# Lionel Canon motor discussion



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

I've caught wind of a few reports of Canon motor failures causing RCMC motor drive section failures.
I recently over the last year or so have several engines using these motors and wanted to start a discussion on possible protection, understanding the modes of failure, and alternative retrofit motors such as Pittman motors.
Examples are putting in series with the motor fuses, breakers, or other protection like PTCs.

As part of this, my first candidate was my new Lionel EM-1 2031090 which I decided to retrofit a nice ball bearing Pitmann I picked up on the bay for $20 each and just cut off the encoder casting. I'll do a separate topic on that mod as I want to just give the background and really discuss the Canon in this topic. So as such, I then had a slightly used Canon I could take apart and inspect to try and wrap my head around the reported failures and better understand the motor and it's construction to determine the how and why of the failure.

So, here's the pictures of an opened Canon. Honestly, I'm no finding a lot that I'm finding bad, but maybe I just don't know or the failure mode is not obvious? I had to use a Dremel cutoff to notch the crimped can housing sections to bend them allowing the plastic end bell to pull straight out. I carefully wrapped the motor before doing this and even sealed the end bell to prevent metal shavings from contaminating.

So here is the armature at first look. There is a brass washer before the commutator as an oil slinger to prevent the brushes and commutator from lube oil from over oiling that rear bushing.








Here is a side view better showing the arrangement. Also notice the nice surface finish on the commutator.
Sorry, I now realize the picture was not as clear as I had hoped.

















The end bell showing the stamped brush arms with inserted non replaceable brushes. Maybe this is what wears prematurely and fails? Also notice the foam attached to the brush arm springs to dampen them. I could also see say given even amperage and voltage abuse, the spring tension in the arms annealing and thus losing spring tension.









I went ahead and pulled the armature completely. Notice the epoxied windings to prevent throwout and also the small colored epoxy balancing dots.









Here is a shot of the commutator end inserted in the end bell with the brushes so you can also see that general arrangement. Again, sorry for the out of focus photo, I didn't see it on the phone until you post it here.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Canon motors are popular with European locomotives and are also used for replacements. I've not heard of any premature failures of the smaller models. In fact, these are some of the best motors available.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Basically my questions are:
If you've seen a failure, any notes on how it happened? Pulling a long train, running for a long time, or just a random failure?
If possible to check a bad known failed motor, did it short to frame ground? Or, was it just a low resistance short between motor leads?

Recommended mitigation?
PTC recommendations or values?
One lead or both leads (hence the short to frame ground question)

Potential sources for Pittman replacements, specific models, etc.
Example, 12V VS 15V Pitmann choices.

One gotcha I already encountered, the shaft and general mounting of the Canon has been a longer motor shaft than say a given Lionel Pittman and it matters because the stackup of the motor mounting bracket, the plastic flywheel protector, and the encoder spaces the flywheel and it's setscrews right at the end of the shaft. I found that the Pittman shaft on 2 different motors was just slightly shorter than the Cannon and just enough the flywheel could not be mounted because the setscrews missed or were so close to the end it would fail or just wobble off. In other words, Lionel designed the system around the Canon and as such, retrofits are not just as easy as I would have hoped.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

MichaelE said:


> Canon motors are popular with European locomotives and are also used for replacements. I've not heard of any premature failures of the smaller models. In fact, these are some of the best motors available.


Given I've now seen the guts of one, I agree, IMO it follows good construction details- epoxied skew wound armature, diamond trued commutator, epoxy balanced (VS drilling the laminations causing eddy current heating), decent brushes, dampener foam details, oil slinger design on commutator end, decent bushings, solid can, basically sealed. Granted, it's a true non-user serviceable motor meaning you probably won't be replacing the brushes.

Just hoping others can fill in on the bad experiences and maybe it's the rare of rare problems if any.
I'm not saying everyone should run out and void the warranty and replace them, just trying to put a place and discussion on the failures and give those who know a good discussion on protection of the RCMC.
I've got several thousand dollars in about 7 or so of these now, and I intend to run them a fair amount over the next couple of years. It might just be putting PTCs in series, if so, what current value or specific part?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Jetguy said:


> Given I've now seen the guts of one, I agree, IMO it follows good construction details- epoxied skew wound armature, diamond trued commutator, epoxy balanced (VS drilling the laminations causing eddy current heating), decent brushes, dampener foam details, oil slinger design on commutator end, decent bushings, solid can, basically sealed. Granted, it's a true non-user serviceable motor meaning you probably won't be replacing the brushes.
> 
> Just hoping others can fill in on the bad experiences and maybe it's the rare of rare problems if any.
> I'm not saying everyone should run out and void the warranty and replace them, just trying to put a place and discussion on the failures and give those who know a good discussion on protection of the RCMC.
> I've got several thousand dollars in about 7 or so of these now, and I intend to run them a fair amount over the next couple of years. It might just be putting PTCs in series, if so, what current value or specific part?


Specifically, asking over here because I saw where @gunrunnerjohn mentioned Canon failures elsewhere.
I'm not trying to bash Lionel or Canon, just have a technical information sharing. Hence why I even took one of mine apart just to take pictures and share what I found.

I'm a firm believer in an ounce of prevention VS having to replace a $120 RCMC.


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

John, aka GRJ has seen Canon failures. He can best fill you in. I only had one Canon motored engine, a Vision Niagara, and replaced it with a 12v 9433 motor from the same source as those ball bearing Pittmans. He was selling the motor I used before he started selling the ones with the encoder. Between myself and aother who has done many other Pittman swaps you can use any 12 or 15v 9433 or 9434 Pittman. Its not that critical. 

Pete


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

MichaelE said:


> Canon motors are popular with European locomotives and are also used for replacements. I've not heard of any premature failures of the smaller models. In fact, these are some of the best motors available.


Keep them in Europe please, you're welcome to them there!

I have seen maybe 40-50 Legacy steam locomotives come through for repair, and three of them had failed Canon motors. Two of the motors where a dead short and fried the RCMC beyond repair. The 3rd motor appeared also to be shorted, but I was able to replace the driver FET's on that RCMC and return it to service, obviously with a new motor.

I'm sorry I never took the time to cut one of the motors open to see what happened, but I'm sure I'll get the chance at some point in the not too distant future! FWIW, I'm not the only one that has experienced these failures. Say what you will about that motor, IMO they're junk!


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I guess smaller motors are their specialty.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I have seen maybe 40-50 Legacy steam locomotives come through for repair, and three of them had failed Canon motors. Two of the motors where a dead short and fried the RCMC beyond repair. The 3rd motor appeared also to be shorted, but I was able to replace the driver FET's on that RCMC and return it to service, obviously with a new motor.


Thanks for the input and appreciate the first hand experience. I'm curious, did you add PTCs on the replacements or just went with better motor swaps?


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Ii believe Harmonyards on OGR said he caught a Canon just before it took out the RCMC. In this case it was the brush holders that were about to break up. As long as you can get 20 dollar Pittmans, no reason not to swap them out. Easier and not that much more expensive than splicing in PTC.

Pete


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Jetguy said:


> Thanks for the input and appreciate the first hand experience. I'm curious, did you add PTCs on the replacements or just went with better motor swaps?


They go out with what Lionel supplies as replacement parts. I actually suggested a Pittman swap to two of the folks, but they opted for the stock motors. Not my money, so that's what they got. Before any of mine get a lot of runtime, I'm thinking of adding a PTC, cheap insurance. 

Pete is being a bit glib with the "easier than the PTC", that's not quite true.


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Norton said:


> In this case it was the brush holders that were about to break up.
> Pete


I could see that and that makes perfect sense.


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

The shorts almost have to be happening at the brush end, so the brushes breaking and just laying in there and shorting out the leads would be logical.


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

Jetguy said:


> I could see that and that makes perfect sense.
> View attachment 557630


That's where the Canon motors end up failing. The brushes break off and short. With a better brush holder/brush plate design they would be fine for the most part.

I recently picked up a brand new 2019 edition Lionel ATSF 3751 class Northern. The first thing I did was swap the Canon out for a 9433 Pittman. It was an easy swap. I just enlarged the screw holes on the motor mount, used some screws that fit the Pittman (3/16 I think) and everything bolted back together.


----------



## lou1985 (Oct 24, 2019)

Here's a picture of the brush plate from the Canon that failed in Harmonyards ESE Hudson. The retainer for the brush broke and the brush could flop around. That's probably what kills the Canons that fail. I'd be curious to know if Lionel buys the cheapest version of the motor. It's possible that a more expensive version of the Canon motor uses a better brush plate design.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Hello fellas, ...I don’t get on here as often as I should,....I’ll fix that,...I had Lou share the pics of the Cannon I had fail,..each brush holder has 2 plastic “ears“ that keep the brush arm in alignment through it’s slot......I heard an audible clicking sound coming from the locomotive while running, I did indeed stop it in the nick of time, The locomotive began jerking violently and the lights were flickering, obviously heading to a short. If one of the ears breaks, the brush arm can wander around as now there’s nothing to keep it in alignment when there’s tension on it. The brush had obviously walked off the commutator. As John had mentioned, he’s already seen failures. As a side note, I’ve already removed the Cannon from Lionel’s latest Legacy J3a Hudson and swapped it out with a Pittman ,.....although it did not fail, i replaced it with a Pittman as mentioned above by my good friends Pete & Lou. I did observe a lot of shaft end play in the freshly harvested Cannon. I had mentioned to Lou that my Legacy J3‘s Cannon had a boat load of end play so I diid measure it for S&G’s and found it to have .009......might not seem like a lot, but going from forward to reverse every time, moves the shaft back and forth adding to the end play,......I’d have to say .009 end play would be discard point for me,.....when I set up Pittmans, I strive .002-.003 ......there should be only the tiniest bit of end play, I like to strive for almost zero, but not have a loaded bearing,....hope all this info is helpful....

Pat


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

jetguy, we’ve been using those Pittman CPR motors for some time now, ....we have been really impressed with the performance numbers on a host of Lionel & MTH locomotives,....I’ve developed a really nice way to machine off the encoder housing, thus making the rear cap nice and round,.....we really like the generous ball bearing ends, and near bulletproof brush housing,...

Pat


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

HARMONYARDS said:


> jetguy, we’ve been using those Pittman CPR motors for some time now, ....we have been really impressed with the performance numbers on a host of Lionel & MTH locomotives,....I’ve developed a really nice way to machine off the encoder housing, thus making the rear cap nice and round,.....we really like the generous ball bearing ends, and near bulletproof brush housing,...
> 
> Pat
> View attachment 557684
> ...


The one problem I'm having is the Canon motor has a longer shaft, so when I go to install the Pittman, by the time you have the motor mount, the plastic flywheel guard and the encoder in place, the flywheel even jammed as tight into the encoder as possible cannot tighten the set screws as they are either right on the edge or push the flywheel off the shaft.
The encoder PCB needs insulation as on the backside are some through hole vias and the plastic flywheel guard is pretty thin already.

So what's the magic fix you are getting to make it work?
Omit the plastic guard and replace with a thinner insulating method between the encoder PCB and the metal motor "L" bracket?
Thin the motor bracket?
Mill or lath cut a tiny bit off the face of the motor?
I don't see any room to mod the flywheel, the setscrew hole path already is into the groove of the plastic optical encoder.
The plastic encoder is so fragile, I see no good way of making it slightly less tall?
Maybe that Lionel Fastrack "expander" paste could work on stretching the motor shaft?




Anyone have a motor shaft stretching tool?


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

I haven’t run into that problem. Both of the swaps I’ve done on the Legacy engines have required the smaller 9433 motors,.....but I do know what you mean,....worse case scenario, drill new set screw holes and tap,....you’ll need two, as the opposing set screws help to set up the alignment and reduce the run out,.....I’m gauging this on how thick the flywheel is on my Legacy J3, I don’t know about the EM1, ....is it thick enough to parallel the set screw holes?

Pat


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

HARMONYARDS said:


> I haven’t run into that problem. Both of the swaps I’ve done on the Legacy engines have required the smaller 9433 motors,.....but I do know what you mean,....worse case scenario, drill new set screw holes and tap,....you’ll need two, as the opposing set screws help to set up the alignment and reduce the run out,.....I’m gauging this on how thick the flywheel is on my Legacy J3, I don’t know about the EM1, ....is it thick enough to parallel the set screw holes?
> 
> Pat


No, the holes are already into the very groove the encoder ring presses into. In other words, there is plenty of meat there to drill 2 holes further back-however, no way to tighten. You could drill an angled hole and tap, but that gets tricky and seems problematic. Sorry, it's late and I'm trying to grab any pictures I can find to show the situation and failing.
Here, you can see the setscrew holes, just imagine the groove from the backside that encoder ring sets in, the holes literally already partially intersect the groove or slot the encoder presses into. This barely allows the hex key so you can tighten in situ. 

















The problem is the thickness or height of the encoder plastic part. It's so fragile, I don't see a good way to make it thinner. That height is what limits the setscrew location spacing.
The ring is taller than absolutely needed, but without breaking any of the tiny arms you cannot easily shave it down to a lower height.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

Interesting thread and I enjoy reading it. I have about 140 recent (last fifteen years, Legacy, TMCC, PS 2 or PS3) locos and have never had motor issues (other than with the loco Lionel uses in its Hogwarts sets), with only one motor failure in fifteen years and find the stock motors good enough for my needs, so I don't plan to do pro-active replacement. But this is an interesting thread, nonetheless.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

It appears the existing set screws are drilled partially into the pronounced lip, and slightly just above .....whats the the thickness of the pronounced lip just above the encoder ring ?. ( the widest part of the flywheel) Looks like it could be bored for 4-40 set screws 180 degrees apart from the existing ones,.....so for 4-40 thread life, you’ll need a 3/32” bit, ....is that lip thicker than or at least as thick as 3/32”? .....I’d pop off the encoder ring before I attempted this....

Pat


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Also, you might not want to try and move the flywheel itself back. When you go to reassemble, you’ll find your dog bone is now too short necessitatIng a custom dog bone,....

Pat


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Lee Willis said:


> Interesting thread and I enjoy reading it. I have about 140 recent (last fifteen years, Legacy, TMCC, PS 2 or PS3) locos and have never had motor issues (other than with the loco Lionel uses in its Hogwarts sets), with only one motor failure in fifteen years and find the stock motors good enough for my needs, so I don't plan to do pro-active replacement. But this is an interesting thread, nonetheless.


I think the Canon that Lionel is now using in most of the Legacy steam might be a special case.  I've actually had really good luck with most of the Mabuchi motors in a variety of equipment. I think I've seen more Canon motor failures in Legacy steam by percentage, way above anything you should expect. Maybe 50 Canon motors have crossed my bench, and three of them were dead! At least a 6% failure rate raises some eyebrows, at least for me it does!  Obviously, most of this stuff comes to me broken, so I'm going to see more issues with any component than someone just running the locomotives.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> I think the Canon that Lionel is now using in most of the Legacy steam might be a special case.  I've actually had really good luck with most of the Mabuchi motors in a variety of equipment. I think I've seen more Canon motor failures in Legacy steam by percentage, way above anything you should expect. Maybe 50 Canon motors have crossed my bench, and three of them were dead! At least a 6% failure rate raises some eyebrows, at least for me it does!  Obviously, most of this stuff comes to me broken, so I'm going to see more issues with any component than someone just running the locomotives.


No doubt they got Cannon on board on low bid, .....I kinda figured the way Pittman walked out the door on the hobby industry, it left the model mfr.’s high & dry & scrambling for a solution,.......MTH went through two different vendors after Pittman’s exit,........first was a Pittman knock off from SPG motors, and the second was a no name black can motor ,.......


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Lionel went first to Buehler motors after quiting Pittman. The Vision 700E has one. No idea of their failure rate or how many engines got this motor.

Pete


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Norton said:


> Lionel went first to Buehler motors after quiting Pittman. The Vision 700E has one. No idea of their failure rate or how many engines got this motor.
> 
> Pete


This I did not know,....so Lionel was jumping from vendor to vendor as well,.....sounds like they jumped out of the frying pan & into the fire,....😆😆😆

Pat


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

I think a lot of of motor makers have started making a cheaper line in China. I know Maxon has as well as Mabuchi. If Buehler has kept production in Europe they may not be able to compete on price. Lionel lists a bare Buehler (Buhler sic) for 65 bucks but a bare Canon at 54 bucks.










Pete


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

I’d drink to that,...genuine Swiss made Maxons are a thing of beauty!....I don’t think the “cheaper“ Maxons are that nice .....aren’t they made in China as well?...

Pat


----------



## Norton (Nov 5, 2015)

Pretty sure the cheaper Maxons are made in China and don't compare with the Swiss motors but then they are a fraction of the price.

Pete


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

what is MTH and 3rdrail now using for motors. Sorry if it’s been mentioned already.

five legacy engines with cannons and no issues, I will not be preemptively changing out motors.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

superwarp1 said:


> what is MTH and 3rdrail now using for motors. Sorry if it’s been mentioned already.
> 
> five legacy engines with cannons and no issues, I will not be preemptively changing out motors.


I’m not sure what Scott is using in his latest releases,....maybe he’s biting the bullet and paying the premium for Pittmans ( now owned by Ametek) ....MTH is using a black colored can motor of unknown make, ......I’ve purchased a couple of these motors straight from the vendor myself, they do indeed come from China, but the construction seems to be robust......., is it as good as a Pittman?...id say not, and the price for a new MTH knockoff motor is equal to or greater than finding genuine Pittmans on the secondary market, ...so it negates me going in and buying a bundle of them....I’ll post up some pics of the MTH motor a little later on,....right now I’m trying to get a Mohawk to play nice,...so far no dice,....stubborn mule,...

Pat


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

superwarp1 said:


> what is MTH and 3rdrail now using for motors. Sorry if it’s been mentioned already.
> 
> five legacy engines with cannons and no issues, I will not be preemptively changing out motors.


And truth be told Gary, ...you might not ever have issues with them,...but I’ve experienced a failure first hand, and techs in the field report similar issues, and that’s all I need to hear,....plus I have the inventory, and the tools to do such things, so out they go,....it’s kinda goes like this for my mindset, ...fail once, shame on them, fail twice,..shame on me,..😉 and on that note, I’m not advocating a nation wide motor swap under any means,....but if I myself can control my own variables, then you know the route I’m gonna go!..

Pat


----------



## superwarp1 (Dec 13, 2016)

Thanks Harmonyard, I’ve been told 3rdrail has switched to what I can’t say. it’s weird that the protection circuit of the RCMC isn’t protecting itself from dead shorts. Used to get that three flash on that mogul I used to own every time the running gear would lock up. Any thoughts?


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

superwarp1 said:


> Thanks Harmonyard, I’ve been told 3rdrail has switched to what I can’t say. it’s weird that the protection circuit of the RCMC isn’t protecting itself from dead shorts. Used to get that three flash on that mogul I used to own every time the running gear would lock up. Any thoughts?


Different short. What you are talking about is locked rotor current, where yes, a motor can draw as much as 20 times normal current in locked rotor condition. That is simply a motor lead to motor lead near short, it's not actually 0 Ohm dead short, there is still resistance but more importantly, it's just perceived motor load. The RCMC can sense this fault and hopefully not self destruct. In fact, what it's actually sensing is the lack of any tachometer movement when motor movement is commanded. In order to not burn the motor up- the RCMC or even the older Oddyssey controls attempt to ramp up motor power and after a time out period of not seeing any tach movement, they go into fault. That's why a bad tach will have a runaway and then sudden stop. You see the motor controller crank up trying to get the motor to move, but if it doesn't see feedback of actual movement from the tach, it assumes locked rotor.

What is FAR worse is we are talking about a motor lead short to frame ground due to the bush structure failing and shorting to the metal can of the motor, that is then screwed to the frame and thus ground. Most modern electronics of BOTH MTH and Lionel are taking the raw track power of the frame ground and center rail directly into a rectifier and then all the electronics are NO LONGER at frame ground potential. This is why no wire, no smoke unit, no motor, no LED or light, no switches, can ever touch frame ground in a modern engine. Any short of any wire coming out of the RCMC effectively shoots AC track power into an output on the board.

When the Canon motor fails, the failure is the worst case scenario of shorting to frame ground and thus shooting AC back up a DC motor wire into the RCMC.

That kind of why I started the thread to discuss the actual motor faults being found. 
A motor failure of just some fault that does not short to ground
or
A far more serious failure, where either a winding fault or a fault in the brush system or commutator shorts to effectively frame ground.

If the motor just shorted internally without short to frame ground, then in theory, a fuse, breaker, PTC or some other form of over current protection should protect the RCMC or motor driver. You really only need one device somewhere in the circuit.

If the fault is a true motor lead to frame ground fault, both leads then need protection because a short to frame fault one lead is probably direct shorted to frame, the other lead through the motor armature, or maybe you get lucky and one side floats- point being, you probably need protection in both leads. Even then, shooting AC back up into a motor drive output is highly likely to damage it or blow it. This is because the FET outputs have to have a fast recovery diode to protect the FET from reverse voltage. Field-effect transistor - Wikipedia those diodes are not meant to carry constant massive amounts of a output shorted to AC shooting through them and so when that diode fails, then the FET fails next. If the FET fails bad enough, the AC now shoots up the gate into the microcontroller pin and blows it sky high. So yes, exactly what @gunrunnerjohn saw in completely blown RCMCs.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

superwarp1 said:


> Thanks Harmonyard, I’ve been told 3rdrail has switched to what I can’t say. it’s weird that the protection circuit of the RCMC isn’t protecting itself from dead shorts. Used to get that three flash on that mogul I used to own every time the running gear would lock up. Any thoughts?


I’ve had this discussion with both Pete & John....although the RCMC can protect itself in an overload condition,..I don’t think it can take a direct short on that particular circuit,....I believe John said he’s seen them wipe out the RCMC due to a direct short,....I caught mine getting ready to go to dead short......although it can sense to much amp draw and shut itself down, I don’t think it can do a darn thing about a spike,....like a dead short,..

Pat


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Jetguy said:


> Different short. What you are talking about is locked rotor current, where yes, a motor can draw as much as 20 times normal current in locked rotor condition. That is simply a motor lead to motor lead near short, it's not actually 0 Ohm dead short, there is still resistance but more importantly, it's just percieved motor load. The RCMC can sense this fault and hopefully not self destruct. What is FAR worse is we are talking about a motor lead short to frame ground due to the bush structure failing and shorting to the metal can of the motor, that is then screwed to the frame and thus ground. Most modern electronics of BOTH MTH and Lionel are taking the raw track power of the frame ground and center rail directly into a rectifier and then all the electronics are NO LONGER at frame ground potential. This is why no wire, no smoke unit, no motor, no LED or light, no switches, can ever touch frame ground in a modern engine.
> 
> When the Canon motor fails, the failure is the worst case scenario of shorting to frame ground and thus shooting AC back up a DC motor wire into the RCMC.


Give the man a cigar,....bingo!..😉

Pat


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Put another way, a couple of ways to protect this since we do understand the failure:
#1 replace the known to fail motor- a bit costly and kind of a pain
#2 Put something in the circuit to protect the RCMC- fast blow fuses, circuit breaker, or PTC are options. the thing is, understanding the motor draw normally, max draw, and locked rotor draw- probably all need to be found experimentally. The other part of this problem (and I'm theorizing this) is that if the protection isn't fast enough, or the current too high, then the protection will fail to protect against a frame short of the motor lead and lead to the fast recovery diode failure and failure minimally of the FET motor drive section. So sizing is everything. You don't want it to open circuit just because you ran a few more cars today than last week, you don't want to open the loco every time you blow a fuse, you but self reseting options aren't perfect either as they keep reclosing and thus putting the board at risk. Again, I'm thinking the protection has to be in both motor leads not knowing which one could short or both.
#3 A semi painful modification too, almost as bad as changing the motor, but decouple the motor can from frame ground by somehow isolating the motor mount and ensuring the motor also cannot touch and short to boiler shell. In other words, use plastic screws or screws with insulators kind of like for the TO220 tab devices, wrap the motor in plastic or some other insulation. and ensure the motor driveshaft is plastic, thus effectively isolating the entire motor from frame ground.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

Jetguy, ...once you get past this first swap, the others will be a lot easier,....I believe you picked a hard one to do right out the gate, ....several of us had no real issues doing the swap,...my Legacy J3a ( latest release) gave me a tiny bit of trouble getting the runout corrected,...but most of that was me being over-anal,...I don’t think I’d be bothered trying to insulate that crappy Cannon motor TBT, ...if I’m going in, I’m rooting it out with a stick,...did you get that EM1 back together yet?....I’d be interested to see how you remedied the flywheel’s short coming, ( no pun intended) 

Pat


----------



## Jetguy (Mar 22, 2019)

Th


HARMONYARDS said:


> Jetguy, ...once you get past this first swap, the others will be a lot easier,....I believe you picked a hard one to do right out the gate, ....several of us had no real issues doing the swap,...my Legacy J3a ( latest release) gave me a tiny bit of trouble getting the runout corrected,...but most of that was me being over-anal,...I don’t think I’d be bothered trying to insulate that crappy Cannon motor TBT, ...if I’m going in, I’m rooting it out with a stick,...did you get that EM1 back together yet?....I’d be interested to see how you remedied the flywheel’s short coming, ( no pun intended)
> 
> Pat


I need to shoot some pictures. Mistakes were made, people have been sacked, those responsible for sacking have been sacked. The mistake was creating a flat on the new motor shaft to copy the Canon. Ultimately, no matter how you want to say it, the motor shaft is shorter on the replacement Pittman and there's no room for error. So I had to go to the pile of new motors, get an unmolested shaft version sans flat, and then, the setscrews barely, and I do mean barely, 1/2 on 1/2 off the very tip of the shaft so getting runout right is a pain. It runs well though and time will tell if that flywheel one day just pops off the motor shaft.

Again, I need pictures and measurements- where are those darn calipers?? to show the various motors.
I have an MTH takeout, the back and aluminum endbell Pittman copy and it has the shortest shaft and no flats.
I have a genuine Lionel 6208066100 9433L (out of a VL Challenger parts lot sold on the bay), and it has the D shaft flat and is shorter than the Cannon but the same exact length as the new 9234E (ball bearing with encoder)


















Again, here's what I'm finding.
You might be able to use the typical Lionel Pittman or these bay found ones as the shafts are the same length.
Since the shaft is technically too short (compared to original Canon motors), this is putting the setscrew location right at the shaft tip and a flat on the shaft or the typical slight cone taper at the end of the shaft can cause major runout with the 2 setscrew style flywheel.
Some engines can take the longer physical size of the motor can 9234 ball bearing model (even with the entire encoder housing trimmed off), and others have to use the shorter 9433 size.
I'm leaning towards omitting the flywheel guard plastic spacer and using much thinner plastic between the sensor PCB and metal motor mount to get me even a fraction of a mm for better mounting. Every little bit helps.

So, I'm going through my fleet of engines (older MTH PS1 steamers and other older Lionels) and inspecting to see what they have, and can I retrofit in a new 9434 potentially giving me a shorter motor for another engine. MTH flywheel and tach systems have the setscrew at the rear edge of they flywheels so motor shaft length isn't even remotely an issue.

I really believe after taking one apart, that 9234 is one heck of a good motor and the nicest brush system I've seen to date. I'm really impressed.
I need to show pictures of the different end bell systems and brushes. That seems to be the entire crux of failure- bad, good, and better designs and understanding why one is better than the other.


----------



## HARMONYARDS (Mar 15, 2020)

My only concern, and it ain’t that big of a deal, is if you move the encoder, gasket, and flywheel back, what’s this going to do to your coupling dog bone?....Lionel usually has way too much slop in there as it is,...but push come to shove, a custom dog bone can be made with brass tubing,...again, a mediocre problem at that,....there wasn’t any room on the flat protruding surface just before the encoder ring on that flywheel to bore new set screw holes?...both of my Hudsons ( the ESE & the J3a ) had plenty of set screw “bite” but neither of those have a flywheel as the one you pictured when this whole thread started,.....I can accept full responsibility, ....but no blame,..😆

Pat


----------

