From the diecast/injection moulded thread:
Putting motors in the (steam) loco has not been the boon that central drive has been to D&E. I sometime wonder (without wishing to start an argument) that the thing wrong with tender drive was not tender drive but what was done with it. (But that's another topic anyway.)
I would be interested in reactions to this one, specifically with reference to UK models. My comments are confined to the OO and HO sphere as that's what I own and run.
Personally, drive on the prototype's driven wheels is the way to go. Five reasons: see the wheelslip so characteristic of steam; the eye is offended by the mighty tender shoving the loco along (especially when the driving wheels are locked up); UK prototype tenders frequently need major visual compromises to accept a drive; the small size and thus low weight of many UK tenders makes traction tyres necessary; and finally, tank engines have to be loco drive, so standardise on this and learn to do it really well.
Of the first two, the illusion of reality is fostered just that little bit better when the drive is in the right place. The sight of a tender moving forward even a fraction of a millimetre with the loco at rest, is simply laughable as an effect. And that's before the sight of a loco skidding majestically along, valve gear locked up: a problem by no means confined to UK OO product.
Clearly it is possible to make a good quality tender drive, with a can motor and quiet gearing, but such a product has not to my knowledge been offered in RTR UK OO. But the small size of many UK tenders, and the typical openings in the underframes, mean that there is always likely to be some visual compromise: intrusion where there should be clear sight underneath, and inability to have a modelled coal space being the usual effects. The only tender types that are likely to be able to made free from such defects are the large ex-LNE and Southern eight wheel types: pretty restrictive for UK modelling!
Then there is the traction problem, consequent on the small size of so many UK tenders, which brings in the traction tyre. Clearly these are a matter of taste. Only suitable for those modelling the Paris Metro in my opinion. They are always a source of track dirt, as I usually discover after a tender drive has visited my layout, no matter how exalted the manufacturer of the (HO) product!
Finally, since tank engines are very common in UK practise and must have loco drive, it makes sense to learn to do this well. Motors and gearboxes are now available to route drive out of sight even on small prototypes. Make the model heavy and traction is not a problem, and will be somewhat proportional to the size and thus likely capacity of the prototype machine.
Putting motors in the (steam) loco has not been the boon that central drive has been to D&E. I sometime wonder (without wishing to start an argument) that the thing wrong with tender drive was not tender drive but what was done with it. (But that's another topic anyway.)
I would be interested in reactions to this one, specifically with reference to UK models. My comments are confined to the OO and HO sphere as that's what I own and run.
Personally, drive on the prototype's driven wheels is the way to go. Five reasons: see the wheelslip so characteristic of steam; the eye is offended by the mighty tender shoving the loco along (especially when the driving wheels are locked up); UK prototype tenders frequently need major visual compromises to accept a drive; the small size and thus low weight of many UK tenders makes traction tyres necessary; and finally, tank engines have to be loco drive, so standardise on this and learn to do it really well.
Of the first two, the illusion of reality is fostered just that little bit better when the drive is in the right place. The sight of a tender moving forward even a fraction of a millimetre with the loco at rest, is simply laughable as an effect. And that's before the sight of a loco skidding majestically along, valve gear locked up: a problem by no means confined to UK OO product.
Clearly it is possible to make a good quality tender drive, with a can motor and quiet gearing, but such a product has not to my knowledge been offered in RTR UK OO. But the small size of many UK tenders, and the typical openings in the underframes, mean that there is always likely to be some visual compromise: intrusion where there should be clear sight underneath, and inability to have a modelled coal space being the usual effects. The only tender types that are likely to be able to made free from such defects are the large ex-LNE and Southern eight wheel types: pretty restrictive for UK modelling!
Then there is the traction problem, consequent on the small size of so many UK tenders, which brings in the traction tyre. Clearly these are a matter of taste. Only suitable for those modelling the Paris Metro in my opinion. They are always a source of track dirt, as I usually discover after a tender drive has visited my layout, no matter how exalted the manufacturer of the (HO) product!
Finally, since tank engines are very common in UK practise and must have loco drive, it makes sense to learn to do this well. Motors and gearboxes are now available to route drive out of sight even on small prototypes. Make the model heavy and traction is not a problem, and will be somewhat proportional to the size and thus likely capacity of the prototype machine.
