 | | Re: O-Train —Jason Allemann
|
| | | (...) Cool, thanks. Glad you like it! (...) 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 I mentioned in reply to Didier, I found your presentation very impressive. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: O-Train —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: O-Train —Steven Barile
|
| | | | | Thanks Larry, you nailed it. I am talking about going over bumps and uneven tabels etc... SteveB (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: O-Train —Jason Allemann
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: O-Train —Steven Barile
|
| | | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 21-Mar-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
