Date   

Re: More progress

Climax@...
 

I know that tedium.  I was laying my own code 70 track back in the mid 60's and only spiked every 7th tie.  I even made my own switches like Jack Work use to make.  Takes time but when you get done you know it's right and will stay put.
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Hatch
Sent: May 13, 2020 11:26 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] More progress

Nope not pc board.
  I started out making my own spikes but a couple years ago ME
started making their micro spikes.  They work perfectly for code 55.
I have a battery dremel copy with a cut off disc sitting right by
as I'm spiking.  I put the spike in the pliers holding the head
then touch the bottom diagonally to the disc and it quickly puts a taper on the spike
then insert the spike. Easy simple fast accurate and unlike soldered pc ties
the rail can move back and forth as it contracts and expands.
Neet
Stephen Hatch


Re: More progress

Steve Hatch
 

Nope not pc board.
  I started out making my own spikes but a couple years ago ME
started making their micro spikes.  They work perfectly for code 55.
I have a battery dremel copy with a cut off disc sitting right by
as I'm spiking.  I put the spike in the pliers holding the head
then touch the bottom diagonally to the disc and it quickly puts a taper on the spike
then insert the spike. Easy simple fast accurate and unlike soldered pc ties
the rail can move back and forth as it contracts and expands.
Neet
Stephen Hatch


Re: More progress

Climax@...
 

Probably PC board.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ric Case
Sent: May 13, 2020 9:32 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] More progress

Steve. What spikes are you using for code 55!


Ric Case 
EBT Modeler 
Hamilton Ohio 
1-513-375-7694

On May 13, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Steve Hatch <hatch@...> wrote:

Track plan  for RGW

<trkplan.JPG>


Re: coreless motors again

LARRY KLOSE
 

The Faulhaber URL is Micromo.com

I didn’t look at prices.


Re: coreless motors again

John Hutnick
 

I would like to address the subject of model equalization.  I am not aware of any equalized HOn3.  Besides what is already mentioned, In On3 the Kodama 4-4-0 and NCNG 2-6-0 are equalized.  The original On3 PFM United K-28 has equalization.  CLW had leaf springs with equalization on their 4-8-4 in the 1950's.  Various KOHS O gauge, etc.  Although not the subject here, many recent British O gauge in brass kits allow this type of suspension.  Possibly others here can add to the list.


Re: More progress

Ric Case
 

Steve. What spikes are you using for code 55!


Ric Case 
EBT Modeler 
Hamilton Ohio 
1-513-375-7694

On May 13, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Steve Hatch <hatch@...> wrote:

Track plan  for RGW

<trkplan.JPG>


Re: More progress

Steve Hatch
 

Track plan  for RGW


Re: coreless motors again

LARRY KLOSE
 

I was wandering around the web and came across this web site for Faulhaber motors and other gear.  They now have a US subsidiary.  I didn’t look at the cost… .

 

Larry

 


Re: coreless motors again

Climax@...
 

Talk about mass.  I purchased a PFM DRGW L-125 and it weighs in at 3 pounds 14 ounces adn the tender is is another 8.6 ounces.  The motor it came with was not strong enough to move it so I put a can motor with flywheel in it that was so big I had to mill part of the cab horizontal floor, where the screws hold it the frame, just to get the motor in place.  Now it will pull the shine off the rails!  I use code 70 rail and it just doesn't look good on Code 79 at all, it needs minimum of Code 83.  I know its not HOn3 but that's Mass on the drivers!
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Buxton
Sent: May 13, 2020 5:54 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I agree with Lawrence. There is simply not enough mass on the drivers on most HOn3 2-8-0’s for the springs to have any effect!

There is another item that needs to be addressed with the driver springs on the second run of Key C-18’s.

The connecting rods were not articulated! They are one solid piece with four holes in them for the crank pins. In order for an equalized driver suspension system to be even marginally effective. The drivers all must have independent vertical movement and the connecting rods must be articulated so that they can follow their respective drivers up and down. Like the way the HOn3 PFM and Westside K-27’s we’re sprung.

Very few fully equalized models were ever commercially produced. Off of the top of my head only the On3 Kodoma K-27’s and the PSC Ma & Pa O scale 2-8-0 come to mind. It is interesting to note that neither of these models had driver springs! Just rocker arms and connecting legs.

I did away with the driver springs on my second run C-18’s too. I think the main thing that made this mechanism run so smoothly was not the springing at all. It was the twin independent sintered bronze bearings on each axle. They give the axles a smooth ride and have just enough horizontal and lateral play to handle any rotational oddities they may encounter in a wheel revolution.

Another negative thing that the springs did on these models is that they tended to torque the thin photo-etched frame members during disassembly and reassembly. Not a good thing at all.

By the way, these C-18’s were derived from the PBL Sn3 research information. Bill shared it with Dan.

D. Buxton 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:19 Lawrence Wisniewski via groups.io <lwreno=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Mark.  I think there's a world of difference between the two C-18 runs in terms of overall quality.  The first run came about during Key's initial attempt to make a presence for itself among HOn3 modelers.  Like the C-17 before it, the basic ideas were good, but the execution by the builder, Samsamoga (sp), was really not too impressive.  Bill Peter over in Sn3 was also getting involved with the Sammy's at the time and made several critical comments about their performance on his Sn3 items. As we all know, Sammy embarked on a very serious period of course correction, and eventually became one of the premier builders.  This was a very good thing for us and the second run C-18 locomotives reflect this evolution.  Given the variability of handmade brass, even fabulous runs  have some individual members that should have not gotten past quality control, but did.  Comparing engine runs widely separated in time for various features requires  a very large sample size to support any conclusions about which is superior from an engineering or QC point of view.  Electric pick up may be a good point of comparison or not, depending on the number of other variables that influence pick up.  Over the years I've really been amazed by the number of hidden gremlins that have to be checked out.  The same thing applies today whether you are looking at recent Blackstone or the last few runs of PSC locos.  I've got several examples of Blackstone C-19's and I can see variability in performance in spite of all the electronic devices now used to hone performance.  Jim Vail's reviews of the various PSC runs revealed problems I've never seen and I've dealt with glitches he never mentioned.  With steam locomotives I think we are looking at a piece of machinery that really can drive us nuts.  The comment about physics I offered goes way back to the 1980's.  The author of that piece was commenting on the premise that sprung drivers should improve tracking due to equalizing the loco's weight on rough track and allowing all drivers to maintain contact with the railhead. He pointed out why this works on a 25 ton locomotive but not so good on one that weighs in at less than a pound.  I have never seen any visual evidence of equalized driver motion on any quality track from any locomotive with sprung drivers I have ever watched go by, and I have (or more accurately did have) a pretty good eye.  It seems that if the springs are strong enough to support the loco in an upright level position, they are too strong for the light weight of the loco to allow the drivers to match the track contours.  On the other extreme, if weak springs are substituted, the loco can't maintain an even keel as it's weight distribution changes. top heaviness comes into play and other disruptions in pulling power begin to appear.  It's really a can of worms.  As far as good results after doing modifications goes, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions because the simple act of loosening and removing the coverplate can provoke beneficial or detrimental changes in the relationships of parts that make up a rod driven drive train.  Small changes in the torque used to retighten screws can influence how a driver interacts with its bearings and rods, leading to alterations in how the driver responds to minor differences in quartering or concentricity.  Weak frames can be accidentally bent during handling. Years ago I was taught that a lot of scientific investigations are later found to be flawed simply because the design of the experiment didn't completely isolate the tested element's variables.  Trying to isolate the performance of steam loco components is really a very difficult thing to do. Substition of stock springs with whimpy's can give smoother running, but it's hard to rule out other changes that can occur as the result of opening up a mechanism to work on it.     Tuning brass is a very empirical activity and it helps to have a secret chant and a bonafied rabbit's foot on hand too.  The fact that one loco has a sprung suspension and the other, poorer performing one doesn't could turn out to be a red herring.  Good running to you.




---Original Message-----
From: Mark Kasprowicz <marowicz@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that springs do not make a difference in model locomotives because they lack the mass to make them effective. I have a number of these C-18's (those who know me will know why!) including the sprung version of the 318 as well as the unsprung one with the wrong tender. The difference in running between them is quite noticeable which I put down to better electrical pickup up. Many sprung locos have had the originals replaced with NWSL 'Wimpy' springs and I believe that makes for a smoother running model as well.

As for holding spring in place, I use a tiny amount of grease though I ws recently put onto Conductive grease which contains copper.

Mark K
UK


Re: coreless motors again

Dale Buxton
 

I agree with Lawrence. There is simply not enough mass on the drivers on most HOn3 2-8-0’s for the springs to have any effect!

There is another item that needs to be addressed with the driver springs on the second run of Key C-18’s.

The connecting rods were not articulated! They are one solid piece with four holes in them for the crank pins. In order for an equalized driver suspension system to be even marginally effective. The drivers all must have independent vertical movement and the connecting rods must be articulated so that they can follow their respective drivers up and down. Like the way the HOn3 PFM and Westside K-27’s we’re sprung.

Very few fully equalized models were ever commercially produced. Off of the top of my head only the On3 Kodoma K-27’s and the PSC Ma & Pa O scale 2-8-0 come to mind. It is interesting to note that neither of these models had driver springs! Just rocker arms and connecting legs.

I did away with the driver springs on my second run C-18’s too. I think the main thing that made this mechanism run so smoothly was not the springing at all. It was the twin independent sintered bronze bearings on each axle. They give the axles a smooth ride and have just enough horizontal and lateral play to handle any rotational oddities they may encounter in a wheel revolution.

Another negative thing that the springs did on these models is that they tended to torque the thin photo-etched frame members during disassembly and reassembly. Not a good thing at all.

By the way, these C-18’s were derived from the PBL Sn3 research information. Bill shared it with Dan.

D. Buxton 

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:19 Lawrence Wisniewski via groups.io <lwreno=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
Hi Mark.  I think there's a world of difference between the two C-18 runs in terms of overall quality.  The first run came about during Key's initial attempt to make a presence for itself among HOn3 modelers.  Like the C-17 before it, the basic ideas were good, but the execution by the builder, Samsamoga (sp), was really not too impressive.  Bill Peter over in Sn3 was also getting involved with the Sammy's at the time and made several critical comments about their performance on his Sn3 items. As we all know, Sammy embarked on a very serious period of course correction, and eventually became one of the premier builders.  This was a very good thing for us and the second run C-18 locomotives reflect this evolution.  Given the variability of handmade brass, even fabulous runs  have some individual members that should have not gotten past quality control, but did.  Comparing engine runs widely separated in time for various features requires  a very large sample size to support any conclusions about which is superior from an engineering or QC point of view.  Electric pick up may be a good point of comparison or not, depending on the number of other variables that influence pick up.  Over the years I've really been amazed by the number of hidden gremlins that have to be checked out.  The same thing applies today whether you are looking at recent Blackstone or the last few runs of PSC locos.  I've got several examples of Blackstone C-19's and I can see variability in performance in spite of all the electronic devices now used to hone performance.  Jim Vail's reviews of the various PSC runs revealed problems I've never seen and I've dealt with glitches he never mentioned.  With steam locomotives I think we are looking at a piece of machinery that really can drive us nuts.  The comment about physics I offered goes way back to the 1980's.  The author of that piece was commenting on the premise that sprung drivers should improve tracking due to equalizing the loco's weight on rough track and allowing all drivers to maintain contact with the railhead. He pointed out why this works on a 25 ton locomotive but not so good on one that weighs in at less than a pound.  I have never seen any visual evidence of equalized driver motion on any quality track from any locomotive with sprung drivers I have ever watched go by, and I have (or more accurately did have) a pretty good eye.  It seems that if the springs are strong enough to support the loco in an upright level position, they are too strong for the light weight of the loco to allow the drivers to match the track contours.  On the other extreme, if weak springs are substituted, the loco can't maintain an even keel as it's weight distribution changes. top heaviness comes into play and other disruptions in pulling power begin to appear.  It's really a can of worms.  As far as good results after doing modifications goes, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions because the simple act of loosening and removing the coverplate can provoke beneficial or detrimental changes in the relationships of parts that make up a rod driven drive train.  Small changes in the torque used to retighten screws can influence how a driver interacts with its bearings and rods, leading to alterations in how the driver responds to minor differences in quartering or concentricity.  Weak frames can be accidentally bent during handling. Years ago I was taught that a lot of scientific investigations are later found to be flawed simply because the design of the experiment didn't completely isolate the tested element's variables.  Trying to isolate the performance of steam loco components is really a very difficult thing to do. Substition of stock springs with whimpy's can give smoother running, but it's hard to rule out other changes that can occur as the result of opening up a mechanism to work on it.     Tuning brass is a very empirical activity and it helps to have a secret chant and a bonafied rabbit's foot on hand too.  The fact that one loco has a sprung suspension and the other, poorer performing one doesn't could turn out to be a red herring.  Good running to you.




---Original Message-----
From: Mark Kasprowicz <marowicz@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that springs do not make a difference in model locomotives because they lack the mass to make them effective. I have a number of these C-18's (those who know me will know why!) including the sprung version of the 318 as well as the unsprung one with the wrong tender. The difference in running between them is quite noticeable which I put down to better electrical pickup up. Many sprung locos have had the originals replaced with NWSL 'Wimpy' springs and I believe that makes for a smoother running model as well.

As for holding spring in place, I use a tiny amount of grease though I ws recently put onto Conductive grease which contains copper.

Mark K
UK


Re: More progress

John G Massura
 

Can you share with us a track plan for the addition?

John


More progress

Steve Hatch
 


Re: Mac based Layout Planning Software

burrst54
 

Thanks - I hadn't heard of this and it looks great!
Burr Stewart
Seattle, WA


Re: coreless motors again

Lawrence Wisniewski <lwreno@...>
 

I thought about your concern about weakening the current path, and knowing that epoxy can serve to insulate, I proceeded cautiously.  I also began to analyze the various current paths available in brass  steamers and came to the conclusion that loss of the pathway through the springs might be well tolerated because there many ways for current to by pass the spring- frame interface.  Fortunately, it works very well..  I have since used this technique when ever I run into a spring that had it in for me.  I have had spring problems on a C-18 before, so I commend your dexterity and eyesight.  Mine happened when I accidentally (and stupidly I might add), loosened the wrong screw on the bottom plate and wound up with a handful of disassembled mechanism when I turned the thing over to check something.. Since this locomotive already had a good paint job that I didn't want to damage, the reassembly process, with those little springs ready to depart in all directions for parts unknown, was ample punishment for my lack of care.  Also, with HOn3 mechanisms I have learned to only disassemble them down to removal of the main rods at most. I carefully mask the wheel treads and any wiring or contact points that need to be paint free.  That's it.  I spray Scalecoat at 20 psi with a Badger 200 medium tip.  I spray the whole frame, wheels and all, but with sensible care given to avoiding soaking vulnerable spots like journal edges and other spots where build ups need to be avoided.  I also rotate the drivers to get good coverage on their surfaces and enough coverage on the frame behind to insure that no brass remains visible.  I've found that paint applied in this manner does not get into axle holes or freeze journals like one might think it would.  The wheel tread masking really reduces clean up time tremendously.   I also bake at 175 degrees for 45 to 60 minutes and have discovered no heat damage anywhere.  Reassembly afterwards is no longer a challenge to my sanity, that the number of electric contact issues is decreased sometimes to none at all, and that once the rods are attached, the drive elements are easily freed from any paint sticking by pushing the partially assembled mechanism down the tracks back and forth by hand until friction returns to the same level that was present before the painting began.   Add motor, gears, lube and you are done.  My last 10 locos were done this way and most were small Rio Grande and C&S engines.  At my age, I've found it necessary to test the validity of many common beliefs about how things should be done.  There seems to be a lot of room for successful experimentation in this hobby and I'm grateful that I can still remain active in it by finding simpler and less stressful ways of delivering the goods.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mick Moignard <mick@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

Never seen an issue with Key spring C-18s and the springs, and I’ve done a few of these, and own two.  I would not hold the springs with any sort of glue, as that risks insulating it from the frame, and weakening the current path from right wheels to frame of which the springs are part.  Tamika contact grease is what I use to hold in place while assembling.  As to gluing the axleboxes to the frame, I’m amazed you have anything that runs even half decently afterwards.

Mick

________________________________
Mick Moignard
m: +44 7774 652504
Skype: mickmoignard

, so please excuse the typos.


Re: coreless motors again

Lawrence Wisniewski <lwreno@...>
 

Hi Mark.  I think there's a world of difference between the two C-18 runs in terms of overall quality.  The first run came about during Key's initial attempt to make a presence for itself among HOn3 modelers.  Like the C-17 before it, the basic ideas were good, but the execution by the builder, Samsamoga (sp), was really not too impressive.  Bill Peter over in Sn3 was also getting involved with the Sammy's at the time and made several critical comments about their performance on his Sn3 items. As we all know, Sammy embarked on a very serious period of course correction, and eventually became one of the premier builders.  This was a very good thing for us and the second run C-18 locomotives reflect this evolution.  Given the variability of handmade brass, even fabulous runs  have some individual members that should have not gotten past quality control, but did.  Comparing engine runs widely separated in time for various features requires  a very large sample size to support any conclusions about which is superior from an engineering or QC point of view.  Electric pick up may be a good point of comparison or not, depending on the number of other variables that influence pick up.  Over the years I've really been amazed by the number of hidden gremlins that have to be checked out.  The same thing applies today whether you are looking at recent Blackstone or the last few runs of PSC locos.  I've got several examples of Blackstone C-19's and I can see variability in performance in spite of all the electronic devices now used to hone performance.  Jim Vail's reviews of the various PSC runs revealed problems I've never seen and I've dealt with glitches he never mentioned.  With steam locomotives I think we are looking at a piece of machinery that really can drive us nuts.  The comment about physics I offered goes way back to the 1980's.  The author of that piece was commenting on the premise that sprung drivers should improve tracking due to equalizing the loco's weight on rough track and allowing all drivers to maintain contact with the railhead. He pointed out why this works on a 25 ton locomotive but not so good on one that weighs in at less than a pound.  I have never seen any visual evidence of equalized driver motion on any quality track from any locomotive with sprung drivers I have ever watched go by, and I have (or more accurately did have) a pretty good eye.  It seems that if the springs are strong enough to support the loco in an upright level position, they are too strong for the light weight of the loco to allow the drivers to match the track contours.  On the other extreme, if weak springs are substituted, the loco can't maintain an even keel as it's weight distribution changes. top heaviness comes into play and other disruptions in pulling power begin to appear.  It's really a can of worms.  As far as good results after doing modifications goes, you need to be careful in drawing conclusions because the simple act of loosening and removing the coverplate can provoke beneficial or detrimental changes in the relationships of parts that make up a rod driven drive train.  Small changes in the torque used to retighten screws can influence how a driver interacts with its bearings and rods, leading to alterations in how the driver responds to minor differences in quartering or concentricity.  Weak frames can be accidentally bent during handling. Years ago I was taught that a lot of scientific investigations are later found to be flawed simply because the design of the experiment didn't completely isolate the tested element's variables.  Trying to isolate the performance of steam loco components is really a very difficult thing to do. Substition of stock springs with whimpy's can give smoother running, but it's hard to rule out other changes that can occur as the result of opening up a mechanism to work on it.     Tuning brass is a very empirical activity and it helps to have a secret chant and a bonafied rabbit's foot on hand too.  The fact that one loco has a sprung suspension and the other, poorer performing one doesn't could turn out to be a red herring.  Good running to you.




---Original Message-----
From: Mark Kasprowicz <marowicz@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Wed, May 13, 2020 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that springs do not make a difference in model locomotives because they lack the mass to make them effective. I have a number of these C-18's (those who know me will know why!) including the sprung version of the 318 as well as the unsprung one with the wrong tender. The difference in running between them is quite noticeable which I put down to better electrical pickup up. Many sprung locos have had the originals replaced with NWSL 'Wimpy' springs and I believe that makes for a smoother running model as well.

As for holding spring in place, I use a tiny amount of grease though I ws recently put onto Conductive grease which contains copper.

Mark K
UK


Re: coreless motors again

Mark Kasprowicz
 

I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment that springs do not make a difference in model locomotives because they lack the mass to make them effective. I have a number of these C-18's (those who know me will know why!) including the sprung version of the 318 as well as the unsprung one with the wrong tender. The difference in running between them is quite noticeable which I put down to better electrical pickup up. Many sprung locos have had the originals replaced with NWSL 'Wimpy' springs and I believe that makes for a smoother running model as well.

As for holding spring in place, I use a tiny amount of grease though I ws recently put onto Conductive grease which contains copper.

Mark K
UK


Re: coreless motors again

Mark Kasprowicz
 

John,
Also try Tramfabriek (www.tramfabriek.nl) for small coreless motors. The site is in Durth and English but in fact the owner, Axel, lives here in the UK. He specialises in remotoring n gauge but mainly steam trams! 

Mark K
UK


Re: coreless motors again

Mick Moignard
 

Never seen an issue with Key spring C-18s and the springs, and I’ve done a few of these, and own two.  I would not hold the springs with any sort of glue, as that risks insulating it from the frame, and weakening the current path from right wheels to frame of which the springs are part.  Tamika contact grease is what I use to hold in place while assembling.  As to gluing the axleboxes to the frame, I’m amazed you have anything that runs even half decently afterwards.

Mick

________________________________
Mick Moignard
m: +44 7774 652504
Skype: mickmoignard

, so please excuse the typos.


Re: coreless motors again

Mick Moignard
 

I’ve used Nigel Lawton’s belt drives in a few laces, notably Erie models DRGW #50 diesel with the primary intention of getting rid of the train of straight cut gears in the primary drive, so that it is quiet enough for sound. Works just fine, and still pulls.  Mine will shove 10 Blackstone cars, sometimes more, up a 2.5% grade. Recommended.

Mick

________________________________
Mick Moignard
m: +44 7774 652504
Skype: mickmoignard

, so please excuse the typos.


Re: coreless motors again

Lawrence Wisniewski <lwreno@...>
 

I have remotored three of the late model Key C-18's.  I found Sagami motors in all three, and all three motors had unacceptable clogging.  I put Faulhaber 1319's in all three and they remain my best running small HOn3 locomotives eight years after their addition.  I've had similar experiences with Namiki motors as you have described.  After nearly going crazy dealing with those tiny driver springs and coming to the conclusion that they really contribute nothing to suspension improvement in HO scale (years ago someone noted that the physics of real springs in prototype locomotives require mass that makes it virtually impossible to get similar performance in small models, even with relatively weak metals) I resorted to a near permanent solution: I epoxy the damn things in place before reassembly . If for some reason (so far not encountered) that I need to remove them from the frame I'll try an acetone soak until the 5-minute epoxy releases them or simply yank them out and replace with spares.  I have yet to see any reason to continue suffering for what may well be a myth.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Spencer <trainmanjs@...>
To: HOn3@groups.io
Sent: Tue, May 12, 2020 3:21 pm
Subject: Re: [HOn3] coreless motors again

I have a pair of the Key C-18 late runs with the sprung drivers.  Both have Namiki motors, a slower running version of a coreless motor.  But I don't know whether they are original to that run. Now I'm curious.  The Namikis that were used in Westsides of that period have tended to have their lubricants in sealed bearings dry out, then weaken their pulling power.  I took the slower running one, put it on its end and put a drop of Labelle 109 on the shaft at the bearing, then ran it for a couple of hours.  The idea was that the oil would migrate through the seals into the bearing.  It worked!
My experience with Sagami's (marketed by NWSL) was never good.  Now in reading, I know why. The Machimas are better.
On the question retaining the tiny driver springs, I have used a drop of canopy glue (that doesn't fully harden) to hold the spring in place when reinstalling the drivers, etc. Seems to work in that I haven't lost any since I started doing that.  It doesn't seem to affect the springing action.