Subject:
|
Re: Acela ver2: Magnetic nose coupler
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:50:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.eduSAYNOTOSPAM
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
Jumping in to add my voice to the 6 vs 8-wide thing.
8-wide has been fun. I think the biggest advantage is the extra interior room.
Big cars look cool, but when you can open them up and have great interiors the
coolness factor goes WAY up. The three biggest disadvantages are (1) the 8-wides
do not fit in with the LEGO stuff, (2) the 8-wides chew up a lot of bricks, and
(3) the 8-wides are giant.
Point 1: either you want to run with LEGO designed stuff, or you don't. Right
now I am leaning towards I don't.
Point 2: you would not be able to build as many models at the same time. I
cannot seem to build two of anything anyway. I always have enough for 1.5 copies
of a 6-wide creation. So, for me 1 8-wide is better than 1.5 6-wides.
Point 3: this seems to be a problem for people who have layouts. So far I have
an SD40-2 (59 studs), a red 50' ft flat bed with trailer (36 studs, 4 studs
short [1]), a gray 50' flat bed (40 studs), a 50' red box car (40 studs), a
black 40' tank car (32 studs), and a 45' red caboose (36 studs). Just these six
cars made a train that was several feet long![2] I cannot imagine what an 8-wide
yard would look like. You can probably fit four 6-wides in the same space it
takes to store three 8-wides on a siding. The good news for me is that I do not
have a layout,[3] so I do not have to worry about making a huge yard.
Anyway, James I love all your stuff! Build what ever size you want, just keep
building. Maybe someday I'll try a passenger train, and I know what ever I come
up with will have been inspired by your creations. By the way, is there really a
need to have two Acela engines running nose to nose?
Chris
[1] If John would pose with it then it would only be 3 studs short ;) Reference
to old joke made by John.
[2] > 6 feet? Anyone know the stud to inch conversion factor?
[3] This is good news?
John Neal wrote:
>
> James-
>
> All of your reasons are perfectly valid and, frankly, I wouldn't expect to
> convince you to build in any particular form. I just thought it would be cool if
> you took on an 8 wide project for the new experience of it. Actually, it's not
> all *that* different, really. I think that the good natured debate whether 6 vs 8
> wide is better has somehow made 8 wide seem so mysterious and complicated (Of
> course, all bets are off with a really creative builder such as you-- God knows
> what you'd come up with:-). Really, the only difference is that 8 wide MOCs get
> really long;-)
>
> I'd love to try a stab at an 8 wide Acela (U-S-A! U-S-A!:-) but I've got *way* too
> many proverbial irons in the fire as it is. lol- I just listed all of them but it
> sounded really boring so I deleted:-) But I did just realize that I will be busy
> for a long time to come!
>
> -John
>
> James Mathis wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > > Okay, I've had it-- James, your designs are so cool and innovative that it
> > > kills
> > > me to see you building 6 wide instead of 8!! All I can think about is what
> > > you
> > > would be able to do with the added freedom of building 8 wide. Won't you
> > > please
> > > try building something 8 wide, just for the fun of it ? Try it, you'll like
> > > it!
> > > [1]
> > >
> > > In Awe,
> > > John
> > >
> > > [1] Any Alka-Seltzer fans out there who haven't forgotten that one?
> >
> >
> > I remember "Try it, you'll like it!" Funny :-)
> >
> > There are reasons, however silly or irrelevant they may be, that I build six
> > wide.
> > Here are some that I can think of (not necessarily in any order of importance
> > nor significance):
> >
> > 1. LEGO releases sets that are six wide => I build six wide to "fit-in" with
> > that LEGO "standard". I have in the past had the ideal that I should try to
> > build set that "kids" would enjoy playing with. I used to tote my models over
> > to a family friend's house to let their kids play with them. I'd then get to
> > see the "wow" factor, the "toughness" factor, and the "playability" factor. I
> > would then redesign according to the outcome.
> >
> > 2. I like the constraint of six wide. Hmm, rather I like the challenge of 6
> > wide. There is certainly freedom in every construction, regardless of build
> > width. The 2 wides and 4 wides have shown to me that modeling knows no bound
> > but that of the imagination...and brick-size resolution. But, anyway, the
> > level of detail and the resolution afforded by 6 wide is appealing to me.
> >
> > 3. Piece count: I think that a move to 8 wide requires more pieces. (duh) The
> > reward to go 8 wide may be greater resolution in surface contours and features,
> > but the price to be paid is in greater piece-count. I may have quite a
> > collection of pieces, but I would rather spread them over more models.
> > (now, maybe a "try" at 8 wide is in order. We'll see. I don't see it
> > happening anytime soon, though.)
> >
> > 4. Perhaps I constrain myself, but I feel that some of the pieces LEGO makes
> > are just made for 6-wide: like 4 wide windshields. (When it comes to piece
> > design philosophy, I am particularly disappointed by the 4 wide airplane
> > nose/tail complex slopes. I have always wished for a split symmetry to
> > allow variable width choices. Anyway....)
> >
> > I really appreciate the "cool and innovative" compliments, and I thank you for
> > the vote of confidence in pursuing the world of 8-wide.
> > I would, however, rather invite you to build an Acela in 8-wide! I would be
> > more than pleased to see what current experts in 8-wide could do to scale a
> > 6-wide creation up to 8-wide.
> > In some ways, I think a move to 8 wide could be dissappointing from me. I do
> > not necessarily think that it follows that if someone is good at 6 wide, they
> > would be good at 8-wide, or anything else. I think 8 wide opens up many more
> > dimensions than just "2 studs" ;-)
> >
> > I get so much inspiration from this newsgroup. There are always numerous fresh
> > ideas tucked away in the new MOC's I see here. I know that I have certainly
> > benefited from your (plural) creations.
> > I hope that the more detailed photos I take of the construction are useful to
> > others' inspirations, too.
> >
> > Play well.
> > later,
> > James Mathis
> >
> > > James Mathis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Acela HSEL locomotive version 2 items of note:
> > > > 1. nose piece is attached by means of magnets.
> > > >
> > > > 2. two Acela locomotives made
> > > >
> > > > 3. two Acela locomotives attached nose-to-nose
> > > > a. magnetic "bar" used to couple the two locomotives nose-to-nose.
> > > > b. range of motion in the coupler limits track configuration (hard- "s"
> > > > curves derail the train. see note below).
> > > > c. The limitation is primarily due to the coupler being located on the • nose,
> > > > rather than the front bogie. This results in the nose tip swinging far out
> > > > through curves.
> > > >
> > > > 3. special black roof piece found in RoboForce set #2152 Robo Raptor to
> > > > interface black cab slope into gray slope roof line.
> > > >
> > > > 4. cargo box added near nose/cab area of locomotive #2
> > > >
> > > > 5. alternate blue underskirting added to locomotive (hangs too low in my
> > > > opinion- will likely not be used in final model).
> > > >
> > > > 6. pantagraph and "electronic" roof line details under study.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=1831
> > > >
> > > > One of the pictures viewable via the link above shows a track layout. The • two
> > > > Acela locomotives coupled nose-to-nose have successfully negotiated this • track
> > > > layout for a duration of approximately 25 minutes. Each locomotive had a • 9volt
> > > > train motor beneath the nose area. The train set consisted of only the two
> > > > nose-to-nose locomotives; no additional rolling stock was attached.
> > > >
> > > > Another track layout shows two "s-curve" types. These are negotiable by the
> > > > nose-to-nose coupled Acela locomotives.
> > > >
> > > > I wish the design could navigate any track geometry.
> > > > I encourage someone else to figure that out, as I'd love to see a solution, • or
> > > > any other designs!
> > > >
> > > > Build on!
> > > > later,
> > > > James Mathis
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Acela ver2: Magnetic nose coupler
|
| In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi writes: <snip 8-wide discussion> <Masi points out 8-wide good for interiors> I have really enjoyed seeing all the 8-wide creations. Agreed, the interior space available in an 8-wide creation is very cool. What I've (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: Acela ver2: Magnetic nose coupler
|
| Christopher Masi wrote: <snip> (...) Interesting you should say that, Chris, because when building 8 wides and larger, I have found it to be exactly the opposite case. When I have a large project in the works, I find it very time consuming to (...) (24 years ago, 1-Nov-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Acela ver2: Magnetic nose coupler
|
| James- All of your reasons are perfectly valid and, frankly, I wouldn't expect to convince you to build in any particular form. I just thought it would be cool if you took on an 8 wide project for the new experience of it. Actually, it's not all (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
