China Drive

Why does everyone refer to a paper copy as a Xerox copy?  Why does everyone refer to an Internet search as a Google Search?

China Drive is just a term that is in general use and widely understood.

I guess the more correct question should be, where did the term "China Drive"start - and why?

Why does everyone call a tissue a Kleenex and a cotton swab a Q-Tip? Probobally because the single motor horizontal tank and tower drives were in Korean brass models. The vertical dual motor locos were made in China but really started with Lionel right here in the good ol USA

Not sure where the term started, I heard it years ago and simply started using it.

I started post on this very topic a couple of years ago and it quickly got deleted. 

It is a derogatory term to describe a drive train that is similar to what is found in a postwar 623, 2028, 2321 and later F3's. The exception is that the vertically mounted 622-100M, 2029-100, 2321-100 universal motor is replaced with a permanent magnet can motor. As you stated, Williams started this practice back in the 1970's when they were made in the USA.  Thus, the more appropriate term would be "American Drive". 

The vast majority of the time the term is used to described something that is bad akin to terminology used in WWII. Usually some other motor mounting system such as horizontal is "good" and "vertical (insert term here)" is bad. If "American Drive" was used then it would be akin to associating America with bad. 

You are completely correct, the design dates back to the late 1940's and was not produced in China until decades later. 

Well, personally, I've never used it as a derogatory term, just a description of the type of drive.  Please don't paint all of us with the same brush.

I did not say "everyone". I guess I should define "vast majority" as 80% of the time the term is used to describe as one feels as a poorly performing mechanical placement of the motors. 

Actually, I like the simplicity of the vertical motors.  I just wish they could provide slightly better gear ratios for low speed performance.  I don't know anyone that comes close to exercising the maximum speed, they'd be constantly picking up the derailed locomotive if they did!  I've never been a fan of the horizontal motor as it takes up all the space in the shell and doesn't allow for the electronics.  One only has to see some of the convoluted solutions to fitting TMCC into Atlas switchers to see what I mean!

WBC posted:

I started post on this very topic a couple of years ago and it quickly got deleted. 

It is a derogatory term to describe a drive train that is similar to what is found in a postwar 623, 2028, 2321 and later F3's. The exception is that the vertically mounted 622-100M, 2029-100, 2321-100 universal motor is replaced with a permanent magnet can motor. As you stated, Williams started this practice back in the 1970's when they were made in the USA.  Thus, the more appropriate term would be "American Drive". 

 

Yep! And the slammed "China Drives" work fine, especially with modern systems, like DCS or TMCC/Legacy, as it's never been the motor orientation that's the issue, rather the drive gear ratio.

I have to agree with WBC on this in that in the O scale world, the term “China Drive” is not used as a term of endearment, usually its used when trying to compare a brass model loco to one recently made by (Lionel, Atlas, MTH). You can walk the halls of the O Scale March Meet in Chicago and hear the term used in discussion often.

While I don’t have a problem with the misuse of the term, (I understand what the speaker is talking about), I do have to raise an eyebrow to the comments made that horizontal motors are “usually” better than China Drives. When I hear that I know I am hearing a collector and not an operator.

If horizontal drives were always so good, then we would see better running O scale, two rail locomotives… and we don’t!

A properly made horizontal drive is just as good as vertical “China Drive” in terms of operation and vice versa. Crappy made horizontal motors/gear boxes and crappy made “China Drives” are both still crappy.

The one area that a good or properly made horizontal drive motor was superior was the slow starting performance. However, recent electronics have greatly evened out that advantage. Once running, there is no operational difference.

Currently, I have both types of drives in recent manufacturing and I can measure the slowest running, smoothest loco and it is not the horizontal drive locos. So in practical terms, there is now, no operational difference.

The horizontal drive is superior for hiding the motors in diesels, allowing room for detailed interiors.

Now, there are other pro and cons of each drive system that might be of interest to the person making a purchase, and in those cases, “China Drives” might not be the best answer.

Charlie

gunrunnerjohn posted:

Actually, I like the simplicity of the vertical motors.  I just wish they could provide slightly better gear ratios for low speed performance.  I don't know anyone that comes close to exercising the maximum speed, they'd be constantly picking up the derailed locomotive if they did!  I've never been a fan of the horizontal motor as it takes up all the space in the shell and doesn't allow for the electronics.  One only has to see some of the convoluted solutions to fitting TMCC into Atlas switchers to see what I mean!

I agree. I do not care for the driveshaft diesel setup; I've had 2 fail (Lionel Alco switcher, catastrophically; 3rd Rail Dash 9), and never one failure of a vertical motor drive. Good gearing is always better, of course.

- For no particular reason I do not use the term "China drive". Maybe because it's not descriptive. I tend to say "vertical drive" or "vertical motor setup". Maybe it's because I have mostly steam locos, so, not relevant. (Wrong! See ROW, Lionmaster and RK articulateds - all vertical drive diesels/electrics in drag.) 

- "Why does everyone refer to an Internet search as aGoogle Search?" Well, I don't; never have. It's just a "search". But, I have never been a big user of Google (dislike the name, too); Netscape, Safari, IE (I think) were my first browsers. I prefer Safari, as I recall. Mostly I prefer not being on a computer, but here I am.

Rambling over.

As in HO models the horizontal drive would allow for much larger flywheels where they actually serve their purpose. Once our electronics become smaller like  DCC boards then maybe we might see more horizontal drives. Manufacturers engineers would need to do a comparison to see if it’s warranted.