Stiction startup with TMCC engine.

I think a video of what  you're talking about would be useful.

The engine type and product number would also be very helpful.  😉

OOPS - my bad, I didn’t see them at the very bottom. Sorry.

I just ran it on the track for about 1/2 hour at medium to high speed.   Then let is sit overnight.  Started up this morning and it works great.  Running at low/slow speed setting on my CAB2 and no problems.  Smooth startup.   Best guess it the motor had to run in for good contacts on commutator.   Used, but very low usage when I got it. 

Time for followup.  It went back to acting badly.  I put the problem on the shelf and got back to it today.  I found 2 fundamental problems.

1.  The wheels in the front truck wouldn't turn.  This truck was not bright and shiney as the rear one was.  It was "fuzzy" fealing.  Tried to loosen up the wheels and then a pop, crack n break.  Zinc pest.

Ran without the front truck, still a problem surging.  There is an amp gauge on the track now.  Amp gauge showed the amps surging up and down as the odyssey control tried to hold speed.  Amps would double and drop over 2-3 seconds.   Cab2 shows a number 1-32 when you change the speed setting.  It wouldn't move until 12-13.

2. Couldn't find anything binding in the gears or motor. Took the bottom drive gear assembly off.   A mangled traction tire fell out.  It was stuck in the small space under the assembly and dragging on a wheel.   Probably been there since I got it.

Reassembled, without the front truck.  Now it moves at setting 1 with odyssey control on.  Runs smoothly now, no amps surging.   

A new set of traction tires on order, with a new front truck.

I would certainly think a traction tire wedged in the works would be detrimental to operation!

I just bought a nyc 4-6-2 I believe same problem. takes a lot of juice to get it moving at first, then takeoff crashing into others. makes me thinks of the adams family crash scenes. but works fine after it gets going.

Word of the day - Stiction is the static friction that needs to be overcome to enable relative motion of stationary objects in contact. The term is a portmanteau of the words static and friction, and is perhaps also influenced by the verb to stick.. Any solid objects pressing against each other (but not sliding) will require some threshold of force parallel to the surface of contact in order to overcome static ...

@scottyhubcaps posted:

I just bought a nyc 4-6-2 I believe same problem. takes a lot of juice to get it moving at first, then takeoff crashing into others. makes me thinks of the adams family crash scenes. but works fine after it gets going.

The exact product number helps a bunch here.

oh sorry John its number 28014. it loads up on power at first then finally goes. runs fine after initial load. just takes a lot of juice to get going at first.

Your locomotive doesn't have cruise control, that's why it's slow to start.  You can upgrade it with the ERR Cruise Commander M module to replace the Lionel DCDR, that will make a world of difference in the operation!

oh ok thank you very much John. something I will look into doing. much appreciated.

Or, maybe you can set the stall speed on your controller.

thank you roy will check

@RoyBoy posted:

Or, maybe you can set the stall speed on your controller.

You can, but that doesn't solve the problem with speed control.

@scottyhubcaps perhaps post a video of what your loco is doing.

Gunrunnerjohn and I have different philosophies about this issue... a speed control system like the Cruise Commander shouldn't be applied like a band-aid fix.  If there's an underlying problem, that must be solved first.  Search the Forum for another thread titled "How Slow can a Weaver go?"  Someone attempted to install a Cruise Commander in that loco and it didn't run well at all.  Meanwhile, I have several locos that will run smoothly and consistently at 1-2 mph even around sharp curves, without the aid of speed control.  That's because they are geared properly for a small layout, and not 120 mph of top speed.

The first thing you need to do is take the shell off, gently turn the flywheel slowly with your fingers for at least 18 turns (one complete revolution of the drive wheels.)  Look at the drive rods, etc., and feel if there are any points where the running gear seems to "stick" instead of rotating freely.  Are the motor, gearbox, and side rods properly lubricated?  Are the motor mount screws tight?  Is the motor mount fastened securely to the chassis?

I can't tell from the Lionel support site whether your loco has "mechanical" puffing smoke or a fan-driven smoke unit.  Often, if the smoke linkage is out of adjustment, it can cause binding and hesitation on startup.

If there are no mechanical issues and adjusting the stall speed (as Roy suggested) doesn't help, THEN I would think about installing a Cruise Commander.  Moderate your expectations.  Like most locos, your 6-28014 NYC 4-6-2 is geared for high speed, with no way to upgrade the motor, gear ratio, etc.  So the performance improvement with a Cruise M may not amount to much.  If you don't mind an early 20th-Century style loco on your railroad, you'll probably find that the Williams by Bachmann Ten Wheeler (4-6-0) has much smoother starting and running performance, with no need of speed control.  My $.02.

thank you Teds and John and roy for your input I will take a video of it when I can, work as always interferes lol, have to pay for these things somehow.

@Ted S posted:

@scottyhubcaps perhaps post a video of what your loco is doing.

Gunrunnerjohn and I have different philosophies about this issue... a speed control system like the Cruise Commander shouldn't be applied like a band-aid fix.  If there's an underlying problem, that must be solved first.  Search the Forum for another thread titled "How Slow can a Weaver go?"  Someone attempted to install a Cruise Commander in that loco and it didn't run well at all.  Meanwhile, I have several locos that will run smoothly and consistently at 1-2 mph even around sharp curves, without the aid of speed control.  That's because they are geared properly for a small layout, and not 120 mph of top speed.

Ted, you beat this drum a lot.  However, I seriously doubt he's going to re-gear it so it'll run satisfactorily without cruise.  A vast majority of the audience here is not going to start ripping their locomotives apart to change the gear ratios.

What he describes is normal operation for TMCC without cruise.  Absent any additional information about a specific mechanical defect, it's quite likely that what he sees is normal operation of a non-cruise TMCC locomotive.  Nobody suggested that you shouldn't have proper mechanical operation with or without cruise control.

Yes John, because most of the Forum readers aren't even aware that there IS another way.

Before circa 2001 there were no locos with "cruise control."  Most of the other model RR scales don't extensively rely on that expensive and proprietary technology (and they're not exposed to its occasional headaches.)  In a perfect world it could be icing on the cake, but in most O gauge locos, speed control amounts to a band-aid fix to improve a mediocre mechanical design.  Too-small motor, too tall gearing, etc., etc.

Some recent Forum threads show that at least a few of us would like the opportunity to mechanically customize our mass-market trains.  For example: rubber tires, or no tires (MTH has offered this from the beginning in its HO scale locos.)  A different, better motor.  A different gearbox or gear ratio.  As long as O gauge hobbyists are ignorant of these ideas, manufacturers will continue to build a monolithic design to satisfly the least common denominator.

Even for folks who don't want to upgrade their trains, a properly designed split chassis with replaceable wheels and axles; a separate gearbox and "divorced" driveline (i.e., worm gear NOT pressed on the motor) are better for routine maintenance and repair, because individual components can be replaced, and could potentially be sourced from a third party in the future.  These designs are the norm in every other model RR scale except O gauge.  Our fellow Forumites will never demand better, if they don't know better.  So yes, I will occasionally beat this drum :-)

@gunrunnerjohn,

Thanks as always for your clarifying comments.

   and

@Ted S,

Thanks for letting us know what a poor design really is.  Your points are very well taken, and for the most part right on the money.

Time for a little sarcasm.  Now that we've purchased many, many of them this should make us quite happy.

On the other hand most of us, 'O' Scalers and 3RS'ers excepted, could care less.

Does that make us regular old 'O' Gaugers inferior hobbyists?  Yes, but aren't we always?

Mike

@Ted S posted:

Yes John, because most of the Forum readers aren't even aware that there IS another way.

The comments are really pointless, we have the products we have, the manufacturers of 3-rail locomotives aren't changing in my lifetime!  To be clear, personally I don't really care to change anyway.   Thanks, but I'll take the cruise control band-aid and be perfectly happy with how my trains run.  You can see if you can convince folks to give up their cruise on the alter of new geartrains.  My prediction is you'll get minimal response.  BTW, this helped the OP exactly zero.

I think it was a traction tire which started this thread.  I am sure all the repairmen out there will stroke out but I have not had one thrown traction tire in the gears or other works since I started gluing them on,  For all of the DIY train folk "glue them on" they last much longer and ultimately you save time.  For all the service techs you can "B"   itch  at us.  Some More.  A few years ago this topic had come up on the forum so I tried a little experiment.  I was putting new tires on an Alco PA so as a test I glued the tires on one axle of the front truck and one of the rear truck I let the glue dry for a day then put the loco on my O-72 test track and set the throttle to around 50smph and just let her run. In less than an hour the unglued tires were coming out of their groves and binding on the side frames. These were genuine Lionel tires and a perfect fit.  I have to concede that running a loco in a constant circle without some left and some right turns keeps the stresses on the tires all in one direction and is more likely to facilitate the removal of the tire which it did.  Yet, the glued tires held tight.  After the test I glued all the tires and  four years later their still on tight,  Like Ted S I am not a fan of traction tires however they are a fact of life and I continue to glue them on. Gleefully, for you certified repairmen   j                                             

The original poster (Mr. Hubbard) solved his own problem.  We haven't yet heard back from scottyhubcaps, who added a relevant post to this topic by sharing his experience with a similar problem.  My prediction is that spending the money on a Cruise M install isn't going to yield fully satisfactory operation.  It might turn out that no amount of advanced electronics will confer the type of performance he's hoping for.  So next time he'll buy something different, or simply wait for something better to be made.

My comments certainly aren't pointless.  If people really understand what it is they are buying (or not buying) it might create an incentive for manufacturers to do things differently, even if that just means publishing the gear ratio in the product literature.  It might also inspire some creative and mechanically talented individuals to engineer small batch conversions, like what Pat (Harmonyards) has been doing with the Lionel 700-series Hudsons.  In both cases we are all better off, we have more choices.  I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else to "give up their cruise."  My point is, there are multiple dimensions of solutions.  One can't always make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  And if the only tool people know about is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

@JohnActon posted:

I think it was a traction tire which started this thread.  I am sure all the repairmen out there will stroke out but I have not had one thrown traction tire in the gears or other works since I started gluing them on, >>>>MY EDIT<<<<

John, what glue did you use, please? Thanks

@Ted S posted:

We haven't yet heard back from scottyhubcaps, who added a relevant post to this topic by sharing his experience with a similar problem.  My prediction is that spending the money on a Cruise M install isn't going to yield fully satisfactory operation.

My prediction is you're dead wrong.  What was described is exactly what you experience with stock TMCC with a can motor and the DCDR motor driver.  I've done quite literally hundreds of Cruise Commander M installations in similar situations, and the customers have been very happy.  You really shouldn't discount things you obviously have no experience with.

@Ted S posted:

So next time he'll buy something different, or simply wait for something better to be made.

Maybe he should just give up on model trains, waiting for your solution will probably yield that result.

Read my lips: The major manufacturers aren't going to drop Cruise and start building mechanical marvels so that you'll be happy with their product line!

John, you seem very determined to get the last word.

As I already stated once, I'm NOT asking anyone to "drop cruise."  The fact is, speed control works better when you start with a good mechanical design.  I mentioned the thread "How slow can a Weaver go?"  A Cruise Commander couldn't save Bill Park's Weaver Berkshire; it needed a radical drivetrain-ectomy.  (Fortunately, because of the design of that loco, such a thing was possible!)  You may well be right about Scotty's TMCC Pacific, my point is that there are cases where slapping in a Cruise Commander isn't the answer.

I'm not questioning your experience, and you're a legend when it comes to helping others on this forum.  We just have different viewpoints.  You're a professional engineer; I'm a professional economist.   YES I acknowledge that Lionel and others will continue to use speed control because it's a cost-effective way to get adequate performance from pre-existing designs.  That doesn't change the fact that some mechanical aspects of those designs are sub-optimal, ultimately limiting performance, repairability, and customizability.  Firms will seek to minimize their cost at the expense of buyer utility.  Usually that tendency is limited by competition, but in our case there are few choices.  2-rail O scale importers like Max Grey, US Hobbies, etc., were making locos with a split chassis, 7-pole motor, separable gearbox, better gear ratios, etc., in the 1960s.  It's the accepted way of building a steam loco in other scales.  Why should 3-rail O gaugers have to silently accept the limitations of a cost-saving monolithic design?

In recent years Lionel has in fact redesigned the gear train of some models to perform better with Legacy speed control, perhaps due to feedback shared on this very Forum.  So I will continue advocating for changes, in hopes that future "clean-sheet" designs will incorporate further improvements.

@Ted S posted:

John, you seem very determined to get the last word.improvements.

Apparently not as determined as you are.