# Switch compatibility with prewar Lionel



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

On the thread Doorway Layout & Track Question, the illustrious TJ made the remark...



tjcruiser said:


> My biggest dissappointment is in the O27 manual switches. Most of my prewar, tinplate locos cannot navigate across the switches without some sort of short that trips the e-unit.


to which the indomitable servoguy responded...



servoguy said:


> TJ, have you tried the metal Marx switches. They should handle your prewar stuff just fine. They work better than any of the later O-27 switches, IMHO.


Thanks to the iridescent gunrunnerjohn, I recently acquired a collection of O27 switches and decided to do some testing to find a type compatible with both prewar and postwar Lionel locos. I'd appreciate comments on whether these results are accurate.

I have a simple O27 test oval and replaced a pair of curves with three different types of switches over which I ran a variety of pre- and postwar locomotives. The switches (or "turnouts" depending on your naming preference):

Lionel 1022 and 1122 (standard postwar era switch design)
Lionel 5021/5022/5121/5122 (modern era design)
Marx ??? (can't find a model number but it is a plastic postwar design--picture down below)

Locomotives tested:

Lionel 1688 (prewar steam)
Lionel 238 (prewar steam)
Lionel 246 (postwar steam)
Lionel 2037 (postwar steam)
Lionel 220 (postwar diesel)
Lionel 2343 (postwar diesel)

Results:

Lionel 1022/1122--The 1688 consistently derailed and/or lost power. All the other locos had no problem.

Lionel 502x/512x--The 1688 consistently derailed. All the other locos were fine.

Marx--Every locomotive derailed except the 238.

Bottom line is the 1688 wouldn't successfully navigate any of these. I believe the reason why is the 1688 doesn't use conventional rollers like the other locomotives. All three types of switches tested have a similar central rail design within the portion of the switch that rotates. This rail is raised above the level of the other tracks and I think pushes upward on the rollers causing the 1688 to lose power.

I've seen several people mention Marx switches as a good solution, so I tried to figure out why mine were unsuccessful. Marx used two different design approaches for their switches. This is the type I have (the one I can't find a model number for):










Rumor has it that the above type doesn't work well with any Lionel trains (or even Marx trains for that matter!).

The design below is the type that I believe servoguy must be referring to as compatible with Lionel prewar. The model number of the manual type shown here is around 600 (I've found several variations numbered from 607 to 610):










Note the much different central rail design. The remote version of this type appears to be model numbers around 1600 (I found a 1590 for example):










I don't have any of these to test on but I could see the 1688 being happier riding on them!

So is my research on the right track?

Next question is whether postwar/modern locos will happily ride along the Marx 610/1590-style switches as well...


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The 1688 has a short frame like the 1615. The 1615 uses a tender center roller. HO people have solved this problem years ago.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I have run post war locos on the metal Marx switches with good result. There is a contact that connects the moving rail that is more or less lined up with the center rail to the center rail so there is no problem with locos losing power as they go across the switch. Except that they are non-derailing, they are a very good design.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Should have said, "Except for the fact that they are NOT non-derailing.....


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

The standard manual describes how to make it anti derail. It's only an isolated rail wired to the coil.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

The Marx switches are not wired like the Lionel switches. They do not get their power from the track but are wired directly to the transformer. I have not investigated to see what it takes to make them non-derailing.


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

A new data point--my "new-to-me" Lionel 1668 just arrived so I threw it on the test track for a spin. Although it's "rollers" are the same style as the 1688, it had no problem on the modern 502x style switches. I haven't tested the other switch types yet. Seems odd the results would be different between the 1668 and 1688.


----------



## pookybear (Feb 3, 2011)

eljefe said:


> Note the much different central rail design. The remote version of this type appears to be model numbers around 1600 (I found a 1590 for example):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nice early style of design switches here. Basically an all rail style of switch.
This gives you a better design for single roller engines or ones that use 
sliders or spoons for contacts. Also allows for engines that have larger
driving gears than the flanges on the motor. (Think Pre war Bing and such.)

You want to look for American Flyer switches, however these were never
made in a 0-27 style track. The most common is 0-42 with the dark gray
housings, but also made in 0-31 with the orange housings which are hard
to find. The American Flyer switches come in remote, manual and lighted
manual versions some have a two train operation switch as well. Also some
have a sperate contact for a fixed voltage to the lights. The switch itself
has a shared common with the track and the activation is through a fixed
voltage contact. The weak point is the lamp housing and the switch gear
both are pot metal. Housings are usually busted or missing, and the gear
are sometimes swollen. However lots of units seem to be still in good working
order. 

manual standard gauge switch.










manual 0-42 switch










Pookybear


----------



## Irishterp (Dec 27, 2011)

eljefe, I have the same 2 locos and experienced the exact same problem. I believe the 4 drivers versus 6 drivers makes the difference on my old 1022 switches. Has anyone out there tried modifying the switches with success?


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

You really need to measure the distance between the shoes. That is the major difference. The short wheel base has always had switch trouble. They were made for circles and starter sets. The 1615 was the first serious short wheel base to work and it used a center roller tender to do it.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Eljefe,

I've been a bit M.I.A. these past couple of weeks, and am trying to catch up on back threads. Your careful switch investigation and presentation here is excellent ... great research! Thanks for sharing ... a subject dear to my heart (with much frustration re: my tinplates and my modern O27 manual switches).

TJ


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

No problem, TJ. I have three pre-war loco types (1668, 1688, and 238) and get different results between them. In particular, I'm curious whether your 1668 and 1688 both have the same troubles on the 5x2x series switches or not. It seems like they ought to, but my 1668 gets across just fine while both my 1688's lose power. The spacing between their "shoes" (at least I think that's the proper name) is nearly identical--maybe the extra ~1/4" in the 1668 makes the difference. The 238 works just fine.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm out of town for the next several days. I'll try to do some experimenting with my 1668/1688/238 when I get back.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Maybe you guys should run a wire to the tender and pickup power from the tender as well as the locomotive to bypass the switch power issue.


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Maybe you guys should run a wire to the tender and pickup power from the tender as well as the locomotive to bypass the switch power issue.


what would make a good "tether connection" between loco and tender?? Lionel uses them (I have a modern shay) but I always thought there was a better (smaller micro) connector. my scale hudson uses an IR link -no power going though obviousely. but when you need power, even a few single pole- maybe concealed better? -just thinking out loud here...


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

Well, I'd probably use a .025 post and socket with heat-shrink and a single wire for power. You don't need multiple connections for that. If you want a real tether, I bought some from Digital Dynamics, they're the 6 pin plug, pretty nice.

Here's the Price List that lists the tether types they have.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I think the best approach for this problem is to pick up the switch, put the loco on it, and look at the pickup as it moves across the switch. A ruler would be a good start to discover if the pickup is long enough to bridge the gap in the center rail. The pickup may be shorting against an outside rail somewhere. This should be revealed by a good eyeball check. I have a 0-4-0 dockside switcher that gets across my 022 switches without a problem. It took a very small amount of adjustment to the fat center rail to accomplish this.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

My recollection with my tinplate is that the problem has more to do with the bounciness of the leading and trailing trucks (causing shorts through the frog area) than it does to do with the pickups. Or a combination of both, perhaps.

I'll investigate more next week.

TJ


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

It's not just losing power--the locomotives will often derail when going through the switches.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I don't think the prewar locos are compatible with the post war O-27 switches. The flanges on the prewar wheels are larger than the flanges on the post war wheels. The 1122 switches and the Marx metal switches should work OK with your locos. Have you tried them?


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Not 1122, but 1121. Sorry for the typo


----------



## plandis (Oct 5, 2011)

gunrunnerjohn said:


> Well, I'd probably use a .025 post and socket with heat-shrink and a single wire for power. You don't need multiple connections for that. If you want a real tether, I bought some from Digital Dynamics, they're the 6 pin plug, pretty nice.
> 
> Here's the Price List that lists the tether types they have.


thanks gunny- I see they have all sorts of TMCC stuff as well as several tether options. would you recommend DD for command conversion kits as well?


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

Servoguy--the Lionel 1121 and Marx "metal" switches are both on my watched items list. I don't have either to test at the moment.


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

I picked up a Marx metal manual switch and a batch of Lionel 1024 manual switches. They seem to work well with every locomotive I've tried, both prewar and postwar.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Did you test the 1024 switches with a fat wheel Marx loco?


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

No. I only have Lionel locomotives.


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

I have another question for my switch expert friends.

I believe the Lionel 1121 O27 remote switch was made in both a pre- and postwar model. Is the main difference between them the cover over the motor?

I believe this is the prewar version with a metal cover:










And this is the postwar version with a bakelite cover featuring a different shape and a large L logo:










Can anyone confirm?


----------



## Konga Man (Dec 12, 2010)

If I might speak to the obvious, the problem may not be the switches. Granted, I've got a man's layout (i.e. not O27 ) and I use strictly 022 and 711 switches, but I've had some of the same issues running almost entirely prewar loco's.

The first thing to do is define what you mean by "derailment". Does the whole loco jump the tracks, or is it just the front trucks? My experience is that the overwhelming majority of derailments were caused by the front trucks going haywire, and that often had very little to do with the switch. The problem is this: the front trucks are loose and sloppy; they're free to go up and down, side-to-side, and even to twist. All this motion causes problems when the wheels go though the turnouts and bounce over the raised sections in the middle (or even when the loco lifts going around a sharp curve at speed). The solution was to make the trucks more stable. Some locos have springs to address this, but many of those older springs are weak and ineffective. If you replace those springs with something firmer, you might find dramatically improved performance.

Case in point: I was running a postwar 249. The front trucks have a conical spring around the mounting rivet to provide some resistance to movement, but it was absolutely useless (it was flat). As a result, the front trucks bounced around so freely that they derailed about 1 of every 10 passes through a switch. I took a small grommet, sliced it open, and slipped it over the rivet between the frame and the tongue for the trucks. It fit the bill perfectly: the trucks can turn freely, but there's much less vertical play and almost no twist. It provides just the right amount of resistance. Bottom line: I ran it for an hour post-mod without a single derailment.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Konga,

The problem is not so much full-derailment as it is intermitent power loss or short, which ultimately toggles an e-unit reversal when you're not expecting one.

TJ


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

TJ, I have had the same problem with 1122 switches. Depending on the loco, the pickup rollers may touch both the fat center rail and the movable points which are connected to the outer rails. If you examine the switch, you can find the places where the shorts occur as they will be somewhat burned. 

No problems with the 1121 switches as the movable points are plastic.

No problems with the 022 switches.


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

Nice information, guys, but can anyone clarify my question on the different types of 1121 switches?


----------



## Konga Man (Dec 12, 2010)

tjcruiser said:


> Konga,
> 
> The problem is not so much full-derailment as it is intermitent power loss or short, which ultimately toggles an e-unit reversal when you're not expecting one.
> 
> TJ


Again, check the loco.

Another example: I've got a 262 that sparked something awful going across a switch. It's got no e-unit (so I don't have to worry about an unexpected change) but it would certainly trigger one if it did. Upon further investigation, the problem is that the retaining tongue (that little L-shaped piece that keeps the roller in place) on the forward roller contacts the mounting screw for the front truck when roller gets pushed up 1/8" or so (which is well before the roller would "bottom out" against the fiberboard). IOW, even though the problem happens going across a switch, it's probably more accurate to call that a design/manufacturing flaw in the loco.


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

I have an old 1121 with a metal housing, and a more recent pair with plastic housings. I don't remember where I got the metal one, but I got the plastic ones with a prewar train. I have no idea when the plastic ones were purchased. It could have been before the war or after the war. 

Lionel made die cast cars after the war but changed to plastic not long after the war. Plastic is much cheaper than die cast.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

From Doyle's prewar catalog book ...

*"1121 Remote Control Turnouts -- This pair of turnouts was originally sold from 1937 through 1942. Reintroduced in 1946 and cataloged through 1951, the postwar version can be differentiated from the prewar version by its plastic rather than metal controller and mechanism covers."*

TJ


----------



## servoguy (Jul 10, 2010)

Let me give some insight as to how this change from die cast to plastic happened. My father was a PhD Chemist. During the war, he worked for Chemical Rubber Co in Naugatuck, Connecticut. He and his cohorts made synthetic plastics and synthetic rubber. Needless to say, the Army was not interested in having these guys tote rifles. Synthetic plastics and synthetic rubber went through a huge transition during the war out of necessity.


----------



## eljefe (Jun 11, 2011)

tjcruiser said:


> From Doyle's prewar catalog book ...
> 
> *"1121 Remote Control Turnouts -- This pair of turnouts was originally sold from 1937 through 1942. Reintroduced in 1946 and cataloged through 1951, the postwar version can be differentiated from the prewar version by its plastic rather than metal controller and mechanism covers."*
> 
> TJ


Thanks! That's what I was guessing.


----------

