| |
I have been studying this design and appreciate the latest detail pics. This is
truly an example of LEGO elegance; functionality and simplicity at it's finest.
Thanks for sharing and also these images are superb!
I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
when traversing uneven track conditions?
As Didier mentioned I had organized a survey of close coupling a couple years
ago and delivered it a BricksWest (if memory serves). And as always <ILTCO hat
on> I think that this is such a great example of close coupling I would invite
you to submit a short paper to the ILTCO library*. Not much more then the text
included in your lugnet posts and several embedded images would be great! If you
are interested just send me an email.</ILTCO hat on>
* ILTCO is always looking for articles/papers for the Library. Even short 2 or 3
page papers are welcome. I think a resource like this can benefit the hobby
greatly but we need these great ideas documented and retrievable!
SteveB
sebarile(at)sstanamera(dot)com
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > > Sweet! I saw this a while back with some of the club pics (one of the rare
> > > occasions I actually check out something like that) and your model was one
> > > of those that struck me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > I see the BNSF buffers have made their first (?) MOC appearance as well.
> >
> > Those buffers are actually in the <http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/4512-1
> > Cargo Train> as well, which is where I got them, so I can only assume they've
> > made into other MOCs before now.
>
> Yes, just check : http://www.6studs.com/cc21002/cc6500-5.JPG
> >
> > > Also FYI, another way you can do close-couplings is by
> > > using bunches of technic 1xx plates. You can use these as a stand-alone or
> > > in conjunction with the rubberband system for additional strength.
>
> A close coupling I've seen but not in train MOC is this one :
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/samrotule/bus/bus_cts_renault_agora_l_03.jpg
>
> I'd like also to remember the very good paper on close coupling and other train related building technics (ILTCO library) : "Advanced Train Building" by Steve Barile : http://www.iltco.org/library/docs/Advanced_Train_Building_SBarile_BW02.pdf (1953KB)
>
> Now, Steve has to make an update with this very good O-train MOC by Jason :)
>
> >
> > Sounds intriguing.
> >
> > > Thanks for sharing!
> >
> > You're very welcome!
> >
> > > Legoswami
> >
> > J
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> I have been studying this design and appreciate the latest detail pics. This is
> truly an example of LEGO elegance; functionality and simplicity at it's finest.
> Thanks for sharing and also these images are superb!
Cool, thanks. Glad you like it!
> I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> when traversing uneven track conditions?
I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
connection? Front to back range of motion?
> As Didier mentioned I had organized a survey of close coupling a couple years
> ago and delivered it a BricksWest (if memory serves). And as always <ILTCO hat
> on> I think that this is such a great example of close coupling I would invite
> you to submit a short paper to the ILTCO library*. Not much more then the text
> included in your lugnet posts and several embedded images would be great! If you
> are interested just send me an email.</ILTCO hat on>
As I mentioned in reply to Didier, I found your presentation very impressive. I
may be interested in putting something together. I'll be in touch.
J
> * ILTCO is always looking for articles/papers for the Library. Even short 2 or 3
> page papers are welcome. I think a resource like this can benefit the hobby
> greatly but we need these great ideas documented and retrievable!
>
>
> SteveB
> sebarile(at)sstanamera(dot)com
snip
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > when traversing uneven track conditions?
>
> I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> connection? Front to back range of motion?
I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
especially with large layouts.
Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
|
|
| |
Thanks Larry, you nailed it. I am talking about going over bumps and uneven
tabels etc...
SteveB
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
>
> > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > connection? Front to back range of motion?
>
> I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> especially with large layouts.
>
> Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
>
> ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
>
> > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> >
> > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > connection? Front to back range of motion?
>
> I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> especially with large layouts.
>
> Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
>
> ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
Ah yes, good points. I just threw together a small test loop with some
intentional grades (2 plate per track slope) and some uneven transitions (pieces
of cardboard under the track). The couplings seemed to perform well, but then I
probably don't really know what to look for. They didn't fall apart at any
rate. :)
The connections gave enough to allow the shared bogies to hug the rails nice and
tightly over all the transitions. I've had the train running the loop for about
half an hour without incident, and inspection of the connections seem to
indicate nothing got loose. Of course this isn't really indicative of what the
long term performance on a 'production' layout might be.
The bogies at the front of the engines on the other hand seemed to have a few
issues with the transitions. Nothing a couple of minor alterations didn't fix
though.
Steve, thanks for posing the question. It's better that I did these tests now
than potentially being surprised with some unexpected problems at our next show.
J
|
|
| |
Great to hear about the successful test. The dynamic nature of trains is often
overlooked. Ocationally there are great looking MOCs posted but don't always run
well in the real world; backwards thru points and the like. Your close coupling
design will clearly be used by many others. Again thanks for sharing.
SteveB
PS where's that article ;)
In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In lugnet.trains, Jason Allemann wrote:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
> >
> > > > I was wondering what kind of horizontal latitude your get from your rubber bands
> > > > when traversing uneven track conditions?
> > >
> > > I'm not really sure what you're asking about here. Side to side play in the
> > > connection? Front to back range of motion?
> >
> > I'm betting he's talking about what the connection does when it goes over a rise
> > or hump in the trackwork. Even if you didn't DESIGN hills in, you get them,
> > especially with large layouts.
> >
> > Articulated cars are particularly vulnerable to issues with this, if the planes
> > that the two adjacent cars are in are no longer parallel, it may put stress of
> > some sort or another on the coupling if it wasn't engineered to withstand that.
> >
> > ++Lar (now down to 3 days to go in Singapore....)
>
> Ah yes, good points. I just threw together a small test loop with some
> intentional grades (2 plate per track slope) and some uneven transitions (pieces
> of cardboard under the track). The couplings seemed to perform well, but then I
> probably don't really know what to look for. They didn't fall apart at any
> rate. :)
>
> The connections gave enough to allow the shared bogies to hug the rails nice and
> tightly over all the transitions. I've had the train running the loop for about
> half an hour without incident, and inspection of the connections seem to
> indicate nothing got loose. Of course this isn't really indicative of what the
> long term performance on a 'production' layout might be.
>
> The bogies at the front of the engines on the other hand seemed to have a few
> issues with the transitions. Nothing a couple of minor alterations didn't fix
> though.
>
> Steve, thanks for posing the question. It's better that I did these tests now
> than potentially being surprised with some unexpected problems at our next show.
>
> J
|
|
|
