 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
11.) center stud with Legologo
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
***************************************************************************
Solution: A wheel in diameter of nearly 5 studs (1 plate distance between
neighbour wheels) as seen in the following pictures. A round 1x1x0.33 plate
can be placed in the center.
The unofficial *.dat part-file of the wheel itself can be downloaded here
The *.dat part-file of the counterweight can be downloaded here
*************************************************************************
A first draft of an engine with these wheels has been done here:
(click to enlarge)
************************************************************************
Question:
If only one single mould would be possible due to too low demand and high
costs for new moulds, what would you prefer: Should the counterweight be
included in that wheel-mould or not? In case of only one mould being possible,
the users would surely obmit in blind drivers (since anybody could easiely cut
the flange off himself - better have a wheel with flanges than not having
it....).
Any further importeant points I missed in my design? I have put quite a lot
of time into this “draft” to make this new part as usefull as possible. So
hopefully you have not a too big demand for a further change in design.
Leg Godt!
my Homepage:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllll
Slurp.......
Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
(snipped the whole message)
Very nice, but unless you’re doing some tricks I can’t see in your image, your
example locomotive won’t be able to handle corners.
You won’t be able to put three of these wheels next to each other and have them
go around Lego curves. If you move the middle wheels in a half stud, I think it
will work - but that adds another layer of complexity with attaching the
pushrods. Also, if you want to run three wheels together, it makes a very tight
threshold for the shape of the flange. You need the flange big enough and
angled enough that it won’t try to climb up the outside of a curve, but it still
needs to be small enough to fit through the switches.
My suggestion would be to just mold the counterweight into it, and make just one
mold. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a time I wouldn’t want to use
the counterweight...
So, when can I get a couple dozen in black? *grin*
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
(snipped the whole message)
Very nice, but unless you’re doing some tricks I can’t see in your image,
your example locomotive won’t be able to handle corners.
|
Forget abou running behaviour for the moment: I just wanted to have an
impression about the “feeling” of these wheels. How do they look like in a LEGO®
engine.
For a real model it would need blind drivers or a steering mechanism like here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=12161
As one can easiely see: this CAD-draft is quite similar to the LGB/Playmobil
wheels. Since those have been tested be me and others this decreases the risk of
failure.
| |
You won’t be able to put three of these wheels next to each other and have
them go around Lego curves. If you move the middle wheels in a half stud, I
think it will work - but that adds another layer of complexity with attaching
the pushrods. Also, if you want to run three wheels together, it makes a
very tight threshold for the shape of the flange. You need the flange big
enough and angled enough that it won’t try to climb up the outside of a
curve, but it still needs to be small enough to fit through the switches.
|
| |
My suggestion would be to just mold the counterweight into it, and make just
one mold. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a time I wouldn’t want to
use the counterweight...
|
I think I have to agree here.
| |
So, when can I get a couple dozen in black? *grin*
|
Brad said “no”. But there are other parties than TLC. Would you (and what about
the other train heads?) ignore this design, when it would be done by a third
party supplier?
Leg Godt!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
So, when can I get a couple dozen in black? *grin*
|
Brad said “no”. But there are other parties than TLC. Would you (and what
about the other train heads?) ignore this design, when it would be done by a
third party supplier?
|
Like I said, when can I get a couple dozen in black?
I don’t see a problem with a third-party product if the quality is good. I can
definitely forsee having to explain to *everyone* who looks at our train layout
that these wheels are NOT a Lego product. But, I could live with that -
especially if those people could buy them easily. (Bricklink store, perhaps?)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I suspect that you have to do the same explaining when someone comments on
the gorgeous monorails that many clubs use in their layouts...
"Oh that? It is a bunch of monorail set and parts from the lat 80's - but
Lego no longer produces them..."
> "John Gerlach" <gmltc_j1@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message • news:HnHFx5.1w4J@lugnet.com...
> I don't see a problem with a third-party product if the quality is good. • I can
> definitely forsee having to explain to *everyone* who looks at our train • layout
> that these wheels are NOT a Lego product. But, I could live with that -
> especially if those people could buy them easily. (Bricklink store, • perhaps?)
>
> JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Bryan Kinkel" <helpdesk@loseyourmind.com> wrote in message
news:HnIs02.Axq@lugnet.com...
> I suspect that you have to do the same explaining when someone comments on
> the gorgeous monorails that many clubs use in their layouts...
>
> "Oh that? It is a bunch of monorail set and parts from the lat 80's - but
> Lego no longer produces them..."
[ ... snipped ... ]
When we have the NCLTC layout on display we deal with this one all of the
time. Of course, to make matters worse and generate more questions, it
doesn't help that we run multi-car monorail trains and Cary Clark's twin
spirals are always prominnently featured in our layout!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=478765
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
| |
My suggestion would be to just mold the counterweight into it, and make just
one mold. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a time I wouldn’t want
to use the counterweight...
|
|
Well maybe not, let me change my vote then.
| |
I think I have to agree here.
| |
So, when can I get a couple dozen in black? *grin*
|
Brad said “no”. But there are other parties than TLC. Would you (and what
about the other train heads?) ignore this design, when it would be done by a
third party supplier?
|
I would prefer that LEGO do this. But if LEGO won’t do it, then yes I would go
third party.
As some of you know, there has been some amazing molding done by Jeff (“Little
Armory”) Byrd to fill unmet needs in the castle and space areas, and Jeff DID
come to BF DC in August, and did ask trainheads what was wanted and I spent some
time on drivers and rod geometry (Ondrew was in on the discussion too IIRC) and
other stuff.
- See also LA Question where Brad is asked about Little Armory
- See the LA site to see examples of Jeff’s fine work... it’s pretty amazing (warning, catalog requires flash)
You’ve done some great research for LEGO, Jeff, or whoever chooses to take up
the gauntlet... I hope he gives you a shout as this is well within his
capabilities, IMHO.
Oh, and put me down for 2 dozen each in black AND red... gonna show those
eurotrashers how to build steam engines, yes I am.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Brad said “no”. But there are other parties than TLC. Would you (and what
about the other train heads?) ignore this design, when it would be done by a
third party supplier?
|
Ben - I may have missed something. What did Brad say ‘no’ to? Moulding this
specific part, or big drivers in general?
I really like the look of this part, and everyone knows we all want drivers, but
I think the spokes seem a bit thin and may weaken with heavy running -
particularly around the coupling rod mount.
Personally, I prefer a smaller wheel (3 studs across the hub). What size is
this across the hub, rather than the flange?
It’s just if you use a flexing wheelbase, the drivers have to pass freely under
the sole-plate, so I find smaller than scale to be more useful. Mind you, I’d
still use these, and I appreciate that if it’s going to be a single mould, it
should be a compromise between the requirements of 6-wide and 8-wide modellers.
Jason Railton
P.S. As for Larry, La
La La I can’t hear you...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Brad said “no”. But there are other parties than TLC. Would you (and what
about the other train heads?) ignore this design, when it would be done by a
third party supplier?
|
Ben - I may have missed something. What did Brad say ‘no’ to? Moulding this
specific part, or big drivers in general?
|
Hi Jason!
He said “no” for any drivers in general. :-(
| |
I really like the look of this part, and everyone knows we all want drivers,
but I think the spokes seem a bit thin and may weaken with heavy running -
particularly around the coupling rod mount.
|
Have a look at this:
On the left hand is a wheel from 396 etc. And I never saw a broken one. My
spokes are twice as thick as these old one have been.
| |
Personally, I prefer a smaller wheel (3 studs across the hub). What size is
this across the hub, rather than the flange?
|
Have not measured it myself (in millimeters) so far, only in CAD-coordinates...
Leg Godt!
my Homepage:
| |
It’s just if you use a flexing wheelbase, the drivers have to pass freely
under the sole-plate, so I find smaller than scale to be more useful. Mind
you, I’d still use these, and I appreciate that if it’s going to be a single
mould, it should be a compromise between the requirements of 6-wide and
8-wide modellers.
Jason Railton
P.S. As for Larry, La La La I can’t hear you...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
|
| |
On the left hand is a wheel from 396 etc. And I never saw a broken one. My
spokes are twice as thick as these old one have been.
| |
Personally, I prefer a smaller wheel (3 studs across the hub). What size is
this across the hub, rather than the flange?
|
Have not measured it myself (in millimeters) so far, only in
CAD-coordinates...
|
From your own picture, eyeballing the measurement by holding pencils up to the
wheel and the ties below it and so forth, I get that the hub diameter is just a
smidgeon below 4 studs across, while Jason of the green engine wants 3, which
coincidentally is about the diameter of the wheel you show next to it (the one
used in the 7750?).
Given that wheel exists, why do another one that diameter (ignoring for the
moment what the price of that wheel actually IS) ??
That said, though, I think for freight locos I’d rather err a bit smaller too, I
guess. I have never seen a graph of engine population density vs driver diameter
so I’m guessing but I think smaller may be a bit more common than say 5 or 6
studs across ala the Thatcher Perkins driver you show on the other side. But I
don’t see 4 as totally too large by any means. In fact I think it’s a good
choice.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
|
| |
On the left hand is a wheel from 396 etc. And I never saw a broken one. My
spokes are twice as thick as these old one have been.
| |
Personally, I prefer a smaller wheel (3 studs across the hub). What size
is this across the hub, rather than the flange?
|
Have not measured it myself (in millimeters) so far, only in
CAD-coordinates...
|
From your own picture, eyeballing the measurement by holding pencils up to
the wheel and the ties below it and so forth, I get that the hub diameter is
just a smidgeon below 4 studs across, while Jason of the green engine wants
3, which coincidentally is about the diameter of the wheel you show next to
it (the one used in the 7750?).
Given that wheel exists, why do another one that diameter (ignoring for the
moment what the price of that wheel actually IS) ??
That said, though, I think for freight locos I’d rather err a bit smaller
too, I guess. I have never seen a graph of engine population density vs
driver diameter so I’m guessing but I think smaller may be a bit more common
than say 5 or 6 studs across ala the Thatcher Perkins driver you show on the
other side. But I don’t see 4 as totally too large by any means. In fact I
think it’s a good choice.
|
I’m coming to the same conclusion, I was originally envisaging a bit larger. But
the large size of the flanges makes the dimensions you have to take into account
for footplate height much larger than on a ‘scale’ model. The size ben has
chosen would give the most possible applications.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
That said, though, I think for freight locos I’d rather err a bit smaller
too, I guess. I have never seen a graph of engine population density vs
driver diameter so I’m guessing but I think smaller may be a bit more common
than say 5 or 6 studs across ala the Thatcher Perkins driver you show on the
other side. But I don’t see 4 as totally too large by any means. In fact I
think it’s a good choice.
|
Given 5 bricks=6 ft (a minifig), then 5 bricks is if anything, midrange.
engines I have data on here- 8P (DoG) was 74”, a UP FEF was 80”, J is 70”,
German 05 is 90”, NYC J3A 79”, GWR Castle 80”, German P8 69”
So, a 5 stud diameter looks about right to me.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, James Powell wrote:
| |
| |
That said, though, I think for freight locos I’d rather err a bit smaller
too, I guess. I have never seen a graph of engine population density vs
driver diameter so I’m guessing but I think smaller may be a bit more common
than say 5 or 6 studs across ala the Thatcher Perkins driver you show on the
other side. But I don’t see 4 as totally too large by any means. In fact I
think it’s a good choice.
|
Given 5 bricks=6 ft (a minifig), then 5 bricks is if anything, midrange.
engines I have data on here- 8P (DoG) was 74”, a UP FEF was 80”, J is 70”,
German 05 is 90”, NYC J3A 79”, GWR Castle 80”, German P8 69”
So, a 5 stud diameter looks about right to me.
James
|
How many of those are high speed passenger locos though? In terms of population
density, low speed freight locos were much more predominant and they had smaller
drivers.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
Given 5 bricks=6 ft (a minifig), then 5 bricks is if anything, midrange.
engines I have data on here- 8P (DoG) was 74”, a UP FEF was 80”, J is 70”,
German 05 is 90”, NYC J3A 79”, GWR Castle 80”, German P8 69”
So, a 5 stud diameter looks about right to me.
James
|
How many of those are high speed passenger locos though? In terms of
population density, low speed freight locos were much more predominant and
they had smaller drivers.
|
Most of the above are passenger- DoG is a one off. But, the P8 was a bit more
than a make up- there were 3800 of them built. :). Also, when you look at the
UK, 9F’s have a 60” dia wheel, which is small for most mainline locos- and I am
assuming most people here don’t model 0-4-0 tank engines with 30” wheels :)
Go stand next to any loco, and you will see what I mean- they tower over most
people quite nicely :). Even a CP 0-8-0 that I was near recently- the wheels
are not as tall as I am (6’) but they are still quite close.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, James Powell wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Given 5 bricks=6 ft (a minifig), then 5 bricks is if anything, midrange.
engines I have data on here- 8P (DoG) was 74”, a UP FEF was 80”, J is 70”,
German 05 is 90”, NYC J3A 79”, GWR Castle 80”, German P8 69”
So, a 5 stud diameter looks about right to me.
James
|
How many of those are high speed passenger locos though? In terms of
population density, low speed freight locos were much more predominant and
they had smaller drivers.
|
Most of the above are passenger- DoG is a one off. But, the P8 was a bit
more than a make up- there were 3800 of them built. :). Also, when you look
at the UK, 9F’s have a 60” dia wheel, which is small for most mainline locos-
and I am assuming most people here don’t model 0-4-0 tank engines with 30”
wheels :)
Go stand next to any loco, and you will see what I mean- they tower over most
people quite nicely :). Even a CP 0-8-0 that I was near recently- the wheels
are not as tall as I am (6’) but they are still quite close.
James
|
Speak for yourself... :-)
The other thing this ignores is that a lot of steam trains (the Castle class
certainly) had the main drivers going up through a slot in the sole-plate.
That’s why they have wheel arches, and why British steam locomotive nameplates
are all curved, to fit the arch.
This is very hard to model in Lego, particularly if you want the wheelbase to
flex through corners. That’s why I prefer a smaller wheel, so that it can pass
underneath the body. I certainly wouldn’t want to try with anything larger than
what Ben has proposed.
Jason Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
Personally, I prefer a smaller wheel (3 studs across the hub). What size
is this across the hub, rather than the flange?
|
Have not measured it myself (in millimeters) so far, only in
CAD-coordinates...
|
From your own picture, eyeballing the measurement by holding pencils up to
the wheel and the ties below it and so forth, I get that the hub diameter is
just a smidgeon below 4 studs across, while Jason of the green engine wants
3, which coincidentally is about the diameter of the wheel you show next to
it (the one used in the 7750?).
Given that wheel exists, why do another one that diameter (ignoring for the
moment what the price of that wheel actually IS) ??
|
Well the only 3 reasons I can think are:
1. Mounts on a Technic axle
2. has hole to attach connecting rod
3. has optional counterweight
None of which I think the 7750 wheel has 8?)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
awsome!! dude this simply rocks.
Anyway a few minor points. Have it molded in black as it is more realistic in
the USA and in red for the Europeans. Also drive rods! I have never seen a drive
rod that is realistic to the squared off shape of the real thing. Other than
that what you came up with is exactly what I am hoping for. It is a simple
2-part mold that makes the wheel simple enough to be cheap to make and realistic
enough to have people asking where I got them.
OnDrew Hartigan
NILTC
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
11.) center stud with Legologo
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
***************************************************************************
Solution: A wheel in diameter of nearly 5 studs (1 plate distance between
neighbour wheels) as seen in the following pictures. A round 1x1x0.33 plate
can be placed in the center.
The unofficial *.dat part-file of the wheel itself can be downloaded here
The *.dat part-file of the counterweight can be downloaded here
*************************************************************************
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
| |
awsome!! dude this simply rocks.
|
Hi Ondrew!
Thanks for the praise!
| |
Anyway a few minor points. Have it molded in black as it is more realistic
in the USA and in red for the Europeans.
|
Of course! But since I designed it I wanted to have a start in red. ;-)
| |
Also drive rods! I have never seen a
drive rod that is realistic to the squared off shape of the real thing.
|
I think there are other parts you could use: pneumatik tube, Flex-Stuff from the
90ies LEGO® technic, and other parts - Just be creative!
I wanted this design to consist out of as few new molds as possible. Therefor I
would even prefer moulded counterweights now.
Leg Godt!
Ben
| |
Other than that what you came up with is exactly what I am hoping for. It is
a simple 2-part mold that makes the wheel simple enough to be cheap to make
and realistic enough to have people asking where I got them.
OnDrew Hartigan
NILTC
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
11.) center stud with Legologo
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
|
I like these criteria, and since we’re talking about a MOLD not a part, color is
irrelevant, it can be molded in grey or black or red or whatever... I can live
with red as the first color run as long as we know another color is coming
behind it.
| |
***************************************************************************
Solution: A wheel in diameter of nearly 5 studs (1 plate distance between
neighbour wheels) as seen in the following pictures. A round 1x1x0.33 plate
can be placed in the center.
|
(snipped the pics)
| |
The unofficial *.dat part-file of the wheel itself can be downloaded here>
The *.dat part-file of the counterweight can be downloaded here
*************************************************************************
A first draft of an engine with these wheels has been done here:
(click to enlarge)
************************************************************************
Question:
If only one single mould would be possible due to too low demand and high
costs for new moulds, what would you prefer: Should the counterweight be
included in that wheel-mould or not?
|
Not.
| |
In case of only one mould being
possible, the users would surely obmit in blind drivers (since anybody could
easiely cut the flange off himself - better have a wheel with flanges than
not having it....).
|
Agreed. And your test engine presumably would have a Dremel taken to one set of
drivers to turn them blind so it can make it around corners
| |
Any further importeant points I missed in my design? I have put quite a lot
of time into this “draft” to make this new part as usefull as possible. So
hopefully you have not a too big demand for a further change in design.
|
The effort shows, very nice work! Thanks for sharing!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
11.) center stud with Legologo
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
|
Ben, One thing that would be really nice that LEGO also doesn’t provide is a
way to pick up track power other than the motor wheels. Now that would be a
tricky proposition with the design you came up with. How about a wheel truck
similar to the standard 9V wheels, with optional click-on suspension-looking
faring, but with metal flanges, and a standard 9V connector on top?????
(Just kidding but it would be nice....)
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
|
| |
Ben, One thing that would be really nice that LEGO also doesn’t provide is
a way to pick up track power other than the motor wheels.
|
Hi Rosco!
Empty out a new motor (25$) or a defected one (<10$) and you have your power
pick up.... And everything is pure LEGO®. ;-)
Leg Godt!
| |
Now that would be a
tricky proposition with the design you came up with. How about a wheel truck
similar to the standard 9V wheels, with optional click-on suspension-looking
faring, but with metal flanges, and a standard 9V connector on top?????
(Just kidding but it would be nice....)
ROSCO
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I have it on good information that a third party supplier will soon be sending
out a set of custom drive wheels meeting many of these criteria to a select
group of AFOL train builders for evaluation.
Cheers
Ben Fleskes
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
11.) center stud with Legologo
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
|
snip
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
I have it on good information that a third party supplier will soon be
sending out a set of custom drive wheels meeting many of these criteria to a
select group of AFOL train builders for evaluation.
Cheers
Ben Fleskes
|
Hmmm,
Any chance that one could coerce you to mention to your good informer that
someone (ahem) would love to find his name (ahem) among said group?
Seriously ... I’d love to have the opportunity to play with a couple of these.
Drive wheels are fun to try and design in a custom fashion, but it would be nice
to have them work the first try for once!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28425
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=22292
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=8403
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=7088
(and I’m finishing up another one - well, within 2 months, I’d say ;)
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:
> Question:
> If [only one single] mould would be possible due to too low demand and high
> costs for new moulds, what would you prefer: Should the counterweight be
> included in that wheel-mould or not? In case of only one mould being
> possible, the users would surely obmit in blind drivers (since anybody could
> easiely cut the flange off himself - better have a wheel with flanges than
> not having it....).
True, or get somebody with (CNC) lathe access to do this :D
I'd prefer a wheel with counterweight. It might even help protect the part
against distortion, since due to the spokes the part might otherwise be somewhat
fragile.
> Any further importeant points I missed in my design? I have put quite a lot
> of time into this "draft" to make this new part as usefull as possible. So
> hopefully you have not a too big demand for a further change in design.
Let me know when you start taking pre-orders. I wouldn't mind a few dozen , both
in red and black. Although red would make the problem of TLC not doing any red
wheels even more pressing :D
Overall the design looks solid, although I would have liked to see a simple
solution to the rods problem. I think, with one simple single mold, this could
easily be combined?
--
Jan-Albert van Ree
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
|
All right, I’m willing to risk some ridicule for not knowing this. What is the
purpose of the counterweight? Is it to balance the load of the drive rod, so
that the wheel never has to “lift” and weight, per se?
What is the “weight” like? A small metal-filled LEGO piece?
Is that something that is typically done in real trains? How about model
trains? And have people successfully implemented it in LEGO trains?
Has there been previous conversation here on .trains that I’ve misse concerning
coutnerweights? Anybody have any links?
I’m drooling at the concept!
-s
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Shaun Sullivan wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
|
All right, I’m willing to risk some ridicule for not knowing this. What is
the purpose of the counterweight? Is it to balance the load of the drive
rod, so that the wheel never has to “lift” and weight, per se?
What is the “weight” like? A small metal-filled LEGO piece?
Is that something that is typically done in real trains? How about model
trains? And have people successfully implemented it in LEGO trains?
Has there been previous conversation here on .trains that I’ve misse
concerning coutnerweights? Anybody have any links?
|
Counterweights were used on real steam engines to compensate the weight of the
connection to the rod, so that the wheel would be in balance again. Without, or
with incorrect counterweight, at higher speeds there would be a significant
distortion in the balance of the wheel, causing it to put huge forces on the
track and make it run very “rough” causing much wear on track, wheels and frame.
Think about your car’s wheels, they need to balance them (put some lead on the
rim at certain points) to make sure there are no uneven centrifugal forces on
the wheel. You can’t drive at higher speeds without those either, same
principle.
For LEGO trains, it would only be decorative ofcourse :D
--
Jan-Albert van Ree
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
| |
Is that something that is typically done in real trains? How about model
trains? And have people successfully implemented it in LEGO trains?
Has there been previous conversation here on .trains that I’ve misse
concerning coutnerweights? Anybody have any links?
|
Counterweights were used on real steam engines to compensate the weight of
the connection to the rod, so that the wheel would be in balance again.
Without, or with incorrect counterweight, at higher speeds there would be a
significant distortion in the balance of the wheel, causing it to put huge
forces on the track and make it run very “rough” causing much wear on track,
wheels and frame.
|
-some more comments-
Not all loco’s got it right- the AAR formula used for a period of time to devise
counterweight weight was out to lunch- IIRC, the Florida East Coast
suffered this badly with some 4-8-4’s.
Counterweighting and ballancing are a tremendous comprimise in full size.
Basically, you can have a loco ballanced for a specific speed, or for 0 speed,
or kind of a average, and they tend to ride rough regardless- remember, you are
talking of forces in excess of 150 000 lb on a average north american 4-8-4 from
piston thrust, and a corrisponding vertical element (particularly if the
cylinders are sloped, at even as little as 2-3% off vertical...a typical UK way
around things...). More cylinders eases things out- a 3 or 4 (or more, but not
common except on gear drive) cylindered loco has much less ballance problems
than a 2 cylindered engine.
Under the wrong conditions, hammer blow can cause the loco to literally fly off
the track. This was the case in at least one UK rail accident (Southern Baltic
tank). It is understandable that this is less than desireable :)
As pointed out, they are basically decerative in Lego (or even up to 1.5/1.6”
models), because forces are much smaller in relation to the engines...so,
ballance is far less critical (it’s a 4th or 5th power (not sure) relationship
for sure)
James Powell
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Ben,
many thanks for sharing this “new part”. Your design is well thought-throw and
it would be “THE” addition to train parts. Hopefully there will be someone
somewhere reading your article who is able to bring this piece into reality?
1000grüße
Holger
HoMa’s World of Bricks: http://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks_us/index.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
|
This is something i have spent hours working out (in my mind) as I walk the dog
every night! My conclusions end up lookin pretty much the same as yours
| |
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
1.) technic axle center
|
Yes
| |
2.) peg hole for connecting rods
|
yes
| |
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
|
How did you reach this?
| |
4.) flange design similar to 9V wheels
|
yes
| |
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
|
do you mean the gap between two flanges of adjacent wheels, if so yes
| |
6.) distance between centers of two neighbour wheels in a “common” dimension
(4 stud / 5 stud / 6 stud?)
|
yes
| |
7.) running diameter dimension fitting to 9V and 12V wheel diameters
|
yes
| |
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
|
so the thickest bit is the pin connector hole?
| |
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
|
Would be nice but by no means essential,
| |
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
|
a generic wheel is best
| |
11.) center stud with Legologo
|
not at all essential (imho)
| |
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
|
perhap the wheel and the flange could be seperate mouldings.
e.g the wheel piece looks fairly similar to the existing large spoke wheel that
people use with the addition of axle and pin holes and no groove arround the
circuference and the flange piece be a pretty simple ring shaped piece with a
click fit onto the wheel
| |
Question:
If only one single mould would be possible due to too low demand and high
costs for new moulds, what would you prefer: Should the counterweight be
included in that wheel-mould or not? In case of only one mould being
possible, the users would surely obmit in blind drivers (since anybody could
easiely cut the flange off himself - better have a wheel with flanges than
not having it....).
|
I have also been thinking more complicated than this for electricity pickup
using a metal flange etc but I think simplicity is the key if we are going to
get anyone to make it. This is the one piece that I would be prepared to go
non-lego for
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
|
How did you reach this?
|
Hi Tim!
??You are asking why I demand this (bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set
396)? Both sizes do exist. So I see no highly urgent need for those. The size
inbetween is not only a compromise, but in my eyes the golden center.
| |
| |
5.) narrow gaps between two wheels
|
do you mean the gap between two flanges of adjacent wheels, if so yes
|
Yes, I meant that. Sorry for my bad use of language....
| |
| |
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
|
so the thickest bit is the pin connector hole?
|
Not really, since this hole is shorter than 1 stud. (look at any technik brick
and you will recognise that the hole is shorter than the width of 1 stud).
| |
| |
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
|
Would be nice but by no means essential,
|
I agree in the meantime. The majority seems to prefer included counterweights.
| |
| |
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
|
a generic wheel is best
|
What is your definition of a “generic” wheel?
| |
| |
11.) center stud with Legologo
|
not at all essential (imho)
|
But it would be really nice in case the wheel is from a third party: it gives a
more legoish feeling and increases the acceptance(imho).
| |
| |
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver) should
be available.))
|
perhap the wheel and the flange could be seperate mouldings.
e.g the wheel piece looks fairly similar to the existing large spoke wheel
that people use with the addition of axle and pin holes and no groove arround
the circuference and the flange piece be a pretty simple ring shaped piece
with a click fit onto the wheel
|
Hard to realize this for 1 running diameter. And you need 2 moulds in both cases
anyway.
Leg Godt!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
| |
11.) center stud with Legologo
|
not at all essential (imho)
|
But it would be really nice in case the wheel is from a third party: it gives
a more legoish feeling and increases the acceptance(imho).
|
A third party wheel CLEARLY could NOT have the LEGO logo on it... so your
solution of sizing an opening to let the user insert a 1x1 round plate (and thus
having the logo on there if they wish) is absolutely brilliant. It ALSO leaves
the door open to someone building an outside frame locomotive since the axle
hole allows the axle to pass all the way through.
The more I look at this design the more I find to like about it.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
| |
11.) center stud with Legologo
|
not at all essential (imho)
|
But it would be really nice in case the wheel is from a third party: it
gives a more legoish feeling and increases the acceptance(imho).
|
A third party wheel CLEARLY could NOT have the LEGO logo on it... so your
solution of sizing an opening to let the user insert a 1x1 round plate (and
thus having the logo on there if they wish) is absolutely brilliant. It ALSO
leaves the door open to someone building an outside frame locomotive since
the axle hole allows the axle to pass all the way through.
|
I’d missed the fact that the ‘cover’ could be a 1X1 round, that is a veryy good
idea. One of my misgivings with a cover was the fact of outside framed locos so
this would be best all round
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
3.) diameter bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set 396
|
How did you reach this?
|
Hi Tim!
??You are asking why I demand this (bigger than set 7750 and smaller than set
396)? Both sizes do exist. So I see no highly urgent need for those. The size
inbetween is not only a compromise, but in my eyes the golden center.
|
Sorry, I wasn’t saying that I though that this was the wrong size, just
wondering how you arrived at it.
| |
| |
| |
8.) wheel thickness higher than 9V and less than 1 stud (avoid contact
between moving rods and wheel)
|
so the thickest bit is the pin connector hole?
|
Not really, since this hole is shorter than 1 stud. (look at any technik
brick and you will recognise that the hole is shorter than the width of 1
stud).
|
Yes, I should have looked better at the images. The ring aroung the middle of
the pin (or where the middle of the pin would be if it was a full pin) moved the
coupling rod out away from the wheel.
| |
| |
| |
9.) counterweight as “click-on” extra part, (if 2 moulds were possible)
|
Would be nice but by no means essential,
|
I agree in the meantime. The majority seems to prefer included
counterweights.
| |
| |
10.) shape not 100% after real prototypes but kind of “legoish”.
|
a generic wheel is best
|
What is your definition of a “generic” wheel?
|
I just meant not to try to copy any one real wheel too much as then it wouldn’t
look so much like other wheels, Your wheel is what I mean by generic, you
haven’t tried to make it like the wheels on any one locomotive but rather a
‘generic’ mix of all locos. It also has the Lego look.
| |
| |
| |
11.) center stud with Legologo
|
not at all essential (imho)
|
But it would be really nice in case the wheel is from a third party: it gives
a more legoish feeling and increases the acceptance(imho).
|
As I replied to Lar i didn’t realise that this was 1X1 round stud, a good idea
| |
| |
| |
12.) ((Extra wish -Additionally a wheel without flange (blind driver)
should be available.))
|
perhap the wheel and the flange could be seperate mouldings.
e.g the wheel piece looks fairly similar to the existing large spoke wheel
that people use with the addition of axle and pin holes and no groove
arround the circuference and the flange piece be a pretty simple ring shaped
piece with a click fit onto the wheel
|
Hard to realize this for 1 running diameter. And you need 2 moulds in both
cases anyway.
|
I dont think I explained it very well, I’ll have to do some drawing to show it
better I think. However there would only be one complicated mould with the
spokes and axle hole etc and the other would be simple.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ben,
Great work here - this is simply gorgeous.
-- Bryan
"Reinhard "Ben" Beneke" <ben@1000steine.SPAM-block.com> wrote in message
news:HnHCu2.1BBt@lugnet.com...
> [Hi all!]
>
> In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
> wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
|
snip
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud distance?
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
|
snip
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
Good question! It “arguably” doesn’t matter as much as some distances though,
unless you plan to mount something between them. In many applications you just
have the main rod and or connecting rod to deal with and the eccentricity they
have is only a factor in considering how much connecting rod and piston rod
throw you’re going to have to deal with.
Still it would be nice to know. Personally I hope it’s rather short.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
|
snip
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
Good question! It “arguably” doesn’t matter as much as some distances though,
unless you plan to mount something between them. In many applications you
just have the main rod and or connecting rod to deal with and the
eccentricity they have is only a factor in considering how much connecting
rod and piston rod throw you’re going to have to deal with.
Still it would be nice to know. Personally I hope it’s rather short.
|
Well, I know how pointless it would be to “argue” with Lar (grin), but it
would seem silly to not have this be a standard distance. I could easily
imagine using a Technic cam or 1x3 liftarm on a wheel. (John frantically
searching for FTX reference for displaying LDraw images and not finding it...)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
|
snip
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
|
|
Hi John,
thanks for bringing up this question! I was thinking about this for a while
myself and I decided to do it in a distance of 8 mm (which is same as two stud
centers next to each other on a 1x2 brick - or holes in a technick beam.)
You nearly could have guessed it out of the picture above, the inner black line
is the diameter of a 1x1 round plate (=8mm).
my Homepage:
| |
| |
Good question! It “arguably” doesn’t matter as much as some distances
though, unless you plan to mount something between them. In many
applications you just have the main rod and or connecting rod to deal with
and the eccentricity they have is only a factor in considering how much
connecting rod and piston rod throw you’re going to have to deal with.
Still it would be nice to know. Personally I hope it’s rather short.
|
Well, I know how pointless it would be to “argue” with Lar (grin), but it
would seem silly to not have this be a standard distance. I could easily
imagine using a Technic cam or 1x3 liftarm on a wheel. (John frantically
searching for FTX reference for displaying LDraw images and not finding
it...)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
| |
| |
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
|
|
Hi John,
thanks for bringing up this question! I was thinking about this for a while
myself and I decided to do it in a distance of 8 mm (which is same as two
stud centers next to each other on a 1x2 brick - or holes in a technick
beam.)
|
Oh, that’s exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks!!
Now, as I brought up several days ago -- can I get a dozen in black? :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
| |
| |
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
|
|
Hi John,
thanks for bringing up this question! I was thinking about this for a while
myself and I decided to do it in a distance of 8 mm (which is same as two
stud centers next to each other on a 1x2 brick - or holes in a technick
beam.)
|
Oh, that’s exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks!!
Now, as I brought up several days ago -- can I get a dozen in black? :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
Another few issues with clearances - I wonder if you’ve considered all these...
It looks to me as though if you did use a centre round plate, a coupling rod
would have a hard time clearing the stud. Not a problem to leave it off though.
Half-plate thickness lift-arms actually enclose the end of the dark-grey
half-pin and half of the ridge around its mid-section. Would they clear the rim
of the wheel if attached as a coupling rod?
The spacer ring on the inside of the wheel needs to be carefully designed so
that it doesn’t sink in to a technic hole, causing the rear of the dark grey pin
to rub.
If you space the wheel out too much though, you couldn’t use an ordinary technic
pin (or ball-type steering pin) and stay within an 8-wide loading gauge.
Jason Railton
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
Hi all!
In the past we have collected some demands we train heads have on driver
wheels. These have been requested several times at TLC so far.
Here comes the wishlist to make up a draft for a new driver wheel:
|
snip
One question, I can’t really tell from the images:
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
|
|
Hi John,
thanks for bringing up this question! I was thinking about this for a while
myself and I decided to do it in a distance of 8 mm (which is same as two
stud centers next to each other on a 1x2 brick - or holes in a technick
beam.)
You nearly could have guessed it out of the picture above, the inner black
line is the diameter of a 1x1 round plate (=8mm).
my Homepage:
| |
| |
Good question! It “arguably” doesn’t matter as much as some distances
though, unless you plan to mount something between them. In many
applications you just have the main rod and or connecting rod to deal with
and the eccentricity they have is only a factor in considering how much
connecting rod and piston rod throw you’re going to have to deal with.
Still it would be nice to know. Personally I hope it’s rather short.
|
Well, I know how pointless it would be to “argue” with Lar (grin), but it
would seem silly to not have this be a standard distance. I could easily
imagine using a Technic cam or 1x3 liftarm on a wheel. (John frantically
searching for FTX reference for displaying LDraw images and not finding
it...)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
Sorry,I have not had time to read all of the posts on this subject.
I would love to see TLC make these wheels. But, I don’t think that they ever
will. SADLY ,the 12v era has gone. Even though 12v wheels still work fine on 9v
.rails.
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train wheels?
In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing that they won’t
be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design BEN !! Many thanks ,
Teunis.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
snip
| |
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing that
they won’t be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design BEN !!
Many thanks , Teunis.
|
To answer your question, Yes. Based on some ‘inside’ information, somebody is
making train drive wheels. I’ve heard they will be available for purchase
certainly before christmas.
It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
Cheers.
Ben Fleskes
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
snip
| |
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing that
they won’t be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design BEN !!
Many thanks , Teunis.
|
To answer your question, Yes. Based on some ‘inside’ information, somebody
is making train drive wheels. I’ve heard they will be available for purchase
certainly before christmas.
It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
|
I’ll toss out a number: $10 for a pair of them...
Of course that means I’d be paying $60 for enough of them to rebuild my
Challenger! :-)
Whatever, it’s only money. I’ve already spent a bunch on other BrickLink orders
for parts, why not spend some more for wheels?
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
I’ll toss out a number: $10 for a pair of them...
Of course that means I’d be paying $60 for enough of them to rebuild my
Challenger! :-)
|
Oh yea, and another $40 for the 4-8-4 #261 I’m working on... ;-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
I’ll toss out a number: $10 for a pair of them...
Of course that means I’d be paying $60 for enough of them to rebuild my
Challenger! :-)
Whatever, it’s only money. I’ve already spent a bunch on other BrickLink
orders for parts, why not spend some more for wheels?
JohnG, GMLTC
|
This seems a pretty reasonable price (from the market point of view, I don’t
know about production costs) especially when compared to the price of the large
spoked wheel. On bricklink at the moment the cheapest is $4 for a pair and the
average is $7.30 and these are in limited quantities + only in red!
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogPriceGuide.asp?P=35&colorID=5
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> This seems a pretty reasonable price (from the market point of view, I don't
> know about production costs) especially when compared to the price of the
> large spoked wheel.
I don't think that the fair price for an item that can be produced in almost
unlimited quantity (and in fact will have to be produced in large quantity
to create return on investment) can reasonably be compared to the price for
a collector's item that is long out of production.
That is not to say, I wouldn't pay $10 per pair (as I posted before), but at
least in my case, the ROI would be higher with a significantly lower price.
Avaiability in multiple colors (black being my next favorite) will probably
also help with that matter ...
Greetings
Horst
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
John Gerlach wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
> > > wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I'm guessing
> > > that they won't be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect
> > > design BEN !! Many thanks , Teunis.
> >
> > To answer your question, Yes. Based on some 'inside' information,
> > somebody
> > is making train drive wheels. I've heard they will be available for
> > purchase certainly before christmas.
> >
> > It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
>
>
> I'll toss out a number: $10 for a pair of them...
With such prices I'd only buy those I'd need right away, and certainly none
to stock "in case"
If OTOH it would be around $5 per pair, I'd easily buy 20-30 pairs, just to
make sure I don't run out. (Somewhere in my head I've got plans for a
German BR43 and BR50 class, as well as a Dutch 1000 series electric engine)
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
Brick Piles | Santa Fe B-unit
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
snip
| |
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing that
they won’t be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design BEN !!
Many thanks , Teunis.
|
To answer your question, Yes. Based on some ‘inside’ information, somebody
is making train drive wheels. I’ve heard they will be available for purchase
certainly before christmas.
It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
|
well... something more than what I am getting parts for out of the 3033’s I
bought on sale ( about 1.2 cents a piece) and something less than what I paid
for my last service pack of larger drivers. I can’t find the number for it
offhand, service packs are hard to search for... but it has two pair and they;re
the larger drivers... it MIGHT be this one:
Nope, those are the smaller black spokers, these are the larger red ones... it’s
either this one
or this one
part 4180c04 is the part number I think but Peeron doesn’t have a pic
These larger drivers are the ones ues in 7750:
The packs are hard to find, and I was happy to get the one I did... I paid 30
Euros for (and thought I got a pretty good deal on it) at LegoWorld from Henry’s
Brickjewels...
(BTW the 7750 inventory is wrong, it omits these wheels of which I speak!
http://www.peeron.com/cgi-bin/invcgis/inv/sets/7750-1?withpics=no )
So, somewhere between 1.2 cents each and 10 euros or so.. Does that help?
OK more seriously these things can’t be cheap, there are tooling costs to
recoup. The demand is probably inelastic up to a point at which point it turns
elastic. To see what I mean...
I’d pay 5 to 10 a pair without even blinking but I bet that requires a huge
production run to recoup your costs so I’d be resigned to paying somewhat more
than that I guess. Price them at 50 a pair and I’d be thinking pretty hard about
how badly I wanted to build big electric locomotives (remember, these spoked
drivers would be good for large european electrics too!) and big steamers...
So you need to find the knee in the demand curve. Maybe price them really high
and lower the price over time till sales stop increasing?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
No it doesn’t they are bricks with wheels, not wheels attached to bricks. :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
snip
| |
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing that
they won’t be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design BEN !!
Many thanks , Teunis.
|
To answer your question, Yes. Based on some ‘inside’ information, somebody
is making train drive wheels. I’ve heard they will be available for purchase
certainly before christmas.
It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
Cheers.
Ben Fleskes
|
It’s can only be an educated guess but further to this does anyone have an idea
of the quantities that would sell. While a lot of AFOLS seem to have an
unlimited budget many don’t (like myself!) thus while I would like about 12
axles/24 wheels; I would probably only get 3-4 axles and maybe some more later,
this would not really be affected by the price. (3-4 axles could be pretty much
said to be a minimum order.)
How many train modelling AFOLs are there out there? Most do probably not
read/post here and sof course some won’t be on the net at all.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
How many train modelling AFOLs are there out there? Most do probably not
read/post here and of course some won’t be on the net at all.
|
That’s why you’d need an extra pair of wheels to show people at train shows.
Have a business card (or a link on your website) to the Bricklink store where
??? is selling them. Make it simple for people to get these, and I think they’d
become quite popular.
And it just came to me that a wheel like this would look great on my keychain.
Yea, I’m a geek... :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
How many train modelling AFOLs are there out there? Most do probably not
read/post here and of course some won’t be on the net at all.
|
That’s why you’d need an extra pair of wheels to show people at train shows.
Have a business card (or a link on your website) to the Bricklink store where
??? is selling them. Make it simple for people to get these, and I think
they’d become quite popular.
And it just came to me that a wheel like this would look great on my
keychain. Yea, I’m a geek... :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
All good ideas! Heck, GREAT ideas. The keychain ones could be the ones that got
rejected for being poorly formed or out of round or whatever...
Pardon me while I dip into “fantasy mode”... Suppose LEGO themselves got behind
third party efforts and put a link to the site of whoever’s doing this... (and
to custom kit designers and to Little Armory and etc) Just a bare link with a
disclaimer saying they had no responsibility. Would that be cool or what?
Never happen, but if you really want VOLUME (which drives costs down) there you
go... that would be the way!!!!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Ben Fleskes wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Teunis Davey wrote:
snip
| |
Being this , was any AFOL planing to start making some new steam train
wheels? In RED,BLACK & GRAY. As I would like to get some . I’m guessing
that they won’t be cheap. As A mould would have to be made. Perfect design
BEN !! Many thanks , Teunis.
|
To answer your question, Yes. Based on some ‘inside’ information, somebody
is making train drive wheels. I’ve heard they will be available for
purchase certainly before christmas.
It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
Cheers.
Ben Fleskes
|
It’s can only be an educated guess but further to this does anyone have an
idea of the quantities that would sell. While a lot of AFOLS seem to have an
unlimited budget many don’t (like myself!) thus while I would like about 12
axles/24 wheels; I would probably only get 3-4 axles and maybe some more
later, this would not really be affected by the price. (3-4 axles could be
pretty much said to be a minimum order.)
How many train modelling AFOLs are there out there? Most do probably not
read/post here and sof course some won’t be on the net at all.
Tim
|
I would buy 12 axels, in all three colours !! Red , Black & Gray.
Total 36 axels @ $10us each ??? = $360us ???
But, for me to spend that sort of money the design would have to be perfected.
So that they work perfectly on 9v & 12v rails. And the push rods run smooth.
What about a Blind Driver ??? Many thanks,Teunis.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> It leaves me wondering, how much would you pay? What is a fair price?
It's hard to tell what a "fair" price is, because I have no idea what the
tooling cost will be, nor how many of them can be realistically sold at
which price point.
I would like to buy three to six pairs of them, maybe more, but that depends
on price. At $10 a pair I would probably stay with tree pairs, when the
price is more like $5 a pair, I would certainly purchase more than six
pairs.
Don't know whether this is realistic or helpful ...
Greetings
Horst
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Is the distance between the axle hole and the peg hole a standard stud
distance?
|
Good question! It “arguably” doesn’t matter as much as some distances
though, unless you plan to mount something between them. In many
applications you just have the main rod and or connecting rod to deal with
and the eccentricity they have is only a factor in considering how much
connecting rod and piston rod throw you’re going to have to deal with.
Still it would be nice to know. Personally I hope it’s rather short.
|
Well, I know how pointless it would be to “argue” with Lar (grin), but it
would seem silly to not have this be a standard distance.
|
Ya I agree. I was only saying that in the universe of design decisions, some
matter more than others and this one matters less. But Ben’s design does indeed
use a standard distance...
| |
I could easily
imagine using a Technic cam or 1x3 liftarm on a wheel. (John frantically
searching for FTX reference for displaying LDraw images and not finding
it...)
|
I look for that reference a lot too. I find it this way, via a trick I learned a
while back, maybe it will help you too. The “more” link on the side of the post
box when posting in FTX mode leads you here:
http://www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/ftx-refcard-600x525.html
delete the html part so all you have left is this: (this is the key thing to
remember):
http://www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/
and that’s your guide. Midway down the page is the info on inserting LDraw
parts, which takes you here
http://www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/ldrawparts
so the cam you want is
Hope that helps!
And oh by the way, I got my wish, Ben’s throw IS rather short, just one stud.
Some freight engines have higher eccentricity but I think short throw is a good
compromise.
++Lar
| | | | | | |
