looking for recommendations for 773 replacement motor

One name is all you need- Frank Timco.

I believe Madison Hardware once offered a heavy duty (larger field?) motor for the 773. Perhaps some of these are still in circulation?

why not try  to hot rod the ones you have,  see what trainrefs,,,,bob hannon has to say,

yes the gold motor,  and you can make that up yourself,   buy junker motors and use the fields,

The Gold motor that Riki just mentioned has more field laminations, than the standard issues, which will improve the performance greatly.  I don't know right off hand who may still have them available, and at what price, so searching is the next step.  Dew Associates (Justrains in Sussex, NJ) has an article for Super Tuning the 700-300 motor.  As I don't own a 773 or either of the others, I didn't spend a lot of time reading the full description, but here is the link:

http://www.justtrains.com/Hudson/773-1.asp

The AC motor was good in it's day.  So was the Model T Ford.  Many operators want can motors.  As stated before, FRANK TIMKO.

The original Poster was actually asking about the Modern era reissues of the 773, which are: 783, 784, and 785. Which motor did they use on these models? I thought they might have been the "gold motor".

the modern motor was a longer version of the 622 motor from 1950.  I have tried a number of them and yet to find one that out performed the 622, and a number of them that underperformed.

the modern motor was a longer version of the 622 motor from 1950.

Doesn't that describe a "gold motor"?

to me it's just an MPC part number.  Is it electrically identical to the so-called "long stack" motor of the 50s ? I  don't know.  More knowledgeable people might be able to comment.

From what I understand, the gold motor was for display layouts where the locomotive was going to run many hours a day. The purpose of this motor was to better dissipate heat.  On a full size series wound traction motor, additional speed was achieved with field shunts.   You should be able to connect a high resistance resistor between the two field coil connections.  This will allow more current to flow through the armature and get more speed out of it.  This may also overload the armature and burn it up, so go carefully. 

the armature is perhaps the Achilles Heel of the setup.  Do any of you swap in higher copper content brushes?  I have seen 2333 F3s which had factory brushes, which had a much more orange appearance due to extra copper.  it would seem that the extra copper might result in less resistance and thus less heat.  But this is all possible theory, and might not result in any noticeable improvement, just interesting conversation.

the gold or large stack was a 3/4 field, I think,,, I had bob hannon , wind me up a full 1 inch stack  when I was trying to get a motor to work for the std berk I made,

if you  don't want lionel ,, then pittman is the way to go

my purpose in starting this thread was to see what non-Lionel motors any of you had good success with.

Can you tell me a specific Pittman motor you like?

my purpose in starting this thread was to see what non-Lionel motors any of you had good success with.

I see you are new to the board.  Welcome aboard! This is how threads often go. The issue of "gold motors" may seem to be off-topic, but it appears here because some folks were suggesting that you try one.

Maybe someone can recommend a specific motor, but you will have to devise a way to install it.

Several folks have already suggested you contact Frank Timko. He specializes in converting Lionel locomotives from their original motors to can motors. He probably has a kit available for you to do the conversion yourself. He has an excellent reputation.

As stated, I was not interested in gold motors or other Lionel universal style motors, but aftermarket DC such as Pittman.

Also I have no problems with doing what it takes to do the installation, electrically or mechanically.

I have attempted to contact Mr Timko but with no success yet.  Others on OGR have had trouble contacting him, it seems.  His website lacks specifics on motors.

Those things said, the discussions of variations on the Lionel 622 based motors are without question  most interesting.

Last time I contacted Mr. Timko, I had no problems. 

I have no clue in terms of the proper Pittman motor, but if you are interested in a good piece of work, try taking the motor from a cordless leaf blower or the like. Those things are huge, and have speed and power to go with it.

We have the replacement motors from Madison. 49.99 each call to order

I just ordered from Timko retrofit motors for GG1 and Trainmaster. Send an email - he responds within two days.

As to the retrofit, ask his advice. He says he can do just about anything you ask motor-wise, though he tends to use the generic RS-385PH found in many modern models.

MTH uses the same pittman motor in their 400E and  0 ga  , 1999 models, not sure how many years after that,

you want a low cog motor 12v. and they do come in different rpms, and torque,

Big motor = big stick. This falls into the realm of using brute force to overcome resistance caused by poor tolerances, poor fit, and bad luck. I have the good luck to own a 1950 773 Hudson that with just one extra washer in the drive train and a short stack motor can out pull and out speed almost any other engine I own. Very scary to see this tall locomotive flying around 031 curves. I have to keep the throttle at 14 volts or less when pulling 4 heavy postwar Madison cars or it will fly off the curves. I previously owned two other 1950 models that could not be improved even with a high stack motor. The part of the frames where the motors attach were apparently ground or cast poorly causing the armature shafts to be out of line with the shaft of the worm gear. Not at all easy to see with the naked eye and shims were not a reliable fix. Same problem with my 1964 and 1966 773 Hudsons. In these later models it's more prevalent. LTI Hudsons have high stack motors, but many have bent armature shafts and out of round motor bearings added to the problems carried forward from 1950. I had one where the forward end of the worm gear shaft was rubbing against the back of the valve hanger. IMO the Pittman motors are needed to compensate for poor quality built into the original design.

I have since heard from Mr Timko and hope to buy a motor from him soon.

My own experiences are almost identical to BIGO426's.   I have a 1950 773 with stock short motor. Runs delightfully well.

I once purchased a lot of 6 of the longer MPC motors in hopes of getting a good one.  I did.  One.  The rest were mediocre and one was downright poor.

Shimming is a possible help as mentioned.  Lionel mentioned this in some service station oriented literature back in the 50s. Filing and polishing side rods on occasion overcomes subtle flaws.  Break in, which results in parts mating, can be important.  Every engine is a little different.  Even the smoke unit needs to move up and down with minimal resistance. And then there are those 6 wheel trucks on the 2426 tender which will never be confused with a Swiss watch . . . .

This is the motor that Charlie has been talking about. He is unsure if it does fit the 773 but he got them years ago through Madison Hardware. They are $49.99 Plus shipping. Give us a call (516) 378-9594 if interested.

Thanks!

This is the motor that Charlie has been talking about. He is unsure if it does fit the 773 but he got them years ago through Madison Hardware.

Does it have more than 3 poles?
Hard to tell from the angle pictured, but that motor looks like  old AMT/KMT Pittman motors. I think they have seven poles. I purchased a few of them. They came from the estate of Andy Kriswalus.
I think they are very nice motors. Someday I will find a use for them.

bigo426 posted:

Big motor = big stick. This falls into the realm of using brute force to overcome resistance caused by poor tolerances, poor fit, and bad luck. I have the good luck to own a 1950 773 Hudson that with just one extra washer in the drive train and a short stack motor can out pull and out speed almost any other engine I own. Very scary to see this tall locomotive flying around 031 curves. I have to keep the throttle at 14 volts or less when pulling 4 heavy postwar Madison cars or it will fly off the curves. I previously owned two other 1950 models that could not be improved even with a high stack motor. The part of the frames where the motors attach were apparently ground or cast poorly causing the armature shafts to be out of line with the shaft of the worm gear. Not at all easy to see with the naked eye and shims were not a reliable fix. Same problem with my 1964 and 1966 773 Hudsons. In these later models it's more prevalent. LTI Hudsons have high stack motors, but many have bent armature shafts and out of round motor bearings added to the problems carried forward from 1950. I had one where the forward end of the worm gear shaft was rubbing against the back of the valve hanger. IMO the Pittman motors are needed to compensate for poor quality built into the original design.

The 1950 issue 773 has about twice as steep as a gear ratio (~16:1 vs. ~8:1) as typical postwar Pullmor locomotives. It pulls well for a single motor locomotive of course (per my testing, just about even with a postwar GG1, vertical motor F3 and Trainmaster) but it's not nearly as fast as those locomotives.

A good and easy test is current draw and drive train friction. Unloaded at lower speeds it should draw ~1.5 amps, and the input shaft should turn easily and smoothly with just the tip of a finger.

if your trying to get top end, a motor is not going to solve that,  if this is like other hudsons, it has an 1-1/4 gear,.for pulling, lack of top end. want top end, go 3/4 -1inch gear. 

C W Burfle posted:

This is the motor that Charlie has been talking about. He is unsure if it does fit the 773 but he got them years ago through Madison Hardware.

Does it have more than 3 poles?
Hard to tell from the angle pictured, but that motor looks like  old AMT/KMT Pittman motors. I think they have seven poles. I purchased a few of them. They came from the estate of Andy Kriswalus.

Yes, inquiring minds want to know more about these "Madison Hardware" replacement motors.  This does look like a Pittman 7-pole open frame motor.  However, the one pictured will NOT work in a 773, 783, etc., without serious modification because it has a worm gear cut into its shaft, instead of the universal joint coupling required for the 773.

To address the original poster's question, how big is your layout?  How fast do you want to run?? There are already so many locos on the market that run too fast, including Williams' "Golden Memories" reproduction of the 773 Hudson which looks just like it from a few feet away.  Just about any of these would meet your needs "out of the box."  I'm not sure if the Timko motor will make your loco run faster, but I can tell you that it's a pretty small motor.  Keep us posted about your project!

Definitely the 7 pole motor used by AMT/Auburn/KMT by Kusan in their F unit; the post just above the armature shaft is threaded and is where you attach the motor through the frame and then to the truck of the F unit.  That motor can take 24 volts and is extremely durable.

Sal9000,

I did the amp draw test as you suggested on my 1950 773. I got 3.15amps.  When I bought this engine 6 months ago, I performed the "Super Tune" procedure as described on the JustTrains website. It runs smooth and strong, but according to your figure, I'm pulling too many amps. I checked the armature shaft/worm gear shaft and that appears to be straight and the armature turns easily with one finger. I checked the back and forth play and there is some, but I don't think it's excessive (I could be wrong about that). The JT article describes normal as being the width of a thrust washer. I think that's about what it is, but I'd have to open the worm gear compartment and slip a thrust washer in there, I guess.  What would account for the large difference in amp draw between mine and yours?

Roger

ROGER1 posted:

Sal9000,

I did the amp draw test as you suggested on my 1950 773. I got 3.15amps.  When I bought this engine 6 months ago, I performed the "Super Tune" procedure as described on the JustTrains website. It runs smooth and strong, but according to your figure, I'm pulling too many amps. I checked the armature shaft/worm gear shaft and that appears to be straight and the armature turns easily with one finger. I checked the back and forth play and there is some, but I don't think it's excessive (I could be wrong about that). The JT article describes normal as being the width of a thrust washer. I think that's about what it is, but I'd have to open the worm gear compartment and slip a thrust washer in there, I guess.  What would account for the large difference in amp draw between mine and yours?

Roger

Well, to be fair, I only own one 1950 issue 773 and that's what she does so I'm not sure if I'm the expert . And actually, as I was typing this I thought of something. That 1.5 A figure was done on a small chunk of non-ferrous track with short transformer leads. I just tested it on my largest run (~45 feet, with ~15' transformer leads) which is ferrous and I'm getting ~1.9-2.0 A unloaded (no tender even) at slow (creep) speed (more conductor length and MagneTraction will eat some current).

That much current would alarm me. I've seen "official" docs that state the current rating for the Pullmor is 2.5 A (can't find it now of course), and I've warped field bobbins on a postwar Trainmaster I was tinkering with (traction tires, additional weight) after letting it run at ~6.5 A (~3.25 A/motor) for ~30 minutes.

Try measuring current on the motor running uncoupled from the drive train. I just tested a Pullmor unloaded at low speed (not from the 773 though) and was getting ~0.7 A. The unloaded test will tell you where to focus - if it's less than say 1 A there's something up with the drive train. If it's much higher than say 1 A, something is up with the motor (Old brushes? Old high resistance wiring inside the locomotive? Wiring mistake?). The meter could be askew too - probably a long shot but how about a second current measurement method (my measurements above I used both a current clamp and then a Fluke 177 - they are within 0.1-0.2 A of each other)

ROGER1 posted:

Sal9000,

I did the amp draw test as you suggested on my 1950 773. I got 3.15amps.  When I bought this engine 6 months ago, I performed the "Super Tune" procedure as described on the JustTrains website. It runs smooth and strong, but according to your figure, I'm pulling too many amps. I checked the armature shaft/worm gear shaft and that appears to be straight and the armature turns easily with one finger. I checked the back and forth play and there is some, but I don't think it's excessive (I could be wrong about that). The JT article describes normal as being the width of a thrust washer. I think that's about what it is, but I'd have to open the worm gear compartment and slip a thrust washer in there, I guess.  What would account for the large difference in amp draw between mine and yours?

Roger

When you test your locomotive for motor current be sure you turn the e-unit off, remove the head light bulb, and disconnect the smoke unit. 

Sal9000,

Actually, I retested this afternoon when I realized that my starting amperage on that loop is not 0. Some bulbs in there and it starts at around .54amps. So, I kept that in mind and took apart the 773 to see if anything was amiss. The gap in the worm was well within specs. I put another thrust washer in there and that was too tight, so I removed it. The 773 worked out to around 2.5amps or so. Running it around the loop with my Fluke Clamp meter attached to a wire out of the ZW terminal doesn't produce a steady reading. But it probably averaged around 2.5. I tested my 736 and 726  and they were just a bit less. All of them are tuned up and run like silk......new brushes, springs, rollers, lube, clean commutators etc. My 2035 and several others around that size came to about 2 amps.  I was not running any of these at a crawl, though.        Do you get steady readings when you run the engines around your loop?

Roger

When running constant speed my measurement varies roughly +/- 0.1 to 0.2 A with the Fluke 177.

I also have a 726. I just ran it and at slow speed unloaded I'm getting ~1.6A. I also have a number of transverse motor locomotives (2025, 2056, 665, etc.) and just ran and measured the first three and they're all 1.5-1.7 A. These locomotives are about in line with your layout's 0.54 A bias (my layout has no accessories/bulbs/etc.). Based on my testing the only outlier is your 773. If it were me I'd measure current with the motor running disconnected from the drive train and go from there.

Sal9000,

I'm going to reexamine my testing regimen this afternoon and possibly test them on my rollers. Not sure why the meter is giving varying amperage readings as they pass around the loop. The motor in my 773 is like new and my other engines are in excellent shape. So, the readings are higher than I would expect (especially in light of how they run and pull). 

Roger

Sal9000

I worked out a few bugs in my testing system and got much better results. I realized that the loop I was testing the engines on  has (obviously) curves. That makes the longer engines work harder than on a straight. Also, it's not quite level. So.....I set up my rollers (I've got a separate test strip that is portable and rigid and level). At very slow speeds, here are the amp draws that I measured (starting with a few "sidewinders"):

2025 - 1.58A

675 -   1.58A

2035 - 1.62A

736 -   1.78A

726 -   1.54A

773 -   1.85A

So......these seem to be in line with your measurements and seem to validate my feelings about their running condition. However, my 773 does not fly around the track. I'm puzzled about how one of the 73s noted above can go so fast with the gearing it has and the amp draw it pulls.

Roger

Sounds good to me (or, it's at least what I'm seeing as well).

The operational description above doesn't fit my experience either. I would characterize mine as slow (and slow to accelerate) as well - more so than any other postwar locomotive I have (I even have a couple of early prewar locos - model 150 - that are also quicker/faster faster ).

Has to be the gearing.

The large diameter wheels will also impact performance.