# Lionel Prewar 249E Motor



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Title should read "Lionel 249E Motor" My typo


Picked up a Lionel motor at a swap meet this past weekend. Didn't need it, didn't know what locomotive(s) it went with, but felt sorry for it. Didn't run, fithy, filthy, missing the E unit drum and lever, bent E unit fingers, and a broken brush spring. 

Unless I am missing something, it appears by looking at the Olsen pictorials that it is a 249E-25 type VII Double Reduction Motor and was only placed in the 249E locomotive. Am I correct, or can it be used in other early Lionel locomotives? 

After a cleaning and making minor repairs, the motor runs great and, with the dark side calling, I probably need to find an orphan shell to go with it. Would like to find there are several models to search for.

Thanks, swede


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

It won't be easy to piece one together. The easy way is just to get another whole engine. Probably cheaper too.


----------



## Ace (Mar 30, 2016)

Question/comment: that motor unit appears to have a large diameter gear just inside the wheel like some other prewar Lionel locos I've seen. And they don't like Lionel switches with conventional frogs, same issue as "fat wheel" Marx locos. For me that would make it undesirable for use, because I like to be able to run on an existing layout.


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Thank you for the response, Tman.

If this motor can realistically fit only one locomotive, you are probably correct regarding availability of a shell and total cost for a rebuild.

Right now, time is not an issue for me so I will keep my eyes peeled. Two shells did sell on Ebay in March. 

swede


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Ace, thank you for replying.

When the motor was ready for testing on 027 track with 1121 and 1122 switches, it sometimes went to neutral and had to be recycled. To put some miles on the motor, I locked the E unit in forward and, later, in reverse. The motor did not hang up at the switches or on curves when running in this manner. I have experienced this issue with other early motors as well and just lock them in forward when they are on the track. 

swede


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I do have one but seldom take it out. From 2009


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

I figured you had at least one of them, Tman. TJ probably has several and, if Teldoc doesn't have one, we know he, at least, has all the research books on it.

Why don't you run it?

swede


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Swede,

Nice find! Glad you got the motor running. I don't have a 249E (I have a couple of the the postwar 249's ... a different loco).

Here's some pics of the motor from my prewar 262 (with manual reverse switch). Judging from the photos, it looks to me like the motors would be compatible, albeit that my motor has sidecheeks that extend up a bit higher in way of the manual switch mount.

Glad you save it!!!

TJ


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The engine is not that common so while working on others I never looked back. Plus I have two other prewar projects ongoing . To further delay of it's use I have the day to day odd project. It is a good reference that I pull out at times.


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Thank you for the response, TJ. I always enjoy looking at your rebuild photos.

I looked at the 262E as being somewhat compatible with the 249E. The same holds true for the 262 like in your photos and the 257, as well. Overall outside dimensions and overall rectangular shape of the four motors appear to be the same. The 249E is the only double reduction motor of the four, however.

As for the 262E versus the 249E, machining of the upper edge of the side frames and the upper notch on the leading edge of the 262E and 249E appear to be identical. The 262E is notched at the bottom of the leading edge of the side frames and the 249E is not. I don't see that as being an insurmountable problem. I don't believe the fact the 262E is a single reduction motor and the 249 is a double should create a problem, either.

As for the 257 versus the 249E, it appears that a notch would have to be created at the bottom of the leading edge of the 249E and the E unit eliminated to work in a 257 shell. Again, I don't see single versus double reduction being an issue.

As for the 262 versus the 249E, it appears that if the E unit lever was cut back on the 249E so as to eliminate manual control and generate space, the only other machining would be the creation of a notch at the bottom of the leading edge of the 249E side frames.

Do you think it is practical to think of using the 249E in place of a 262, 262E or 257? What pitfalls have I missed or made light of?

Thank you, swede

ps: TJ, did you purchase a replacement manual reversing switch? I have two locomotives, both with humpback motors, that came with the manual switches. Both switches work, but the solid fiber components are badly warped.


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

T-man, thank you for the response. I don't have the workload or stable that you and others have, but I do enjoy putting my "old" stuff on the tracks for exercise and personal enjoyment. That 249 looks to be in really great unrestored condition and would also look great running down the track.

swede


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Hi Swede,

Good deductions on the motor similarities / differences, above.

My 262 manual switch came with the loco, and is in good shape ... no need parts. That said, I think that Jeff at the Train Tender does sell a manual reverse switch, though I think it's with a smaller handle. See his CON-20 item. He might have longer handles available, too ... perhaps items 8-22B and 8-22N. Check in with Jeff.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## teledoc (Oct 22, 2014)

Fred, I dont have a 249/249E in my stable, as you might have suggested. The motor, from what i could research is only for the 249E, and no others. Most of it comes down to the side plates, and how they would fit into other loco bodies. Its too much aggravation to try and alter things to fit into other bodies. Just bide your time, and wait to find a good donor 249 shell.:laugh:


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Hi, TJ and Teledoc. Thanks for the responses.

Yes, TJ, Jeff has replacements but since the current ones still operate, I chose to not make the purchases. I was really trying to learn if the solid fiber material in all old switches was prone to severe warping. The answer is NO based on your good looking switch. The solid fiber in my switches is so dried out it would fracture if any attempt was made to straighten it.

Teledoc, until forced to do something with my accumulation of "stuff", I have time to keep my eyes open for the proper shell and that is what I'll do. However, if a 262E shell popped up, I would consider doing some work on the side frames of the 249E motor to make it fit.

swede


----------



## teledoc (Oct 22, 2014)

Good choice with waiting, or the possible 262E route. Where ther is a Will there is a Way, especially with the simplicity of the Prewar locos. Just mix and match, where you can, with a few personal modifications, and you get another resurrected loco.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Swede,

I have several 1681 locos with manual reverse switches. A few of those have "cupped" fiber plates on the reverse switch. Not brittle, but just cupped. They do still work ... on my end, at least. The disc with the 4 spring contact "cans" tends to warp/cup more so than the disc with the flat-plate contacts.

My guess is if you fiddle with it, it might still have life.

Regards,

TJ


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Teledoc and TJ, thanks for the comments. 

Teledoc, although I really enjoy resurrecting practically anything, it almost always ends up costing more than just buying something that is already complete. T-man is right. 

TJ, my switches are configured as you describe. The solid fibre material is not rigid enough to withstand the flexing forces.

swede


----------



## teledoc (Oct 22, 2014)

Think of the accomplishment of restoring some of these derelicts, that most guys would toss out. It really comes down to, how much is missing, and the price of parts. When i spot something that i would like, I try to figure out the expense of what see, that I would need to replace. Then I check for those parts availability, & price. If it looks to be too much, I pass on bidding.


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

I do the same thing. In the case of the 249 motor, I bought it, and two others, one of which was a prewar 1666 complete with all running gear for $12.00 plus $5.00 admission fee and gas. Currently have no home for any of the motors and the third one, a 2036-100 with magnetraction needs an E unit, brush plate, brushes and springs, and a gear plate. That one will probably never see action again.

swede


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

Your motor looks very similar to a 238E motor that I have. The motor is in really rough shape and the E-Unit is in various parts in a plastic bag. This is one of those rainy day projects. It might have to rain for a month or two.


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Thank you very much for the response.

Not only do they look very similar, they look identical. I do not have a 238 Torpedo so I will keep my eyes open for a cheap Torpedo shell in addition to a cheap 249 shell.

Thanks again, swede


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

If you wish, I'll try to get some better photographs. I had the flash turned on and the details really came out dark. Let me know, since I was in a hurry to post those photos.

I currently have a running 238E and it is a pulling beast. With the double reduction gears and the weight of the cast shell, the 238E could probably pull down my drywall if I attached it to the wall. 

Who needs MagnaTraction?


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Thanks for the offer. Don't think additional photos of the motor are needed. However, if you get a chance, how about a couple of the 238? Always like to see someone's prizes. 

Thanks, swede


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Swede,

There's a very cheap Lionel 249 / 261 / 262 shell (in components) for sale on ebay. Current bid about $5. Auction ends in a few hours. It needs lots of trim bits, but it looks to be in nice shape, for what's there. Have a look ...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Li...e=STRK:MEBIDX:IT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649

eBay item 292521892083

Regards,

TJ


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

tjcruiser said:


> Swede,
> 
> There's a very cheap Lionel 249 / 261 / 262 shell (in components) for sale on ebay. Current bid about $5. Auction ends in a few hours. It needs lots of trim bits, but it looks to be in nice shape, for what's there. Have a look ...
> 
> ...


That's not the same motor that Swede and I have. It's a little confusing to me.

That "project" seems like something right up your alley. I might be interested in the whistle tender, however.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

I think that the motor shown in the eBay auction is NOT properly mated to that loco shell.

TJ


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

Thanks you very much for the notice. I had not seen this offer but will see how the bidding goes. $22 shipping to Oregon seems a bit steep, though.

swede

ps: I think the motor could be modified to work.


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

tjcruiser said:


> I think that the motor shown in the eBay auction is NOT properly mated to that loco shell.
> 
> TJ


Gotcha. Thanks.


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

rrswede said:


> Thanks for the offer. Don't think additional photos of the motor are needed. However, if you get a chance, how about a couple of the 238? Always like to see someone's prizes.
> 
> Thanks, swede


Here are some photos. The 238E is missing the marker lights and the lens for the headlight. I have them from Jeff Kaine, but I have been too lazy to put them on. A good excuse is this locomotive needs a good paint job, as you can see. I cobbled together the bar for a post-war tender that I am going to try to take it back to a pre-war look. I dunno about that, but I will give it a try.

I don't have a layout and my track is currently in storage, so sorry for that.

What I really like about this locomotive is the linkage when it is running. It is really impressive to me how Lionel's engineers came up with that 80 years ago.

I have a disastrous episode on another 238E shell that I might post later on. 

I hope you enjoy these photos. - Mark


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Nice! I'm lovin' the 238, Mark. Looks like mine ... in need of some t.l.c., too!



TJ


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

SoShoresGuy, thank you for posting the photos.

Cosmetic help or not. Perhaps a hard decision to make. It definitely has been run but does not look like it was abused. Given its age it looks darn good.

swede


----------



## SoShoresGuy (Jan 23, 2013)

tjcruiser said:


> Nice! I'm lovin' the 238, Mark. Looks like mine ... in need of some t.l.c., too!
> 
> 
> 
> TJ


Thanks TJ. Yeah, it could use a paint job and some straightening of the trim. I am a little apprehensive on painting the shell just for the fact that I had a disastrous experience with another shell I was trying to rescue. I'll post a thread on that later.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Same waffling decision path on my end. My 238 has some dings and scratches, and I'm pretty comfortable with repaint work. But ... there's something calling out to me saying "leave the original finish". For now, the dust is hiding most of the scratches!



TJ


----------



## rrswede (Jan 6, 2012)

It is sort of eerie how some items seem to grab hold of you and somehow make a convincing case to not be restored and others are content to be disassembled, stripped, sanded, painted and reassembled. Sometimes the latter ones are in better shape before restoration than the ones that just get dusted off.

swede


----------

