Arnold U25C - followup and partial apology

[tom mann]

Wow Mark, you seem to be overreacting to my comment!

[Dave V]

LOL!  Really?! You think so too?

And I was banned from the forum for stating that there were "old-school" design and that the Kato's innovative low-fricton outside bearing/pickup design would be much better choice for this type of a loco (as it is also proven by several manufacturers using Kato-like design in their models).

No, you were banned from the forum due to name calling and personal attack.  There should be no confusion on this point.

[Smike]

  No pratical use for Uboats, but those couplers..... please say they don't spring like MT's? 

I like the couplers. Does anyone know if they'll be separately available at some point?

[Scottl]

That caught my eye too.  Really hopeful this could be a serious alternative to MT.

[Chris1274]

No pratical use for Uboats, but those couplers..... please say they don't spring like MT's?

I believe they do have a spring, so the slinky effect is still there. However, I've heard through the grapevine that the Charlie Vlk coupler (which, I think, looks just like this but isn't springy) is being readied for a near-future release.

[tom mann]

No, you were banned from the forum due to name calling and personal attack.  There should be no confusion on this point.

Agree.

[peteski]

"Valid"? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. You seem to have lots of opinions, but have you actually run one of these? If not, then meh, whatever. Axle cup wipers, needlepoint axles and chassis-mounted contact strips is a great pickup scheme, but it also picks up filth, requires cleaning and adjustment, and blah, blah, blah. No pickup scheme is perfect or "forever", and at this point no one can reasonably claim that Hornby's scheme is completely inferior to anyone else's (not yet, anyway) - one major anecdotal gripe notwithstanding.

Cheers,
-Mark

It is not the Hornby's scheme that is inferior - the scheme itself (in general) is inferior to the other bearing/pickup design.    The scheme chosen by Hornby is as I say old-school. Nothing wrong with that.  This type of design has been used on N scale models since the beginning. Since you maintain an extensive database of N scale locomotives you know that quite well.  I would venture a guess that all the early N scale locomotives used this type of electric pickup.  Many manufacturers (including most European manufacturers and Bachmann to name few) still use it on many or most of their models.  Why?  Maybe because they are conservative and they are afraid of change? I don't know.  But the method is proven and working.

The negatives, as compared to the Kato-style low-friction pickup/bearing design which has been widely adopted by manufacturers of U.S. prototype models, are:

More difficult to assemble or re-assemble.
More difficult to properly align (Kato version does not require any alignment).
Greater risk of dirt accumulating on the exposed wipers decreasing reliability.
Longevity of the wipers. The paper-thin wipers at the outside diameter of the wheel wear out much faster than the cones of Kato's pickup system.
Dramatically greater friction than the Kato's version (this includes the electric wipers and the large-diamter inside-bearing friction).  Just try to push free-rolling trucks of each type of pickup design and see how far each will coast.  Friction robs the already low motor power delivered to the wheels.

Is that enough of as comparison?  There is nothing drastically wrong with either design but why not use the better one when designing a new product from scratch?  Sort of like using a carburetor in new automobile when the fuel injection system has been perfected and is generally used by the manufacturers?  A carburated engine would work, but why use it when a better and a more efficient system has been introduced a while ago and proven to be superior?

[nkalanaga]

Smike:  Internally the Arnold coupler is a 1015 clone, and MT 1015s drop right into the box.  So, yes, they act just like the 1015s as well.

Mark:  I agree that the axle-cup wipers pick up "filth".  Mine have to have the fuzz removed regularly, and it isn't nearly as easy as cleaning a flat wiper.  When clean, they seem to work better, but they're harder to clean.  They're also harder to regauge if narrow, as the outside wipers tend to push the wheels back together.  Flat wipers can be regauged easily, and the wipers bent out a little as needed.  As for drag, if the gauge has to be widened, the drag from axle cups increases greatly. 

As far as I'm concerned, neither is "better", it's just a trade-off as to problems.