I take it back regarding the color - it looks army green. 
@Norm Charbonneau posted:Geez I was hoping not to see that drive setup again.
Careful putting it back together. I can see the shim washers stuck to bottom of the cover.
Deja vu?
Pat
Here are a couple of videos from my club’s (Delaware Seaside RR Club) display at the Georgetown DL Public Library:
The engine ran perfectly, smoked and sounded great when I ordered it I was worried that a all DLGE engine would not stand out but I never should have worried that BIG tender says it all it is HUGE.
JohnB
All that engine & tender, and a mighty RS385, ……what will they think of next!?……breathtaking to say the least!….
Pat
Man I want one of these now. They're pretty cool!
For those with the short tender, how does it run on O54? I think it looks great. I can't really see the color too well, so it must be darker than the L1.
Looks like the long version got the Q2 (wrong) tender.
A disappointment for some PRR modelers is that the long-distance Lionel tender is not correct for an I1. Lionel apparently reused their Q2's long distance tender tooling for the I1 long distance offering. The welded 8 wheel truck I1s long distance tenders were PRR class 210F82a. Those on Q2's were PRR class 180F84. The Q2 tenders were 2' 5 3/4" longer than the I1 tenders. The most noticeable visual difference is a proportionally longer coal space on the 180F84 tender. A more subtle spotting feature for a Q2 tender is the stoker motor access door on the forward left side of the tender. Q2 stoker motors were mounted in the tender, while I1s stoker motors were mounted under the left side of the cab.
@rplst8 posted:Looks like the long version got the Q2 (wrong) tender.
I believe Mth did the same. Lionel never made the Q2, and MTH used their Q2 tender as a "close enough" behind the decapods.
I "think" Ryan may have mentioned the tender discrepancy when they went through the catalog.
For what any of that's worth I suppose.
Lionel never made a Q2, maybe they used the same mold from MTH’s Q2 tender? Maybe somebody that has the MTH long tender model can elaborate more.
@Keystoned Ed posted:I1s long distance tenders were PRR class 210F82.
At least some of the I1s got repurposed riveted construction, 12 wheel tenders, did they not? I thought I read they were hand-me-downs from K4s taken out of long distance service.
@rplst8 posted:That looks similar to the LC+2.0 boards I’ve seen.
Mabuchi or Canon?
The motor has a metal sleeve around it so it's kinda hard to tell. I wasn't to keen on disassembling it any further then I needed to to check the gearbox and pack it full of grease. Seems it might need a shim I was able to lock it up in reverse with some decent resistance from my hand.
@RickO posted:I believe Mth did the same. Lionel never made the Q2, and MTH used their Q2 tender as a "close enough" behind the decapods.
I "think" Ryan may have mentioned the tender discrepancy when they went through the catalog.
For what any of that's worth I suppose.
The catalog pictures were worse, and led me to believe they got the wrong tool.
The water hatches on the I1 long haul tenders run longitudinal while the hatches on the Q2 run transverse.
@Ohwhen96 posted:I wasn't to keen on disassembling it any further then I needed to to check the gearbox and pack it full of grease.
No "grease screw" hole on the bottom of the chassis?
@Ohwhen96 posted:Seems it might need a shim I was able to lock it up in reverse with some decent resistance from my hand.
All that they have to do is recess a ball bearing in the chassis to support the end of the worm shaft. Even an oilite bushing will do.
Lionel is asking a lot of the motor shaft bushing. Over time it will gouge out. Eventhough my L1 runs fine, I know that this will happen in the future. The worm shaft really ought to be supported at both ends.
I hope the vast majority of I1 purchasers have no problems and enjoy their locomotives.
@WBC posted:All that they have to do is recess a ball bearing in the chassis to support the end of the worm shaft. Even an oilite bushing will do.
Lionel is asking a lot of the motor shaft bushing. Over time it will gouge out. Eventhough my L1 runs fine, I know that this will happen in the future. The worm shaft really ought to be supported at both ends.
I hope the vast majority of I1 purchasers have no problems and enjoy their locomotives.
That would be one mighty big ball bearing!….the end of the worm shaft is a like a country mile away from the nearest place to recess such a ball bearing, …..so that ain’t happening, …..what they need to do is abandon this crappy gear box design all together, and put the motor back where it belongs, ….in the firebox!!….divorced from the gearbox, the way the good lord intended it, …..’nuff said….
Pat
This driveline is officially cursed, good grief man.
Attachments
Images (1)
@harmonyards posted:That would be one mighty big ball bearing!….the end of the worm shaft is a like a country mile away from the nearest place to recess such a ball bearing, …..so that ain’t happening, …..what they need to do is abandon this crappy gear box design all together, and put the motor back where it belongs, ….in the firebox!!….divorced from the gearbox, the way the good lord intended it, …..’nuff said….
Pat
Unfortunately that would require Lionel to redesign their latest motor control board or put it in the tender, neither of which they appear to be willing to do. Instead we get a tiny motor barely up to the job and a so, so gearbox.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:This driveline is officially cursed, good grief man.
Buy a MTH I1 and swap the electronics, since you don't do DCS. You'll get a proper gearbox and a Pittman motor.
@Ohwhen96 posted:Well if you're wondering what on the inside here you go. Is that an updated Legacy RCMC board?
Is this the Russian Decapod version or the bigger ones?
The reason I'm asking is I thought that the Russian Decapods were shorter in design than the Hippos????
Lou, I would look for the MTH ones every now and then but never found one at a price I liked.
I really did not expect to see this direct drive in the Lionel Decs especially since these are quite a bit more money than the L1s. I never had any plans to part with my 3rd Rails and now I am even more fond of them.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:I really did not expect to see this direct drive in the Lionel Decs especially since these are quite a bit more money than the L1s. I never had any plans to part with my 3rd Rails and now I am even more fond of them.
I now question why there is a price difference at all! I mean, I can't imagine the extra Zamac costs $500 or whatever the difference is.
I'm also now REALLY curious how the M1 will turn out.
@Norm Charbonneau posted:I really did not expect to see this direct drive in the Lionel Decs especially since these are quite a bit more money than the L1s.
Watch some of the Strausburg 90 videos Norm. I'm sure it's in those too, at $1800.
It might even be the same chassis, but the " hitch in the giddyup" in reverse is just like the L1.
@rplst8 posted:
I'm also now REALLY curious how the M1 will turn out.
You'd have to look into the 1st Legacy M1. They do have the extra gear set, but I don't know if it's the traditional drive. Maybe a search on lionels parts site would give some clues.
At this point. It appears engines with space for a sizeable can motor get a driveshaft setup with an independent worm.
This should include the M1s and other mountains, Pacific's, Hudsons, Northerns, and all of the articulateds. There are variations in the gearboxes themselves at that point. I.e. the heavy Pacific's get the extra gears. But the hudsons do not.
The direct drives are the engines with smaller boilers, decapods, Mike's, k4s, consolidations etc.
Lionels drive trains are less standard than their electronics at this point.
This all started with the Legacy k4 back in 2011. We are just taking notice because of the issues that keep arising from this design. There are thousands of these gearboxes out there.
I am not feeling as fearless right now to open my no. 90 to see what we’re dealing with, but hopefully someone with more guts can.
I don’t think Lionel is using the forward facing gearbox on this one (I would believe if they did, that large gap under the boiler likely wouldn’t be there), but I can’t say that’s 100% true. Maybe they’re using a different variation of it.
I don’t run big long consists especially with a locomotive as small as the Decapod (and yes, it IS a small engine even compared to an average Pacific or Mikado), and mine runs great, but again I just want to check for any possible flaws that could lead to issues further down the road like the K4s and the Mikes.
@RickO posted:You'd have to look into the 1st Legacy M1. They do have the extra gear set, but I don't know if it's the traditional drive. Maybe a search on lionels parts site would give some clues.
It looks to me the parts list has a Pittman and a shaft.
At this point. It appears engines with space for a sizeable can motor get a driveshaft setup with an independent worm.
This should include the M1s and other mountains, Pacific's, Hudsons, Northerns, and all of the articulateds. There are variations in the gearboxes themselves at that point. I.e. the heavy Pacific's get the extra gears. But the hudsons do not.
The direct drives are the engines with smaller boilers, decapods, Mike's, k4s, consolidations etc.
Yeah, but how does that translate to the I1? It's boiler is as big as the M1 I believe. It doesn't strike confidence in me that they found it necessary, with this current electronics package, to use the small motor here too - or maybe not small, but with the inferior gearbox.
Lionels drive trains are less standard than their electronics at this point.
This all started with the Legacy k4 back in 2011. We are just taking notice because of the issues that keep arising from this design. There are thousands of these gearboxes out there.
Understood, but it seems they either don't work that great from the get go, or like the K4s and H10s, wear themselves out quickly.
@rplst8 posted:Understood, but it seems they either don't work that great from the get go, or like the K4s and H10s, wear themselves out quickly.
Right, the k4's and h10s have the side spacer issue, lack there of.
These new gearboxes have spacers but the worm and gear setup is off.
Maybe the extra slop in the early gearboxes with no spacer minimizes the setup issue were seeing on the new ones. Either way. The gearbox was never a thought on any of my 20 year old tmcc stuff.
Hopefully my decapod doesn't have the lockup issue. I'll do like I did with my L1, grease the "stuff" out of the gearbox and run it in.
Granted these things aren't right, but the gearboxes are bone dry from the factory. That certainly doesn't help with the lockup.
It's a shame, these look decent, sound good ( possibly a slightly different chuff? )and a decapod is a change of scenery from my mostly 4 axle locomotive fleet.
I have a nice handful of locomotives, this one will be my last. Folks who are worried about "newcomers: and the "end of the hobby" should look to Lionel as a possible cause.
I've never had an issue with NOS TMCC stuff long out of warranty. There are issues with every catalog batch these days. New threads are more about finding where the problems are, vs. any enjoyment in the product.
I feel bad for the hobbyist that doesn't know, or care to read this forum. We are fortunate to have armchair techs that can fix these factory flubs.
So the shells between the Russian Decapods and the Hippo's are indeed different(just looked back at the catalog). Does this mean though that the length of the engine itself as well as the width would be different as well? To me, the Russian Decapods look more like the H10 or the L1, maybe a tad bit longer, but the Hippo's are more like the M1. Maybe it is wishful thinking on my part that perhaps the gearbox is different between these two models given that the video of the Hippo from @JohnB had no issues as yet. Maybe there's hope?
Is the motor really an RS-385? I see RS-385 motors on-line selling in the $1 to $3 range.........
@SusieQ posted:Is the motor really an RS-385? I see RS-385 motors on-line selling in the $1 to $3 range.........
Sadly, your investigation is true, and yes, that’s a 385 powering that 10 drive wheel locomotive, some with a titanic of a tender!…
Pat
No question the color is a vast improvement over the L1, right down to the dark graphite on the smokebox.
The L1 is probably a shade or two away from that NP reefer in the photo.
Always wanted a Decapod, looked pretty hard at this when the catalog came out but refrained from BTO due to prior pain and suffering caused by Big Orange and BTO.
Glad I passed. At this price point, I would expect better. A lot better.
@rplst8 posted:The catalog pictures were worse, and led me to believe they got the wrong tool.
The water hatches on the I1 long haul tenders run longitudinal while the hatches on the Q2 run transverse.
A few more I1 prototype notes: PRR nomenclature for tender classes used the first numbers to represent the water capacity in hundreds of gallons, the letter for predominant class of service (F for freight, P for passenger), and the last 2 digits for deck height in inches. Over their operating lives PRR tenders were commonly swapped between locomotives, with deck height raised or lowered as needed.
There were 5 classes of "long distance" tenders used by Pennsy's I1's.
210F82 riveted body, 6 wheel trucks long coal space - similar to 210F75 tenders built with M1a 4-8-2's, (uncommon behind I1's)
210F82a welded body, 8 wheel trucks, long coal space - built as replacements for short tenders, (common in post-war era)
180F82 welded body, 6 wheel trucks, the de-streamlined tender from K4s 3768 (a.k.a the torpedo)
180F82a riveted body, 6 wheel trucks, ex N&W Y3 tenders (just a handful)
250F82 riveted body, 6 wheel trucks, short coal space, long tender deck, reassigned from K4s locomotives, (very limited numbers)
Comment: the number of water hatches and their orientation on tender decks varied within the same class. With trainphone antennae's there were 2 longitudinal water hatches - without the antennas typically there was a single transverse hatch. (Q2 180F84 tenders were an exception with 2 transverse hatches).
Question - why didn't Lionel use existing J1 210F84 tender tooling for the Legacy I1 tender? The major dimensions and profile closely match an I1 210F82a tender.
@Keystoned Ed posted:Q2 180F84 tenders were an exception with 2 transverse hatches).
This is what I was referring to from the catalog pictures. It also led me to believe that Lionel got the Q2 tooling.
Question - why didn't Lionel use existing J1 210F84 tender tooling for the Legacy I1 tender? The major dimensions and profile closely match an I1 210F82a tender.
And a good one at that! Heck the long tender from the M1a/b or K4s that they already have would also have made an OK match.
Another question though... Were the long coal bunkers on the 210F82 and 210F82a I1 tenders still shorter than those on the 180F84? I've never seen a photo of an I1 with a bunker longer than about the "Y" in Pennsylvania (fireman's side). I have seen pictures of them with six wheel truck tenders and a similarly "short" bunker (likely those K4s hand-me-downs).
@rplst8 posted:This is what I was referring to from the catalog pictures. It also led me to believe that Lionel got the Q2 tooling.
And a good one at that! Heck the long tender from the M1a/b or K4s that they already have would also have made an OK match.
Another question though... Were the long coal bunkers on the 210F82 and 210F82a I1 tenders still shorter than those on the 180F84? I've never seen a photo of an I1 with a bunker longer than about the "Y" in Pennsylvania (fireman's side). I have seen pictures of them with six wheel truck tenders and a similarly "short" bunker (likely those K4s hand-me-downs).
The coal bunkers on the Q2's 180F84 tender were quite larger (in length) than those on I1 210F82 tenders. I don't have scale drawings for the tenders but do have data on their overall length and capacities:
length Water (gallons) Coal (pounds)
I1 210F82a 52' 9 1/2" 20,500 59,800
J1 210F84 53' 11-1/4" 21,000 59,800
Q2 180F84 53' 11-1/4" 18,000 75,000
The data source is a PRR document titled "Descriptive List of Locomotives and Tenders, 1948" . published as a reprint in 1972 by Owen Davies. These 8 wheel welded tenders follow the same basic design, but the PRR operating officials wanted a significantly larger ratio of coal vs water (25% more) for the Q2. To achieve that designers moved the tender slope sheet several feet to the rear resulting in longer side coal boards. As you can see from the data (and hundreds of published photos), if one was going to produce an O scale model of an PRR I1 210F82a tender, while being constrained to using existing tooling, from a prototype fidelity perspective a better starting point would be to use Lionel's J1 210F84 tender tooling vs. that for MTH's Q2 180F84.
