| |
Hi, I'm not a LEGO trains expert so I'm curious to see other people's
opinions on this. I should make a point to say that I'm thrilled that LEGO
Direct has provided the ATSF products, and my theories are just for
curiosity sake, not to imply criticism of anything in any way:
I'm wondering why LEGO Direct decided to offer two locomotives in the Santa
Fe Train Kit (K10022). I assume I'm not the only one who did the math and
found if you use the Trains catalog code and get the five cars for $148
(US), you can add two locos at $40 each and have the same as the kit for the
same price (technically a buck cheaper: US $228 vs $229). So my question
is, if you're not saving any money by having the second loco in the kit, why
is it there? Here's my list of possible theories:
1) Cynical Opinion: Get this out of the way first since I did consider this
but I don't agree. Theory: TLC just wants to get an extra $40 purchase out
of the newbies and folks who haven't gotten the trains catalog and aren't
savvy enough to find the code here in LUGNET posts. I don't think this
makes sense because if someone's a trains newbie they'd have to buy the
tracks, controller, and motor(s), which will add up $$$ really quick. The
second engine is an extra $40 hurdle for an already expensive proposition.
2) Artistic Decision: They offer two locos because in their artistic
opinion, this is what a full LEGO Santa Fe train SHOULD have. Perhaps, they
think it looks better (or more correct) having two A-units, especially with
no official B-unit available. Other hand, since many fans already have one
loco, they could offer the kit with a single loco and then say "add this kit
to the engine you already have to get the real experience..." and show a
picture of their ideal in the catalog.
3) Horsepower: I wasn't sure if this made sense until I recently read Cary
Clark's disappointing review of a full Super Chief train's track performance:
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=17905
Maybe LEGO Direct has done the test runs and realized that you need two
locos with a motor each to make the train run as smooth as it should. My
"on the other hand" to this may reveal my own ignorance, but couldn't you
get the same effect by putting two motors in one engine?
4) Pending B-Unit: I'm hoping this is it because I'd love to see an
official B-unit set or add-on kit. To offer a B-unit conversion kit, LEGO
Direct may need to provide the market data to show that there would be
interest. What better data than the list of customers who have bought the
Santa Fe Train Kit, have two locos, and would have a good reason to shell
out a few more bucks for a kit to turn their second loco into a B-Unit?
I look forward to seeing other opinions on these theories, or theories of
your own. No criticism to LEGO Direct here. Keep the great sets coming and
sell them in whatever way that makes sense to you!
Thanks,
Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
> Hi, I'm not a LEGO trains expert so I'm curious to see other people's
> opinions on this. I should make a point to say that I'm thrilled that LEGO
> Direct has provided the ATSF products, and my theories are just for
> curiosity sake, not to imply criticism of anything in any way:
I'm in the same boat, not a train expert but had the same thoughts as your
posting.
>
> I'm wondering why LEGO Direct decided to offer two locomotives in the Santa
> Fe Train Kit (K10022). I assume I'm not the only one who did the math and
> found if you use the Trains catalog code and get the five cars for $148
> (US), you can add two locos at $40 each and have the same as the kit for the
> same price (technically a buck cheaper: US $228 vs $229). So my question
> is, if you're not saving any money by having the second loco in the kit, why
> is it there?
My thoughts exactly when I saw the offer.
> Here's my list of possible theories:
>
> 1) Cynical Opinion: Get this out of the way first since I did consider this
> but I don't agree. Theory: TLC just wants to get an extra $40 purchase out
> of the newbies and folks who haven't gotten the trains catalog and aren't
> savvy enough to find the code here in LUGNET posts. I don't think this
> makes sense because if someone's a trains newbie they'd have to buy the
> tracks, controller, and motor(s), which will add up $$$ really quick. The
> second engine is an extra $40 hurdle for an already expensive proposition.
Naahhh!!!! Hope not.
>
> 2) Artistic Decision: They offer two locos because in their artistic
> opinion, this is what a full LEGO Santa Fe train SHOULD have. Perhaps, they
> think it looks better (or more correct) having two A-units, especially with
> no official B-unit available. Other hand, since many fans already have one
> loco, they could offer the kit with a single loco and then say "add this kit
> to the engine you already have to get the real experience..." and show a
> picture of their ideal in the catalog.
Artistically you still need the B-unit to create the piece de la resistance.
> 3) Horsepower: I wasn't sure if this made sense until I recently read Cary
> Clark's disappointing review of a full Super Chief train's track performance:
> http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=17905
> Maybe LEGO Direct has done the test runs and realized that you need two
> locos with a motor each to make the train run as smooth as it should. My
> "on the other hand" to this may reveal my own ignorance, but couldn't you
> get the same effect by putting two motors in one engine?
When we used three motors to power two engines and five rail cars at our
recent RichLug train show, they seemed underpowered and barely made it
around the 45 degree curves. One motor couldn't power an engine and two rail
cars around our carefully leveled oval.
>
> 4) Pending B-Unit: I'm hoping this is it because I'd love to see an
> official B-unit set or add-on kit. To offer a B-unit conversion kit, LEGO
> Direct may need to provide the market data to show that there would be
> interest. What better data than the list of customers who have bought the
> Santa Fe Train Kit, have two locos, and would have a good reason to shell
> out a few more bucks for a kit to turn their second loco into a B-Unit?
We pondered a possible B-Unit kit from LEGO. I think I will wait for the kit
for another year before I resort to building one from one engine and
Bricklink parts.
>
> I look forward to seeing other opinions on these theories, or theories of
> your own. No criticism to LEGO Direct here. Keep the great sets coming and
> sell them in whatever way that makes sense to you!
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
I'm not surprised that I'm the first person to respond to your post. Those
of us who are not "experts" are usually ignored when we post in this venue.
I hope to see other responses to your insights. I too am enthusiatic about
the new trains (and Legends sets) available at LEGO Direct. I know the new
Santa Fe line has glitches, but I sure like this direction that LEGO has
chosen.
Bert Waters
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Bert Waters writes:
> I'm in the same boat, not a train expert but had the same thoughts as your
> posting.
Glad to know its not just me who was puzzled by this.
> When we used three motors to power two engines and five rail cars at our
> recent RichLug train show, they seemed underpowered and barely made it
> around the 45 degree curves. One motor couldn't power an engine and two rail
> cars around our carefully leveled oval.
Man, every story I hear gets me more depressed! I don't own any ATSF stuff
yet. I decided to wait for the cars to come out and an LD "kit" offer since
my LEGO budget is limited. I now finally have the funds set aside and was
so psyched to see a full train in action. I was about to order when I saw
Cary Clark's thread start. Now I'm not sure if I should order now, or wait
to see if there's some quality control problem with the wheel sets that LD
will fix (and hopefully announce).
> We pondered a possible B-Unit kit from LEGO. I think I will wait for the kit
> for another year before I resort to building one from one engine and
> Bricklink parts.
I've pondered buying an extra engine and doing the A + A = B approach but
$80 for a B-Unit to go with a $40 A-Unit seems too painful. I know the left
over parts can be used for other things, but my MOC skills aren't too great.
> I'm not surprised that I'm the first person to respond to your post. Those
> of us who are not "experts" are usually ignored when we post in this venue.
This depresses me, too. This was my first LUGNET post and I believed the
hype that this would be "the friendliest place on the Internet." Does that
not apply to lugnet.trains?
> Bert Waters
Thanks Bert,
Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Bert Waters writes:
[snip] I have poured more than enough fire into the quality issue....
> This depresses me, too. This was my first LUGNET post and I believed the
> hype that this would be "the friendliest place on the Internet." Does that
> not apply to lugnet.trains?
> Paul
Hi Paul,
I think noone is ignored by the 'old train experts', but the online community
of Lego fans has grown to a size, where we older ones are not too enthusiastic
any longer, if a newbie pops up out of the nowhere and that may apear
like ignorance sometimes.....
I think it is hard for all sides: the newer fans feel ignored, the older ones
loose partly respect against newbies and each other or are just fed up with
all the online stuff. I cannot speak too much for Lugnet (not even for
lugnet.trains) but I have been a nearly first hour member of the 1000steine
board, and we survived similar processes of growth with temporary flame wars
and with subgroup building etc.
Just to share my personnel view about the growth process and its effects:
First every AFOL world-wide has been lonely and may have thought to be the
only adult in the world to play with / collect Lego bricks.
Then suddenly we met some other fans online and we were very enthusiastic
about that fact. You could share experiences, thoughts, pictures of your MOCs
etc. It was easy to feel enthusiastic: you and the few other AFOLs all
suffered under the same loneliness and the lack of interest against our hobby.
And so you accepted ANY new member into the community. You where not
interested, if the other one had 'stinking feet', was painting his bricks, had
high or low building talent or was even beating his wife and children. You did
only care if he was another AFOL next to you.
The community grew and first outlaws appeared: someone ripped off several
members out of the community via eBay. What happened? The community felt even
more welded together.
The community grew and suddenly there were old and new members. There have
been 'old members (maybe just 1 year a part of the community and newer ones,
who felt not really be welcome, although they have been sharing the community
for over 6 months then....). In a result a Who Is Who list was started in the
1000steine community. People learned more about each other and felt again as
one community for a while.
But with further growing the problems get/got worse. Newbies do not dare to
ask questions, halfolds do not dare to answer, because there are these old
experts in the background etc. And the newbies feel ignored since they come to
late to get into the 'inner circle' (there is a long time friendship of the
old first hour members and those will prefer to basically talk with each
other).
At some point even some of the old time members may become outlaws in the
community. Maybe a lack of character has been there for all the time, but in
the launching community nobody cared as written above, but then the
community is in danger to explode....
All these effects are very complicated (dynamics of a group of individuums)
and everything is under permanent change. But the result is for any community
nearly the same: at some time lots of old members are fed up and leave the
group. They may go into a subgroup or they may have all the contact persons to
live without any open community but they are in touch with lots of the old
friends via mail (I am in touch of lots of people that never do any public
posting any longer). That happened partly to the 1000steine community and lots
of the guys that were online in the days of rec.toys.lego.
And for a long time participant of the community like me this is maybe the
most hurting. We lost the cosy feeling we had when the community was young and
very open.
I hope my bad way of English has been clear enough to give you an impression
on my point of view. Do not feel ignored. Try to mix in in any interesting
discussion yourself, try to find people you like and you will soon feel as a
welcome part of the community. And if somebody seems to ignore you, do not
care too much about. Even a completely 'ignored' message here brings a few
hundreds of visitors to any given link you post. So you may get no feedback,
but despite of that your posting get read.
If you have seen 500 Lego engines in your live, it is hard to say some kind
words to a new designed one, that is not too far about the average level, but
still you have a look at it and may enjoy it very much. That may appear as
ignorance, but it is the way it is...
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> I think noone is ignored by the 'old train experts', but the online community
> of Lego fans has grown to a size, where we older ones are not too enthusiastic
> any longer, if a newbie pops up out of the nowhere and that may apear
> like ignorance sometimes.....
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your insightful response. When I placed my original post I
wondered if anyone would reply at all. I assumed that it would only depend
on the content of my post being something people cared to comment on.
Bert's comment suggested that the experts would deliberately ignore me,
regardless of the content, which was disappointing since the amazing things
that these same experts have achieved with LEGO trains is what inspired me
to try to participate in this community in the first place. From reading
your response I understand now how the complex social dynamics of a group
like this (of humans in general) could give the impression that we're being
ignored when in fact there's nothing deliberate going on. I've never been
involved with an online or fan community to any great extent so I've never
considered how the community evolves in the way you described. It all makes
sense.
Thanks again,
Paul
PS:
> I hope my bad way of English has been clear enough to give you an impression
> on my point of view.
I had no problem with your English but you might want to be careful with the
word "ignorance." It normally doesn't mean "state of being ignored", but
instead means "state of being ignorant," which means having a lack of
knowledge or understanding and sometimes implies "stupidity." I knew from
context what you meant, but a casual reader might think you were insulting
someone.
|
|
| |
Paul S. D'Urbano wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Bert Waters writes:
> > When we used three motors to power two engines and five rail cars at our
> > recent RichLug train show, they seemed underpowered and barely made it
> > around the 45 degree curves. One motor couldn't power an engine and two rail
> > cars around our carefully leveled oval.
> Man, every story I hear gets me more depressed! I don't own any ATSF stuff
> yet. I decided to wait for the cars to come out and an LD "kit" offer since
> my LEGO budget is limited. I now finally have the funds set aside and was
> so psyched to see a full train in action. I was about to order when I saw
> Cary Clark's thread start. Now I'm not sure if I should order now, or wait
> to see if there's some quality control problem with the wheel sets that LD
> will fix (and hopefully announce).
My observation :
Most LEGO engines are simply too light! The motor has more power, but it
can't be transferred onto the track because of the lack of grip.
With my 4551 Crocodiles and my MOC DB211 I added some weight bricks, as
found in old 12v trains and some Technic sets, and the traction has
improved a lot. Also trains run smoother and with less waggling around
on the track. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=anvil for
some details on this. The weight brick is still available in the US from
Pitsco Dacta IIRC.
Still need to get my Santa Fe cars but so far my DB 211 has been pulling
trains of 5-6 of the old 12v 7740 coaches (which run heavier than 9v
cars) through curves and points.
> > We pondered a possible B-Unit kit from LEGO. I think I will wait for the kit
> > for another year before I resort to building one from one engine and
> > Bricklink parts.
> I've pondered buying an extra engine and doing the A + A = B approach but
> $80 for a B-Unit to go with a $40 A-Unit seems too painful. I know the left
> over parts can be used for other things, but my MOC skills aren't too great.
Going Bricklink is definately cheaper. I'd say you'd pay around $15-20
for parts needed, and can make $10-15 for the parts you have left
(assuming you already have an A-unit, and plan to make a B-unit with two
LEGO train motors) The windows and the grey wheels are still going for
good prices, way more than the roof and side pieces you'd need.
> > I'm not surprised that I'm the first person to respond to your post. Those
> > of us who are not "experts" are usually ignored when we post in this venue.
> This depresses me, too. This was my first LUGNET post and I believed the
> hype that this would be "the friendliest place on the Internet." Does that
> not apply to lugnet.trains?
So many hours, so little time is my excuse in this...
I try to follow every posting that is made in groups I check, but unless
the title captures my interest I'm likely to skip it.
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/~javanree/
VanReeDotNet IT Solutions | http://www.vanree.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree writes:
> My observation :
> Most LEGO engines are simply too light! The motor has more power, but it
> can't be transferred onto the track because of the lack of grip.
I am thinking that there is a FAQ entry in here somewhere on weight. I am
pressed for time but
- engines benefit from more weight, up to a point... additional weight
(especially over the drivers) gives additional traction/adhesion. The 4561
is a canonical (counter) example of this, it is so light it can't hardly
move itself much less very many cars. Rubber helps but is not a panacea,
just an aid.
- train cars, surprisingly, ALSO benefit from more weight. At least, if you
have very very light cars in long trains you cannot back up at all, you will
derail something, and further, you cannot go around corners without
derailments. While lots and lots of weight is not good, you do want enough
weight on each car that it adheres to the track reliably.
What the best weights are is not clear to me. This info has been calculated
for other gauges like HO and N.
> > > I'm not surprised that I'm the first person to respond to your post. Those
> > > of us who are not "experts" are usually ignored when we post in this venue.
>
> > This depresses me, too. This was my first LUGNET post and I believed the
> > hype that this would be "the friendliest place on the Internet." Does that
> > not apply to lugnet.trains?
>
> So many hours, so little time is my excuse in this...
> I try to follow every posting that is made in groups I check, but unless
> the title captures my interest I'm likely to skip it.
That's me too. I do think it's good to get engaged. Just don't give up after
just one post. Participate in ongoing discussions too. As Ben said, the
hobby has grown and it's not just a single tightly knit circle with everyone
in it any more.
But all contributions are valuable. This is a great topic... it's just that,
like Ben, I've said my piece about quality etc and don't want to repeat
myself too much.
At any rate welcome to lugnet.trains, Paul and other new readers!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > I think noone is ignored by the 'old train experts', but the online community
> > of Lego fans has grown to a size, where we older ones are not too • enthusiastic
> > any longer, if a newbie pops up out of the nowhere and that may apear
> > like ignorance sometimes.....
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thanks for your insightful response. When I placed my original post I
> wondered if anyone would reply at all. I assumed that it would only depend
> on the content of my post being something people cared to comment on.
> Bert's comment suggested that the experts would deliberately ignore me,
> regardless of the content, which was disappointing since the amazing things
> that these same experts have achieved with LEGO trains is what inspired me
> to try to participate in this community in the first place. From reading
> your response I understand now how the complex social dynamics of a group
> like this (of humans in general) could give the impression that we're being
> ignored when in fact there's nothing deliberate going on. I've never been
> involved with an online or fan community to any great extent so I've never
> considered how the community evolves in the way you described. It all makes
> sense.
I too learned a lot from a quite eloquent lecture on the dynamics of this
community. I guess I was just hoping that more people would respond to Paul's
post. The questions Paul raised were similar to my own. After reading Ben's
remarks I realized that my response was presumptuous. I also noticed that Paul
had posted only a few hours before I made the comment.
Thanks Ben and I think you had a great first posting Paul!
Bert Waters
|
|
| |
> - engines benefit from more weight, up to a point... additional weight
> (especially over the drivers) gives additional traction/adhesion. The 4561
> is a canonical (counter) example of this, it is so light it can't hardly
> move itself much less very many cars. Rubber helps but is not a panacea,
> just an aid.
Quite right. This is why the model scales have brass flywheels on top of
the motors. As for the rubber, we need actual traction tires (with treads)
on the wheels, not just wrapped rubber bands.
> What the best weights are is not clear to me. This info has been calculated
> for other gauges like HO and N.
You can find the NMRA RPs for weight here:
http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-20_1.html
They've also introduced scale-wide standards for modules and DCC.
Hope that helps.
-Stefan-
|
|
| |
> > 4) Pending B-Unit: I'm hoping this is it because I'd love to see an
> > official B-unit set or add-on kit. To offer a B-unit conversion kit, LEGO
> > Direct may need to provide the market data to show that there would be
> > interest. What better data than the list of customers who have bought the
> > Santa Fe Train Kit, have two locos, and would have a good reason to shell
> > out a few more bucks for a kit to turn their second loco into a B-Unit?
Speaking of conversion kits, I just thought of a crazy idea; What about
offering a conversion kit for the A unit to make it an Alco FA-2 or PA-1?
Engines existed for both in the warbonnet scheme, and it doesn't take many
bricks to change it. I've already converted mine to an FA-2:
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=217279
And, if they make a PA-1 conversion kit, it would be a great opportunity to
introduce a 6-AXLE MOTOR!!! Whaddy'all think? An FA-2 conversion would be
more likely, but just thought I'd put both ideas out there.
-Stefan--"ideas, ideas..."-G.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Stefan Garcia writes:
> And, if they make a PA-1 conversion kit, it would be a great opportunity to
> introduce a 6-AXLE MOTOR!!!
Dude!
...that would be great for a Babyface Centipede, but I think you meant a 3
axle (or 6 wheel) motor. :-)
|
|
| |
> Quite right. This is why the model scales have brass flywheels on top of
> the motors. As for the rubber, we need actual traction tires (with treads)
> on the wheels, not just wrapped rubber bands.
Figure for steel wheels/steel rail is that you can get 1/4th the weight on
drivers as TE. More for a modern DE loco with anti-slip and AC motors (more
like 1/3rd). As regards traction tyres, no, we don't need them. What is
there should work well enough, given the limits of having to power the motor
from the rails.
> > What the best weights are is not clear to me. This info has been calculated
> > for other gauges like HO and N.
The short answer is that it doesn't matter. As long as you pick a
reasonable figure per inch of car, then they should track reasonably well.
The heavier the cars, the less likely they are to derail (all other things
being equal). But, the more TE required to pull them, requiring more
motors. I have never run into big problems with lego cars except on very
long trains (~50 cars and more), when light (IE piggyback cars made from the
drop center plates) tend to derail on the corners. At more typical train
sizes (5-20 cars), I haven't had problems, but I tend towards smaller cars
than some other people here (Hi Larry, yep, its Eurotrash!).
James Powell
|
|
| |
I also am a firm believer in running short trains with LEGO®. Not only do
they tax the 9V motors less, but they're easier to manage and somehow convey
a more dramatic effect to my eyes...especially when using two-axle equipment.
-Harvey
|
|
| |
James Powell wrote:
> The short answer is that it doesn't matter. As long as you pick a
> reasonable figure per inch of car, then they should track reasonably well.
> The heavier the cars, the less likely they are to derail (all other things
> being equal). But, the more TE required to pull them, requiring more
> motors. I have never run into big problems with lego cars except on very
> long trains (~50 cars and more), when light (IE piggyback cars made from the
> drop center plates) tend to derail on the corners. At more typical train
> sizes (5-20 cars), I haven't had problems, but I tend towards smaller cars
> than some other people here (Hi Larry, yep, its Eurotrash!).
Euro-trash? Care to explain?? :D
As for weight... one weight brick per 9v engine block seems to work fine
for me. I refitted my 7760 with a 9v block and it ran great, a LOT
stronger than my 4563 engine. After fitting the 4563 with one weight
brick, difference became a lot smaller.
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/~javanree/
VanReeDotNet IT Solutions | http://www.vanree.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree writes:
> James Powell wrote: • [snip]
> As for weight... one weight brick per 9v engine block seems to work fine
> for me. I refitted my 7760 with a 9v block and it ran great, a LOT
> stronger than my 4563 engine. After fitting the 4563 with one weight
> brick, difference became a lot smaller.
I have another trick to improve your engines/motors. If you take a close look
at the motor wheels you see there are small round rubber bands. You can
exchange the original ones against the rubberbands used in the Lego bicycles.
Those are a little bit thicker in their diameter. And if you take two of the
cheap telekom bikes for each motor, the bikes will look more like racing bikes
because of the smaller tyres... ;-))
You will be suprised who much stronger your engines become (especially without
extra weight and at sloped track sections. Any feedback is welcome - I did
this with as many engines as I had bikes available.
Kind Regards,
Ben
P.s.: has anybody around some dozens of bicycles? I would need them to upgrade
all my engines since each two motors engine needs 4 bikes for this upgrade.
|
|
| |
Wow! Thast's the first time I've ever heard of that. I noticed those rubber
tires on the motors before, wondered about the life span etc... but kaboom!
What an idea!
I changed the subject, some might be trailing off this one...
SteveB
From "Re: My Santa Fe Train Kit Theories" thread
> I have another trick to improve your engines/motors. If you take a close look
> at the motor wheels you see there are small round rubber bands. You can
> exchange the original ones against the rubberbands used in the Lego bicycles.
>
> You will be suprised who much stronger your engines become (especially without
> extra weight and at sloped track sections. Any feedback is welcome - I did
> this with as many engines as I had bikes available.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
>
> P.s.: has anybody around some dozens of bicycles? I would need them to upgrade
> all my engines since each two motors engine needs 4 bikes for this upgrade.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steve Barile writes:
> Wow! Thast's the first time I've ever heard of that. I noticed those rubber
> tires on the motors before, wondered about the life span etc... but kaboom!
> What an idea!
...
I agree. It's a great idea. And I like the look of the bicycles with the
thinner tire, too. I changed two motors right away and there's no question,
the traction is improved immensely. I changed the Santa Fe 'A' unit and my
'B' unit, and the wheels went from slipping to no slippage at all.
However, it makes the Santa Fe run worse.
Here's my setup: a Santa Fe engine, with a single weight brick over the
motor, a run-of-the-mill 'B' engine (motor in front, one weight brick),
followed by five stock Santa Fe cars, one of each. Before I made Ben's
change, the engines would slip miserably, but barely pull the train through
the circuit. After I made Ben's change, the train completely stalled at
several points. In both cases, the controller was on full voltage. One stall
had the engine directly over the controller clips.
The track layout is about forty feet in a contorted figure eight on level
ground. The stalls mostly happened when the rear of the train was all on
curved track. There are two level crossings; one crossing derailed the 'B'
engine once. There are two track 'x' crossings; the wheels of the trailing
cars made a terrible "ka-chunk" sounds when they went through the crossings.
The engines initially lurched forward when starting out, so I immediately
checked both motors to make sure the wheels turned freely, and that the
rubber tires were on evenly and securely. I took one passenger car off, and
it still ran poorly. With three cars, it ran OK. But with five cars, the
engines jump forward erratically rather than roll smoothly or freely. Oddly,
they run better backwards than forwards.
I examined some of the cars wheelsets, and noticed that when the wheels
spin, they make a tick-tick-tick sound. I couldn't see what was making the
noise. In all fairness, I need to switch out all of the wheelsets to old
ones to see if that train runs well. I haven't done that yet.
I'd be interested in hearing how others stock Santa Fe + cars run.
Cary
|
|
| |
Hi Ben,
I've also done the tire-exchange in the past. And also out of Telekom's
by now... :-)
My best Trick: just add more power on the track.
I've exchanged the Lego-transformer for a standard 6-dollar-one (with 2
outlets!):
2 times ~11,5V / 1,25A each.
Tested together with Jan-Albert van Ree: 8 (yes eight!) trains together
run completely smooth on just one outlet/rail attachment!
Maximum speed could not be tested: derailment at 2/3 power.
I've seen many postings about 'the regulator can't handle these
currents', but that is all theory.
No problems or whatever with the regulators.
I'll bring one of my transformers to Legoworld, you can see (and test)
for yourself.
I'm curious how many trains we need for the regulator to burn. Shall we
test it next week? I'll offer a regulator for that purpose!
No theories, but heavy trial-and-error... :-)
Klaas
BTW: 2 week ago I visited Günzburg (TOP!), and the BigShop sold the
Telekom-bycicles for 0,90 Euro/bike. Mega heaps of these boxes where
lying around... but after 2 days with Lego-consuming kids (and
myself...) a ran out of Euro's, so, no bikes for me.
Reinhard \"Ben\" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree writes:
>
> > James Powell wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > As for weight... one weight brick per 9v engine block seems to work fine
> > for me. I refitted my 7760 with a 9v block and it ran great, a LOT
> > stronger than my 4563 engine. After fitting the 4563 with one weight
> > brick, difference became a lot smaller.
>
>
> I have another trick to improve your engines/motors. If you take a close look
> at the motor wheels you see there are small round rubber bands. You can
> exchange the original ones against the rubberbands used in the Lego bicycles.
>
> Those are a little bit thicker in their diameter. And if you take two of the
> cheap telekom bikes for each motor, the bikes will look more like racing bikes
> because of the smaller tyres... ;-))
>
> You will be suprised who much stronger your engines become (especially without
> extra weight and at sloped track sections. Any feedback is welcome - I did
> this with as many engines as I had bikes available.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ben
>
> P.s.: has anybody around some dozens of bicycles? I would need them to upgrade
> all my engines since each two motors engine needs 4 bikes for this upgrade.
>
|
|
| |
greenman wrote:
> BTW: 2 week ago I visited Günzburg (TOP!), and the BigShop sold the
> Telekom-bycicles for 0,90 Euro/bike. Mega heaps of these boxes where
> lying around... but after 2 days with Lego-consuming kids (and
> myself...) a ran out of Euro's, so, no bikes for me.
At LEGOWorld, Intertoys will probably have these in their megashop
there. And current Intertoys price is 99 Eurocents :D
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/~javanree/
VanReeDotNet IT Solutions | http://www.vanree.net
|
|
| |
We at the SCLTC had noticed the same issues everyone else has mentioned. We
love to run long trains and decided to modify controllers to supply more
electricity to the tracks. We used the information that someone here at
LUGNET had supplied unfortunately I can't remember whom. So far we've run 5
motors simultaneously with no problems whatsoever. This mod coupled with a
train weight over each motor and our traction/slowdown problems seem to be
solved. We will be testing more this weekend so I will keep you all informed
of any issues that arise.
Robert Powell
SCLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Stefan Garcia writes:
>
> > And, if they make a PA-1 conversion kit, it would be a great opportunity to
> > introduce a 6-AXLE MOTOR!!!
>
> Dude!
>
> ...that would be great for a Babyface Centipede, but I think you meant a 3
> axle (or 6 wheel) motor. :-)
Oh, uh right...oops. {:^) Centipede though, that would be awesome to see.
MTH made an O-gauge model a while ago. It's huge!
-Stefan-
|
|
|
