explain why the 3 position switch is like it is

That is an 8010-100 double wound field motor. The "e-unit" is nothing more than a switch selecting the corresponding field for the corresponding direction. There is no automatic solenoid action.

@Rockershovel diesels run better than steam.   No valve gear or puffing smoke apparatus to introduce friction.  No issues with side rods or quartering of wheels.  Swiveling bogies equate to better traction and less friction in curves.  Lionel's diesels have a lower gear ratio- three motor revolutions per inch of travel vs. only two for some steam.  This makes for smoother starting and more consistent running at slow speeds.  A diesel with two Pullmor motors in good working condition runs as well, or better than the can-motored diesels made before 2000 when electronic speed control was introduced.  This is especially true on sharp O27 or O31 curves.

Doubters and haters, I challenge you to buy a postwar 2333 or 2378 (or one of the last ones like 18201 or 18213), and do your own head-to-head tests.  Here's a good demo I found on YouTube:

Chessie SD40s realistic crawling start

@Mannyrock I would call that a Pullmor (AC) motor.  Your 8010 is a transition piece.  As the "old" Lionel moved under the stewardship of Model Plastics Corp (MPC) in 1970 they were using up the last of postwar parts so yours is a hybrid.  It's also possible that a previous owner replaced the motor and reverse lever with a different one that was not specific to this model.  I don't know of any reason that you couldn't add another screw to stabilize the reversing switch.  The key is making sure it lines up with the slot in the body shell.

My understanding is that this fairly cheap plastic 8010 diesel is a less expensive version of an earlier Post War 8010 Santa Fe diesel, which was of higher quality, and which now go for a lot more money.

So, I guess it is possible that someone had one of the earlier models, with a broken shell, and just installed the later plastic shell over top of the original frame and motor.  ( The couplers on the frame look mighty cheap though.)

Just as further info, the picture doesn't show it, but there are two exposed  copper wire windings in the motor, behind the black bake-light housing.

Whatever this is, it doesn't growl, stall or balk.  It glides on the tracks like an electric subway train.

Mannyrock

@Lionelski posted:

I can't swear to it Manny, but I thought that the 8010 motors had cheapened white nylon brushplates by 1977.

I think that you have a Frankenstein engine wherein the motor was replaced with a PostWar one. Might also explain why the 3 position switch is like it is

John & Manny, this file below is what I found for the 8010 - it's covers a couple of different models, so if yours is truly an 8010, then as been already stated, somebody may have switched motors or possibly brush plates. Also, regarding your 2 position switch, the mounting bracket integral to the engine frame is supposed to have a slot for the screw and a hole for the dimple on the bracket to fit into - since I see two slots in your frame tab, this suggests to me that the frame may be for an engine that used an actual e-unit, not a switch.

Ted,

Yes, I can easily drill another hole in the swiveling metal and its undermetal, and install a small machine screw and nut.  I think you can see in the picture that there is a small outward punch mark in the shiny swiveling piece, that serves to stop it in the totally upright position against the bottom support metal.  (This is why I think this thing was purposely engineered this way.)

   I can also easily enlarge the plastic slot opening of the shell on its sides where all of the rubbing is happening, using a small flat file.

I just didn't want to "go to work on it" until I knew what I had.

Thanks to all

Mannyrock

Thanks Geo,

If this is a Franken engine, it sure runs well.

So, the 8010 engine number on the side of the cab is derived from the motor number?

Mannyrock

More like the 8010 cab number was the first in the series so the 8010-100 motor part number followed.

@Mannyrock posted:

So, the 8010 engine number on the side of the cab is derived from the motor number?

The other way around. Your 8010 is all original 1970 production. The 8010-100 motor is enumerated/cataloged by the first application of the design... the 8111 diesel used the same motor part number in 1971-1973 although it had some slight differences over those years.

Geo,

I looked carefully at the 8010 spec sheet attachment you sent.  What is shown in the sheet is exactly what I've got, right down to the dimple in the metal instead of a second screw.

So, I guess it's not  a Frankenengine.  If I can find another one like this, I think I'll buy it and repaint the shell.  My shell looks like a Hasbro plastic toy, with lots of visible seams and super cheesy,  semi-clear, cherry red front headlamps mounted on it, that are not even glued on straight.

ADCX Rob - I'm impressed!  How many years do you go back in terms of Lionel catalog preservation?  

@PH1975 posted:

...How many years do you go back in terms of Lionel catalog preservation?  

Zero.

@ADCX Rob posted:

That 1979 date might be a typo meant to be 1969.  The 1970 catalog seen here clearly shows usage of the terms "Pullmor Motors" and "Pullmor Power".

This is a web resource I found with DuckDuckGo.

@Ted S posted:

@Rockershovel diesels run better than steam.   No valve gear or puffing smoke apparatus to introduce friction.  No issues with side rods or quartering of wheels.  Swiveling bogies equate to better traction and less friction in curves.  Lionel's diesels have a lower gear ratio- three motor revolutions per inch of travel vs. only two for some steam.  This makes for smoother starting and more consistent running at slow speeds.  A diesel with two Pullmor motors in good working condition runs as well, or better than the can-motored diesels made before 2000 when electronic speed control was introduced.  This is especially true on sharp O27 or O31 curves.

Doubters and haters, I challenge you to buy a postwar 2333 or 2378 (or one of the last ones like 18201 or 18213), and do your own head-to-head tests.  Here's a good demo I found on YouTube:

Chessie SD40s realistic crawling start

 

I'd say depends. I have some Lionel Santa Fe PAs from the late 90s with TMCC and twin RS545 motors that will crawl/start a train at a much lower speed than any of my Pullmor diesels will. I also have a MTH AS616 that ,before I added an ERR Cruise Commander, would pull a train at a slower consistent speed than any Pullmor diesel could.

That being said the only Pullmor powered stuff I own are scale sized diesels with separate motor/trucks: LTI & LLC F3s (twin vertical Pullmors, one with an ERR AC Commander, one with a 1996 vintage LCRU). Postwar F3 (twin horizontal motors, ERR AC Commander) LLC GP7 & Postwar GP7 (both with ERR AC Commanders). They'll all run decently slow, down to 20-30 scale MPH around 054 curves pulling dummy units and a 15 car train, but not as slow as modern stuff. I keep them around because they do run well for what they are. In my opinion (take that as you may) the only Pullmor powered locomotives that are worth anything operationally are diesels with separate motors and trucks. That includes all F3s, GP7/GP9s with that motor setup, FM Train Masters, early NW2s, and early FAs. Everything else (including scale NYC Hudsons) does not run very well and is much too "zoomy" or slows noticeably on curves (scale Hudson). If someone would make a 5 pole 2028-109 armature I'm sure, in conjunction with an AC Commander, you could make a Pullmor decently crawl below 20 scale mph. 

@Lou1985 Everything else (including scale NYC Hudsons) does not run very well and is much too "zoomy" or slows noticeably on curves (scale Hudson). 

my scale Hudsons run just fine, thank you very much....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉

Pat

Pulling a train on wide radius curves, I agree the can motors will be more consistent.  AC motors are inherently more sensitive to grades (and voltage drops if your layout doesn't have good power distribution.)  But running light on a small layout with sharp curves (O27 or O31) those can motored engines will slow unrealistically as soon as they enter a curve, and then speed up as soon as they're back on straight track.  Not train-like at all.  There's just not enough torque at those RPMs to overcome the sudden increase in friction.  Pullmor motored diesels -- even the cheaper ones where the motor is mounted on the truck chassis -- won't do that.  They might not be especially smooth below 8 or 9 mph but they operate consistently on straight or curved track.

Watch closely the for first few inches of movement...  In my experience can motored locos "surge" to 4-5 scale mph.  The Pullmor-powered ones might judder a bit (because they're 3-pole motors.)  But they are happier and more gradual through those first few inches where the magic happens.  We all have our opinions but I find the AC-motored engines more gratifying to run "hands-on-the throttle."

When it comes to Hudsons, I agree that the newer scale models with big Pittmans, Canons, Buehlers, etc., are better than the ones built by MPC and LTI, at least if you're running them on wide curves.

@harmonyards posted:

@Lou1985 Everything else (including scale NYC Hudsons) does not run very well and is much too "zoomy" or slows noticeably on curves (scale Hudson). 

my scale Hudsons run just fine, thank you very much....🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😉

Pat

Something, something 9000 series Pittman swap......

@Lou1985 posted:

Something, something 9000 series Pittman swap......

Oh....yeah....I forgot...none of mine are Pullpoor equipped huh??.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Oh....yeah....I forgot...none of mine are Pullpoor equipped huh??.....

Pat

Slight omission on your part .