Subject:
|
Re: Standardizing Car Designs, etc.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 03:36:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
500 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Jeff Elliott writes:
> 1) Freight boxes: Okay, we talked about this: 4x8x4 bricks, the
> standard Lego freight container. Don't assume that there are sides
> to it, though!
Yes. I've used to build them completely with 2x4 bricks. I am now using a
body of 2x4 bricks but a bottom to fit the Lego design (ie, will sit into
cradle with the feet)
In fact, this is one way non Train people might be able to contribute, is to
build a few containers. Ie, people without any train sets. Build Cargo!
> 2) Freight cars: I saw Calum's prototype, and it seems to me that
> a robot is going to have trouble landing boxes precisely enough for
> that car - the positions of the crates are fine, but we might have
> to work on lowering the sides and making more error-firendly cars.
I've come up with a general idea:
http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc/nglcl/attach.jpg
The question is, Iain, do you need those cone guides to drop boxes?
> 3) Gravel/Whatever hopper cars: Side tip or bottom-unloading? I
> don't care; I just put stuff in the cars. Someone care to step up
> to the task of designing a standard hopper car?
Side tip is easier. No need for raised track. I'd love to come up with
one, but I'm running out of time and need to start packing. If someone
comes up with a design, make sure it's something VERY easy to "manufacture"
ie, with few nonstandard parts. I did a quick check and have at fewest, 14
pairs of trainwheels (and couplers) to dedicate to 7 hopper cars. I'd like
each car to only have two axles. That way you can have many hopper cars.
I'll also be building another GP40 (in CN livery hopefully, Dave!) to pull
the hopper cars around.
> but I want to know if it's been done before. Mean time to failure
> is important here - it'd be nice to have a dependable solution that
> would only fail once in a hundred cars or less, and adapt to light
> conditions, etc.
It would be really cool.
> interfere. So who is bringing RCXes?
I may bring one for an onboard switcher decoupler, it will have to use RCX
remote, so if you could allow this unit the most basic codes avail via the
remote.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Standardizing Car Designs, etc.
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:GCovDK.4sv@lugnet.com... (...) Ideally, yes. And it'd be nice to have them on the ends, too. Right now, I can't really locate lengthwise along the train. +--+ | | | | +--+ is a container (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Standardizing Car Designs, etc.
|
| Hey folks, (esp. Iain...) So, we're talking about doing some nifty automated stuff at Train1. Cool. I think we're going to need to talk about some common standards if we want to be able to interoperate, though: 1) Freight boxes: Okay, we talked (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
