 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | |
