Subject:
|
Re: Container Cars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Oct 2002 02:42:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Steve Barile writes:
> Hi Jeff,
> Critique to follow, don't mean to be too negitive :)
> I just looked at your car and wondered why 7 wide? I don't see how the 7th
> stud did anything for you on this design, the foot print is still 4 wide
> between the 1x2 tiles with-rod-on-top. Could this just as easily been built
> on a 6 wide? BTW I'm not saying that 7 wide is a bad idea.
Sorry for the slpw reply, I reorganized my Brickshelf folder, and updated
the Container car.
My original reason for going 7 wide was so that I could still build some
walls along the side of the wagon. See my second version here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=27389
The first version was modeled after the protptype that I built, At the time,
and currently I am short of the 1 x 2 tile 'with rod on top' so I was not
competly done the design, I still want to go back to the drawing board, and
attach the sides ot the wagon to the ends, to give it a more solid appearance.
>
> Also I can't tell the bay length relative to the container but it seems that
> the 1x2 plate with the slide slot you have placed over the top of the 1x2
> tiles with-rod-on-top on the ends of the bay might catch the lip of the
> plate on the bottom of the containers.
This is a good point, I may end up removing that peice totally or putting a
couple of 1 x 1 bricks with headlight and a 1 x 2 tile over that peice to
eliminate that problem.
>
> Hope this makes sense.
> SteveB
>
> In lugnet.trains, Jeff Van Winden writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Jeff Van Winden writes:
> > >
> > > > Here are the pics, Let me know what you think.
> > > > Jeff VW
> > >
> > > good thinking! That problem with too tight grip by the well of the car means
> > > that even the hand cranked cranes in, for example 4549, don't always grip
> > > snugly enough. I tried using 1x2 thinwalls but the tile with rod on top
> > > solution seems better.
> > >
> > > > Render image until moderation is completed.
> > > > http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/jvwinden/Trains/RollingStock/ContainerCar/a_complete.jpg
> > >
> > > I can't tell because of the high angle, but are your couplers a plate or two
> > > higher than standard? That may give you some interoperability problems if
> > > the stock is mixed in with other stuff.
> > Nope, I just had a quick look, I think what you see is a 2 x 2 tile, which
> > does make it look odd.. Sorry for the high angle, I installed the l3p add on
> > lastnight, and did not get a chance to figure out the angles...
> >
> > Thanks fr the feedback!
> > Jeff VW
> >
> > Good point Larry! It is actually a plate higher, which may not cause that
> > much of a problem... I will have to have a quick look at this...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Container Cars
|
| Hi Jeff, Critique to follow, don't mean to be too negitive :) I just looked at your car and wondered why 7 wide? I don't see how the 7th stud did anything for you on this design, the foot print is still 4 wide between the 1x2 tiles with-rod-on-top. (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
