I’ve got an American Flyer 342 that was given to me last year. It needed re-wiring, brushes and an overall cleaning and lube. I re-wired around the tender as the step motor was not functional so the engine would at least run in the forward mode. I re-assembled and tested on the bench with everything working flawlessly. Problem is even at full throttle (15V AC) it would go around the track about medium speed. This year after dusting it off from the box and setting in on the track, I find it’s got even less torque or pull.
Question, do you think the motor/armature is at fault? Like I say it runs great on the test bench, but when you place it on the track even under its own weight without cars, it just has no ummphhh! I have to practically push it around the track for it to go…
Hi Hector: For me, a bench test only serves one purpose; it tells me that the reverse unit cycles properly, the motor spins freely under voltage in forward & reverse, the smoke box produces smoke and the head lamp lights up. What it doesn’t tell me is how that loco will perform on the track under load. For that test, I place my loco on the track with from 3 - 5 cars. I have deduced that the bench test shows the loco off to the max because; 1) as we both pointed out, it is not under load and 2) there is no appreciable wattage drop from the transformer directly to the tender wheels via short leads whereas there is an appreciable drop through the bus wires, feeder wires and the rails themselves - not to mention any extraneous things are concurrently operating from the fixed voltage post.
Assuming that you have properly lubed the loco and checked all points of friction - including a gummed-up gear box, then that leaves only one thing that I can think of; the open-frame motor itself. I usually keep a spare AC open-frame motor or three that I know works well installed in the correct loco. Those armature and field coils were wound some 60+ years ago with enameled wire that was rather state-of-the-art back then. Perhaps over the years the resistance value in either or both pieces has increased a lot. Rewinding a field is no big deal for me. I’ve done it successfully several times. I would not attempt to re-wire an armature. Frankly, unless it is some freakishly unique piece, I would just toss it and replace it if I determined that it was not up to spec. Resistance values for both pieces are known and published if you want to test them with a meter. I don’t have those values. Perhaps someone else on this list with some books can look it up for you. There was also a factory test set of specs for each loco under load. I think the load was 3 cars on an oval of Flyer track. Again, I don’t have thos
Hi again: Some other thoughts. I would pull the open-frame motor out and inspect the chassis where the armature shaft goes through it. I wonder if there could be some - I don’t know - cat hair or something in there fouling things up. I would look at the worm drive for the same thing. I have experienced brushes that won’t seat properly on the armature face and I have tracked that down to a dirty brush tube. One quick swipe with a pipe cleaner or Q-tip and problem solved. It could be as simple as that. Maybe an armature bushing has come part way out? Maybe some gunk in the brush plate where the armature shaft is? Could it also be a field out of alignment that causes the armature to be whacked out of line so slightly that it’s extremely hard to see and only manifests itself under power? Not common in steamers, but possible, I guess. Anyone else?
I cannot add anything to what you have already said, but I have similar speed and pulling problems with my old AF steam engine. I agree with you that age and time probably have a lot to do with this kind of performance issue with the motor.
Would it be sacriligious to replace the 60+year old motor with a modern can motor?
Hi Rich: “sacriligious”? No! Would I do it myself right now? No! Seriously, replacing vintage open-frame motors with modern can motors is a mixed bag, as we used to say. They run with less draw on old transformers. That said, the smoke box can suffer from a lack of too much voltage. Enter 1/2-speed cans. That would seem to mitigate the smoke box problem. Downside? The 1/2-speed cans are not offered with a flywheel to my knowledge. What does a flywheel do? It allows the loco to coast through bad places on the track. What happens when you put a can motor in a loco and the can motor doesn’t have a flywheel? It can come to a crashing stop when you least want it to; just like the Franklin can suddenly go into reverse (for a different reason). Okay, let’s add another variation to this party. Electronic reverse units. Some have a capacitor that can again cause the loco to coast through bad spots on the track. Some don’t. Bottom line. Do you want to run vintage-style Flyer loci as they came from the factory or do you want to do something else with them? If you want to do something else with them, then why not just pony up and buy new stuff that looks great and runs great as well. MY BOTTOM LINE? Keep 'em as original as possible or buy all new. Have a set-up that will allow you to run vintage or new if you must have both. Usually, a toggle switch or two is all you need.
Alternate bottom line. Rehab old loci to run on DCC. That is an under-the-hood modification. The Flyer “look” will be maintained AND they will run like a race horse on steroids. Going with DCC is the single best reason I can think of right now to replace open-frame motors with can motors of any kind. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother.
That’s my thoughts. Your’s may differ. They always do.
Hi Hector: Me yet again. Does the chassis even have a bushing for the armature shaft? If not, then that could explain the armature getting thrust out-of-line when power is applied and the loss of “umph”. I don’t know where you got that piece from. I’ve had them where the bushings have been removed. Why? Because a can motor that doesn’t need one used to be housed there and now there is an open-frame motor again that does need one. I think the thing I’m driving at the most in my post is that there is a reason and that reason can always be determined either by direct observation or by testing with a meter. Be the detective of the defective.
"(A) Motor to be tested with Remote Control Unit at 12 Volts and not to draw more than 1.55 amps.
“(B) Locomotive to run at a minimum of 9 RPM or 9 times forward around 140” oval of track per minute.
“(C) Locomotive to run at a minimum of 8.5 RPM or 8 1/2 times reverse around 140” oval of track per minute.
"Load: Not to draw more than 2.1 amps while pulling 4 box cars.
“Motor: Universal A.C. or D.C.”
Neither the resistance of copper wire nor of any properly made solder joints will increase with age. However, other types of connnections that might exist (like the faston connection to the fuse block of my car’s horn circuit yesterday) may indeed increase in resistance over time (48 years).
Did you install new springs when you replaced the brushes? Weak springs will cause weak performance. Also be sure that the metal wheels on the tender are clean and bright and that the contacts are applying pressure to the axles because these two issues aren’t always apparent on the bench.
Hi Rich: “sacriligious”? No! Would I do it myself right now? No! Seriously, replacing vintage open-frame motors with modern can motors is a mixed bag, as we used to say. They run with less draw on old transformers. That said, the smoke box can suffer from a lack of too much voltage. Enter 1/2-speed cans. That would seem to mitigate the smoke box problem. Downside? The 1/2-speed cans are not offered with a flywheel to my knowledge. What does a flywheel do? It allows the loco to coast through bad places on the track. What happens when you put a can motor in a loco and the can motor doesn’t have a flywheel? It can come to a crashing stop when you least want it to; just like the Franklin can suddenly go into reverse (for a different reason). Okay, let’s add another variation to this party. Electronic reverse units. Some have a capacitor that can again cause the loco to coast through bad spots on the track. Some don’t. Bottom line. Do you want to run vintage-style Flyer loci as they came from the factory or do you want to do something else with them? If you want to do something else with them, then why not just pony up and buy new stuff that looks great and runs great as well. MY BOTTOM LINE? Keep 'em as original as possible or buy all new. Have a set-up that will allow you to run vintage or new if you must have both. Usually, a toggle switch or two is all you need.
Alternate bottom line. Rehab old loci to run on DCC. That is an under-the-hood modification. The Flyer “look” will be maintained AND they will run like a race horse on steroids. Going with DCC is the single best reason I can think of right now to replace open-frame motors with can motors of any kind. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother.
That’s my thoughts. Your’s may differ. They always do.
Rich: Why not? The last thing in the world I would try to tell you is how YOU should run YOUR trains. When I rant, I am telling you how I run MY trains. I don’t really care what YOU do. I am always willing to try to help you do what YOU want to do.
Thank you for the helpful replies. I am going to tear it apart on the bench tomorrow and do another thorough cleaning of the armature and brush tubes. I can’t remember whether I replaced the springs or not, but I believe I did. I’ll add new brushes as well. I didn’t replace them last year as the old ones still had plenty of material left.
And I quote, “Neither the resistance of copper wire nor of any properly made solder joints will increase with age.” End quote. Could it then be that one pole of an armature is shorted out? If so, perhaps the armature still turns during a bench test because there is low friction & low load, but the motor’s power would be greatly reduced under load? Is this a valid thought?
In some ways I am like Tim, I like to keep my Flyer as it was when made. However I have change out a poor performing motor with a 1/2 speed can motor. The results were worth it, however this particular steamer still has the Gilbert mechanical reverse unit with at Bridge recifier across it. Port Line hobbies has the parts for the conversion. I say or for it!
Bob: I suspect I am right and that a given motor (with a low friction load) COULD turn with one pole shorted out, but not so much under full load.
You made a statement that I want to revisit and examine further. And I quote: “Neither the resistance of copper wire nor of any properly made solder joints will increase with age. However, other types of connnections that might exist (like the faston connection to the fuse block of my car’s horn circuit yesterday) may indeed increase in resistance over time (48 years).” End quote
While that may be a true statement, I feel that it derails (pun intended - lol) the problem-solving of why that motor will spin well during a bench test but poorly under load.
This is what I wish to promote:
The armature resistance is known and published and is usually measured from one commutator plate to another by the average repair guy. The resistance measurement taken gives a clue to the repairman that maybe a coil’s enamel insulation has been damaged by heat, age, etc. A common complaint and diagnosis after taking the above measurement is a “weak armature”. Given your true statement that the resistance of copper wire does not increase over age, aren’t I putting the problem into a better context? (edit)That context being that the resistance of the coil or coils in an armature may indeed change over age due to what I noted above. And when that happens, a partial or total coil failure can happen.(/edit)
Tim, I was responding to your statement, “Those armature and field coils were wound some 60+ years ago with enameled wire that was rather state-of-the-art back then. Perhaps over the years the resistance value in either or both pieces has increased a lot.” The armature resistance, as I meant to suggest, can increase for other reasons, such as a broken wire or a bad solder joint, but not because the copper wire can deteriorate or because of insulation failure. Bad insulation will instead decrease the resistance. It will also create shorted turns, which are a disaster for AC operation. This is also true for the field winding. I often suggest trying to run a suspect motor on DC just to try to detect shorted turns, which may have little or no effect on DC operation.
As for testing the armature, simply comparing the three possible resistance measurements (for a three-pole motor) will almost certainly expose any failure, whether open circuits or short circuits.
I don’t have my service manual here; but I recall that many Flyer steam locomotives supply the headlight by placing it in parallel with the field or armature, to avoid having a fifth wire in the tether. If the 342 is one of these, it might be a good experiment to disconnect the headlight.
Thanks. Good reply. At this point, I think we pretty much have all bases covered on what the problem could be with that particular loco. And all these areas are good ones to look at in any similar loco with the kind of problem Hector originally described.
I hope Hector can do a good analysis and will respond back what he found and what he did to correct it. I think we could all benefit from feedback like that.
. I took the engine apart and cleaned everything once again. Replaced the brushes and springs. Tested for binding. Everything moving smoothly. I placed it on the track and had to push it to go. After that it took off, but still hesitated. After about 12 laps it stopped again on the track. I had to push it once again for it to move. It’s still too slow IMHO. Something is still not right. I completely bypassed the tender coil and still no change.
Again, I can lift the engine from the track with the tender still resting on the track and the thing runs like a bat outta hell free wheeling. I’m not sure if I’m not getting good continuity on this 50 year old track or what. I’m thinking of buying another American flyer steamer on Ebay for 60 bucks just to make sure it’s not the track. I should have another one anyway…
Hector: When it hesitates, is it on a straight or on a curve? I’m just wondering if you have a loose drive wheel rim that will make brief, intermittent contact with the chassis. That happened to me once with similar symptoms of what you describe and yet it would “bench-test” like a run-a-way. When I saw where the loose wheel was, I solved it by thoroughly degreasing the drive wheel and rim where they meet and cementing them back together. Then I cut out a small circle of paper from a brown paper bag; cut a hole in the middle for the axle and cut a slot in the paper to the hole in the middle. I was able to work that onto the axle to act as an insulator. Okay, that was a “meatball” fix, but two years and running…
It does sound like an electrical problem and they can be a bugger to - well, de-bug. You can go around the track with a meter set for AC and see how constant the track voltage is.
Another thing to check are all your solder joints. As one of the last resorts I do, I re-solder all joints to make sure they are good.
You bypassed the tender reverse unit, so I’m thinking we can eliminate that. Sometimes one of those fingers make just the lightest contact to the drum and that can cause similar track-running problems.
You may as well check the gauge of your drive wheels. Nothing to lose doing that. I had a loco once with one set of drive wheels that were out-of-gauge too narrow and they managed to intermittently contact the chassis. Darndest thing!
I can understand an electrical problem causing it to stop intermittently, but this performance issue really sounds like more of a mechanical problem to me. The fact that it runs freely when there is no pressure on the drivers, but hesitates when setting on the track, leads me to believe that there is something wrong with the suspension.
Hector, have you tried just running the chassis without the shell on it? That way you can get a good look at the internal mechanism, the worm and the dive gear, in action. See if there is any play in those parts that might be causing the drive train to bind under load. A missing thrust bearing could be causing the armature to move in and out while under load
I’m, also wondering if you might have a wheel with a bent axle. If you push the chassis by hand, do any of the drivers seem to wobble? Are the drivers quartered properly? If you run it with and without side rods do you see a difference? If the thing runs fine with no shell on it, then you have to look at what other parts of the body might be binding against the mechnaism.