Subject:
|
Re: monorail follies
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 21:58:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Cary Clark writes:
<snipped the comments about motor location and ball-socket connector>
> Now the only thing that looks slightly amiss is the gap between cars
> connected by the ball and towbar. I tried shortening the gap by one stud but
> then the cars hit each other on the curves. Back in Mike Walsh's original
> thread, Larry Pieniazek mentioned 'the James Mathis Connection Method(tm)'.
> I haven't found the thread that discusses this. Are there words? Pictures?
http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~jmathis/monorailcreations.html
http://www.ee.nmt.edu/~jmathis/whiteredmono.html
Some qualifying statements:
1. first off, I've been really bummed for about 6 months: I've lost my Airport
Shuttle monorail motor and its special red cover!
2. Ok, I've calmed back down. At least I still have the 3 white with red
stripe passenger cars.
3. I'm sure you'll notice that I don't display running 4 cars. I've
never tried a 4 car monorail train set. However, the 3
car monorail set never seemed to show any preference to direction of travel
through any combination of curves and switches that I could dream up a year or
so ago.
4. This spring/ball-socket connection method does have a weak point. It is the
black 1x2 thin wall piece that is the source of support for the wheelless end
of one of the cars. If this 1x2 thin wall support is flexed too much, it can
be "wobbled" off the attaching studs. This is mostly an issue with inclines
and declines. Running on a flat track, the piece has never failed. I haven't
found a fix for this, yet.
Then, again, I haven't revisited the design since Christmas '98, I think.
5. There is a 1x1 black tile that rests just above the 1x2 black thinwall
piece. This 1x1 tile keeps the adjacent cars more or less in-line with one
another upon exiting a curve. There is a small amount of out-of-straight-line,
but it doesn't bother me. Maybe it would be more than you'd care for? Dunno.
6. This spring/ball-socket connection does take up a fair amount of space-
about one minifig seat in each car. That's certainly a strike against the
design from a passenger count/playability stand point.
7. Continuing with playability: Once the adjacent cars are connected, the
train is fairly easy to handle. But, if the two cars separate, reconnecting
them is definitely not as easy as the more straight foward ball-socket
connection.
Future work:
If I were to revisit this design challenge, I would try to afix the 2x2 plates
with ball-sockets onto the technic spring-bricks. I like the 2x2 plate with
ball-sockets, because it gets rid of a degree of rotational freedom present on
each side of my coupler design. Since I used a technic 'control rod' that has
sockets at each end, there is rotational freedom on the ball-pin that is
inserted into the Technic spring-brick.
I propose the following initial redesign construction:
1. onto the monorail chasis, place a 2x2 technic plate which has a centered
technic 'pin' pointing 'up'.
2. onto the 2x2 technic plate with 'pin', mount the technic spring-brick.
3. orient the technic spring-brick such that the spring will be compressed if
you push the exterior of the spring-brick toward the closest end of the
monorail chasis.
4. put 1 by whatever length bricks on either side of the technic spring-brick
so the spring-brick can't rotate.
5. use some stud re-orientation pieces (like 1x1 technic bricks with stud peg
insert) to attach either the 2x2 plate with ball or socket 'studs-up' to the
technic spring-brick.
6. I don't know what kind of spacing one can get between the adjacent cars,
but maybe some 1x2 half-stud offset plates could be used.
I'll try this myself when I might have a chance this week.
I fear the above text-oriented construction is pretty poorly described...or
poorly conceived.
I will build it the way I've tried to describe it, then take a picture of it.
We'll see if it is built at all the way those of you who have had the patience
and curiousity thought it would be built!
Who knows, may not work, anyway.
Best of luck to all who continue to wrestle with and advance monorail designs.
later,
James Mathis
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: monorail follies
|
| "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:G1rx8v.Gu@lugnet.com... (...) be (...) which (...) the (...) well, (...) slip (...) Actually, it looks better to put the train car with the battery box up front next to the motor, followed by (...) (24 years ago, 2-Oct-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
