| |
All aboard the O-Train!
Built for ParLUGment’s Winterlude 2005 train layout, the O-Train is a light
passenger train that runs a commuter route through Ottawa. According to the
website it is a Bombardier Talent
BR643 DMU. I’m sure someone who actually knows something about trains can
provide more info if necessary. There are quite a few pictures of the real
thing here.
The initial version used for the layout was built over 3 nights the week before
the Winterlude show. Not being a train builder I was in a little unfamiliar
territory and trust me, some of the initial concepts I did during the first
night were truly atrocious. By the end of the week I was pretty happy with it -
except the huge space
(two whole studs!) between the center car and the engines. I tried to come up
with some quick solutions but with time running out and other items to prepare I
had to let it go. It was good enough for the show, and seemed to be well
received. People actually recognized it at least.
Once the show ended, with more time on my hands, I took the opportunity to try
and improve the design a bit. I’m pretty sure I spent more time getting rid of
the spacing than building the entire train in the first place. In the end I
went with an elastic band solution, as you can see in the pics. I’m sure the
more experienced train builders would have gotten to this solution a lot
quicker, if not having done it right from the start, but it was all new to me.
Of course I didn’t find out until afterwards that it seems to be a relatively
common technique. A little research beforehand would have probably saved me a
lot of time. Oh well, I enjoyed the problem solving exercise.
Now everything looks nice and tight (I also tightened up the wheel set at the
front of the engines), which I personally like a lot better. I’m sure the front
of the engines could still be improved, as the real thing is tapered and more
rounded, but I like it well enough as is, so unless something leaps out at me I
think I’ll just leave it.
I can’t really see myself building more trains in the future but overall it was
pretty enjoyable building experience and I’m really happy with how it turned
out.
Enjoy,
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Jason Allemann wrote:
Wow! That’s a fantastic light rail model. And in six wide! Brilliant work.
I was wondering how you used the engine in the shared bogey? You have pictures
of the other wheelset (with the spring loading) but not the engine. I ask
because I want to try a similar thing for the Metrolink light rail here in
Manchester but can’t seem to fit the engine in. You however, seem to have
managed quite nicely.
Now all you need to do is round its face a little more ;-) (mutters and
complains about how easy rounding is if you just have eight bricks to work in)
Cheers for any help,
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Jason Allemann wrote:
| |
Once the show ended, with more time on my hands, I took the opportunity to
try and improve the design a bit. I’m pretty sure I spent more time getting
rid of the spacing than building the entire train in the first place. In the
end I went with an elastic band solution, as you can see in the pics. I’m
sure the more experienced train builders would have gotten to this solution a
lot quicker, if not having done it right from the start, but it was all new
to me. Of course I didn’t find out until afterwards that it seems to be a
relatively common technique. A little research beforehand would have
probably saved me a lot of time. Oh well, I enjoyed the problem solving
exercise.
|
Jason,
I haven’t kept up to pace on close-coupling of train cars, but I’m really
impressed by your solution. It is low-profile, shared trucks, and looks very
clean, simple, and straight-forward. A fresh-look by you without working
knowledge of other close-coupling techniques seems to have generated another
slick solution. My apologies to those who may have similar solutions with which
I am unfamiliar.
Anyway, well done, beautiful MOC of a nice train set.
Thanks for posting details on this Talent train project. I had seen it in some
of the scenic pics from the show, and was certainly curious about it.
later,
James Mathis
|
|
| |
Sweet! I saw this a while back with some of the club pics (one of the rare
occasions I actually check out something like that) and your model was one of
those that struck me. I see the BNSF buffers have made their first (?) MOC
appearance as well. Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by using
bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or in
conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
Thanks for sharing!
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Jason Allemann wrote:
|
snip
| |
Wow! That’s a fantastic light rail model. And in six wide! Brilliant work.
|
Thanks!
| |
I was wondering how you used the engine in the shared bogey? You have
pictures of the other wheelset (with the spring loading) but not the engine.
I ask because I want to try a similar thing for the Metrolink light rail here
in Manchester but can’t seem to fit the engine in. You however, seem to have
managed quite nicely.
|
The motor connection works the same way. The only difference is that I had to
make some slight changes to accomodate the form factor of the motor. Namely the
pin that sticks up in the middle and the two ‘hooks’ on each end. It’s far
easier to show than to tell so I uploaded some detailed pics to Brickshelf that
should illustrate the differences. You can find them
here. I hope they
help.
| |
Now all you need to do is round its face a little more ;-) (mutters and
complains about how easy rounding is if you just have eight bricks to work
in)
|
lol, I’ll leave that as an exercise for someone else. :)
No problem. Let me know if you want any more details.
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, James Mathis wrote:
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Jason Allemann wrote:
|
snip
| |
Jason,
I haven’t kept up to pace on close-coupling of train cars, but I’m really
impressed by your solution. It is low-profile, shared trucks, and looks very
clean, simple, and straight-forward. A fresh-look by you without working
knowledge of other close-coupling techniques seems to have generated another
slick solution. My apologies to those who may have similar solutions with
which I am unfamiliar.
|
Cool, thanks! I’m glad you like it. It certainly took a lot of experimentation
to get there. Looking back I’m not really sure why, since it seems so simple
now. I’m sure prior knowledge of existing solutions would have affected the
design process. Who knows where it may have ended up.
| |
Anyway, well done, beautiful MOC of a nice train set.
|
Thanks again!
| |
Thanks for posting details on this Talent train project. I had seen it in
some of the scenic pics from the show, and was certainly curious about it.
|
Glad I could provide some of the info.
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
| |
Sweet! I saw this a while back with some of the club pics (one of the rare
occasions I actually check out something like that) and your model was one of
those that struck me.
|
Thanks!
| |
I see the BNSF buffers have made their first (?) MOC appearance as well.
|
Those buffers are actually in the Cargo
Train as well, which is where I got them, so I can only assume they’ve made
into other MOCs before now.
| |
Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by
using bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or in
conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
|
Sounds intriguing.
You’re very welcome!
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > Sweet! I saw this a while back with some of the club pics (one of the rare
> > occasions I actually check out something like that) and your model was one
> > of those that struck me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > I see the BNSF buffers have made their first (?) MOC appearance as well.
>
> Those buffers are actually in the <http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/4512-1
> Cargo Train> as well, which is where I got them, so I can only assume they've
> made into other MOCs before now.
Yes, just check : http://www.6studs.com/cc21002/cc6500-5.JPG
>
> > Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by
> > using bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or
> > in conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
A close coupling I've seen but not in train MOC is this one :
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/samrotule/bus/bus_cts_renault_agora_l_03.jpg
I'd like also to remember the very good paper on close coupling and other train related building technics (ILTCO library) : "Advanced Train Building" by Steve Barile : http://www.iltco.org/library/docs/Advanced_Train_Building_SBarile_BW02.pdf (1953KB)
Now, Steve has to make an update with this very good O-train MOC by Jason :)
>
> Sounds intriguing.
>
> > Thanks for sharing!
>
> You're very welcome!
>
> > Legoswami
>
> J
|
|
| |
| |
The motor connection works the same way. The only difference is that I had
to make some slight changes to accomodate the form factor of the motor.
Namely the pin that sticks up in the middle and the two ‘hooks’ on each end.
It’s far easier to show than to tell so I uploaded some detailed pics to
Brickshelf that should illustrate the differences. You can find them
here. I hope they
help.
|
Thanks for that. I actually managed to reverse engineer it from the pictures
last night but these new pics confirm that I’d done it correctly. I’ll steal it
for my own model as it has such a flat profile.
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, James Mathis wrote:
| |
In lugnet.announce.moc, Jason Allemann wrote:
|
snip
| |
Jason,
I haven’t kept up to pace on close-coupling of train cars, but I’m really
impressed by your solution. It is low-profile, shared trucks, and looks
very clean, simple, and straight-forward. A fresh-look by you without
working knowledge of other close-coupling techniques seems to have generated
another slick solution. My apologies to those who may have similar
solutions with which I am unfamiliar.
|
Cool, thanks! I’m glad you like it. It certainly took a lot of
experimentation to get there. Looking back I’m not really sure why, since it
seems so simple now. I’m sure prior knowledge of existing solutions would
have affected the design process. Who knows where it may have ended up.
|
Jason
I am glad you took some nice pictures of the O train. I saw it from the show
pics and wanted to see more. And for not being a train guy you did an excilent
job. Maybe deep down your are a train guy. ;)
I also had a problem with tring to solve close cupling. At first I had used 2x2
round bricks with a technic ball hitch inside the train. The problem was I had
to tear cars apart just put it on the track. (the roofs of my train didnt come
off very easily) As I progressed in my designs I realised that if I stacked used
Three 2x4 technic plats ontop of the train. I could use the technic ball hitch
and a rubber band and be set.
And if that explination didnt explain then this picture should help.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/legotrains/TGV/303/barcar02.jpg
That is a picture of my TGV train. It is probably the longest articulated LEGO
train around. It currently is 10ft long and only uses two motors.
Well keep up the great work and hope to see some more trains.
Dave
www.GPLR.org
|
|
| |
I have been studying this design and appreciate the latest detail pics. This is
truly an example of LEGO elegance; functionality and simplicity at it's finest.
Thanks for sharing and also these images are superb!
I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
when traversing uneven track conditions?
As Didier mentioned I had organized a survey of close coupling a couple years
ago and delivered it a BricksWest (if memory serves). And as always <ILTCO hat
on> I think that this is such a great example of close coupling I would invite
you to submit a short paper to the ILTCO library*. Not much more then the text
included in your lugnet posts and several embedded images would be great! If you
are interested just send me an email.</ILTCO hat on>
* ILTCO is always looking for articles/papers for the Library. Even short 2 or 3
page papers are welcome. I think a resource like this can benefit the hobby
greatly but we need these great ideas documented and retrievable!
SteveB
sebarile(at)sstanamera(dot)com
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > > Sweet! I saw this a while back with some of the club pics (one of the rare
> > > occasions I actually check out something like that) and your model was one
> > > of those that struck me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > I see the BNSF buffers have made their first (?) MOC appearance as well.
> >
> > Those buffers are actually in the <http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/4512-1
> > Cargo Train> as well, which is where I got them, so I can only assume they've
> > made into other MOCs before now.
>
> Yes, just check : http://www.6studs.com/cc21002/cc6500-5.JPG
> >
> > > Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by
> > > using bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or
> > > in conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
>
> A close coupling I've seen but not in train MOC is this one :
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/samrotule/bus/bus_cts_renault_agora_l_03.jpg
>
> I'd like also to remember the very good paper on close coupling and other train related building technics (ILTCO library) : "Advanced Train Building" by Steve Barile : http://www.iltco.org/library/docs/Advanced_Train_Building_SBarile_BW02.pdf (1953KB)
>
> Now, Steve has to make an update with this very good O-train MOC by Jason :)
>
> >
> > Sounds intriguing.
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing!
> >
> > You're very welcome!
> >
> > > Legoswami
> >
> > J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, David VinZant wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
|
snip
| |
Jason
I am glad you took some nice pictures of the O train. I saw it from the show
pics and wanted to see more. And for not being a train guy you did an
excilent job. Maybe deep down your are a train guy. ;)
|
Cool, thanks. Lol, maybe, who knows. I have bought my fair share of LEGO train
sets. :)
| |
I also had a problem with tring to solve close cupling. At first I had used
2x2 round bricks with a technic ball hitch inside the train. The problem was
I had to tear cars apart just put it on the track. (the roofs of my train
didnt come off very easily) As I progressed in my designs I realised that if
I stacked used Three 2x4 technic plats ontop of the train. I could use the
technic ball hitch and a rubber band and be set.
And if that explination didnt explain then this picture should help.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/legotrains/TGV/303/barcar02.jpg
That is a picture of my TGV train. It is probably the longest articulated
LEGO train around. It currently is 10ft long and only uses two motors.
|
Yeah, that’s pretty cool. Nice and simple and easy to use. I also saw pics of
it in Steve’s “Advanced Train Building” presentation after Didier posted the
link to it.
| |
Well keep up the great work and hope to see some more trains.
|
Thanks again,
J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
snip
> Yes, just check : http://www.6studs.com/cc21002/cc6500-5.JPG
> >
> > > Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by
> > > using bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or
> > > in conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
>
> A close coupling I've seen but not in train MOC is this one :
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/samrotule/bus/bus_cts_renault_agora_l_03.jpg
>
> I'd like also to remember the very good paper on close coupling and other
> train related building technics (ILTCO library) : "Advanced Train Building" > by Steve Barile :
> http://www.iltco.org/library/docs/Advanced_Train_Building_SBarile_BW02.pdf > (1953KB)
Wow, that's a fabulous resource. Thanks for posting the link. It's amazing to
see so many different solutions to this problem.
On the subject of the ILTCO library, I didn't even realize it existed (not that
I've poked around ILTCO too much before). To the curator of the trains sidebar,
perhaps the ILTCO library section could be directly linked to under the
information or reference sections. Or if not directly linked to, at least be
advertised.
> Now, Steve has to make an update with this very good O-train MOC by Jason :)
>
> >
> > Sounds intriguing.
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing!
> >
> > You're very welcome!
> >
> > > Legoswami
> >
> > J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> I have been studying this design and appreciate the latest detail pics. This is
> truly an example of LEGO elegance; functionality and simplicity at it's finest.
> Thanks for sharing and also these images are superb!
Cool, thanks. Glad you like it!
> I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> when traversing uneven track conditions?
I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
connection? Front to back range of motion?
> As Didier mentioned I had organized a survey of close coupling a couple years
> ago and delivered it a BricksWest (if memory serves). And as always <ILTCO hat
> on> I think that this is such a great example of close coupling I would invite
> you to submit a short paper to the ILTCO library*. Not much more then the text
> included in your lugnet posts and several embedded images would be great! If you
> are interested just send me an email.</ILTCO hat on>
As I mentioned in reply to Didier, I found your presentation very impressive. I
may be interested in putting something together. I'll be in touch.
J
> * ILTCO is always looking for articles/papers for the Library. Even short 2 or 3
> page papers are welcome. I think a resource like this can benefit the hobby
> greatly but we need these great ideas documented and retrievable!
>
>
> SteveB
> sebarile(at)sstanamera(dot)com
snip
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> To the curator of the trains sidebar,
> perhaps the ILTCO library section could be directly linked to under the
> information or reference sections. Or if not directly linked to, at least be
> advertised.
Good idea. Done.
If you, or anyone else for that matter, have other suggestions, please forward
them on via email.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > when traversing uneven track conditions?
>
> I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> connection? Front to back range of motion?
I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
especially with large layouts.
Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
|
|
| |
Thanks Larry, you nailed it. I am talking about going over bumps and uneven
tabels etc...
SteveB
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
>
> > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > connection? Front to back range of motion?
>
> I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> especially with large layouts.
>
> Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
>
> ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
>
> > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > connection? Front to back range of motion?
>
> I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> especially with large layouts.
>
> Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
>
> ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
Ah yes, good points. I just threw together a small test loop with some
intentional grades (2 plate per track slope) and some uneven transitions (pieces
of cardboard under the track). The couplings seemed to perform well, but then I
probably don't really know what to look for. They didn't fall apart at any
rate. :)
The connections gave enough to allow the shared bogies to hug the rails nice and
tightly over all the transitions. I've had the train running the loop for about
half an hour without incident, and inspection of the connections seem to
indicate nothing got loose. Of course this isn't really indicative of what the
long term performance on a 'production' layout might be.
The bogies at the front of the engines on the other hand seemed to have a few
issues with the transitions. Nothing a couple of minor alterations didn't fix
though.
Steve, thanks for posing the question. It's better that I did these tests now
than potentially being surprised with some unexpected problems at our next show.
J
|
|
| |
Great to hear about the successful test. The dynamic nature of trains is often
overlooked. Ocationally there are great looking MOCs posted but don't always run
well in the real world; backwards thru points and the like. Your close coupling
design will clearly be used by many others. Again thanks for sharing.
SteveB
PS where's that article ;)
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> >
> > > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> > >
> > > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > > connection? Front to back range of motion?
> >
> > I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> > or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> > especially with large layouts.
> >
> > Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> > that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> > some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
> >
> > ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
>
> Ah yes, good points. I just threw together a small test loop with some
> intentional grades (2 plate per track slope) and some uneven transitions (pieces
> of cardboard under the track). The couplings seemed to perform well, but then I
> probably don't really know what to look for. They didn't fall apart at any
> rate. :)
>
> The connections gave enough to allow the shared bogies to hug the rails nice and
> tightly over all the transitions. I've had the train running the loop for about
> half an hour without incident, and inspection of the connections seem to
> indicate nothing got loose. Of course this isn't really indicative of what the
> long term performance on a 'production' layout might be.
>
> The bogies at the front of the engines on the other hand seemed to have a few
> issues with the transitions. Nothing a couple of minor alterations didn't fix
> though.
>
> Steve, thanks for posing the question. It's better that I did these tests now
> than potentially being surprised with some unexpected problems at our next show.
>
> J
|
|
|
