Motor identification and brush problem

[railroadbill]

 

This motor came with a partly built loco kit I bought on ebay a while ago. Got that nearly finished, but found the motor has a brush (which is circular cross section in a sprung holder)  which is missing.  I don't know what this motor is, haven't ever had one before and I wonder if anyone can identify it, please?  Would spare brushes be available and where from?  The brush holder is sprung ok, still has a small length of brush in it but rest has worn or broken off.  The other one is ok.

 

Thanks.

 

Motor is 30 mm long  10mm wide 15mm deep.

 

[Robin Verth]

The motor looks like an Anchorage DS13 from memory they date from the late 1970's to the early 1980's, the motors have not been available for some time,  the motor's were supplied by M.G. Sharp of Sheffield, I don't know if they are still trading, I have come across this motor in a number of kit built locos the motor is OK for DC use but a nightmare for DCC one of the brushes is bonded to the motor frame and I have not found a way to isolate the brush, I have 2 remaining loco's with this motor both are waiting in the queue for replacement motors to be fitted.

[micklner]

D13 horrid things . Motor needed will depend on the kit.

[Pebbles]

I have no wish to be pedantic, but I think the motor is the smaller D11 and on mine the brush holders are both insulated from the main frame. The purists may not like the suggestion, but replacement brushes can be made from pencil lead of suitable grade. Both the D11 and D13 were high revving motors requiring relatively high gear reductions.

[hayfield]

25 minutes ago, Pebbles said:

I have no wish to be pedantic, but I think the motor is the smaller D11 and on mine the brush holders are both insulated from the main frame. The purists may not like the suggestion, but replacement brushes can be made from pencil lead of suitable grade. Both the D11 and D13 were high revving motors requiring relatively high gear reductions.

 

What grade please ?

 

If you loose a spring then small springs from buffers are fine but may need cutting down

[hayfield]

I have a couple of locos with these and they are OK, as said not up to modern standards and the gears and motor mounts are less efficient than modern items

 

If the kit has been built to a good to high standard its well worth the effort in buying one of the modern gear boxes (not motor mounts) and a can motor (cost and quality vary)

 

Your kit will be as good as its weakest link 

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, Robin Verth said:

The motor looks like an Anchorage DS13 from memory they date from the late 1970's to the early 1980's, the motors have not been available for some time,  the motor's were supplied by M.G. Sharp of Sheffield, I don't know if they are still trading, I have come across this motor in a number of kit built locos the motor is OK for DC use but a nightmare for DCC one of the brushes is bonded to the motor frame and I have not found a way to isolate the brush, I have 2 remaining loco's with this motor both are waiting in the queue for replacement motors to be fitted.

 

Yes, Anchorage DS10s, D11s and DS13s were quite commonly used in kit built locos backs then and were pretty good motors if geared down sufficiently.  The brushes are tiny, and the springs very fiddly and easily lost.

 

You only need to insulate  both bushes for DCC if you are also using the pickup principle that one set of wheels is live to the chassis, admittedly also very common at the time.  Depending on the loco, if you can use insulated wheels on both sides (and therefore have pickups fitted to both sides, you can still convert to DCC.  However I agree that the easiest approach to conversion is just to add an insulating sleeve to the other brush on a Triang X04 motor or one of its look-alikes, which were also often used in kits back then.

 

I have successfully made my own rectangular brushes for old Bassett Lowke O gauge locos by filing down larger brushes intended for electric drills etc, and soldered new bits of carbon to repair  X04 brushes.  I don't fancy my chances of trying to turn one into a small cylinder for these things though.  I like the idea of using pencil lead, if you can get it in the right diameter.  What grade would be suitable - 2H (or harder) is presumably best?  I was under the impression that the material used for motors wasn't pure carbon, had something added, but I guess pencil leads would be good enough 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Michael Hodgson

[Fat Controller]

Pencil lead isn't pure carbon; it's a mixture of carbon and clay. The more clay, the harder the pencil.

[Pebbles]

20 minutes ago, Fat Controller said:

Pencil lead isn't pure carbon; it's a mixture of carbon and clay. The more clay, the harder the pencil.

Correct, that said I have not suggested something that I have not done myself, and I did say that the purists may not like the suggestion. I'm sure that an article also appeared, I think in MRJ. Part of the problem with any carbon brushes is that the grade of carbon is dependent on its application. I remember many years ago of individuals putting either car starter motor brushes into the dynamo or vice versa. because of the different hardness of the carbon for their applications commutators were wrecked.  When I lived in Carshalton there was a factory producing raw carbon and I cadged a block of suitable grade which I still have. I should add that machining to size is very difficult and best achieved by holding a square section in a large pin chuck and gently filing to size.

[railroadbill]

Thanks very much for all the useful answers above in identifying the motor. Using pencil lead sounds a good idea, I'll see if I have a pencil with a lead the right diameter. 

The motor does indeed only have one brush holder insulated. The chassis had been pretty well finished in the second hand kit I bought, wheels insulated on one side, but will probably need some reworking if a new motor is fitted. The body and tender came up ok when I'd finished them (it's a Wills schools class so quite heavy).

I built another white metal kit 4-4-0, a 2P to which I fitted  a Mashima motor and comet 2 stage  gear box, and that runs well.  So that sort of combination might well be the best way to go.  (Also got some Mitsumi motors (2 also fitted to comet gearboxes) but they are a bit small for a heavy express loco).

[DCB]

I had problems with these Anchoridge motors, see my thread "Comet Chassis Woes,".

The brushes are a pain but I made some from Lucas alternator brushes which are about 1/8" square and 3/8" long. I put one in a drill chuck, jammed off centre in the 3 jaw chuck. Hooked up the speed control and spun it about 360 rpm, about 3 times marching speed, 180 X left rght!

and carefully filed it first round and then down to size. Failure rate was 50% approx. I used Black and Decker on a dimmer switch and also a 12 Volt Mini Drill.  The size needs to be precise so it slides but neither wobbles nor sticks in the brush holder.  Having said that the Anchoridge is a gutless wonder.  They need to rev, especially if used to pull trains longer than 3 coaches 

 60:1 gearing is ball park, but a 60:1 Romford worm gear set has very fine teeth and its very difficult to keep an Anchoridge in mesh compared to the Triang X04 and its clones.   40 to 1 Romford  works well but the motors don't have enough grunt and overheat the brushes and springs.  They are like badly engineered versions of the K's motors but lack the K's larger brushes and alternative 3 and 5 pole armatures.  I had several Anchoridge motors, none of which were satisfactory,  while trying to get  professionally built K's kit locos to actually pull trains, the 28XX one(s) were binned in favour of a K's Mk2 with an outrigger bearing to keep the gears in mesh and the  90XX looks like it too will have to have a K's motor fitted as well.  The K's isn't as smooth but it doesn't start smoking after hal a lap of the layout either.

Fitted to a modern multi stage gearbox they are probably fine, but its a bit like fitting a Rolls Royce Peregrine engine to a Bugatti Veyron, wthout the benefit of sounding wonderful.

[Pebbles]

I believe that The Rolls Royce Peregrine - development of the Kestrel - performed very well in the Westland Whirlwind.