Best Axle to drive

[davebooth]

I can't remember ever building a chassis that had the driven axle other than the rear axle, but this has been with no thought of the dynamics, merely that it's close to the firebox where I can easily hide the motor. Normally I have not sprung or compensated the driven axle.
I'm currently trying one of Comets modern chassis kits for a 2-8-0 and these new, improved kits are designed for springing, using a coil spring above each axlebox.
Idlely thinking, in general terms, how I would proceed, I came up with the thought that if I made the driving axle the axle which carries the connecting rods, then forces on the coupling rods would be reduced as the coupling rods would no longer be part of the drive for the valve gear.
The frames and body will allow this and the motor will still sit in the firebox but problems of fixing a torque arm will arise which do not arise if I drive the rear axle.
Is there a consensus of thought which agrees that there are advantages in directly driving the connecting rod axle?
Better still has anyone out there got practical experience of so doing, and is it worth any extra effort to achieve?

[jls_s4]

I know that this topic has run its course on the older forum but just wanted to comment that on a fully sprung loco I can't see what difference it would make which axle was powered. Taking a lesson from the full size prototype the powered axle is the one with the connecting rods which is usually not an end axle. Arranging for a motor on a non-fixed axle is no big deal - I have these on two fully compensated 4-4-0s - you just have to restrain excessive movement of the motor within the limits of the axle freedom of movement.