Lionel Spur Gears

Scout motors are like a dime a dozen, …..first, why bother pulling wheels?…& second, for the same money as two sets of wheels, you probably could get a box full of Scout motors off those popular auction sites,……Soooooo, ….no, I’ve never run into a gear pitch problem on a scout, ……..if they ran flaky for a customer, we’d just hard wire them for forward only, and let er rip tator chip,…..99.9% of the time they were just circling a Christmas tree anyways…..

Pat

In going through the Lionel gear data table I see where there were gears made with 2035 and 2036 part numbers with a diametral pitch of 48. There were also gears made for these same locomotives with a diametral pitch of 40.  It would take considerable study of parts data to try and figure out what is going on.   But there were postwar gears with a diametral pitch of 48. I saw none of the 1000,1010, 1100 etc part numbers with a diametral pitch of 48.  The gear data tables have no data on the gears on the wheels, just on the mating gears.

@David Johnston posted:

In going through the Lionel gear data table I see where there were gears made with 2035 and 2036 part numbers with a diametral pitch of 48. There were also gears made for these same locomotives with a diametral pitch of 40.  It would take considerable study of parts data to try and figure out what is going on.   But there were postwar gears with a diametral pitch of 48. I saw none of the 1000,1010, 1100 etc part numbers with a diametral pitch of 48.  The gear data tables have no data on the gears on the wheels, just on the mating gears.

The Greenberg Manual had my rear wheel (for the 1101 locomotive) listed as part number 1664E-31. According to Greenberg, this was also the rear wheel for the 1654, and the 1655 locomotives. The front wheels are 1664E-2. The wheels on my 1101 locomotive have a diametral pitch of 40, with 40 teeth, with a wheel diameter of 1.18" and a flange O.D. of 1.425". However, the wheels which my suppliers sent to me have a finer (48) diametral pitch, with 57 teeth, the wheel diameter is 1.13" and the flange O.D. is 1.428".

I really thought the changeover in gear pitch occurred in 1950 (which would explain why wheels with both gear pitches were catalogued for the 1950 models 2035 and 2036.)  I would have expected an 1101 to use 1655 mechanicals, including 48-pitch wheels and gears.

Could it be that yours wasn't original when you received it?  In other words, someone else had already replaced the wheels with newer ones?  One thing I will say, the 1940s era locos with finer gear pitch somehow seem to run smoother, even if the gear ratio works out to be the same as the newer ones with 40-pitch gears.  Good topic!!

I believe the pressure angle changed from 14.5 degrees to 20 degrees in 1950.  The 2333 loco had 14.5 degree pressure angle gears; the 2343 had  20 degree pressure angle gears.  Is that a 1949 or 1950 change?   But I am not aware that the diametral pitch changed then.   I was surprised to find the 2035 and 2036 gears with 48 diametral pitch.

@Ted S posted:

I really thought the changeover in gear pitch occurred in 1950 (which would explain why wheels with both gear pitches were catalogued for the 1950 models 2035 and 2036.)  I would have expected an 1101 to use 1655 mechanicals, including 48-pitch wheels and gears.

Could it be that yours wasn't original when you received it?  In other words, someone else had already replaced the wheels with newer ones?  One thing I will say, the 1940s era locos with finer gear pitch somehow seem to run smoother, even if the gear ratio works out to be the same as the newer ones with 40-pitch gears.  Good topic!!

Ted - I believe that my recently acquired 1101 locomotive was modified. The Greenberg manual shows a main rod from the steam chest to the rear wheel, and a side rod from the rear wheel to the front wheel - however, my 1101 has only the main rods - no side rods. Also, the Greenberg manual shows the rear wheels with a raised boss for mounting both the main rod and side rod. My rear wheels do not have these extended (or raised) bosses.

Your vendors are more than likely sending you later scout type parts, 1110, etc, when in fact 1101 shares parts with 1654, 1655, it’s basically a 1654 in disguise,…..I have a plethora of 1654 & 55 parts if needed, ……1654 & 1655 were “better dressed” models, with side rods, main rods, spacers, etc,….

Pat

Pat - I have fun restoring these old locomotives when I have a reasonable chance for success. But I think I might throw in the towel on the 1101. The locomotive's non-gear side rear wheel wobbles, and when it wobbles on a curve, the front truck derails. I pulled the wheels and axle. The axle looks really straight and true. The bronze bushings in the motor housing appear to be OK. The wheel appears to be OK, but when I carefully pressed the wheels back on the shaft and ran the locomotive, it was still wobbling - and the front truck was still derailing on the curves.

I was hoping to get the 1101 running reliably so that I could give it to my granddaughter - who loves playing with her big-brother's trains. Instead, I think I'll end up giving her a Lionel 1130 locomotive that I just finished fixing. The 1130 is really nicely designed, very reliable, and easy to work on.

@Mossback Mike posted:

Pat - I have fun restoring these old locomotives when I have a reasonable chance for success. But I think I might throw in the towel on the 1101. The locomotive's non-gear side rear wheel wobbles, and when it wobbles on a curve, the front truck derails. I pulled the wheels and axle. The axle looks really straight and true. The bronze bushings in the motor housing appear to be OK. The wheel appears to be OK, but when I carefully pressed the wheels back on the shaft and ran the locomotive, it was still wobbling - and the front truck was still derailing on the curves.

I was hoping to get the 1101 running reliably so that I could give it to my granddaughter - who loves playing with her big-brother's trains. Instead, I think I'll end up giving her a Lionel 1130 locomotive that I just finished fixing. The 1130 is really nicely designed, very reliable, and easy to work on.

Find me via profile, here’s an 1110 that’s complete, probably needs a thorough going through, you can have it, just cover postage ….can’t be that much??….i

consider it a donation for your granddaughter’s cause, …..paint it pink, like the Lionel girl’s train….😁

Pat

I rounded up some information before you decided to throw the towel in. If you ordered a 1664E-31 gear from a parts vendor from Greenberg's copy of Lionel's repair manual, they probably sent you what you ordered. The problem isn't from them, it's from the manual. The pictorial of the 1101 locomotive is incorrect. Back then and even today Lionel strong suit hasn't been very good about proof reading and double checking information before publishing it. The postwar service manual has more errors in it than flies in a horse barn! Literally more than a hundred errors. I am surprised that if Greenburg has had 7 editions of his service manual printed that there hasn't been a notation at the bottom of the page that the picture has incorrect wheel information and printed the correct information at the bottom of the page. See the attached information for the correct 1668 non geared wheel and 1655 geared wheel. 1664 wheels will not fit, as you found out. Note that drivers from a 1654 will not work as a 1654 motor is a single reduction motor and wheel gearing is different than a 1655 uses a double reduction motor, the same as a 1101. The 1101 is not a true scout locomotive as it has a 3 position reverse unit instead of an integral  reverse unit mechanism. Also there are no extended crank pin studs like a 1664 has. See that attached picture of a 1101 for correct wheels. Don't pay attention to the cab number, it was mis-stamped at the factory.

Great work Chuck!  Now that we've solved Mike's problem, has anyone ever actually seen a 2035 or 2036 with 48-pitch gears?

I find this discussion interesting and mystifying at the same time...  Since 1940s locos used gears with a higher DP, the die-cast wheels must have more gear teeth.  Therefore, it seems that a 1666 should have a lower gear ratio than a 2037.  But to my observation this isn't actually the case.  So what's going on here?

I did some performance testing with the Lionel 1101 locomotive. I had to remove the locomotive's front truck  because it kept derailing as I mentioned above. So I bench tested the locomotive, then ran it on the track without any cars in tow, then I ran it on the track with 5 cars in tow. First let me describe the test rig. I have a loop of 0-31 gauge tubular track, and the total center-rail length is 13.4434'. I have a 275 watt Lionel ZW transformer, and I have power applied in two separate equidistant points along the line. I have a digital multimeter to monitor the track voltage. I have an inexpensive clamp-style amp meter to monitor the amperage from the hot wire between the transformer and the track. I also have a 10 turn loop in this hot wire to improve the accuracy of the amp readings. For the time trial, I used the stopwatch feature of my Android phone, and timed the train over 5 laps. I tested just the locomotive at 8 VAC and 9 VAC. Outside of this very narrow band, the locomotive either would not move or would move so fast I was afraid that I'd derail and damage it. I then connected a tender, three freight cars, and a caboose and repeated the time trials at 8, 9, and 10 VAC. This band is not very wide in comparison to other locomotives, in this class and the train would not move at less than 8 VAC, and would run too fast beyond 10 VAC. Below is the velocity calculations and amp draw:

Locomotive only

Locomotive with 5 cars

I also bench tested the locomotive at 9 VAC, the amp draw was 1.16 A, and the power was 10.44 watts. When I ran the locomotive only at 9 VAC, it's velocity was 88.4 mph (scale), amp draw was 1.4A, and power was 12.6 watts. When I attached 5 cars and applied 9 VAC, the train's velocity slowed down to 63.2 mph (scale), the amp draw was 1.48A, and the power was 13.32 watts. So, I produced the pie-chart below, to show how much power was required to overcome the drivetrain resistance, to move the weight of the locomotive, and to move the cars.

I also made some tachometer readings and did a gear train analysis as shown below.

One final note: the Lionel 1101 is a very heavy 2-4-2 locomotive at 3 lbs 4.2 oz. It gets pretty good traction, and it is pretty decent puller for a locomotive in this class. I have a short video here of the 1101 pulling 12 cars. At an applied voltage of 10 VAC, I had no problems getting it up to speed from a dead stop. Here is a short video clip:

@Chuck Sartor posted:

I rounded up some information before you decided to throw the towel in. If you ordered a 1664E-31 gear from a parts vendor from Greenberg's copy of Lionel's repair manual, they probably sent you what you ordered. The problem isn't from them, it's from the manual. The pictorial of the 1101 locomotive is incorrect. Back then and even today Lionel strong suit hasn't been very good about proof reading and double checking information before publishing it. The postwar service manual has more errors in it than flies in a horse barn! Literally more than a hundred errors. I am surprised that if Greenburg has had 7 editions of his service manual printed that there hasn't been a notation at the bottom of the page that the picture has incorrect wheel information and printed the correct information at the bottom of the page. See the attached information for the correct 1668 non geared wheel and 1655 geared wheel. 1664 wheels will not fit, as you found out. Note that drivers from a 1654 will not work as a 1654 motor is a single reduction motor and wheel gearing is different than a 1655 uses a double reduction motor, the same as a 1101. The 1101 is not a true scout locomotive as it has a 3 position reverse unit instead of an integral  reverse unit mechanism. Also there are no extended crank pin studs like a 1664 has. See that attached picture of a 1101 for correct wheels. Don't pay attention to the cab number, it was mis-stamped at the factory.

Chuck - Thanks for that information. Would you have an exploded view that shows the part numbers shown on your picture of the service manual? I would like to replace the left rear (non-drive side) wheel because it is slightly out-of-round, and this is causing the wobbling and the front truck derailments. From your parts list, I suspect that the proper replacement wheel is part number 1668E-5? My 1101 also is missing the side rods that connect the wheels on both the right and the left side of the locomotive. You can see this in the attached photos of my 1101. The main rods from the steam chest to the rear wheels are also angled inwards which is very noticeable in the picture of the underside of the locomotive. I doubt you'd ever see something like this on a real steam locomotive.

It seems that many of the 1101 locomotives that are currently for sale on ebay also have missing side rods. This seems to be a common problem.

@Mossback Mike posted:

I tested just the locomotive at 8 VAC and 9 VAC. Outside of this very narrow band, the locomotive either would not move or would move so fast I was afraid that I'd derail and damage it. I then connected a tender, three freight cars, and a caboose and repeated the time trials at 8, 9, and 10 VAC. This band is not very wide in comparison to other locomotives, in this class and the train would not move at less than 8 VAC, and would run too fast beyond 10 VAC.

Hopefully replacing the wobbly wheel will correct your derailment problem.  When reassembling, pay special attention to the wheel gauging.  Although Lionel didn't publish the exact wheel gauge specification for most locomotives, the service manual states that the 773 Hudson was deliberately gauged narrow to improve operation on O31 curves.  Meanwhile, short-wheelbase 2-4-2s had some of the widest-gauged wheels, presumably to prevent "hunting" on straight track.  Incorrect wheel gauge could be part of your problem.

Thank you for testing and sharing your results.  I would say that the narrow band of usable voltages that you observed is typical of postwar steam locos.  The gearing is tragically tall for a motor that can reach 8,000 RPM.  Testing a loco "light" (without a trailing consist) is always preferred because it's a more demanding test / worst case scenario.  If you have a different AC-motored loco, like a 2036 or a diesel, it might be worth testing it for comparison.

You mentioned the weight of the loco.  It might also be instructive to re-run your test on a naked chassis without the weight of the shell.  I have found that if the layout has a "hump" anywhere in the track, lighter locos are more likely to make it around the track at modest speeds.  Of course in such cases, the best solution is to fix the hump!

The connecting rod was added, it came from the factory with only the main rod. An easily added and removed if desired cosmetic part. Is the front truck square, it looks from the picture it could be twisted, and is the bronze flat spring present and pushing down on the axle? I thought you had a Greenburg book that showed the break down of the engine? The angle of the side rods is 'correct', the way the factory made them.

@Chuck Sartor posted:

The connecting rod was added, it came from the factory with only the main rod. An easily added and removed if desired cosmetic part. Is the front truck square, it looks from the picture it could be twisted, and is the bronze flat spring present and pushing down on the axle? I thought you had a Greenburg book that showed the break down of the engine? The angle of the side rods is 'correct', the way the factory made them.

Chuck - I installed a new flat spring to apply a downward push on the front truck. It helped a little bit, but didn't completely solve the problem. The front truck appears to be in it's proper form - it doesn't seem to be twisted, malformed, or out of place in any way.

What I would do is push the engine by hand through the trouble spots and observe what is happening with the front truck and why it is climbing the rail. From your pic's it looks like the wheels are in gauge. Usually the front truck on that engine doesn't give trouble. Is it too tight and not swiveling easy. Is one of the retaining arms out of kilter and catching on the truck plate going around a curve? Does it derail at the same place, indicating a bent inward rail in the track? I'll bet you will be able to figure this problem out.

Chuck - I have a new term of endearment for my Lionel 1101 locomotive - "Stumpy". I have pushed the locomotive around the curves and watched in slow-motion as the rear wheel wobble caused the front truck to raise up and derail. I don't have a dial indicator, but the run-out on the non-drive side rear wheel is substantial. I am not sure how the rear wheel developed the wobble. Maybe the locomotive was dropped and the wheel was bent. The locomotive is very heavy - just over three pounds. I think I may try to order and install a new rear wheel. Based on what you provided earlier, I believe the correct part is 1668E-5. It's not very expensive, so it's worth a try.

I am not sure what the locomotive wheels are made of - if it is cast iron or sintered metal of some sort I would expect that these brittle materials would crack before they bend. However, a machined cast steel wheel might have bit more elasticity - and bend before it cracks or breaks.

The material is called pot metal. a low grade of a mixture of Zinc and Aluminum. A higher grade of the same mixture with more Zinc in it (like the locomotive body) is call Zamac.  It is not a brittle as you might think, unless it is really old. The later die cast wheels made of sintered iron will break before it bends. 1668E-5 is the correct #. Might as well order a new axle while you're at it.

@Ted S posted:

Hopefully replacing the wobbly wheel will correct your derailment problem.  When reassembling, pay special attention to the wheel gauging.  Although Lionel didn't publish the exact wheel gauge specification for most locomotives, the service manual states that the 773 Hudson was deliberately gauged narrow to improve operation on O31 curves.  Meanwhile, short-wheelbase 2-4-2s had some of the widest-gauged wheels, presumably to prevent "hunting" on straight track.  Incorrect wheel gauge could be part of your problem.

Thank you for testing and sharing your results.  I would say that the narrow band of usable voltages that you observed is typical of postwar steam locos.  The gearing is tragically tall for a motor that can reach 8,000 RPM.  Testing a loco "light" (without a trailing consist) is always preferred because it's a more demanding test / worst case scenario.  If you have a different AC-motored loco, like a 2036 or a diesel, it might be worth testing it for comparison.

You mentioned the weight of the loco.  It might also be instructive to re-run your test on a naked chassis without the weight of the shell.  I have found that if the layout has a "hump" anywhere in the track, lighter locos are more likely to make it around the track at modest speeds.  Of course in such cases, the best solution is to fix the hump!

Ted - When I bench tested the 1101, I could get the wheels spinning with an applied voltage of 6 VAC, but less than that, the motor wouldn't develop enough torque to overcome the drivetrain friction.

Of all the locos I have tested so far, the Marx 333, a 2-6-4 locomotive, has the widest range of operating voltages. It runs and pulls really well at low speeds due to the combination of its weight (2 lbs 6.4 oz), its gear ratio (9.74 to 1), and its smaller diameter drive wheels. It is one of my favorite locomotives.

I have a Lionel 2333 Diesel New Yok Central F3, a S-2 Lionel 671 steam-turbine 6-8-6 locomotive and a Lionel 2332 Electric Pennsylvania GG-1 that I am going to test soon. Those have worm-drives. That should be interesting.

Thanks Mike!  There were a couple variations of the Marx 333.  Is yours the early version, or a later one with smoke?  Sometimes you can really improve the low-speed performance of a loco by removing or disabling the puffing smoke mechanism.  Especially if something's bent or not adjusted correctly, they can create a LOT of friction at just one point in the piston stroke.

I'll bet that the 2333 will give you the widest usable voltage range or at least the slowest minimum speed, as long as both motors are working correctly, and not in dire need of maintenance.  Really looking forward to more results!

@Ted S posted:

Thanks Mike!  There were a couple variations of the Marx 333.  Is yours the early version, or a later one with smoke?  Sometimes you can really improve the low-speed performance of a loco by removing or disabling the puffing smoke mechanism.  Especially if something's bent or not adjusted correctly, they can create a LOT of friction at just one point in the piston stroke.

I'll bet that the 2333 will give you the widest usable voltage range, at least if both motors are working correctly, and not in dire need of maintenance.  Really looking forward to more results!

Ted - the link below is a thread which has my test results and description of the Marx 333. My 333 is not a smoker and it has no reversing unit - I physically removed it. The old e-unit was hopelessly fouled up. I bought a new rebuilt e-unit, but broke it during the installation process. It was a very frustrating experience. I saved the pieces, and I think I can put it back together - but I don't think it's worth the effort. From now on, if I have an e-unit that fails, I am just going to bypass it or remove it. For me, it just seems like they are too hard to fix/replace. I had a Lionel 1130 with a bum e-unit. I removed it. Rebuilt e-units are worth more than the loco - so it doesn't make much sense to fix. I watched some on-line DIY videos showing how to rebuild the Lionel e-units. Maybe someday I'll give it a try.

https://ogrforum.com/...c/171204222752963014

@Ted S posted:

Thanks Mike!  There were a couple variations of the Marx 333.  Is yours the early version, or a later one with smoke?  Sometimes you can really improve the low-speed performance of a loco by removing or disabling the puffing smoke mechanism.  Especially if something's bent or not adjusted correctly, they can create a LOT of friction at just one point in the piston stroke.

I'll bet that the 2333 will give you the widest usable voltage range or at least the slowest minimum speed, as long as both motors are working correctly, and not in dire need of maintenance.  Really looking forward to more results!

Ted -  You are probably right about the Lionel 2333 Diesel F3 with the worm drive and twin motors. That loco is really in a class all its own.

This is a follow-up regarding the Lionel 1101 locomotive with the wobbly drive wheel which was causing front truck derailments on 0-31 gauge curves. I had originally intended to replace the wobbly drive wheel and shaft - but I have solved the front truck derailment problem.

The upper side of the front truck has a couple of braces that were bent inwards as shown in the parts manual illustration:

I readjusted (or straightened) these arms so that they are perpendicular to the axle. This solved the problem. The front truck no longer derails on the curves - despite the locomotive's wobbly drive wheel.