 | | Re: End of 9V Trains protest layout idea
|
|
(...) In May, I made a test (based on your information): (URL) loco (built after set 112-2) pulled 20 two-axle "oldschool" cars. 11 of them had the old wheels with traction teeth, 6 had various spoked wheels (years 1969-1990) and 3 had the (...) (17 years ago, 23-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: End of 9V Trains protest layout idea
|
|
(...) Does the fixed two-axle type freight car offer more resistance around curves compared to modern swiveling trucks like I imagine it would? Or would it depend on the length of the car itself compared to the curve radius? (URL) (17 years ago, 23-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: End of 9V Trains protest layout idea
|
|
(...) Good question - depending on my former tests, I would guess, that short 4-wheel waggons (like the lightweight barrel waggon from set 2126) with not more than 6 studs distance from wheel block to wheel block offer the lower running resistance. (...) (17 years ago, 24-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | How to pull a long train (Was: Re: End of 9V Trains protest layout idea)
|
|
(...) The running resistance is a complex issue. Its main factors are: weight, speed, distance between axles, and track type (straight/curve). On the real life trains, suspension is also an important factor. On a straight track, the movement of a (...) (17 years ago, 24-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: How to pull a long train (Was: Re: End of 9V Trains protest layout idea)
|
|
(...) [zick-zack] Hi Martin, you have added a few interesting issues into the discussion - especially the biting on straight track was more or less new for me, but of cause fully understandable. I think this is one of the reasons, why real life (...) (17 years ago, 25-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
