 | | Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Sebastian Dyson
|
| | | I'm trying to design an 8-wide 4-8-4 using Big Ben's wheels (CAD only, I'm but a poor student), and want the loco to be able to negotiate standard Lego curves. As the leading truck has an axle each side of the cylinders, I'm finding it hard to keep (...) (18 years ago, 4-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | (...) Not sure I can help you much here - I designed my cylinders to be quite flat so they could slide 'twixt motor and soleplate. With small BBB wheels on the front your front truck is lower than a standard motor, but if you say Rosco's are too (...) (18 years ago, 4-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Ben Fleskes
|
| | | | | (...) Hello Sebastian, The best I've manage to work out on this is with my 4-8-4 Northern engine as shown at: (URL) In this case, I put the leading wheels forward of the steam cylinders. The cylinders stay attached to the same bogie/truck that drive (...) (18 years ago, 4-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Jason J. Railton
|
| | | | | | (...) That's quite neat - it hadn't occurred to me to shorten the front truck like that to make room behind. But then I was trying to fit a motor in the front when I did mine. Jason R (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) snip (...) Actually I wouldn't call that cheating at all, I'd call it compromise. And as far as I'm concerned, compromise is fine (even necessary!) in building LEGO models. I would probably do something like Teunis did in his S-class, but (...) (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Sebastian Dyson
|
| | | | | Ok I think I have something. Each cylinder is free to slide longitudinally on the frame. This movement is constrained by a vertical pin (or 1x1 round brick) on each side of the pilot truck. These pins engage a transverse groove (currently a pair of (...) (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Tim David
|
| | | | | | (...) That even more complicated than I what I did (URL) but it might just work. You will have to make the piston rods long enough to not drop out of the cylinders when thay are int he extended foward position. Tim BTW obviously I had a lot more (...) (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Which will introduce another problem - the piston rods will hit the wheels when they extend out the front of the cylinder. I had that exact same problem on the X class, but managed to work it so they just miss. It's very close though. ROSCO (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Mark Bellis
|
| | | | | (...) Since you have 8 coupled wheels, some of the sets need to use blind drivers. The easiest solution therefore is to make all 4 sets use blind drivers, suspend them all off the rails by having the leading and trailing 4-wheel sets as the bogies, (...) (18 years ago, 5-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Mike Sprague
|
| | | | | (...) Sebastian, Here's my 2-10-4 using BBB wheels. I used Technic Flex-System Hose (URL) to go from the cylinders to the drivers. Pictures can be found here: (URL) It does navigate points and curves most of the time :). Its still a work in (...) (18 years ago, 9-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Anthony Sava
|
| | | | | (...) As a train novice I don't know how much help I can be, but since I don't remember reading this idea thus far in the thread, I'm just going to throw it out there: shrink the wheels. I ran into this problem once before, and while designing a (...) (18 years ago, 11-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Mark Bellis
|
| | | | | (...) An alternative solution, more complex than what I wrote earlier, uses a method similar to Mike's, in that flex tubes allow the set of drivers to be split into blocks, but different in the way the blocks are linked and kept synchronised. The (...) (18 years ago, 15-Sep-06, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Sebastian Dyson
|
| | | | | (...) Bit of a blast from the past, but I kinda didn't get around to doing any of this and forgot all about it until (URL) Cale's Y6b> put it back in my mind. I'd not thought of building a 9-wide before, but it certainly gives the loco a "muscular" (...) (17 years ago, 20-Feb-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Articulation with "working" connecting rods —Benn Coifman
|
| | | | (...) Indeed, it is good to get all the right parts in all the right places. It is also great to see the compilation of so many solutions that people came up with. I'm surprised that Neither Ben nor Anthony pointed out the idea of splitting the (...) (17 years ago, 21-Feb-08, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
