Are the Pulmor motors the same size in PW classics as they are in the actual Post War locomotives. I have a set and the motors look puny compared to actual PW motors I have seen. Am I imagining this or is it true?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Not sure about overall size but I know the new ones have metric dimensions vs english on the Post War motors.
Pete
No, the motors got smaller begining in the MPC era.
artyoung posted:No, the motors got smaller begining in the MPC era.
That's not correct. Size of the different Pullmor motors never changed between postwar and MPC.
TRW
TRW is correct, the size of the motors did not change. whats probably making you think its puny is how MPC era and later Pullmors have a cheapened brush plate, as opposed to the hearty Bakelite you are used to on an older postwar unit......
What does the original poster mean by "PW Classics"?
I did not take it to mean MPC.
Wasn't there a "Postwar Celebration" series and a "Collectable Classic" series?
Maybe a few others?
Since most people refer to them by a few initials, they have all started to run together for me.
And yes, I have a few pieces of each.
PaperTRW posted:artyoung posted:No, the motors got smaller begining in the MPC era.
That's not correct. Size of the different Pullmor motors never changed between postwar and MPC.
TRW
Strictly speaking TRW is correct about diesels. When it comes to the MPC four-wheel steam chassis (2-4-0's, 2-4-2's, 4-4-2's), the diameter of the armature is larger, and the stack of laminations is thicker than its nearest postwar relative, the 249-100. The wheels, gearing, etc., are the same.
I would love to know more about why MPC felt compelled to redo this motor in its earliest years, and for that matter, why they didn't make more extensive changes!
I think the OP is talking about the difference between original US produced postwar and the recent imported Conventional Classics/Postwar Celebration Series (PWC) items.
I think the OP is talking about the difference between original US produced postwar and the recent imported Conventional Classics/Postwar Celebration Series (PWC) items.
I don't think the construction is the same on Postwar Celebration Series and Conventional Classics items.
I was indeed talking about the PW celebration diesels. The PW classics were by Williams and they have can motors. It has to be the bakelite brush plate that makes them look smaller. I also noticed that the gears in the trucks are nylon, is there any way to install PW trucks?
Ted Sowirka posted:
Strictly speaking TRW is correct about diesels. When it comes to the MPC four-wheel steam chassis (2-4-0's, 2-4-2's, 4-4-2's), the diameter of the armature is larger, and the stack of laminations is thicker than its nearest postwar relative, the 249-100. The wheels, gearing, etc., are the same.I would love to know more about why MPC felt compelled to redo this motor in its earliest years, and for that matter, why they didn't make more extensive changes!
I consider myself something of an MPC guru, but the answers to questions like yours are elusive.
There are quite a few things in the early 1970's that were basically a step sideways, causing one to consider "I wonder what they were thinking..."
TRW
TRW someday I would like to be part of a "clinic" or at least a discussion group on improving this motor, perhaps a group of us could get together the week of the York meet. I would love to develop a 5-pole armature to retrofit into it; maybe a redesigned brush plate too.
There was a good article in the TCA Quarterly, maybe in January, about a fellow who put an 11-pole armature into his standard gauge loco to create a real "super motor." There's a precedent too: During the 1990s, Marklin made a 5-pole armature available as a retrofit to its open-frame spur gear motor, to permit compatibilty with their command and speed control systems (a new idea at the time.) It's not rocket science, and probably easier than changing the gear ratio. I just don't have the skills or network of business contacts to follow through on it right now.
