Lionel U33 operation

Jon,

 

Here is a short clip showing mine running at what I think is speed step #1 under Legacy control.  I also have managed to get it leveled and at least it will run quietly up to about speed step #12.

 

My only concern over the gear ratio reduction would be if it made the next run of U33C's unable to lash-up with the 1st run.

 

That sure looks better than mine Troy. I wonder if the scale wheels has anything to do with it? Looks like I need to grab a Legacy system. Yours is actually acceptable. Looks pretty good with it riding on the bolsters now.

Thanks Jon,

 

Here are a couple of shots showing the results of my attempt to get mime to sit level:

 

 

And, just for fun, here are a couple of it passing the outbound ready tracks:

 

 

I have the BN. I can't complain about the slow speed running, I have found it to be more than acceptable at yard speeds. I also have the milwaukee and Santa fe u boats on order. Ben

I think this was covered before in earlier posts, but ther'e a delrin shoulder spacer on the truck pivot and for some reason, the rear one wasn't pressed in all the way.  It was such on my U33C. I pressit it down as far as it would go and everything was level.

 

Rusty

Actually Rusty, what Troy did was cut of the cylinder that it attached to the truck bolster. I pushed my bushing in and mine sits level, but it rides on that cylindrical spacer. Troy cut that piece off so it rides noticably lower and it looks fantastic in my opinion. I'm going to do the same to mine. I'll probably document the process on my bolg for others that are interested.

Rusty,

 

I had heard about guys being able to push the spacer down on their models.  I almost wonder if there is some kind of mid-cycle production change on these as mine was actually epoxied in place and the one in the rear was physically taller.  Both were set flush on top of the bolster and could not be pushed down any farther. 

 

From what I can tell, this was done to ensure that the truck would be able to pivot without rubbing on the wiring for the electrical pick-up or the hall sensor.  So far, I have had no problems with parts contacting on another, but I also have no grades.

There's my problem! This one is going back to Lionel. That's not good. This comes from running on 20"r Fastrack.

 

Our club, the Atlantic Coast S-Gaugers, is having a show this weekend on a modular layout with 20" radius curves.  The front u-joint on one of the U33s in a lash up failed after about 2 hours of runtime.  Reading this thread and seeing the failure make me wonder if there could be a design issue at work here?  Or could it be differences in assembly procedures?

This also appears to be a reason why Lionel's going with twin vertical motors on the SD70's.

 

From a post from Lionel here a few months ago in March:

 

"We debated the drive system for some time internally, and simply could not get the features into the loco with a motor in a horizontal position.  As a point of reference, the U33 was way late and the delays were due to the drive system. The electronics and motors would not work without burning up.  I designed a completely new motor drive circuit for the U33, and by luck (and some long days) we made the U33 shipment last year.  It almost was placed on indefinite hold due to the motor burning up problem that seemed to be unsolvable.

 

If we could locate a horizontal motor in the shell area(not fuel tank), many of the problems we had with the U33 would have not appeared.  We have U-Joints in the U33 that take very sharp angles; and I had to run the loco (code tweak) much faster than I would have liked to keep it running smooth.  The Vertical motors will solve this for us by allowing the drive chain to have higher gear ratios and nicer low speed control. " 

Rusty

Yeah. Not a good design mechanically. There seem to be several slight difference between models as well. I really wanted to like the U33, but I think we'll just chalk this one up to a learning experience. I'm hopeful that the SD-70s will be much better. They better be or MTH will hand them their lunch.

 

BTW... I have learned that to set the loco on high momentum you have to have a Legacy system. TMCC will only give you medium which really isn't adequate.

*Update*

 

I got my U33 back from Lionel today. Extremely fast service. Thank you.

 

They fixed the Ujoint and replaced the tank. It doesn't say in the paperwork, but they must have done something else because it now runs much better and smoother than before. It does still make some noise on 20"r Fastrack and with scale wheels it doesn't want to back through a curve without derailing at least one axle, but it is much better than before. I still don't feel that this engine should be run on 20"r. Especially with scale wheels.

The U33C is definitley happier as a larger-radius locomotive.  I'm having no trouble with scale wheels or U-joints on 29" and 33" radius curves.

 

Rusty

The U33's that I own and know of via friends run well on hi-rail S track (Gilbert, etc.) at 20" radius. There is a slight noise on those curves but hardly anything worse than the same effect with SHS drives of the same general design.

 

Can not help but think that the "China drives" that some castigate would be just fine on 20" radius curves - scale and hi-rail.

 

Bob Bubeck

However, it will become inevitable that as new, more scale-attuned products are released in S, just as in O Gauge, there will be locomotives that will not be able negotiate the "traditional curve" comfortably, if at all.

 

Rusty

I really don't mind as I will be running mostly 30"r, but Lionel says it will run on 18"r and my test loop is Fastrack. That's why I bring it up.