# 249e



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

It is time to show the 249E, the 259E has been getting a lot of attention. So here is the first view.










I will do the exposee when I give it a cleaning and will compare it to the 259e which I do have now. The tender is a 265T. A 265W does exist. The engine came out in 1936 in gun metal and was later produced in black . The production period ended in 1939. It has a larger ser of front and trailing wheels with large cast drivers with the standard spoke pattern of modern engines unlike the early 259e with see through spokes.

For comparison, notice the larger size.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

one in gun metal for you t.











yours looks in good shape.:thumbsup:

Are the side rods OK?
It looks like they stick out too far?

Maybe it is just the picture?


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The rods could be wrong I have noway to be sure. They do stick out.
The engine was repainted I believe so maybe it is wrong. Here is one shot. I get something closer next.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

*More Comparisions*


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

*Rod Inspections*

I did find out that they are 180 degrees out.










They do stick out.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

*Closer Look*

A front look showing a tank. Is that suppose to be a water tank? Well, you have the red markers and lower railing over the cow catcher. In the rear you have the drawbar pin.










Under the cab window you have the number plate. On the side is an air tank.









The nice large front wheels and the spoked trailers. Theae are large in comparison to the postwar engines.


----------



## daniel828 (Dec 13, 2010)

T-man, I was wondering about the driving wheels, side rod orientation. Are they supposed to be across from each other, if I was looking at them from the bottom of the engine, lets say? 

Also, the nose "slope" on the boiler of the 259e, thats the way they are supposed to look? Mines bent and out of round, some pics. I've seen look parallel to the ground, and some look like they slope down.

Your 249 and 259 are both nice looking engines. As well as big ed's gunmetal version.

--Dan


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

The spoked trailers are pretty neat, you don't see that nowadays!


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

T-Man,

I'm sitting here with a big, giant cup of jealousy! The 249 is a great looker. I've had 'em on my "want" list for a while, but ebay ones have been too expensive for my pockets. Yours looks to be in very nice shape. I like the front view 249/259 comparison photo ... quite a bigger brother for the 259, huh?

Daniel -- it may be likely that your boiler "nose" has been bent/distored. The 259's are also well known for back cabs that are often drooped rear-end-down in an unpleasing way. You'll have some leeway for adjustment if you opt to disassemble / reassemble.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I am lucky the 249e was a gift from an HO friend who had no use for it. 
It is a bigger engine and that is what I am trying to get across. Those 8 wheel 800 series cars are huge incomparison to the Babe Ruth Boxcar and others. The refernce books just don't show that, you have to see them to believe it.

So my rods are wrong 180 and not 90. I don't know about the wide expanse. I will have to sneak a peek at one at a train show. Now that I suspect there is a problem. It runs fine it just needs that extra clearance which isn't always there on my table.

ED, I need rod pictures!

The 259e does slope a little. It has to meet the small front cover to do that.
The sloping back will reqire adjustment to the panel in front of it. Too high and the top will slant. With pressure just in front of the windows is enough to pop the top up.


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

T-Man said:


> I am lucky the 249e was a gift from an HO friend who had no use for it.
> It is a bigger engine and that is what I am trying to get across. Those 8 wheel 800 series cars are huge incomparison to the Babe Ruth Boxcar and others. The refernce books just don't show that, you have to see them to believe it.
> 
> So my rods are wrong 180 and not 90. I don't know about the wide expanse. I will have to sneak a peek at one at a train show. Now that I suspect there is a problem. It runs fine it just needs that extra clearance which isn't always there on my table.
> ...



Thats not mine.

I couldn't find any pictures of the rods.
I just posted that 249e to let you see how it looked in that color.

If you look at that one they sort of stick out too.
How do you know they are supposed to be 90 degrees?


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The manual doesn't refer to quartering. I got it from Shay at one time. The HO guys pulled through on that.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

T-Man said:


> A front look showing a tank. Is that suppose to be a water tank?


I think that was a type of heat exchanger on real locos.

TJ


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

To continue on the 249e, it has a cast frame. To gain access to the engine to top stack has a screw. Two in the rear under the frame and two screws on the front cover of the boiler. 










The water tank is actually a latch to get at the bulb.



















Then that doesn't cover the steamchest and the two nuts for the eccentric side rods. One screw in the center.










Then two screws on the frame hold the motor in.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Hubba hubba ... I'm on the edge of my seat.

Where do I stick the dollar bill?!?

(Nice lookin' loco!!!)

TJ


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)




----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

So the steamchest just unscrews from the frame, huh? I guess that's your green-circle photo.

Judging from your pics, the inside of this loco / motor looks very clean and well maintained. Are you just on a fact-finding inspection mission? No major broken bits, I hope.

TJ


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

T-Man, the "tank" above the smokebox is a feed water heater used to heat the water before it goes to the boiler. The feed water heater used exhaust steam to heat the water. The "tank" on the side of the loco looks like an air pump for the brakes. 

BB


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

It was due for a cleaning. 
It's obnious the camera needs light for the auto focus to work well. One thing, it takes plenty of screws. One from the top and two from the bottom and two from the side boiler front to get the boiler off. Then one for the steamchest and two side nuts and two side screws to remove the motor(accessible only after the boiler/cab is off).

Today I will try to improve some pictures.

Thank you, Bruce for the parts breakdown.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

Once the armature is out the wheels have to be set in the correct gear to rotate with all the rods.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Again, I'm jealous. This is one of those "smart" motor designs where the armature can actually (and easily) be removed from the motor plates. That's not the case with many of my other prewar loco motors.

Do you know, by chance, why some Lionel motor designs opted to use bendy "paper clip" style brush springs (like this 249), whereas other motor designs used coil style brush springs? Two different approaches, each accomplishing the same end goal ... but I'm just curious as to what lead the old designers down one path vs. the other path.

I'm just talking / thinking out loud, I guess ...

Those drive rods sparkle for their age. Very nice condition.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The rods may be repo. The center rooler assy is too.
The paper clip springs are low clearance, that's the main difference.
It was repainted, the original was gunmetal and still vivible on the inside,
I don't mess with this engine too often, but I am glad you enjoyed it.


----------

