 | | New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | I just updated my page with some new train MOCs. Please take a look and tell me what you think. (URL) creations include: EMD GP38, EMD SD40-2, Wide Vision Caboose, Centerbeam Flat, Coil Car, Front Runner, High Cube, Hopper, Stock Car, Twin 45, and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New train MOCs —John Neal
|
| | | | | Great work, Tom. I like the layout of your page-- very clean. And great looking MOCs. You are too good for 6 wide (come to the dark side;) (...) I found the high noses on your EMDs interesting. Are you working from specific pics? I wasn't aware of (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | | | | "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:397CB609.952CFB...est.net... (...) see (...) Yes, I worked from prototype photos. Southern Railway liked high nose units. (...) wide I (...) hmmm....yes. I will try that. Thanks for the idea. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | I do not know about the EMD GP38 or the SD40-2, but usually the high nose was for generating steam for passneger trains. I am sure if I have this info wrong I'll be corrected, but I think I am right. Chris (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) My understanding of it is that if the engine has both Dynamic Brakes and a Steam heater, that problems with space resulted, so you ended up with a high nose. I also think that this is less true in the more modern engines, which usually have (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | | | | | | "Christopher Masi" <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:397D1BA5.385EED...ane.edu... (...) was (...) wrong (...) Southern Railway (among a few others in North America) prefered to run their diesels "long hood forward" for safety, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | | | Wow, weird. I reread my message, and I hope you didn't think I was challenging you. When you said that they like the high hood design I did not know that you meant that they liked the high hood design for no other reason than they wanted it that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | | | | | | | ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Masi" <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> Newsgroups: lugnet.trains Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 1:53 PM Subject: Re: New train MOCs (...) When (...) that (...) that (...) that (...) nope. and I hope I (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Nope, I didn't think your response was harsh. I took it as you meant it, just general info. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) In general, yes. But SR and N&W tended to run long hood first (for crash protection) so saw no reason to have a low hood on what to them was the "back end", since low hoods actually cost more, IIRC (the steel fab work for a high nose was less (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Southern and Norfolk & Western (predecessor roads of Norfolk Southern) typically got high nose versions of stuff, well into the 80s, IIRC. So I'd say GP38 is very possible although I don't have the Diesel Spotters Guide cite to prove it. Tom (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke
|
| | | | | (...) I have spent so much time looking through your cool sites, that I now have to make it shorter here: Just great! Kind Regards, Ben (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Paul Foster
|
| | | | I really like the High Cube boxcar, does it pass over switch stands without a problem? Paul (...) (24 years ago, 28-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | "Paul Foster" <pfoster@execpc.com> wrote in message news:3981EC11.50DF17...cpc.com... (...) Yep. No problem with the switches or stands. The biggest problem is centering the couplers. They just swing left and right, so pushing is a problem. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | I have been wondering about the couplers. In the recent past at least two cars have been shown with couplers that have problems when being pushed. Maybe there is a way to design a coupler that is free to pivot when it is being pulled, but when it is (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | | | YES! I know this has been done in model railroading, so it should be possible in LEGO too. I look forward to a successful design, Chris. "Christopher Masi" <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:39886408.76E35D...ane.edu... (...) cars (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —James Powell
|
| | | | | | (...) How about the spring blocks like in 4559 for the crossing gates? Would they work? James (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | I do not have spings, so I was trying to avoid a design that would need springs. Would you use the springs to hold the coupler in the locked or non-pivoting mode and when the train went around a curve the spring would allow the shaft to come out of (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | Preliminary tests suggest that my design idea may work. The problem is that if I use 2 3x3 wing plates with a 1 stud gap between them the mechanism is 7 studs wide. Obviously, 7 studs wide is not going to work on a 6-wide design. On an 8-wide design (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | I had another idea today while I was....ahh...standing around. A square technic beam may be able to hold the coupler straight. If a peg is place in the hole second (maybe the first hole would work to) from the end of the beam in pull mode the peg (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | | | I was thinking of using the "spring" to center the coupler when it was not coupled. This way you could back up to the car and couple without having to manually align the coupler. When negotiating turns the spring would allow the coupler to swing, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Paul Foster
|
| | | | I built a couple of boxcars based on your design and they seem long when compared to the Larry hopper. What is the average length of a real life boxcar in feet? (...) (24 years ago, 2-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Box cars have come in many lengths-- the quintessential box car from around the turn of the century was 40'. Many newer ones are 50'. Some box cars don't even look to scale next to others! So, prototypically speaking, just about any size (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) the (...) even (...) size (...) There is an upper limit on length somewhere in the 80-100 foot range, and there is an upper limit on height as well. Of course width is the most tighly constrained. HiCubes (what the B&O boxcar Paul is referring (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | (...) The enclosed car carriers, Autoracks, are about 90' long, and they dwarf the signle door box cars on the trains that I see. I know...you are talking about box cars, but I had nothing to say about box cars that had not alread been said... (...) (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New train MOCs —Thomas Cook
|
| | | | A "full length" High Cube Box Car is 86 feet long. That's what I was going for with mine, but it was too long to negotiate the curves, so I shortened it considerably. High Cubes came in many lengths from 40 feet to 60 feet to 86 feet. "John Neal" (...) (24 years ago, 3-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
