Rich, My Baldwin switcher had the spring drive. I never owned a slinky
but that came pretty close. I replaced a mess of them for a friend on
GP-35's and maybe GP-9's too. I think it was a matter of time span
rather than loco type. The original FP-7's were built with those
durable HobbyTown sets--been running fine from day one.
I'm going through an issue with my on again off again, gray market brass
GP-30's. I replaced the rubber coupling with a plastic one. The rubber
one had started to slip, the local RC shop sold me some fuel line and
that wasn't any better, so I tried plastic universals but that made
things worse. There must be a mis-alignment but I don't have the time
to devote to fixing that right now--so be careful when you ditch the
rubber (aka forgiving) drive connection.
Bob Werre
PhotoTraxx
On 3/18/13 1:28 PM, richgajnak wrote:
If I recall correctly, the only AM locomotive equipped with drive
coupling pen-springs was the GP35. They seem to work OK, but I've
never really loaded down the 35's, nor do I intend to.
I seem to also recall a great wailing and gnashing of teeth when the
GP35's came out because of the pen-spring couplings.
All the other AM locomotive I have, both new and old, have the good
old ball and socket drive couplings.
For decades, the ball and socket couplings (or variations there of)
are pretty much used in all of the scales using horizontal drives.
Even Athearn used a ball and socket variant to connect the drive
shafts to the motor of their Hi-F(rubberband) drive RDC's.
That should indicate something.
One of the biggest failings of my long gone Sunset Challenger was the
neoprene tubing between the motor and the rear engine, which was
apparently used because the motor and worm shafts were not the same
diameter.
This is not to say the ball and socket won't fail, some have
occasionally. But there is a proven track record for reliability with
the ball and socket.
Pen-spring and neoprene tubing for couplings are so 1950's. Why take a
step backwards?
Rich G(ajnak)
--- In [email protected] <mailto:S-Scale%40yahoogroups.com>,
"Ed" <Loizeaux@...> wrote:
>
> > > Are U-joint drives preferred over the pen springs
> > > Will Quinn
>
> > Why not just experiment with the AM pen springs and the
ball/socket connectors (NWSL) and see which provides the best performance?
> > Matt Hogan
>
>
> If you really want to seriously compare the two, I would suggest a
test drive with a heavily loaded train being pulled up a grade. Lots
of cars or fewer hopper/gondola cars filled with sand. With a heavy
load, the differences between the two will become quite apparent.
Running the loco by itself or with a light load will not necessarily
illustrate any difference at all. Let us know what you discover. Ed
Loizeaux
>
