In a message dated 1/22/2003 11:40:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Chuck, there is much I do not like about the operation of Flyonel , > >but I have found them to be very dependable and to pull long trains > >for extended stretches of time with no problems. > > As I mentioned, the Flyonel locos I had (still have one) were pre- > 1990 single-motored Geeps. An improved motor was introduced in the > 1990 line. I installed the newer motor in my sick SF Geep. Its > endurance has improved significantly, though still nowhere near any > SHS or AM diesel. As somebody else mentioned, they have also avoided > the overheating problems I experienced, but only by resorting to > short run times. I took the same precautions with the Southern Geep I > eventually sold. The SF was inadvertently allowed to run for about 45 > minutes (I was involved in a conversation with a show guest) which > fried the motor. 45 minutes of continuous run time is no problem for > SHS or AM locos. >> Let's just say that my experiences with the pulling power and nominal dependability of non-MPC Flyonel engines are different from yours and let it go at that. I agree that the new SHS locos are very good, although it took a year (and working on the engines five times) to resolve all the issues associated with my first generation F-3s. Every manufacturer, no matter how conscientious, is going to have some problems. > > >The only true "dogs" that I know of are the Erie PAs. > > Yes, they are single-motored and pre 1990. Many people demanded that > they pull dummy engines in their consists, which was a recipe for > disaster. Agreed. They have TWO motors, BTW, as pitiful as the drives are. > > >In fact, I have had more problems with one sample of a diesel from > >your favorite brand (to go unmentioned <grin> but now resolved) than > >with all of my Flyonel > I have taken delivery of nine AM diesels, and a few of them > needed "tweaking". (I can always find something to tweak, anyway.) > Two others underwent significant work, one due to freight damage, the > other because of me being in my fussy "scale mode." Even when there > is a quality control issue with AM (never had any probs with SHS) the > repairs were doable by myself (no return shipping hassles) and were > not design problems. Flyonel locos STILL have significant design > shortcomings imo, and they involve much more than flywheels. > > > Chuck F. > I agree with you about the quality SHS trains. When I have had to fix LTI-built or LLC-built Flyonel (or 0 gauge for that matter), I've able to effect repairs on my own bench, as well. The folks in Chesterfield are very responsive. I more or less stated up front that Flyonel has been flawed in various ways over the years, particularly during the MPC era (Remember, we are talking about 3 iterations of a company named "Lionel"). The LTI and LLC production certainly has its flaws, too, but the point of my post is that I haven't had any big issues with its raw pulling power or with chronic field failures. Bob [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] S-Trains list sponsor: http://www.americanflyertrains.com All the Flyer you desire...books and accessories too! To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
