# Pittman motors, a history lesson please



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

Question, I know everyone in o gauge has dropped pittman for what ever, canon, or some other copy no name brand. But I’m not sure of why so here are a few questions I’m sure some of you can answer.

WHY The change?
1. was it due to the cost of Pittman motors?
2. was due to Pittman leaving the market?
3. some other reason?

I know some remove the canon motors out of their new Lionel’s and install Pittman

4. Guess this is part of question #2, can you still get pittmans and where?
5. cost compared to what Lionel sells old Pittman stock and new cannon motors?

thanks for the info, should be some good insight.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Harmonyards is the Pittman expert but basically Pittman was bought by Ametek. They raised the prices considerably. I think the ones the same size used on our O gauge trains now cost triple figures. Lionel still stocks 56 and 61mm Pittmans. Both 12v and 15v versions will work, 12 giving a bit more low end torque. If you search Lionel parts on Pittman, then click on the picture icon you can read the numbers. 9433 are 56 mm and 9434, 9234 are 61mm long. Other dimensions are the same. 9433s are a direct replacement for the Canons used on the larger engines.
Sometimes these motors show up on eBay. 
Pete


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I think it was 99% price, tripling the price would have chased most of the model train manufacturer's out of the market. I scored ten brand new 9433 Pittmans on eBay a while back for $85, hard to pass up for that price.

I agree that Pat has the inside scoop on Pittman motors, he's done a lot of conversions. I have my eye on several of my newer Legacy steamers with Canon motors, they'll get some of my stash of Pittman motors when I get a chance.


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I think it was 99% price, tripling the price would have chased most of the model train manufacturer's out of the market. I scored ten brand new 9433 Pittmans on eBay a while back for $85, hard to pass up for that price.
> 
> I agree that Pat has the inside scoop on Pittman motors, he's done a lot of conversions. I have my eye on several of my newer Legacy steamers with Canon motors, they'll get some of my stash of Pittman motors when I get a chance.


*That is a good price, when Lionel wants 60 each, you did good.*


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Half price at the sale next month. I snagged a bunch of 9433s on ebay a few years ago. When Lionel first started putting in large motors other than Pittman they started with Buehlers. The Vision 700E has them but they must have cost too much so they quickly went to Canon. Buehlers are NLA too. Lionel also used small Pittmans in a few engines. The TMCC Mogul has one the size of a Mabuchi RS385 and another engine (???) had an 8000 series Pittman. By comparison a Mabuchi 555, about the same size as a Pittman 9433, can be had for under 5 bucks all day long.

The last few years MTH started using a Chinese Pittman looking motor. It has cast ends like a Pittman. They seem to have a good track record so far. If you search ebay on 12 volt DC motors you will see a few of these.

Pete


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

Norton said:


> The last few years MTH started using a Chinese Pittman looking motor. It has cast ends like a Pittman. They seem to have a good track record so far. If you search ebay on 12 volt DC motors you will see a few of these.
> 
> Pete


The black can Chinese motor is similar to a Pittman but the brush holder is different. I haven't really seen/heard of any major issues with it, unlike the Canon motor Lionel has been using. I only have one locomotive with that motor (a PS3 AC6 Cab Forward) and I haven't had an issue with it. I'll probably swap it for a Pittman at some point just because.

Prior to the Chinese motor MTH was using a motor made by a Korean company called SPG. The motor was in their RM4 series: RM3, 4 & 5 Series – SPG USA Inc (spgmotor.net) 

The motor is virtually a dead nuts copy of the 9000 series Pittman. These motors can be found in late PS2 3V (wireless drawbar) and early PS3 Premier steam.


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I have my eye on several of my newer Legacy steamers with Canon motors, they'll get some of my stash of Pittman motors when I get a chance.


You really should do that. Besides enlarging the holes on the motor mount it's a bolt in affair. Both the 12V and 15.1V versions work fine with Legacy electronics. I used a 12V 9433 in my 2019 release of the ATSF Northern.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

lou1985 said:


> You really should do that. Besides enlarging the holes on the motor mount it's a bolt in affair. Both the 12V and 15.1V versions work fine with Legacy electronics. I used a 12V 9433 in my 2019 release of the ATSF Northern.


Too many projects, too little time.  Right now I'm working on getting my freight yard extension up and running.


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

Other than the reliability issues between canon and Pittman is there any performance advantages over on or the other?


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

If you have a Lionel TMCC J3a Hudson, you could have a tug of war with your Legacy one.

Pete


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

superwarp1 said:


> Other than the reliability issues between canon and Pittman is there any performance advantages over on or the other?


I would say no, other than lifespan and even that could be a debate. Both are skewed rotor design, strong magnets, good commutator. The main problem is the Canon has a few tiny but significant details the kick in in failure and make failure that much worse. Example, there is a washer at the commutator end of both motors that serves to sling excess oil away from the commutator should you over lube the end bell bushing. It's brass or metal in the Canon, plastic in the Pittman. Well, all is fine as long as the brushes track the commutator and do not walk (bend or flex) and make contact to this end metal washer nearby that is shorted to the armature shaft and via the bushings, and motor to frame ground. Add to the the poor design of the molding of the Canon end bell tabs that hold the brush arms that prevents that flexing unit the snap off or break and it's not too hard to see how this very bad failure happens. It might not ever happen, but the point is, a series of what when viewed individually as minor changes, add up to a very bad failure sequence and it's not just a theoretical could happen- it does and can happen.

In the Canon motor, the brushes are non replaceable. You have to replace the entire end bell.
In a Pittman, the brush assembly is a separate part that locks into the end bell and can and can be replaced.

I cannot say how disappointed I am by actually figuring out the failure. I missed it at first, and my initial impression of the Canon motor was that it was on par with what I consider decent motor construction. But, after I saw real world failure pictures, put the puzzle together and then understood the how and what happens, it's this simple, the brush arm fails in some way to hold position, and then when that happens, there is oddly placed a metal washer near the same diameter as commutator right at the end of the commutator. The brush makes contact, that is a dead short to frame ground, and since all power to the RCMC control board is rectified full wave DC, then no output from the RCMC including motor can ever short to frame ground. You effectively jam AC track power up a DC circuit into th RCMC and blow minimally the motor output and worst case scenario is killing the RCMC outright- but even worse, there is a chance everything plugged into the RCMC- say extra smoke unit control boards, sound cards, swinging bell board, the list goes on and on how bad a cascade failure could be.

I'm mid process of swapping all of mine out (12 in total), I have a few that will wait for the parts sale in a few weeks.

Again, the main problem is the specific end bell plastic that is used in the Canon is semi brittle and key parts of the brush holder can crack. Key emphasis on can, doesn't mean they will, this is not a 100% failure situation. It's just a weak point, it can and has happened, it's not a one off fluke. That failure in and of itself would be bad. Bu it's the combination of that end bell and brush holder failure combined with a simple choice of a metal VS plastic washer, and the result is what was a bad failure is now an earth shattering blow other stuff up failure.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

And you might read my post and ask, "Can't I just change out this washer and eliminate the issue"?
There lies the issue, the Canon is a sealed motor, the end bell is held by massive crimped bends made to the motor housing to clamp in the end bell. When you go to bend those to remove the end bell, I ended up cutting it to reduce the force required to not distort the metal can as that affects total motor alignment and armature to magnet clearance. Not to mention, the can is magnetized, so say you use a Dremel and now have metal shavings stuck everywhere they shouldn't be. I'm just trying to show, yeah, sure, one could do it, but with massive skill, attention to detail and still a chance you ruin the motor or make the whole problem worse. Simply put, it's not a user serviceable motor by design. Again, just by attempting to open the motor, there is a risk of damaging the end bell and causing some form of cracked plastic failure. On top of that, there is a chance of distorting the motor housing and even slight changes could affect armature centering and gap. Add to that contamination, and the chance you get it all back together and crack the plastic end bell in the last step- motor is junked. Here is my post on this topic previously with pictures and that pesky metal washer Lionel Canon motor discussion








@lou1985 posted his picture of an end bell brush holder failure here Lionel Canon motor discussion










It does bother me, as a motor, it's not the worst thing in the world. The basic motor, the can, the magnets, the armature, the commutator itself, all what I would consider very good and side by side the Pittman on par. It's the non serviceable nature, the cheap style end bell, the brush arm details, and a tiny washer that takes something from being a reputable part to a problem design.

Again, there most certainly will be people who do nothing, run a Canon motor forever until the loco is worn out or the electronics die or it's run off a table. This is not a 100% failure rate, it's probably relatively low in total numbers. Not trying to cause a panic, but at the same time, at what point does Lionel and Canon need to improve? Again, based on analysis, something as simple as a different plastic end bell, and changing one metal washer to a plastic one in production and it's no longer an issue. *But in order to get there, it has to be talked about, pressure put on Lionel, and Lionel to actually do something.*


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Since I've had three Legacy steamers come in with a bad Canon motor, and heard from other repair folks about more, I can safely say that the Canon motor is much more failure prone than the Pittman. In addition, the Canon motor failure took out the RCMC main board in all three cases. I managed to repair one of the boards, I had to replace the other two. This failure rate is out of around 50 total Legacy steamers with the Canon motor that have come to me for repair. Contrast that with the single failure I have seen with the Pittman motor, and that was due to a drivetrain mechanical failure that stalled the motor and they apparently left it with full current until it cooked the armature. I fixed that Pittman, but I threw away the Canon motors. Over the years, I've seen a lot more Pittman motor equipped steam than the ones with the Canon motors, so the failure rate comparison is no contest. The crappy Canon motors win the failure contest!


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

lou1985 said:


> The black can Chinese motor is similar to a Pittman but the brush holder is different. I haven't really seen/heard of any major issues with it, unlike the Canon motor Lionel has been using. I only have one locomotive with that motor (a PS3 AC6 Cab Forward) and I haven't had an issue with it. I'll probably swap it for a Pittman at some point just because.
> 
> Prior to the Chinese motor MTH was using a motor made by a Korean company called SPG. The motor was in their RM4 series: RM3, 4 & 5 Series – SPG USA Inc (spgmotor.net)
> 
> The motor is virtually a dead nuts copy of the 9000 series Pittman. These motors can be found in late PS2 3V (wireless drawbar) and early PS3 Premier steam.


Lou, were you able to locate a retailer of the SPG motors? Not much info on their website other than call them direct.

Pete


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

superwarp1 said:


> Other than the reliability issues between canon and Pittman is there any performance advantages over on or the other?


Gary, I have some numbers here. I think they are close as I couldn’t match the exact part numbers. Actual number on the Canon I removed from my Vision Niagara is FN38-T303N1B.
Closest 12v Canon is a FN38S which defines the frame size. The 12v version has a rated output of 13 watts and .0245 Nm torque.
The Pittman numbers are for the 9200 series which is the same as the 9400 series except for direct wires vs solder terminals.
9233 Pittman 12v rated at 16 watts, .0332 Nm torque
9234 Pittman 12v rated at 22 watts, .0431 Nm torque

So Pittmans are indeed stronger. These are for the standard magnet and carbon brush versions. Likely rare earth magnets and metal infused brushes have even better numbers.

Pete


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Gee, I wonder how many members will be ordering Pittman motors during Lionel's half price parts sale? Limited stock


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Note me, I have a few 9433's still in the closet.


----------



## KBeyer (Jun 29, 2020)

As a side question, is Lionel completely done making ”pull-mor” motors? Seems like these were only in the Postwar Celebration series engines, but the last of those was 2009. Has Lionel given up on the pull-more?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

If they haven't given up, I suspect they're close. I don't recall any new Pullmor powered locomotives lately.


----------



## KBeyer (Jun 29, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> If they haven't given up, I suspect they're close. I don't recall any new Pullmor powered locomotives lately.


Yes, I think they were last used in 2009, which was the last year for a PWC engine. If it weren't for the PWC series, I think Lionel would have dropped Pullmor motors when the Michigan factory closed. For some reason, I don't think the Odyssey speed control system works with a Pullmor motor. I believe all locos with Odyssey had can motors.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Pretty sure there won’t be any more Pullmors for the same reason no more Pittmans. They cost too much to make even by the Chinese. The ones in the PWC engines are metric too. The parts don’t interchange with the US Pullmors.
There have been attempts to give cruise to Pullmors as they are Universal motors and can run on DC but they are huge current hogs especially when you wire them with a parallel field vs the series field which is how all Pullmors are connected. Can motors don’t have that issue.

Pete


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Wishful thinking ...

Next step (no pun) in motor evolution would be brushless DC motors. Even a run-of-the-mill economy motor would perform well and last long ... as long as the electronic drive was smart & robust enough not to self destruct on a stall or other malady.

The RC world has been using brushless DC motors for a couple of decades. That market is huge and competitive. It has pushed the envelope on high quality, low cost brushless motor products.

I would presume that the brushless drive electronics adhere to RC standards for servo control. Lionel's control electronics would have to implement that protocol to control a brushless motor system.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Odyssey indeed doesn't work for Pulmor motors. Lionel actually was working on an AC motor with cruise, but it was abandoned as too expensive as I recall. Can motors are so cheap, it is hard to justify putting all that research into an open frame motor.


Millstonemike said:


> Next step (no pun) in motor evolution would be brushless DC motors. Even a run-of-the-mill economy motor would perform well and last long ... as long as the electronic drive was smart & robust enough not to self destruct on a stall or other malady.
> 
> The RC world has been using brushless DC motors for a couple of decades. That market is huge and competitive. It has pushed the envelope on high quality, low cost brushless motor products.
> 
> I would presume that the brushless drive electronics adhere to RC standards for servo control. Lionel's control electronics would have to implement that protocol to control a brushless motor system.


I'd love to see brushless motors come to O-scale, that would be really cool! We used them in avionics, the ball bearing brushless motors had ridiculous MTBF figures, they last forever!


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

I remember Mike at Train America Studios working on a EOB for open frame motors but couldn’t solve the over heating problem or didn’t want to spend an enormous amount of money on it


----------



## KBeyer (Jun 29, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Odyssey indeed doesn't work for Pulmor motors. Lionel actually was working on an AC motor with cruise, but it was abandoned as too expensive as I recall. Can motors are so cheap, it is hard to justify putting all that research into an open frame motor.
> I'd love to see brushless motors come to O-scale, that would be really cool! We used them in avionics, the ball bearing brushless motors had ridiculous MTBF figures, they last forever!


Yes, the "Odyssey" motor was announced in the 1998 Heritage catalog as a brushless AC motor. I heard later that they figured out they could achieve the same results with software, so they abandoned the motor project.


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

KBeyer said:


> Yes, the "Odyssey" motor was announced in the 1998 Heritage catalog as a brushless AC motor. ...


Was it an induction motor? Or did Lionel intend to use electronics to drive it?


----------



## KBeyer (Jun 29, 2020)

Millstonemike said:


> Was it an induction motor? Or did Lionel intend to use electronics to drive it?


The 1999 Heritage catalog gives a bit more detail. Apparently it was to be electronically controlled. A number of steam engines were listed as having Odyssey motors. However, no mention of Odyssey is made in subsequent catalogs in 1999 or 2000, instead Pittman motors with flywheels are listed for many locos. Since it states they were testing the motor in actual locos, it's clear they had prototypes made. It'd be interesting to look up the patent application. Even cooler to see some kind of video of operation of the prototype!


----------



## Millstonemike (Aug 9, 2018)

Doh me, it would have to an electric drive system. Induction motors have very little torque until they come up to speed.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Millstonemike said:


> Was it an induction motor? Or did Lionel intend to use electronics to drive it?


Electronically driven. That was the problem, well that and using old school lamination technology (stray eddie currents cause heating and massive losses) .A brushless motor is typically a polyphase (more than one and mostly 3 phase) motor with permanent magnets. Yes, you can make an induction motor spin at a variable RPM (that exactly what inverter drives or Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) are, used in all kinds of home and industrial solutions. Your home climate control system may be using one as a blower motor. The problem is train requirements have a very specific scenario- stop and begin smooth rotation from a DEAD stop and no cogging. The only way to really achieve that is a sensor based brushless motor control that knows exactly where the rotor is, and typically used a permanent magnet rotor. That way, the controller knows what phase and polarity to fire to move that first tiny bit to take the motor from dead stop to slow rotation. If you don't have a sensor, that first start might actually rotate the rotor backwards from the initial position with a jerk, and then begin forward rotation.

Again, if we want to go down this road- and it's good worthy discussion IMO, lot's of ways to skin that cat.
You can make a polyphase motor, with a rotor that is not permanent magnet. Problem is, then it's not brushless, it's a copy of the modern car alternator where the rotor has a slip ring and brushes.








Converting a Car Alternator into a Motor for an Electric #GoKart #motors


In this video from the Austiwawa YouTube channel, Austin shows how easy it is to turn a car/truck alternator into an electric motor for powering a Go Kart. Austin got his alternator from a Ford F-1…




blog.adafruit.com




You can make an induction motor, but at the scale and size, efficiency and other concerns come into play, and most important, that slow speed performance is likely impacted. And induction motor needs to get current flowing in the rotor before it can begin spinning. That in turn is a delay in responsiveness and again, in a train application, not suitable.
In fact, American Flyer did in fact use an induction motor for one accessory that I am aware of- the talking station. It's actually a shaded pole motor, and specifically, it was used because being an induction motor, it assured it's RPM was tied to the 60HZ ac frequency even at the lower voltage coming out of the transformer to drive it so that the recording would be played at the correct speed even with voltage variations.









There are basically 3 things that have affected the design of modern motors
#1 improvements in permanent magnets- both in overall strength and how "permanent" they are. Early magnets were expensive and not very good at staying magnetized. This is why some HO motors are known to lose magnetism and you can never open them up and break the magnetic field (stuff I learned from reading slot car books in the library when I was a kid- well that and my dad warning me). The lack and cost of magnets, the propensity to lose magnetic strength is why the AC universal motor existed for the most part. Conversely, modern can motors, even brushless RC motors are a result of cheap rare earth magnets that are superior on a level never before previously seen.
#2 Electronics. Simply put, the low cost of electronics in general, the ever better transistors that operate more like a true on off switch at higher and higher speeds, the faster and cheaper microcontrollers using back EMF along with the fast transistors and diodes to turn on and off the coils ever faster and be able to sense back EMF when the coil is off.
#3 Coil technology, specifically the ferrite based cores which handle higher frequency and produce less heating losses and eddy currents than stamped lamination designs. Even laminations when used are better than in the past due to specific alloys and details of the metal used, improved precision manufacturing and so forth.

FWIW, Sunday I put in 3 genuine Pittman swaps to replace Canon motors.
2 of the Milwaukee Road S3 261 traditional black 6-84064 and 260 "Hiawatha" paint scheme version 6-84067
Kansas City Southern 2-10-4 1932740


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Since I was doing motor swaps and had a few motors on the pile, rather than just tell you the differences in words, I took some pictures of various motors I had handy, took them apart to show you the guts and the critical end IMO, the brushes and details around that end of the armature. The 3 motors are 9234E454 (The ones from Ebay that have the encoder that needs cut or machined off), a 9434F827-R1 takeout from a loco, and an MTH Pittman knockoff out of a Premier PS3 engine. This way you can see how much in common these motors are, along with specific details I think are good that make them robust and long lived.
One key aspect is the brushes are soldered to the spring arms in both the 9434 and the MTH copy. This is opposed to the Canon motor where the brush material is pressed into the bush arm and held by the metal tabs gripping the brush material.

















Some detail on the specific 9234E454 (The ones from Ebay that have the encoder that needs cut or machined off) and why I think this is the best of all the brush holder systems.








Installed in the motor closeup of armature (Note, this is actually upside down but was trying for a best picture showing the springs and sliding brushes in the holder).









Another key detail is that all 3 motors use a larger non metalic washer at the end of the commutator so that the brushes cannot walk off the shaft and into the bearing area or against a metal shim spacing washer shorting to frame ground.
Last, a final detail is that all Pittman examples I had on hand use aluminum screws to clamp the end bells to the main body, where the MTH copy used steel screws. I'm wondering if Pittman used aluminum to not interfere with the magnetic fields? I minor thing, but again, shows the detail and thought put into these Pittman motors. The reputation is well deserved, they are expensive because they are premium motors and it shows in construction details. The MTH one is a pretty darn close copy, and while there are differences, I think the key details (soldered brushed, proper non metalic washer placement, ball bearings, replaceable and compatible brush assembly with Pittman basic design) are all good thing.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Jet, you can verify dimensions but I believe these are the Pittman knockoffs that MTH is now using.
What I found interesting is rated torque is only .0255 Nm (260 gm cm) or just over half what a plain bearing 9434 puts out. This for the 12v 5000 rpm motor.

Dia 38mm DC Permanenr Magnet Motor 12V 24V 2000 3000 4000 5000rpm for DIY Part | eBay

Pete


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

Thanks Jetguy, Nicely done.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Norton said:


> Jet, you can verify dimensions but I believe these are the Pittman knockoffs that MTH is now using.
> What I found interesting is rated torque is only .0255 Nm (260 gm cm) or just over half what a plain bearing 9434 puts out. This for the 12v 5000 rpm motor.
> 
> Dia 38mm DC Permanenr Magnet Motor 12V 24V 2000 3000 4000 5000rpm for DIY Part | eBay
> ...


The MTH one is quite different in actual construction. In other words, no, I don't think the one you specifically linked is what MTH is using, and close looks show a lot of major differences externally which clue in how much might be different internally.

The MTH motor measured dimensions 40mm dia, 61mm long
MTH never quoted specifications or markings. The motor came out of a MTH 20-3584-1 NYC 4-6-4 J-1e Hudson Steam Engine (Cab No. 5316)

Just from the photo of the one you linked, the brush assembly is not compatible with Pittman brush assembly parts so we have no insight to how good or bad that motor is internally.








VS The MTH copy next to a real Pittman


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Again, best bang for the buck until the half off Lionel sale is this motor IMO.








Pittman 9234E454 12VDC 500 CPR Precision Motor - NEW | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Pittman 9234E454 12VDC 500 CPR Precision Motor - NEW at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!



www.ebay.com




There are a couple of sellers as well with this exact model
*Pittman 9234E454 12VDC 500 CPR Precision Motor*









Key features (some of this is my opinion but tried to show why I think that)
#1 Best brush holder design with shunt wire brushes in a plastic guide holder that is replaceable and compatible with previous Pittman brush assemblies.
#2 12V rating
#3 dual shaft if you need it for a specific locomotive install or cut off if you don't need it.
#4 same basic size as 9434 (40mm dia x61mm long) once the encoder portion is cut off.
#5 dual ball bearings

Again, this motor is part for part compatible with the 9434 series and even if you only swap the brush assembly, at $20, heck, good for parts for other motors.
My sequence is, first I remove the encoder cover (2 screws) then use an allen key bit set to remove the setscrew and the encoder disk from the shaft along with the encoder sensor.
I then use hot glue around the motor shaft to seal the ball bearing from contamination during the cutting process.
A portable metal bandsaw and a vise, I cut off the end of the encoder housing right at the visible parting line in the casting.
I then dress up the edges using a file or a Dremel tool.
With a drop of rubbing alcohol on the edge of the hot glue causes it to break free from the metal. It only takes a drop.

Last, yes, this is longer than the Canon motors. Also the shaft is shorter.
Canon motor is 38mm dia, 55.3mm long, Shaft is basically 14.5mm from the front lip of the bearing
Pittman motors are 40mm dia, 61mm long, 13mm long

Note, the black dot shows exactly where the flywheel setscrew lands on the Canon motor shaft. This in turn barely and I do mean barely hits the end of the 13MM Pitman shaft when installed.








One last note, the original screws used with the Canon motors do not fit the Pittman, they are too small diameter and do not hold. I slightly drilled the motor mount and the plastic flywheel guard to use these Machine Screws, Flat Head, Phillips Drive, #6-32 X 3/8 in, Grade 18-8 Stainless Steel
I chuck them up in a drill (AKA the poor man's lathe) and slightly shave the face of the head while spinning to thin them for clearance and also slightly shave the outer rim of the head diameter. This matches the smaller Canon screws and allows for the encoder ring clearance.


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

Jetguy said:


> Again, best bang for the buck until the half off Lionel sale is this motor IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shush. I've been using that motor frequently in MTH Premier rebuilds. You're going to clue everyone in on it . It's a pretty strong motor. Has more oomph than the standard 9434s used by Lionel and MTH from the factory. I've got a 9234 CPR in a ATSF 5001 class Texas (which I cobbled together from a MTH 5011 class Texas and Lionel parts).





I also put a 9234 CPR in a Premier UP FEF.





My Premier DM&IR M3 Yellowstone has a 9234 CPR as well.





It's great in those locomotives as they are big and heavy, and can use the torque the 9234 CPR. However I also stuck one in a Premier ATSF 3460 class Hudson. The 9234 CPR is a little too strong for it. Motor has enough torque to slip the drivers on it, even with new traction tires, if you accelerate too quickly. The Hudson probably isn't quite heavy enough for this motor.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Who did you get to machine all those end caps Lou?……😉

Pat


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

HARMONYARDS said:


> Who did you get to machine all those end caps Lou?……😉
> 
> Pat


Some guy in the south east. Sometimes he knows what he's doing, from what I've heard.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Now THAT’s funny!


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

lou1985 said:


> Some guy in the south east. Sometimes he knows what he's doing, from what I've heard.


All lies,….all lies,….don’t believe what you’ve heard,…😄

Pat


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Just some more detail and theory. The Canon motors appear to come with extra long terminal tabs, and then those are either cut short or bent over before the leads are soldered when Lionel assembles the engine. My theory is, we know a weak point is the plastic being brittle on this endbell, and we have a good photo documentation of a brush holder endbell post being cracked, and while it doesn't even have to be a long bent lead putting that stress, just imagine what could happen either before or during the lead being cut, bent, or soldered by Lionel assembly line workers. If the motor is dropped, or if the cutting process or just leverage on the longer lead snaps that internal post holder, then the brushes can move around and not track true to the armature and as shown, if it hits that metal washer, then that is a shaft short to can motor, which is then a frame short.









Sampling of removed motors, many are cut short, but at least one was a long bent lead variant.








Again, some of the "how" of this broken plastic holder post or tab happening








Which then can short to this metal washer right at the commutator diameter and nothing non conductive in between it and the possible brushes out of alignment.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

I never opened one of the shorted motors up, but that looks like a reasonable possibility.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

That’s why they belong in the landfill, and not in a 1500-2000 dollar model jetguy, …..another example of low-bid vendor performance……FAIL ……Id imagine as you pointed out, the motors are probably fine ….UNTIL Lionel themselves get their hands on them,….the factory is more than likely wrecking them before they even get spun,…Ive pointed out the Cannon‘s deficiencies on another forum, and the response was Cannon makes cameras, so their motors MUST be good,….🙄……so fellas like you & I can just bang our heads against the wall, cause well get a better response,…..

Pat


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

HARMONYARDS said:


> Ive pointed out the Cannon‘s deficiencies on another forum, and the response was Cannon makes cameras, so their motors MUST be good,….🙄……so fellas like you & I can just bang our heads against the wall, cause well get a better response,….


I missed that one Pat, I would have had to have dropped a comment for that idiotic statement!


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I missed that one Pat, I would have had to have dropped a comment for that idiotic statement!


John, I think you bailed on that conversation at the very beginning, cause the replies were getting so darn dumb that even I quit being a part of it,….easy chair technicians,….


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

This is a great thread, lots of useful information from knowledgable people.

Thanks to those who took the time to provide a lot of insight.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

Interesting to note 3rd Rail has chosen Cannon motors for the EMD E5 & E6 A/B run #2.

Other locomotive reservations listed with “huge can motor“ of undescribed manufacturer.

This post not intended to be negative. Hope it’s not beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

86TA355SR said:


> Interesting to note 3rd Rail has chosen Cannon motors for the EMD E5 & E6 A/B run #2.
> 
> Other locomotive reservations listed with “huge can motor“ of undescribed manufacturer.
> 
> This post not intended to be negative. Hope it’s not beyond the scope of this thread.


I think this is "in scope" and this is a problem in the industry. It's important to understand the exact details of how this becomes an issue. The Canon motor- specifically the exact variant Lionel used internally has 2 things- a brass or metal oil slinger washer at the commutator end and a brush arm/holder/endbell design that can allow a brush to short to this washer or metal can housing, and thus short brush to frame. Further, then most engines would in some way connect the motor can mounting to frame ground metal, and that then results in connection to the outer rail of track.

3rd rail would then have to have the same conditions:
#1 same model or specification of Canon motor that has this pesky metal washer at the commutator end.
#2 Same bell housing and brush holder than can crack or fail and allow the brush arm or brush to move and short to the metal washer or the can itself.
#3 The motor metal can and motor shaft connected to a metal mount or an electrical path to the frame ground and outside rail.

Something not mentioned and not recommended, one alternative solution was isolate the entire motor mounting from frame ground. This is honestly impractical in a lot of engines and scenarios. Example a plastic bracket could isolate the motor from the metal frame, and the plastic dog bone drive in steam engines isolates the motor shaft, however, you still have that motor weight and then exposed metal can. Again, this in most cases, was not a good answer, so not previously discussed- but with talking about all possible scenarios and options.

Also, add my theory of how the motor appears to come with long leads out of the can. Handling, everything from unpacking that fresh motor at the factory and installing it, with bending, cutting, or other steps or processes that crack that plastic bell housing tabs holding the brush arm in exact position.

The Canon motor in and of itself is not an assured problem. It's a combination of exact model specifications, tiny specific details of possible "options" Canon could change or be specified by a customer. Internally, the Canon motor is not that bad. The armature- the heart of the motor in and of itself nicely made. But like anything, the devil is in this details, tiny decisions such as a metal washer, a specific plastic for the end bell, specific design of a weak plastic tab to hold the brush arm in place, long leads that could put stress and break the plastic internally at the factory.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Again, the facts are that Pitmann, a long trusted name and verified quality, then became too costly and drove customers away. That the means they (every train manufacturer) are looking for other commercial brands. Canon, you'd think this would bite them and they would change what I believe to be something simple (plastic washer just like Pitmann uses and most other motors to be honest), and improve the end bell design. But cost is a huge factor and I can think of other applications where the motor is mounted to plastic, plastic gears are used, and this motor short to frame never happens. They just keep kicking them out and they keep getting bought by the thousands.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Jetguy is correct, I’ve been buying Pittmans since Charlie Pittman himself ran the company way back when. Those were the days when he would actually answer the phone, and gladly take your order,…..Charlie sold the company to Hayden Industries but they still continued to offer products to the hobby industry……aka the big 3 ….Lionel, MTH, and 3rd Rail. ….enter Ametek, they went in a different route, concentrating on medical and the aerospace industry. They priced themselves right out of our world…..I had a contact at Hayden after Charlie’s retirement, but when Ametek took over, he vanished too,……according to people ive spoken to, it was kinda sudden, and this left the big 3 scrambling for suitable replacements, or using existing supplies until they dried up.……the above events are cast in stone, and are for true as they unfolded before my eyes, ….I’ve repowered herds of 2 rail brass for fellas on the east coast so keeping my eye on the motor market was kinda important,…..that’s how it went down,…

Pat


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

I've pondered posting this because I didn't have permission but I reached out to Dave at Lionel and asked him about the motors. He stated in so many words that Lionel uses thousands of these motors every year and see very few failures, less than a handful. Just reporting what I've been told


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

86TA355SR said:


> Interesting to note 3rd Rail has chosen Cannon motors for the EMD E5 & E6 A/B run #2.
> 
> Other locomotive reservations listed with “huge can motor“ of undescribed manufacturer.
> 
> This post not intended to be negative. Hope it’s not beyond the scope of this thread.


Scott would likely answer an email if you asked but ”huge can motor” might refer to one of what we are calling Chinese Pittmans. Externally similar to a Pittman with machined end bells on both ends.

The other thing is Jet may have discovered why the Canons are failing. The terminals being bent breaks the brush holders. Maybe if those terminals are not bent, those motors will last as long as any of the other hobby motors.

Pete


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

superwarp1 said:


> I've pondered posting this because I didn't have permission but I reached out to Dave at Lionel and asked him about the motors. He stated in so many words that Lionel uses thousands of these motors every year and see very few failures, less than a handful. Just reporting what I've been told


One failure in my fleet is enough to warrant replacement with a known high quality motor,…however, to each his own. Bruk on another forum reports no failures he’s seen. Again, it’s a matter of personal preference, and I’d rather not risk something simple for me to do possibly wiping out expensive locomotives,…..both of my Legacy Hudsons have been converted,….I believe Pete & Lou have both followed suit,….we’re simply preventing the failure before there is one,….😉…Ive had a failure, so that’s enough warrant for my cops to spring into action….

Pat


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

superwarp1 said:


> I've pondered posting this because I didn't have permission but I reached out to Dave at Lionel and asked him about the motors. He stated in so many words that Lionel uses thousands of these motors every year and see very few failures, less than a handful. Just reporting what I've been told


No offense Gary, but that's a total crock! I've personally seen three Canon motors self-destruct in Lionel Legacy steamers, and I'm one small shop! All three shorted and took out the RCMC board on their way out. I'm sure the total number of Legacy steamers I've worked on is probably less than 100 or so, so a 3% failure rate is huge. 

I personally can account for Dave's "handful" of failed Canon motors, and I'm certainly not the only person that's seen them! I'm small potatoes as far as the overall volume of repairs is concerned.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

The purpose of the exercise is the fact that there’s the possibility of a dead short as John has reported in the field, and I’ve seen one. the RCMC is supposed to detect stalls, and high loads, and protect itself, but as John’s seen, there’s no way it can protect itself from a dead short to ground on the backside,.…..as I’ve mentioned before, I caught my ESE ( which I did buy second hand) just in the nick of time,…..I believe John either caught one before it took out the RCMC, or he had to breathe life back into it,…..either way, thats enough for me to have one bad apple spoil my bunch,….so to the rotary file they go,…

Pat


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> No offense Gary, but that's a total crock! I've personally seen three Canon motors self-destruct in Lionel Legacy steamers, and I'm one small shop! All three shorted and took out the RCMC board on their way out. I'm sure the total number of Legacy steamers I've worked on is probably less than 100 or so, so a 3% failure rate is huge.
> 
> I personally can account for Dave's "handful" of failed Canon motors, and I'm certainly not the only person that's seen them! I'm small potatoes as far as the overall volume of repairs is concerned.


*Hence the reason I really didn't want to post it. 

If Lionel is not seeing a high failure rate, flooding the warranty center with repairs, they are not going to change motor supplier. 

There's always two sides of the story. *


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

HARMONYARDS said:


> One failure in my fleet is enough to warrant replacement with a known high quality motor,…however, to each his own. Bruk on another forum reports no failures he’s seen. Again, it’s a matter of personal preference, and I’d rather not risk something simple for me to do possibly wiping out expensive locomotives,…..both of my Legacy Hudsons have been converted,….I believe Pete & Lou have both followed suit,….we’re simply preventing the failure before there is one,….😉…Ive had a failure, so that’s enough warrant for my cops to spring into action….
> 
> Pat


I've only got one Legacy steam locomotive (an ATSF Northern from 2019 run) and I swapped the Canon for a 9433 Pittman before the thing had made 5 circuits around my Layout. Bonus is the Pittman draws a little less amps and appears to have more starting torque than the Canon it replaced.


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

I've only got three engines with the canon. I'm a firm believer in "If it aint broke don't fix it" so I won't be messing with the engines unless they need it. But if you want to change them out, Go for it. Certainty a spirited debate.


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

HARMONYARDS said:


> ….I’ve repowered herds of 2 rail brass for fellas,….
> 
> Pat


Pat,

And thank you for doing that!

I’ve repowered many of my 2 rail locomotives because I enjoy the process and superior performance of the Pittman vs the open frame motor. Plus, it’s damn fun to give new life to a 50+ year old model!

Aaron.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

If it was just a matter of the motor failing then I would wait too. Like PS2 5 v if its working wait until it fails but in this case it can take out a 120 dollar board. You can still get Pittman replacements for 20-25 bucks and the swap is not difficult. Changing out a RCMC is much bigger PITA.

Pete


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

superwarp1 said:


> I've only got three engines with the canon. I'm a firm believer in "If it aint broke don't fix it" so I won't be messing with the engines unless they need it. But if you want to change them out, Go for it. Certainty a spirited debate.


And that’s totally fine Gary, as I’ve stated numerous times on both forums, ….not all Cannon motors are doomed to failure, it’s not a plague, it’s a matter of preference for me, and if I want a Pittman in my junk, it’s an evening swap for me,…..and as mentioned by Pete, it’s just cheap insurance on my part,….although ain’t nothing guaranteed,….😉

Pat


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

Has it been mentioned? I've been told 3rdrail is also using Canon


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Cannon is probably the best bet, beings they made a motor that‘s a direct swap for the Pittman, so the mfr.s have to make little changes to their tooling to use them,…..

Pat


----------



## 86TA355SR (Feb 27, 2015)

superwarp1 said:


> Has it been mentioned? I've been told 3rdrail is also using Canon


Yes, post #46, I know the guy well!


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

These are the noteworthy assessments I’ve made over the years when Pittman became too expensive for not just our hobby, but others too,….both Lionel and MTH stopped offering Pittmans about the same time,…I believe Lionel went shopping for motors with the basic criteria of fitment in mind….they probably let companies bid on being the vendor but must meet certain specs,…Cannon must’ve jumped on board, and Lionel never looked back,…..MTH for a short time used a Korean vendor called SPG motors, this motor is the spitting image, downright a carbon copy of a Pittman 9434 motor,…in size, shape, design, and even the decal,….pretty descent motors for the very few I’ve seen. However, that motor was short lived in production…….i don’t know why they stopped using that motor, but Lou tracked down the mfr. ( SPG of N.America ) ???….correct me Lou?…..and that motor by part number still existed in their inventory,….( Lou and I were looking for alternatives when the Pittman boat finally does dry up) …….after MTH stopped using the Korean motor, they went to a black can motor we believe is of Chinese origin,….however again, be it Chinese, it’s pretty well built, and examples can be found on the bay. I purchased a couple for testing, but I bought the wrong RPM range motor,…..but they are a double ball bearing 7 pole motor available in 12V and a few RPM ranges,….for S&G’s I stuck one in a Premier Hudson, and although the RPM range sucked, it did perform well, I just surrendered top speed,…..I have pics of the Chinese black can motor apart if anyone wishes to see them,…I can post them up on here for educational show & tell,……anyways,…that’s just my theory, and if y’all have corrections, feel free to add them on here, and I’ll correct my reply to reflect it,…but I think that sums it up,….now what led Scott to go to Cannons, I’ll let him answer that,….

Pat


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

HARMONYARDS said:


> MTH for a short time used a Korean vendor called SPG motors, this motor is the spitting image, downright a carbon copy of a Pittman 9434 motor,…in size, shape, design, and even the decal,….pretty descent motors for the very few I’ve seen. However, that motor was short lived in production…….i don’t know why they stopped using that motor, but Lou tracked down the mfr. ( SPG of N.America ) ???….correct me Lou?…..and that motor by part number still existed in their inventory,….( Lou and I were looking for alternatives when the Pittman boat finally does dry up) …….
> Pat


Yup. SPG of North America located in suburban Chicago. I think they were short lived in MTH stuff because of cost. They wanted $95 each for there 9434 copy. It's a dead nuts copy but 9234/9434 Pittmans can still be found for $25, so no sense in buying the motor from SPG. Yet.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

lou1985 said:


> Yup. SPG of North America located in suburban Chicago. I think they were short lived in MTH stuff because of cost. They wanted $95 each for there 9434 copy. It's a dead nuts copy but 9234/9434 Pittmans can still be found for $25, so no sense in buying the motor from SPG. Yet.


Yep, I’d summarize they ( SPG) had the fast answer to Pittman‘s abrupt exit,…..and perhaps MTH used them as a temporary solution,…a bandaid while they themselves went shopping…

Pat


----------



## dencan2009 (1 mo ago)

Hello. I was wondering if you knew where to get the 25-78-1 carbon brush sets. Thanks.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I am bumping up your post.
Are these the brushes for Pitman Motors?


----------



## dencan2009 (1 mo ago)

T-Man said:


> I am bumping up your post.
> Are these the brushes for Pitman Motors?


Yes sir. I need 4. Thanks.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

dencan2009 said:


> Hello. I was wondering if you knew where to get the 25-78-1 carbon brush sets. Thanks.


Try starting a conversation with *HARMONYARDS*, he's got the inside track on Pittman motors and parts.


----------

