|
Post by markm on Feb 17, 2013 21:46:09 GMT -5
I got my first Pullman cars this week and finally got the chance to play with them Good detail. I like the close coupling. Run well on my test track. Not sure about the steps on the trucks: on a 220mm curve they seem to stick out too much. Looking at the trucks, it appears that one could remove the steps and coupler from the trucks and body mount them. Possibly something I'll try when I build a steam generator.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 1, 2013 9:56:29 GMT -5
As someone who has experienced a great many problems with body mounted couplers expecially on the BUDD'S, this could create problems especially on turns up to 45 degrees or on S bends with no transitition piece between them. There is a tendancey for the lead car to throw the trainling car off the track because there is just not enough swing. If you are intent on switching to body mounted couplers, be sure you got large enought coupler boxes to accommodate extra swing or you will have derailments everytime. I've heard it mentioned that replacing couplers with draw bars, eliminates this problem. That's all well and good, but how do you disconnect cars? I'd stick with truck mounted couplers.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 1, 2013 11:34:38 GMT -5
"Willy", Thanks for the input. I realize that with both the car and truck lengths on the sleepers, it's a challenge to get them to negociate the tight turns and that body mount couplers are more of an art than a science in Z in general. But the stairs do look a bit strange in the tight turns and S bends you mention. The AZL trucks look like the stairs and coupler box could be removed easily. I'd love to get Rob A's opinion, since I'm sure there is a good reason for what was done.
I'm looking at buildinng a steam generator car for the WP. It was basically half a heavyweight baggage car on lightheight trucks. Should give me a chance to experiment without actually destroying a car. Until I do this, I don't plan on rushing out and converting the sleepers. I doubt that I would use drawbars, unless AZL uses their Budd experience to produce a fleet of ribbed sided light weights. And even then I'd limit myself to something like the Zephyrs that were run as a unit train.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 1, 2013 17:58:33 GMT -5
Mark.
If you are looking for a steam generator car, try going to the passenger cars of Canadian Pacific. I think you'll find and excellent example of a steam generator car. Essentially, it looks like a regular 40 ft boxcar with a single door in each side, 4 x 4 loovers 2 to a side, and a man door minus the diaphram in each end. They also show examples of express refrigerated cars both of which were coloured, lettered and included in CP's passenger trains. Of course that's the old colour scheme. They sort of disappeared when CP went to the aluminum cars with the red stripe at the roofline. As for the sleepers, I just got a bunch of new passenger cars, and as I wrote to Rob and told him, it would have been more prototypical to have the diaphrams between each car meet. Of course the couplers themselves would have to be shortened so that the end of the knuckle did not protrude past the end of the diaphram when they are extended. The new heavyweights do have a movable diaphram now, but the way the trucks and couplers are now, they are too far apart to look realistic. As I suggested to Rob, the diaphrams should be comletely self supporting but at the same time be flexible enough to bend even on the tightest turns without throwing the cars off the track. Perhaps they could be attached somehow to the couplers themselves. As for the stairs, they look ok to me.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 1, 2013 23:34:06 GMT -5
Willy, I'm looking to model the specific WP steam cars (sorry no photos, but somewhat like the SP car I posted in the prototype area). As I understand they are ex-NP, ex-GN cars. Look like half the AZL SP baggage car. Painted in the silver and orange scheme. Thanks for the info on the diaphrams. When I couldn't get them to touch I thought I was doing something wrong as I had read somewhere they were "working" diaphrams.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Apr 2, 2013 6:40:22 GMT -5
"Willy", I realize that with both the car and truck lengths on the sleepers, it's a challenge to get them to negociate the tight turns and that body mount couplers are more of an art than a science in Z in general. But the stairs do look a bit strange in the tight turns and S bends you mention. The AZL trucks look like the stairs and coupler box could be removed easily. I'd love to get Rob A's opinion, since I'm sure there is a good reason for what was done. Mark Hi Mark, You're description of the HW trucks is pretty much dead on correct. One of the delays was that we did have another design that had a body mount coupler on a swing arm, but we were unable to perfect the spring. It was either too soft (coupler would not straighten out, so it was impossible to couple ther cars) or too firm (cars would de-rail on curves) but the steps and the truck are so close, we had to mold the steps on the truck anyway. Yes, N and HO don't do that, but the tolerance between the truck and the step in Z was too tight for mass manufacturing. In short, we were going to be stuck with the steps molded to the truck in almost any situation, so why not put the coupler on there too? It actually allowed us to get the cars to coupler closer than with the body mount design. I know some other guys are asking about diaphrams that touch and a seemless train - It's possible, but not a good idea for mass manufacturing. We need to stick wit things that work out of the box on curves down to 195mm. If someone wanted to build a train like that, I suggest drawbars to eliminate all slack and real rubber (VERY soft) for the diaphrams. I've done this with some Swiss trains for the Gotthard layout and it looks GREAT - but again, this is a higher end concept for the serious enthusiast - not something we can provide out of the box with current technology. Best, -Rob(A)
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 2, 2013 11:57:55 GMT -5
Mark: The diaphrams on the HW cars DO work but to a limited degree. It is this limitation and the length of the couplers that prevents them from functioning like the prototype. As for the steps, I have examined the two HW I have now and run them togetheer and watched them closely on curves and such, and frankly I can't see the problem you describe. Perhaps I'm looking at it from a different perspective, but they really do look OK to me. Yes I know it looks unusual to have the steps moulded to the truck instead of the body, but I can see Rob's point regarding tolerances and clearance on turns. It is an unfortunate fact that sometimes with these little grabbers, you have to sacrifice astetics for functionality. It may not look like the real think, but if it functions then you have to go with what works. Rob: regarding the diaphrams, I understand to a point the problem with mass production of these and making them work properly expecially on curves, BUT having said that, I have seen many diaphrams on the larger scales and they seem to work as designed. I've also seen after market repros of stick on diaphrams for the larger scales and they work well to althought the distance between cars is extended becuase of the coupler placement. Drawbars would greatly decrease the distance between these HW's but then that raises the qustion, how do you uncouple and couple them? I don't know. It just seems that trying to be prototypical right down to the last rivet and handrails, in this scale, has it's drawbacks. To me, one tends to sacrifice too much in Z Scale in order to make it work. Until someone comes up with a better way, we are stuck with it.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Apr 2, 2013 13:15:57 GMT -5
"Drawbars would greatly decrease the distance between these HW's but then that raises the qustion, how do you uncouple and couple them?"
That's the downside: you dont uncouple them. But then again, I normally run pretty set consists, so it's no big deal to me. I would rather they look close and cool. Life is full of choices.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Apr 2, 2013 23:36:40 GMT -5
Rob (A), Thanks for the insight on the car design. Food for thought when I do the steam car, since I can try a number of experiments and still get the car I want. To me the coupling depends on the train. The Zephyrs ran regular consists for the entire route and drawbars would work there. The UP City trains would add and subtract cars en route. The City of San Francisco (one of my interests) would have C&NW cars that would split off to join the Portland Rose, and add cars of the City of Denver. I'd find it hard to model these actions with drawbars.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 4, 2013 11:25:17 GMT -5
Rob.
Here's an idea to consider. On the diaphrams, what if the joining faceplates were magnatized somehow? It wouldn't need to be two much, just enough to hold the cars together, yet give the flexibility to make it around any turning radius without throwing each other off the track. Or instead of using drawbars, why not some kind of butt connection also magnatized. These could be attached to the bottom of the diaphram as one integrated unit. But again they would have to strong enough to be self supporting, yet extremely flexible. Now to separate them, you could develope a specialized tool such as a very, very micro thin flat iron of some kind, that could be slid down between the diagharms and by turning it sideways, you separate the them just enough that the magnets don't attract.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 11, 2013 21:00:05 GMT -5
For the drawbars, what if you made the drawbars in such a way that they could be connected and disconnected any time you wanted with just the touch of a disguised pin? The drawbar could be fixed to one car and the other end could be rounded with a hole in it. Then it could slip into a pocket on the next car, and a pin diguised as some piece of equipment on the car, could be slid into the hole in the bar just far enough to keep it in place. The pocket would be just deep enough to contain the outer most part of the rounded bar while still giving enough swing right and left on turns so as not to bind and throw the trailing car off the track, You could even disguise part of the draw bar to look like a regular knuckle coupler only it would just be the knuckle part visible and would not function.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Apr 12, 2013 13:59:57 GMT -5
Rob. Here's an idea to consider. On the diaphrams, what if the joining faceplates were magnatized somehow? It wouldn't need to be two much, just enough to hold the cars together, yet give the flexibility to make it around any turning radius without throwing each other off the track. Or instead of using drawbars, why not some kind of butt connection also magnatized. These could be attached to the bottom of the diaphram as one integrated unit. But again they would have to strong enough to be self supporting, yet extremely flexible. Now to separate them, you could develope a specialized tool such as a very, very micro thin flat iron of some kind, that could be slid down between the diagharms and by turning it sideways, you separate the them just enough that the magnets don't attract. For the drawbars, what if you made the drawbars in such a way that they could be connected and disconnected any time you wanted with just the touch of a disguised pin? The drawbar could be fixed to one car and the other end could be rounded with a hole in it. Then it could slip into a pocket on the next car, and a pin diguised as some piece of equipment on the car, could be slid into the hole in the bar just far enough to keep it in place. The pocket would be just deep enough to contain the outer most part of the rounded bar while still giving enough swing right and left on turns so as not to bind and throw the trailing car off the track, You could even disguise part of the draw bar to look like a regular knuckle coupler only it would just be the knuckle part visible and would not function. All great ideas. The tooling cost for these kinds of things are really high, but these would make perfect projects for a high end enthusiast, or a cottage industry project. Our coupler pockets are designed in such a way that you can take the knuckle parts out and have a very usable pin with a locking square plastic cap to go back on top. Rare earth magnets can be very strong and small. FR used them on the Zm line for couplers. Take a look at www.rare-earth-magnets.com/Combine that with some small clever bits of sheet brass and some crazy glue, and I'll bet you can have your close coupler heavyweights in no time! (Or at least one heck of a lot faster than we could tool up a factory) Best, -Rob(A) AZL
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Apr 14, 2013 10:01:32 GMT -5
Rob: If only I had the technical abilities I would take you up on that. Howver, I do not. However for the coupler pockets you have now, they would be far too big for the idea I have. I was thinking in terms of the pockets being no thicker then maybe a millimeter or two. Just enough to capture that drawbar which would also be of the same thickness. I was thinking in terms of the thickness of a surgeons scalpal but with squar edges. On the pocket itself, outside of the rounded portion there could be two angled ridges left and right that would guide the bar into the pocket no matter what position it happened to be in. The locking pin could even be made spring loaded so that it would drop into place as soon as the bar made contact with the pocket. Or not, it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by trainboy4 on Apr 17, 2013 19:59:39 GMT -5
I got the green Pullmans. I really like them. I want Burlington and SP. and a rerun of UP
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Apr 21, 2013 12:13:59 GMT -5
Good News!
Our next Pullman Body styles are almost ready. Additions to the line up include the following:
Pullman 6-3 Sleeping Cars Pullman 8-1-2 Sleeping Cars Pullman Paired Window Coaches
These are all new tooling, and will come in a variety of road names (not ready to announce specifics quite yet)
Demand for our first production run of Heavyweights was far greater than we had imagined. This production run was ordered two weeks after the initial release, and while we did increase the number of units made, we were still not fully aware of the Heavyweight's popularity at the time. There may still be some limited shortages, but we hope not as many problems as the first time around.
Best, -Rob(A) AZL
|
|