MTH Premier vs. Lionel VisionLine GS-4

@Jon C posted:

At the moment I currently have the MTH Premier GS-4 with the UP 845 patch on the cab, however, my local train store has given me the opportunity to trade it for a Lionel VisionLine one. Should I keep the MTH or  get the visionline? I’m leaning towards the VisionLine but am kind of hesitant to trade as I have not seen any pictures or videos of the 845 patch job! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

My first thought is,,,,,,,does/did Lionel even produce a model of the SP GS-4 #4449 with the "UP 845 patch on the cab"? In my opinion, that is a pretty rare model, especially since the real 4449 only had that "UP 845 patch on the cab" for less than a half hour (it was a magnetic sign that was just stuck on the Engineer's side of the cab).

A version with the 845 patch is not listed in the Lionel catalog.   But, for what it's worth, while the MTH is a quality engine, it can't hold a candle to the superior sound and steam effects of the Vision Line GS-4s.  See page 45 of the catalog for all the Vision Line Steam features.  I'm assuming he is not offering an even trade since the Vision Line lists for $1999.99 vs the MTH $1299.99.   

Bob

I would swap a MTH GS-4 for the new Lionel Vision Line GS-4 without thinking about it.  I have a MTH GS-4.  It is an excellent engine but it doesn't have the the bells and whistles of the new Lionel.  NH Joe

@New Haven Joe posted:

I would swap a MTH GS-4 for the new Lionel Vision Line GS-4 without thinking about it.  I have a MTH GS-4.  It is an excellent engine but it doesn't have the the bells and whistles of the new Lionel.  NH Joe

Well, just my opinion but, all those "bells and whistles" don't amount to much if the model doesn't perform properly. Have you checked out the various discussions on the Lionel Forums concerning these new Lionel Legacy models?

@Hot Water posted:

Well, just my opinion but, all those "bells and whistles" don't amount to much if the model doesn't perform properly. Have you checked out the various discussions on the Lionel Forums concerning these new Lionel Legacy models?

I have looked at the posts.  Some folks have had issues with the new Lionel and others haven't.  In other cases, there will be future issues because the internal wiring is rubbing against moving parts.  Hopefully dealers and Lionel will be willing to fix this under warranty.  This poster thinks it is his best model steamer ever:

https://ogrforum.com/...t-steam-engine-4459?

NH Joe

@New Haven Joe posted:

I have looked at the posts.  Some folks have had issues with the new Lionel and others haven't.  In other cases, there will be future issues because the internal wiring is rubbing against moving parts.  Hopefully dealers and Lionel will be willing to fix this under warranty.  This poster thinks it is his best model steamer ever:

https://ogrforum.com/...t-steam-engine-4459?

NH Joe

That poster has obviously never owned any Sunset/3rd Rail models.

I posted awhile back asking if anyone had the same model prototypes made by two or three manufacturers and received very little response.

Am pleased to see this thread and hope to learn from it!

To be honest the Lionel model may have more bells and whistles (literally) but the MTH model is much more mechanically sound. The chassis, driveline, and motor are more robust than the Lionel piece, if not over engineered for the application. Pull one apart and you'll see the difference.

I just recieved my Lionel GS models tonight and I would say, make the trade. Running one of the Lionel models will put a smile on your face that is hard to erase. The cylinder cock smoke is an extremely cool feature. I’d suggest getting a GS-5 since it has whistle steam which is a much cooler feature than the dynamo steam IMHO. Sure the Lionel model doesn’t touch the detail of a 3rd Rail and MTH probably put a better motor in their’s but the Lionel will blow the doors and wheels off all of them.

As for the assembly issues that Bruk identified, I don’t think these are as widespread as we all think. I removed the boilers on all 3 of mine and the wiring was all routed perfectly. Everything worked perfectly out of the box.

@Lou1985 posted:

To be honest the Lionel model may have more bells and whistles (literally) but the MTH model is much more mechanically sound. The chassis, driveline, and motor are more robust than the Lionel piece, if not over engineered for the application. Pull one apart and you'll see the difference.

And I’d have to agree with that, MTH always had a robust mechanism when it comes to their Premier steam line of locomotives. They have ( now had) a proven design that works.....The extra features found on the later Lionel product is cool, but mechanically speaking, they seem to be cutting corners in engineering ......and maybe they have to to keep the prices in the stratosphere ( at least) ....I can count a few Legacy steam models that share their linage back to Kline models,....if you look closely and have examples handy, the Legacy Berk, & Legacy J3 chassis are reincarnations of ex-Kline tooling,...we can state this for fact, .....ain’t that right Lou??

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

And I’d have to agree with that, MTH always had a robust mechanism when it comes to their Premier steam line of locomotives. They have ( now had) a proven design that works.....The extra features found on the later Lionel product is cool, but mechanically speaking, they seem to be cutting corners in engineering ......

Pat

From what I can see in videos. It appears the new GS's also have the complex/fragile 4 gear gearbox as well.  

After the failure on my K4. I won't touch anything with this gearbox, which is now in just about everything.

I had to shim the axle on my H10 to keep the center 2 gears making more than 1/4 tooth contact.

I wonder if the use of this gearbox is related to the capabilities, or lack thereof of the Canon motors?

The original Legacy GS4 is one of the last Pittman powered traditional gearbox design locos Lionel offered. That would be the one I'd look for. Especially now when folks will be dumping them for the new whizz-bang version.

I have a ways to go before retirement. I don't want gearboxes failing when I finally have time to REALLY enjoy my trains.

@RickO posted:

From what I can see in videos. It appears the new GS's also have the complex/fragile 4 gear gearbox as well.  

After the failure on my K4. I won't touch anything with this gearbox, which is now in just about everything.

I had to shim the axle on my H10 to keep the center 2 gears making more than 1/4 tooth contact.

I wonder if the use of this gearbox is related to the capabilities, or lack thereof of the Canon motors?

The original Legacy GS4 is one of the last Pittman powered traditional gearbox design locos Lionel offered. That would be the one I'd look for. Especially now when folks will be dumping them for the new whizz-bang version.

I have a ways to go before retirement. I don't want gearboxes failing when I finally have time to REALLY enjoy my trains.

You put in words where I was going with this Rick, ....that’s all correct,.....no doubt the single worm on wheel gearbox is a proven bulletproof design.  I feel the Korean made Lionel scale steamers with large Pittman motors, from the Oddesy era are right in par ( mechanically speaking ) with MTH. Your latest acquisition J3a is from this family. ......we’re already seeing evidence of this robustness in the form of fellas sending these early Oddesy locos to Bruk & Sid  for upgrades,....as well as MTH Premier steam locomotives,.....no doubt they’re starting off with a good platform.....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

And I’d have to agree with that, MTH always had a robust mechanism when it comes to their Premier steam line of locomotives. They have ( now had) a proven design that works.....The extra features found on the later Lionel product is cool, but mechanically speaking, they seem to be cutting corners in engineering ......and maybe they have to to keep the prices in the stratosphere ( at least) ....I can count a few Legacy steam models that share their linage back to Kline models,....if you look closely and have examples handy, the Legacy Berk, & Legacy J3 chassis are reincarnations of ex-Kline tooling,...we can state this for fact, .....ain’t that right Lou??

Pat

The Legacy Lima B&M Berk is for sure descended from the K-Line version, but with a redesigned chassis that puts the motor in the firebox (K-Line version had the small RS385 in the smokebox). J3 I think is a Lionel design.

But like Rick says above I'm leery of Lionel's current multi gear gearbox setup. It's not very robust and needs special care taken when lubricating it. It's designed like it is to be able to have a backdriveable gear train, but that can be done without the complexity and fragileness of the 4 gear design. I'd agree that the MTH Premier gearbox and early Lionel scale steam gearbox (the made in South Korea TMCC/Odyssey locomotives) are the best designs as far as ruggedness goes. No whistle steam or other smoke effects but I can guarantee that you won't wear out that MTH Premier GS4 gearbox anytime soon. Can't say the same about the latest Lionel version.

@Lou1985 posted:

The Legacy Lima B&M Berk is for sure descended from the K-Line version, but with a redesigned chassis that puts the motor in the firebox (K-Line version had the small RS385 in the smokebox). J3 I think is a Lionel design.

But like Rick says above I'm leery of Lionel's current multi gear gearbox setup. It's not very robust and needs special care taken when lubricating it. It's designed like it is to be able to have a backdriveable gear train, but that can be done without the complexity and fragileness of the 4 gear design. I'd agree that the MTH Premier gearbox and early Lionel scale steam gearbox (the made in South Korea TMCC/Odyssey locomotives) are the best designs as far as ruggedness goes. No whistle steam or other smoke effects but I can guarantee that you won't wear out that MTH Premier GS4 gearbox anytime soon. Can't say the same about the latest Lionel version.

Forgive my ignorance but what issues have been reported to date about the current gearbox design? Brass manufacturers have been using multigear reduction boxes for decades without issues. Is it a case of poor execution in manufacturing?

@Lou1985 posted:

It's designed like it is to be able to have a backdriveable gear train, but that can be done without the complexity and fragileness of the 4 gear design.

And Lionel had backdriveabilty with just a worm and axle gear in the early Legacy models.

So, as usual with Lionel. Why the design change?, especially when the extra gears adds to the manufacturing process.

That's why I mentioned the Canon motor. But, you and Pat are the experts . I'm just guessing.

@Lou1985 posted:

The Legacy Lima B&M Berk is for sure descended from the K-Line version, but with a redesigned chassis that puts the motor in the firebox (K-Line version had the small RS385 in the smokebox). J3 I think is a Lionel design.

But like Rick says above I'm leery of Lionel's current multi gear gearbox setup. It's not very robust and needs special care taken when lubricating it. It's designed like it is to be able to have a backdriveable gear train, but that can be done without the complexity and fragileness of the 4 gear design. I'd agree that the MTH Premier gearbox and early Lionel scale steam gearbox (the made in South Korea TMCC/Odyssey locomotives) are the best designs as far as ruggedness goes. No whistle steam or other smoke effects but I can guarantee that you won't wear out that MTH Premier GS4 gearbox anytime soon. Can't say the same about the latest Lionel version.

The newest J3a chassis is a direct descendant of the Kline chassis tooling,....having both chassis here in front of me, they’re 100% identical sans motor/ gearbox orientation. They clearly modified the existing gear box from the Kline tooling,....there’s just too many similarities, just like the Berk chassis you & I had swapped out ,......

Pat

@Ryan Selvius posted:

Forgive my ignorance but what issues have been reported to date about the current gearbox design? Brass manufacturers have been using multigear reduction boxes for decades without issues. Is it a case of poor execution in manufacturing?

Gears walking off the stub shaft, chewing up other gears, and going straight into self destruct mode,..

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Gears walking off the stub shaft, chewing up other gears, and going straight into self destruct mode,..

Pat

In my case the" loaded" side of the stub shaft began wearing into the bushing pressed into the chassis. It was actually producing shavings.

Between the shavings and the oblonging of the bushing I dumped it. I didn't wait for the gears to begin chattering. I believe gunrunnerjohn has mentioned hes seen a few of these. The only way to repair it appears to be to replacing the entire chassis.

IMO, one side of this shaft ( the side of the shaft that wore the bushing in my case ) bears the brunt of the load as the gear is offset on the shaft, and is taking the torque between the motor and the drivers. If the shaft rode in roller bearings, this setup would be much more durable.

With the tradition worm/ axle gear setup the load is distributed evenly across the axle, and the axle bushings tend to be larger than those pressed into the middle of the gearbox for this" new design".

I wonder what could be done to prevent this condition from ocurring? Sounds like I’ll be digging back into one of these to inspect the gearbox and see how I could possibly modify something. I didn’t know Lionel had re-engineered the gearbox. The tried and true single reduction worm drive they’ve been using has been around since the 700E.

I wonder if my GS-6 has this gearbox? It probably has the Canon motor.

@harmonyards posted:

The newest J3a chassis is a direct descendant of the Kline chassis tooling,....having both chassis here in front of me, they’re 100% identical sans motor/ gearbox orientation. They clearly modified the existing gear box from the Kline tooling,....there’s just too many similarities, just like the Berk chassis your design I had swapped out ,......

Pat

Lionel basically took the K-Line early Lima Berkshire chassis and turned the gearbox around. Then swapped in the multi-gear gearbox. That multi gear setup is a pure Lionel design. The K-Line stuff, even with the motor in the smokebox, still had the worm wheel on axle with the worm on the motor design (2 gear setup). I bet this multi-gear gearbox Lionel has been using is some kind of universal arrangement, i.e. set up so it can go in any chassis. Since Lionel already produced the J3a in the TMCC era they probably just put the multi-gear gearbox in the chassis for the Legacy version and called it good. I bet the TMCC J3a and Legacy J3a chassis are virtually identical except for the gearbox. Let me know if I'm wrong and Lionel completely redesigned the thing for some reason.

The question is how do you prevent the multi-gear setup from self destructing. Is it just a natural design flaw or is it eating itself due to lack of lubrication/wrong lubricants used?

@Lou1985 posted:

Lionel basically took the K-Line early Lima Berkshire chassis and turned the gearbox around. Then swapped in the multi-gear gearbox. That multi gear setup is a pure Lionel design. The K-Line stuff, even with the motor in the smokebox, still had the worm wheel on axle with the worm on the motor design (2 gear setup). I bet this multi-gear gearbox Lionel has been using is some kind of universal arrangement, i.e. set up so it can go in any chassis. Since Lionel already produced the J3a in the TMCC era they probably just put the multi-gear gearbox in the chassis for the Legacy version and called it good. I bet the TMCC J3a and Legacy J3a chassis are virtually identical except for the gearbox. Let me know if I'm wrong and Lionel completely redesigned the thing for some reason.

The question is how do you prevent the multi-gear setup from self destructing. Is it just a natural design flaw or is it eating itself due to lack of lubrication/wrong lubricants used?

Lionel’s earlier J3 chassis (28072, 38041, & 28084)  share nothing in common with the latest J3 ......those Hudson’s all have removable drivers, and a completely different chassis arrangement ( large axles, cam driven chuff, etc.) .....the Legacy ESE, and the Legacy J3 have the newer, ....call it “hybrid “ chassis, which just like the Legacy Berk is a highly modified Kline tooling,......what throws folks off, is the boiler casting is derived from the earlier J3, .....and as I’ve already found out, there is interchangeability between boiler parts, ie; smoke box door, etc.....

Pat

@Ryan Selvius posted:

I wonder what could be done to prevent this condition from ocurring? Sounds like I’ll be digging back into one of these to inspect the gearbox and see how I could possibly modify something. I didn’t know Lionel had re-engineered the gearbox. The tried and true single reduction worm drive they’ve been using has been around since the 700E.

I wonder if my GS-6 has this gearbox? It probably has the Canon motor.

They’re not all doomed to failure, ....in service reports from John & Rick both do show that a condition does indeed exist,....now, whether this failure is prominent only in certain models, ...I can’t answer,...maybe John ( GRJ) can share his experience as he services wayyyy more of these than I have......as Rick noted, he believes his failure was attributed to a failed intermediate shaft bushing.....is this a lubrication issue,??.....I don’t know,....Lou & I are the first ( I believe) to swap in Legacy chassis in the Kline Berks, and we’ve been discussing preventive maintenance possibilities so we don’t go down that path ourselves,....I believe Rick ditched his K4???....he can answer that,....I myself haven’t seen one fail, and I hope I don’t, but I would like to see if a potential fix does exist, if one comes across my plate,...hope that helps,.....we’re not spelling doom & gloom for the entire family of this gear box design,...

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

Lionel’s earlier J3 chassis (28072, 38041, & 28084)  share nothing in common with the latest J3 ......those Hudson’s all have removable drivers, and a completely different chassis arrangement ( large axles, cam driven chuff, etc.) .....the Legacy ESE, and the Legacy J3 have the newer, ....call it “hybrid “ chassis, which just like the Legacy Berk is a highly modified Kline tooling,......what throws folks off, is the boiler casting is derived from the earlier J3, .....and as I’ve already found out, there is interchangeability between boiler parts, ie; smoke box door, etc.....

Pat

So they went through the trouble of redesigning the whole chassis for some reason? Tooling loss, or perhaps cost saving/electronics needs? Are the cylinders, rods, guides, trucks the same as on the earlier TMCC release?

@Lou1985 posted:

So they went through the trouble of redesigning the whole chassis for some reason? Tooling loss, or perhaps cost saving/electronics needs? Are the cylinders, rods, guides, trucks the same as on the earlier TMCC release?

Those are all good questions, ....I’m still learning as I’m earning,....😉....I would surmise cost was a driving factor. Less steps to produce an axle that’s a simple press fit, as opposed to an intricate axle with D shaft, threaded holes, etc. .....again I can only surmise what they were thinking is logical,....be nice if Dave Olsen would chime in and give us the clues to the scene,......I can say, as most of you know, I’ve got a pile of Kline Hudson chassis sitting here, and when compared to the Legacy ESE, and the latest J3 release, aside from the change of the gear box, I’ll be darned if they ain’t carbon copies,.....all the tell tale details are 100% identical,....

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

They’re not all doomed to failure, ....in service reports from John & Rick both do show that a condition does indeed exist,....now, whether this failure is prominent only in certain models, ...I can’t answer,...maybe John ( GRJ) can share his experience as he services wayyyy more of these than I have......as Rick noted, he believes his failure was attributed to a failed intermediate shaft bushing.....is this a lubrication issue,??.....I don’t know,....Lou & I are the first ( I believe) to swap in Legacy chassis in the Kline Berks, and we’ve been discussing preventive maintenance possibilities so we don’t go down that path ourselves,....I believe Rick ditched his K4???....he can answer that,....I myself haven’t seen one fail, and I hope I don’t, but I would like to see if a potential fix does exist, if one comes across my plate,...hope that helps,.....we’re not spelling doom & gloom for the entire family of this gear box design,...

Pat

That’s good to know. A lubrication issue wouldn’t suprise me. The scale F-3’s and F-7’s had some serious problems with idler gears wearing out in the trucks back in the 2005-2007 period. The Santa Fe F-7’s, UP F-3’s and PRR F-7’s all had issues. Seems to me the gears wouldn’t stay lubricated and the gears hub would just shred itself into brass dust. Could have also been a material incompatibility between the bass gear and the shaft it rotated on. Some of the other diesels with that god awful Lion Drive system had this problem too.

And while we’re at it Lou, both of us need to thank Pete ( Norton ) as he’s the one that pointed me in the direction of the Legacy Berk chassis possibly being a replacement for the crummy forward facing Kline chassis,.....had he not shed the light on that project, both of us would be trying to jam a MTH chassis under that Kline boiler!!!....no??..😆😆😆😆

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

,....I believe Rick ditched his K4???....he can answer that,...

Pat

Yes. Ditched indeed, while it was still functional. I didn't want to wait until it was a shelf queen or a chassis investment plus labor repair.

I had sent an email to M.R. (post Lionel CS) to get his opinion regarding the issue, and involving the chassis replacement.

I had contacted M.R. previously regarding other repairs and always gotten a reply.

In this instance. I never received a reply. He could have been busy, but it didn't leave me feeling warm and fuzzy.

@Ryan Selvius posted:

That’s good to know. A lubrication issue wouldn’t suprise me. The scale F-3’s and F-7’s had some serious problems with idler gears wearing out in the trucks back in the 2005-2007 period. The Santa Fe F-7’s, UP F-3’s and PRR F-7’s all had issues. Seems to me the gears wouldn’t stay lubricated and the gears hub would just shred itself into brass dust. Could have also been a material incompatibility between the bass gear and the shaft it rotated on. Some of the other diesels with that god awful Lion Drive system had this problem too.

Correct, and Lou & I have been discussing PM possibilities to counteract the issue with the compound gear box, ....actually, while we’re BSing about it, I think our last conversation about this, the ball got knocked into my court, as he’s already put his Berk into revenue,......and mine is still in limbo ( awaiting electronics) ......one of the possibilities was to take some synthetic HP grease, and mix that with some synthetic automotive heavy gear oil lube ( 75-140 ) and make like a slurry ,.....and see if that would transmit itself to that offending intermediate shaft bushing,....but we need to make sure we don’t get the dreaded ooze affect, ....that’ll be sloppin’ mess if that happens,...😉

Pat

@harmonyards posted:

And while we’re at it Lou, both of us need to thank Pete ( Norton ) as he’s the one that pointed me in the direction of the Legacy Berk chassis possibly being a replacement for the crummy forward facing Kline chassis,.....had he not shed the light on that project, both of us would be trying to jam a MTH chassis under that Kline boiler!!!....no??..😆😆😆😆

Pat

Yup. Without Norton we'd be trying to stick a Consolidation chassis under that thing. Would not have gone as smoothly.

I'm guessing Lionel used a redesigned K-Line Hudson chassis under the J3a as a cost saving measure. Probably cheaper to produce.

Yes I believe that we discussed mixing some moly lube and gear oil for the Lionel multi-gear setup. You've got that Legacy J3a now so filler 'er up and see if the leaks start .

Reading through this thread, all very interesting to me but most of which I don't understand, makes me thing that the $2,000 to $2,500 top of the line locomotives (like VisionLine that do such amazing things) are ideal models for the select few, like those who have chimed in with their tech expertise, to own.

They are also ideal models to own for those who are very well-heeled financially, who can well afford to pay for expensive possible future repairs.

@Lou1985 posted:

Yup. Without Norton we'd be trying to stick a Consolidation chassis under that thing. Would not have gone as smoothly.

I'm guessing Lionel used a redesigned K-Line Hudson chassis under the J3a as a cost saving measure. Probably cheaper to produce.

Yes I believe that we discussed mixing some moly lube and gear oil for the Lionel multi-gear setup. You've got that Legacy J3a now so filler 'er up and see if the leaks start .

That’s where we left off ...trying moly grease,.....old age sucks,....don’t go there,....I haven’t opened the latest J3’s gear box up, and I can’t remember what the ESE had, but taking a quick peak, I’m not seeing an  intermediate shaft, ....perhaps this redesigned J3 chassis doesn’t use the compound gear box??....I’ll be finding out for sure once the different RCMC gets here and I crack her open and subsequently happily void my warranty,....again, my memory is waining, but maybe if Alex M is reading this, he may also chime in as I believe he opened up a legacy J3 already,....I’ll pump some goo into that legacy Berk and run it on the rollers with a DC power supply and see if that gets to leakin’.......

Pat

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

Reading through this thread, all very interesting to me but most of which I don't understand, makes me thing that the $2,000 to $2,500 top of the line locomotives (like VisionLine that do such amazing things) are ideal models for the select few, like those who have chimed in with their tech expertise, to own.

They are also ideal models to own for those who are very well-heeled financially, who can well afford to pay for expensive possible future repairs.

Not necessarily Arnold,....I sure can’t afford to send these things off to be repaired. The idea ( and I personally like the challenge) is to prevent an expensive repair....and to me, if that means voiding the warranty, ....so be it,...some of us are hot rodders at heart, and we just can’t leave things alone,....😉....if we see a potential issue, we’re gonna do our best to come up with an engineered plan to remedy what the factory couldn’t, ....make it better, last longer, and spit out wooden nickels while we’re doing it!...fun reading though!..no??

Pat

These models are borderline spectacular - but the more smoke hoses, pumps, speakers, and circuit boards get stuffed in, the more compromized the structure becomes.

I would jump all over the first bargain GS-1 with dead electronics, but it looks a bit like the structure of the model is badly compromized for the magic features.

@harmonyards posted:

They’re not all doomed to failure, ....in service reports from John & Rick both do show that a condition does indeed exist,....now, whether this failure is prominent only in certain models, ...I can’t answer,...maybe John ( GRJ) can share his experience as he services wayyyy more of these than I have......as Rick noted, he believes his failure was attributed to a failed intermediate shaft bushing.....is this a lubrication issue,??.....I don’t know,....Lou & I are the first ( I believe) to swap in Legacy chassis in the Kline Berks, and we’ve been discussing preventive maintenance possibilities so we don’t go down that path ourselves,....I believe Rick ditched his K4???....he can answer that,....I myself haven’t seen one fail, and I hope I don’t, but I would like to see if a potential fix does exist, if one comes across my plate,...hope that helps,.....we’re not spelling doom & gloom for the entire family of this gear box design,...

Pat

It’s definitely worth looking into if almost all the steam engines made by Lionel are using this gear box design. I’ve had a good experience with the Lionel steamers post 2010 so far - my FEF-3 and Vision Hudson in particular have proved to be very solid machines - and I have a new B6 on the way and a new light Mikado on order to arrive this Summer, so we’ll see how well those locomotives hold up...

I definitely love the new features Lionel is implementing and it’s come to the point that I’m expecting smoke to shoot out of the whistle on all steamers now, but this gearbox is kind of the backbone of a good operating model.

I’m just glad there are guys on here bringing this up because I wouldn’t even know about this design flaw if it wasn’t for this forum.

I second those remarks about bringing these issues to light. I bought most of my big engines between 2005 and 2012 when I was still in college and didn’t have any real expenses. I mostly bought second hand TMCC engines since thats what I could afford. I became very familiar with this platform of a single Pittman motor and single reduction gearbox.
It wasn’t until this last year that I’ve gotten to a position financially where I can afford to buy expensive trains again. Until I started stalking this forum, I had no idea Lionel switched motor suppliers and redesigned the gearbox. This place has a wealth of knowledge and great people who are willing to share it.

@RickO posted:

In my case the" loaded" side of the stub shaft began wearing into the bushing pressed into the chassis. It was actually producing shavings.

Between the shavings and the oblonging of the bushing I dumped it. I didn't wait for the gears to begin chattering. I believe gunrunnerjohn has mentioned hes seen a few of these. The only way to repair it appears to be to replacing the entire chassis.

I've fixed enough of the Lionel K4's that I keep an extra drive block in stock!  I think I'm up to six replacements now, and it's only a matter of time before another one come in.

I am impressed as heck with all of you. Your knowledge and mechanical ability put me to shame and I've been  model railroading in O gauge, HO and N for  over 60 years ( Okay, so I'm counting my first Lionel set at age 3.) But to me the joy of Lionel/MTH  is, or IMHO should be plug and play durability of the trains, while I focus on scenery, structures and the like.. But the more complex the engines get, the less durability we get. I'm also struck by how many features our newer engines have that won't stand up to regular use. A simple example is cab doors or passenger cars that open. These aren't functional features, but they are vulnerable ones. Ditto for traction tires. I just opened a brand new MTH Empire State Express, only to have one of the traction tires break into tiny slivers of hard cracked rubber. Thankfully, Sidetrack Hobbies was able to back up what it sold me by providing replacement traction tires, since I had no idea where I was going to find tires for these huge drivers. Kudos and thanks  to them! Now, after a lot of break in time, the engine can finally pull 3 out of four  of the cars it came with.

Both the 213 Lift Bridge re-make and the Mi-Jack from the early 80's have plastic gears that have eaten themselves into oblivion, with no one able to supply replacement parts. Sorry about the rant, but I am reaching the conclusion that trains both contain and are made like most modern electronic devices, with a finite and short life span built in...unless someone has the talent and time to do what you folks are capable of doing. Now what am I going to do with my forty or so Lionel and MTH engines dating from the seventies through today? Run them, enjoy them and then cry over them when they die. SIGH...

@RubinG posted:

Both the 213 Lift Bridge re-make and the Mi-Jack from the early 80's have plastic gears that have eaten themselves into oblivion, with no one able to supply replacement parts.

You apparently haven't been keeping up, brass gears for the Mi-Jack are available from Henning's Trains.

2741-105/325 Mi-Jack Gear & Shaft Assy

@harmonyards posted:

That’s where we left off ...trying moly grease,.....old age sucks,....don’t go there,....I haven’t opened the latest J3’s gear box up, and I can’t remember what the ESE had, but taking a quick peak, I’m not seeing an  intermediate shaft, ....perhaps this redesigned J3 chassis doesn’t use the compound gear box??....I’ll be finding out for sure once the different RCMC gets here and I crack her open and subsequently happily void my warranty,....again, my memory is waining, but maybe if Alex M is reading this, he may also chime in as I believe he opened up a legacy J3 already,....I’ll pump some goo into that legacy Berk and run it on the rollers with a DC power supply and see if that gets to leakin’.......

Pat

I'm mostly concerned that intermediate shaft will wear itself out under heavy load no matter what lubrication is used. I'm hoping not, and it's just a lubrication issue, but I'm not exactly easy on locomotives. I expect them to perform when called upon, like lugging a 10 car mail/express train consisting of 5 express boxcars/refrigerators and 5 heavyweight baggage/RPO cars at 70mph for hours on end. I know the MTH gearbox with a Pittman will do that for hours without complaint and ask for more.