Skip to main content

I recently acquired some Marx diesel E7 locomotives. I finished restoring them, and I did some performance testing. Overall, I am impressed with their pulling power, and stability at lower speeds. First up is a Marx 901 Western Pacific E7 unit in an ABA configuration with a "newer" motor that has aluminum sideplates, recessed drive-wheel gearing, and rubber traction wheels. Then I tested an older Marx 1095 Santa Fe E7 unit in an AA configuration, with the "older" style motor that does not have recessed drive wheel gearing and does not have rubber traction wheels.

Western Pacific 901

So, first let me describe some salient mechanical/electrical features of the locomotive. It weighs 1 lb 15.5 oz. It has very good traction due to the rubber drive-side wheels, so I could easily pull the B-unit, the dummy A unit and10 freight cars during my testing. The gear ratio is 6.933 to 1. I was able to determine this by counting the gear teeth, and doing the math.

I bench tested the locomotive at 13.5 VAC output from the transformer and measured the drive wheel rotational speed using a Cen Tech digital photo sensor tachometer. The drive wheel rpm was in the range of 1400 - 1450 rpm. So, for purposes of my calculations I used an average value of 1425 rpm. Since I don't have the ability to directly measure the rotational speed of the motor, and since my 901 has a gear ratio of 6.933 to 1, I calculated a motor rpm equal to 10,053. The amp draw on the bench was 1.9A, with a power consumption of 25.65 watts.

Now 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. 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 discrete 1/2 volt increments from 5.5 to 8 volts AC. Outside of this 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 the consist and repeated the time trials at 8 through 10 VAC. Again, 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:

901 Locomotive only

TRACK VOLTAGEElapsed Time MINSpeed FPMMotor RPMSpeed MPHScale MPHAmp ReadingsPower WattsHP
5.52.1431.478947.80.3617.21.79.350.0125
61.1160.4651820.50.6933.01.810.80.0145
6.50.7392.2042776.11.0550.31.912.350.0166
70.56120.9663642.11.3766.01.9513.650.0183
7.50.45148.7104477.41.6981.11.9514.6250.0196
80.37184.0725542.12.09100.42160.0215



901 Locomotive with with B unit, dummy A unit, and 10 cars

TRACK VOLTAGEElapsed Time MINSpeed FPMMotor RPMSpeed MPHScale MPHAmp ReadingsPower WattsHP
81.8137.1911119.80.4220.32.4519.60.0263
8.51.0862.2191873.30.7133.92.521.250.0285
90.8381.4422452.10.9344.42.5522.950.0308
9.50.64104.4283144.11.1957.02.624.70.0331
100.57117.4103535.01.3364.02.7527.50.0369



Note that at 8 VAC, the locomotive alone was running at 100.4 MPH (scale), drawing 2 amps, 16 watts. When I attached the consist to the locomotive and ran it at 8 VAC, it slowed down to 20.3 MPH (scale) drawing 2.45 amps and 19.6 watts. One thing I should point out is that my amp readings would usually spike when the locomotive was on the curve sections, so my amp readings are sort of a composite. I also bench tested the locomotive at 8 VAC, and it was drawing 1.8 amps and 14.4 watts. So, I prepared a pie chart showing the power profile at 8 VAC. As you can see, the majority of the power was consumed by mechanical/electrical inefficiencies and just moving the weight of the locomotive. Only a small fraction of the total power was consumed by pulling the cars.

Marx 901 Gear Train

Marx 901 Power Profile

Here is a short video clip of the Marx E7 Western Pacific 901 slowly pulling a B unit, dummy A unit, and 10 tinplate cars with an applied voltage of 8 VAC. The operation is very stable. The locomotive exhibited no discernable wheel slippage and effortlessly pulled the train around the track layout.

Santa Fe 1095

So, first let me describe some salient mechanical/electrical features of this locomotive. It weighs 1 lb 15.5 oz, same as the 901 locomotive. It does not have rubber drive-side traction wheels, but nonetheless,  I could easily pull the dummy A unit and10 freight cars during my testing.  However, occasionally, there would be some barely noticeable drive wheel slippage. The gear ratio is 8.6 to 1. I was able to determine this by counting the gear teeth, and doing the math.

I bench tested the locomotive at 13.5 VAC output from the transformer and measured the drive wheel rotational speed using a Cen Tech digital photo sensor tachometer. The drive wheel rpm was in the range of 925 - 975 rpm. So, for purposes of my calculations I used an average value of 950 rpm. Since I don't have the ability to directly measure the rotational speed of the motor, and since my 1095 has a gear ratio of 8.6 to 1, I calculated a motor rpm equal to 8,170. The amp draw on the bench was 2A, with a power consumption of 27 watts.

I used the same test rig as described above. I tested just the locomotive at discrete 1/2 volt increments from 5.5 to 8 volts AC. Outside of this 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 the consist and repeated the time trials at 7.5 through 9 VAC. Again, the train would not move at less than 7.5 VAC, and would run too fast beyond 9 VAC. Below is the velocity calculations and amp draw:

1095 Locomotive only

TRACK VOLTAGEElapsed Time MINSpeed FPMMotor RPMSpeed MPHScale MPHAmp ReadingsPower WattsHP
5.51.6041.9981568.50.4822.91.79.350.0125
61.1558.5852188.00.6732.01.7510.50.0141
6.50.7786.9563247.60.9947.41.811.70.0157
70.57118.2704417.11.3464.51.913.30.0178
80.42159.9145972.41.8287.22160.0215



1095 Locomotive with dummy A unit and ten cars

TRACK VOLTAGEElapsed Time MINSpeed FPMMotor RPMSpeed MPHScale MPHAmp ReadingsPower WattsHP
7.51.4147.5371775.40.5425.92.4180.0241
81.0464.7152416.90.7435.32.4519.60.0263
8.50.7787.6743274.41.0047.82.521.250.0285
90.64105.1093925.51.1957.32.5522.950.0308



Note that at 8 VAC, the locomotive alone was running at 87.2 MPH (scale), drawing 2 amps, 16 watts. When I attached the consist to the locomotive and ran it at 8 VAC, it slowed down to 25.3 MPH (scale) drawing 2.45 amps and 19.6 watts. One thing I should point out is that my amp readings would usually spike when the locomotive was on the curve sections, so my amp readings are sort of a composite. I also bench tested the locomotive at 8 VAC, and it was drawing 1.9 amps and 15.2 watts. So, I prepared a pie chart showing the power profile at 8 VAC. As you can see, the majority of the power was consumed by mechanical & electrical inefficiencies and just moving the weight of the locomotive. Only a small fraction of the total power was consumed by pulling the cars.

Marx 1095 Gear Train

Marx 1095 Power Profile

Here is a short video clip of the Marx diesel E7 Santa Fe 1095 locomotive slowly pulling a dummy A unit, and 10 tinplate cars with an applied voltage of 8 VAC. The operation is very stable. The traction was pretty good, but there was some slightly discernable wheel slippage. Otherwise, the locomotive effortlessly pulled the train around the track layout.

I have noticed a distinct lack of uniformity in the performance of the series-wound, universal motors used by Marx in my fleet of 999 locomotives. Some run much faster than the others. I haven't quantified this yet because I dont have any hard data, but my Crazy Train post has a video clip showing 5 Marx 999s in operation: https://ogrforum.com/...c/175427630523854700

I suspect that if I were to test some of my other E7s, I might find a similar lack of uniformity in the performance.

Attachments

Images (4)
  • Marx 901 Gear Train
  • Marx 901 Power Profile
  • Marx 1095 Gear Train
  • Marx 1095 Power Profile
Videos (2)
20230717_204127545 - Copy
20230718_142539336
Last edited by Mossback Mike
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'm surprised that the early version didn't perform better, since it has the lower gear ratio.  However, early Marx locos with the gear teeth going all the way out to the flange (aka "fat wheel Marx") have well-documented incompatibility with many types of Lionel switches.

As far as the lack of uniformity among your 999s, you could measure and compare the resistance of the armatures and fields.  Bob Hannon did this and published a book with this data for Lionel motors.  However in your case, I suspect it's due to mechanical factors- alignment, wear, lubrication, etc.

Thanks for doing these tests and the detailed write-up.  I look forward to your next set of tests!

@Ted S posted:

I'm surprised that the early version didn't perform better, since it has the lower gear ratio.  However, early Marx locos with the gear teeth going all the way out to the flange (aka "fat wheel Marx") have well-documented incompatibility with many types of Lionel switches.

As far as the lack of uniformity among your 999s, you could measure and compare the resistance of the armatures and fields.  Bob Hannon did this and published a book with this data for Lionel motors.  However in your case, I suspect it's due to mechanical factors- alignment, wear, lubrication, etc.

Thanks for doing these tests and the detailed write-up.  I look forward to your next set of tests!

It seems like the rubber on the drive-side wheels of the "later" version improves the traction - and makes the locomotive quieter too. I have three of these "later" version E7s with the rubber wheels - and they all perform really well, with good pulling power at low speeds.

My next test will be an evaluation of NO OX ID - the dielectric grease which claims to improve conductivity between the trains and the tracks, and keep the tracks cleaner.

One of the things I like about this hobby is answers to questions that nobody asked....a deep dive into Marx performance, of all things. Loved it. Always loved the Marx E's (hey, RMT - let's have some "new" ones to go with your Marx-bodied Alco switcher); I have a couple. They look more realistic than they should. Must be the proportions. I'm a closet Marxist, I guess.

Enjoyed it - and the added MARS lights (MARX lights?).

@D500 posted:

One of the things I like about this hobby is answers to questions that nobody asked....a deep dive into Marx performance, of all things. Loved it. Always loved the Marx E's (hey, RMT - let's have some "new" ones to go with your Marx-bodied Alco switcher); I have a couple. They look more realistic than they should. Must be the proportions. I'm a closet Marxist, I guess.

Enjoyed it - and the added MARS lights (MARX lights?).

I drilled out the faux Mars light, installed a new headlight lens, and used a couple of 3 mm 7-19V AC/DC/DCC LEDs from Evan Designs. The LEDs fit nicely inside the headlight lenses. A blinker on top and a solid below. I saw this on  John LeBaron's E7 videos on Youtube. I reached out to John and he offered me some advice on how to do this. He has done some amazing E7 customizations - including running with two powered A units. I am not sure how he wired the motors to run in tandem.

Here is a video of another Santa Fe diesel E7 - this one has the "newer" motor with aluminum sideplates and rubber traction wheels. The pulling power is phenomenal. This is an ABA pulling twelve freight cars. I could have pulled more - but the couplings cant handle it. In fact, this video comes to an abrupt end when the last 3 or 4 cars in the consist uncoupled.

Has anybody ever done any supplemental daisy chaining to keep long consists together?

Attachments

Videos (1)
20230928_(18s)

Mike

You have some great Marx F7s and I really like the New Haven and the Western Pacific units.  I usually find the Santa Fe F7s.  You did a super ME type job on the test work.

"One thing I should point out is that my amp readings would usually spike when the locomotive was on the curve sections, so my amp readings are sort of a composite" your quote.  I think I see your inner loop is 027 track.  Have you tested on 027?  I would expect the 027 curves to draw even more amperage.   I ask as I have 027 track and 31 Marx 1590, 027 switches on my layout.

It may take some time to test NO OX treated track for track cleaning effects. I will start my third year, on 12-2023, after NO OX treatment, without having to clean track.  There is a pretty good summary of NO OX and links on page 8, post 79 below.

https://ogrforum.com/...ra-027-layout?page=8

Charlie

Last edited by Choo Choo Charlie

Mike

You have some great Marx F7s and I really like the New Haven and the Western Pacific units.  I usually find the Santa Fe F7s.  You did a super ME type job on the test work.

"One thing I should point out is that my amp readings would usually spike when the locomotive was on the curve sections, so my amp readings are sort of a composite" your quote.  I think I see your inner loop is 027 track.  Have you tested on 027?  I would expect the 027 curves to draw even more amperage.   I ask as I have 027 track and 31 Marx 1590, 027 switches on my layout.

It may take some time to test NO OX treated track for track cleaning effects. I will start my third year, on 12-2023, after NO OX treatment, without having to clean track.  There is a pretty good summary of NO OX and links on page 8, post 79 below.

https://ogrforum.com/...ra-027-layout?page=8

Charlie

Charlie

I haven't done any performance testing on the 027 track - just the standard 0 gauge. I agree with you, the amp readings would probably spike even higher on the tighter curves of 027 track.

Based on your recommendations, I bought some NO OX and used it on my 027 tracks. So far, the track doesn't accumulate so much soot anymore - but I don't see a dramatic performance increase. Maybe it's because I am used to wiping down my tracks often. One thing I have noticed with the NO OX - no more sparking when the locomotive is running down the line.

Mike

Mike  your quote below:

"One thing I have noticed with the NO OX - no more sparking when the locomotive is running down the line. "

One dirty track theory blames sparking as a cause dirty track.   I too have noticed less sparking and also better slow speed operation with conventional control with low voltage having a bottom limit of 4 or 5 volts.

Mike;   here is OGR post I made on the Oct 2004 CTT, testing 9 types of track for train pulling power and it includes Magnatraction.  The testing did not include Marx or NO OX.  The article has testing data similar to what you have done.

https://ogrforum.com/...pes-of-track-article

A summary of the Data from the CTT 10-2004 article

https://ogrforum.com/...engine-pulling-power

Here is a link on how to get a free internet copy of the CTT Oct 2004 of 9 Types of train track test article for CTT !  I have heard that this link may not work now.

https://www.trains.com/ctt/beg...ng-9-types-of-track/

Charlie

Last edited by Choo Choo Charlie

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×