|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 10, 2013 12:53:49 GMT -5
Hi Sham:
Oddly enough I had considered it, but with a long train 30+ cars with MTL couplers, I get no better results. As my friend says, because these couplers are so small, and they have to be to stay in proportion with the rest of the car, there is an inherent weakness in the knuckle. When you get that much weight pulling on the, what I call finger side of the coupler, they just can't handle it. It's like taking both your hands, putting them together where the fingers are bent 90 degrees to the palm, and pulling. If one arm is stronger then the other, the hands will pull apart when the fingers of one, or both hands release. I am currently running trains of cars with Bowser Buckles installed and so far with 25 cars, I've had success. I'm still adding cars to see if these couplers will work any better. I am curious about one thing. I wonder if I could accomplish what I want to do by lessening my grade to 1%? That would mean tearing apart the entire focal point of my layout which stretches over 6 modules and rebuilding them. I'm not up for that at all. I've put too much work into what I've got now. A fellow z scaler from a few years ago said that I could accomplish the same effect if I tilt my modules downward at one end. This would give the illusion of a grade, yet the track would be flat. I've been thinking about that ever since he told me but I can't see how this would work, re: fastening the modules together and yet create the same illusion. It makes no sense to me, yet he says it was done by an HO modeller somewhere in the States. I don't know. Maybe he was blowing smoke up my overalls. I have to admit that I'm frustrated with all this. I'm not going to be able to do what I wanted to do with theme or specialty trains so it's plan B. Perhaps it was just too ambitious a project in the first place. I should have researched this more before plunging ahead. Oh well!. Live and learn eh?
|
|
|
Post by ztrack on Sept 10, 2013 14:15:10 GMT -5
I have always recommended avoiding grades, especially if you plan to run long trains. Grades, greatly diminish the number of cars one car run, while increasing the potential for problems as you have found. I recommend to try and keep your mainlines level. I only use grades on my secondary lines where I will be running smaller trains. This is the same rules module clubs adhere too in order to provide the most reliable operations possible. There is ways to fool the eye when it comes to elevation. Too many model railroaders think that their mainline is the base and build up. A trick to fool the eye is to extend the landscape under the mainline. You have now created depth too the scene and visually you can have trains reach different grades as you can have trains above and now below the mainline. Example: Upper level Main Level (no grades) Lower level See the cover of the new issue of Ztrack Magazine. Mister Dave is an expert at keeping his mainlines level across most of the layout, but using a mix of levels for his to extend the depth of the scene. In this case, the to upper level is the main line and has no grades, but the there are other tracks that go below the mainline to give the depth. Rob
|
|
|
Post by shamoo737 on Sept 10, 2013 15:20:00 GMT -5
It seems to me your only other choice is DPU. Put a engine in the rear of the train. UP does it on their long coal trains.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Sept 10, 2013 15:59:36 GMT -5
Willy, To me much of the grade is an illusion. On the new layout I'm working on, the "grade" is just a little under 2%: 1% up and 1% down from an imaginary "sea level". This applies to roadbeds for the sections that will cross over. In other cases it's the slope of the road, or a line of rocks in the foreground and/or background. Maybe you skew a fence line or tree line. Even the fascia on the front of the module doen't have to be exactly horizontal. Perhaps you can even use these techniques to create the illusion of a 3-4% grade. For curves, I'm reducing the grade by 0.1%. I won't guarentee this as I still playing with the concepts but I'm pleased with my experiments so far. I agree with your friend that tensile strength is a key issue. One might be able to mould a coupler with a different plastic, although I've been away from that too long to make a guess which one. For about $50 a pair you could probably mill them out of aluminium. Hope this helps.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 11, 2013 11:02:06 GMT -5
Rob.
Your suggestions are well taken and noted and the picture of the cover of this issue of the magazine looks impressive. The problem I have, and perhaps I should have not chosen this, is my layout is modeled after certain sections of the Canadian Rockies with one very central focal point. It's this focal point that is the, as it were, backbone of my layout. All the rest is just lead in, attention getting or window dressing. There is only one main line running through my entire layout. Actually there are two but one is hidden except for a few points along the way. Without this focal point where my grade appears, there is little point to my layout. Co-incidentally this part of my layout has already been done in HO and N scale. As far as I know, this is the first time being done in Z. That was and still is my goal. As for illusions, what you are suggesting is similar to what I was told but frankly Rob, I am at a loss as to how to make it work properly. In any case, I am going to have to stick to what I have done, as tearing it apart and starting over just on this part of my layout isn't going to happen. I won't live long enough to see it come to fruition.
Sham: Your idea is sound and I've given it consideration. The unfortunate thing is, since I run DC, not all my engines run the same speed. Yes I know DCC would give me this advantage, but it's just two expensive and I have too many engines to retro fit and I'd have to do numerous upgrades on my tracks in order for it to work. But having said that, I do have engines of the same type, 35's, 9's etc., that are very close to the same speed so I can do some experimentation to see if I can accomplish what you suggest. This would fall right in line with what I'd really like to see on this part of my layout. If it would work, I could even put an engine or two in the middle of the train like CP does with their grain trains heading to the coast. Or container trains coming from. Now that would really be impressive. Ah to dream!
Mark: The coupler idea is a good one. It would be great if all the manufacturers of Z scale engines and rolling stock got together and designed a coupler that would maintain it's current size but be infinitely stronger. This is what I was referring to a few posts ago as a universal coupler. AZL, Full Throttle, and Intermountain use a coupler that is basically the same design. Only MTL uses a variation of it. Something wrong with those boys. But if everyone used the same coupler and it was manufactured in a way that gave it the strength to hold it's own weight over 30+ cars on a grade, then that would be worth investing in. But because of industry competition, it's not likely to happen any time soon.
So many ideas. So little time.
|
|
|
Post by ztrack on Sept 11, 2013 12:26:08 GMT -5
Actually the MTL coupler was the de-facto standard for all manufacturers until 2005. That year, MTL cancelled all OEM agreements and refused to sell their couplers to other companies (Z only, not N scale incidentally). AZL and Full Throttle came up with their own designs in response. InterMountain uses AZL couplers through an OEM agreement. So this is not about competition, but necessity. Note though, AZL was already moving that way and had developed their first generation coupler at that time. Good foresight by AZL!
One thought not mentioned is the use of a drawbar. If you are going to run the same trains all the time, then drawbar them. Just a thought.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by Rob Albritton on Sept 11, 2013 12:54:59 GMT -5
I use draw bars on the Gotthard which is a constant 2% grade. Not even Marklin couplers would hold more than 20 cars up a constant 2% grade.
But something to consider - if you use tight radius curves (200 mm radius or less) on a 2% grade, you still run a huge risk of pulling the cars over the sides of the rails. They want to string out.
Based on what your layout sounds like, I would try draw bars on a test train and see how it works for you. You might even want to invest in some extra trucks to try it out. Something tells me that would be $50 well spent based on the amount of time you already have invested.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Sept 11, 2013 14:45:51 GMT -5
Mark: The coupler idea is a good one. It would be great if all the manufacturers of Z scale engines and rolling stock got together and designed a coupler that would maintain it's current size but be infinitely stronger. This is what I was referring to a few posts ago as a universal coupler. AZL, Full Throttle, and Intermountain use a coupler that is basically the same design. Only MTL uses a variation of it. Something wrong with those boys. But if everyone used the same coupler and it was manufactured in a way that gave it the strength to hold it's own weight over 30+ cars on a grade, then that would be worth investing in. But because of industry competition, it's not likely to happen any time soon. So many ideas. So little time. Willy, Don't forget to add Rokuhan and David K. Smith's possible entry into the field in 2014. This is a real hot button for me. I've "lost" 3 N2Zers over the past year when I explained the coupler situation. Just before the z scale convention last year MR published an N op-ed about N scale's success. The stated number 1 reason for the success of N was the standardization on the Magnematic coupler! For the upcoming Z scale convention, my rubber hose and I would like to invite all Z scale manufacturers to a "mixer" to "discuss" the coupler situation. I really don't believe that this is a competition issue since couplers have to be lost leader. And I'd point out that Silicon Valley has >80% of its competitive products coming out of one complex in Hsinchu Taiwan. I don't think we need a coupler that's infinitely stronger, since our prototypes were never infinte in length. My thought s have been along the lines of a coupler that holds at least 300 grams on a 4% grade and through at least 30 o of deflection. We really can't talk about car count since there is no published standard for car weight in Z and similiar cars can vary in weight by 10-20% between manufacturers before swapping wheels, trucks or couplers, but this is roughly 10-40 cars depending on grade. One new thought about some of your issues. You might consider adding "brake pads" to the end of train car and maybe a couple in the middle to maintain tension in the train. I did this with felt pads on my Flyer cars years ago running the steep grade of their trestle set. Probably all you need is to contact the wheel shaft. Mark
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 12, 2013 12:00:44 GMT -5
WOW! So much information, I'm overloaded here. OK one thing at a time. Rob K. I did give some thought to drawbars but only on my heavyweight passenger cars if for nothing more they to bring the diaphragms closer together to look more realistic. Even thought of designing my own out of paperclips just to see if it would work and how it would look. Haven't got there yet, still dealing with other issues. It would be a good idea if, as you say, I ran the same trains consistently. Unfortunately I like to mix things up occasionally and there comes the problem of taking cars off the track and putting them in their little boxes for transport to shows and stuff. Unless a short bar from each car with a hole for a tiny pin to fit into could be considered, I can't see it working for me.
Rob A. The grade I have starts from 0 and as the train climbs it makes a 30 degree turn to the left 18 inches into the grade. We are going from bottom to top here just for reference. Then straight for about 12 inches then 15 degrees right. Then carries on to another 15 degree left turn, then straight for 8 inches, then 15 degrees right. Then it continues on up the grade past a turnout to the very top where it makes a slight 5 degree left before continuing for another 2 feet which is flat, before making a 45 Degree turn to the left then disappearing into a tunnel where it makes a very wide right swing, also 2% grade almost 39 inch diameter, coming out at the top and crossing over itself and heading back on a flat surface in the opposite direction. Except for the one curve at the tunnel, all curves are gradual and I made them that way just for this purpose. At the bottom is a long straight stretch before approaching the grade. By the time the train gets to the top level section overlooking the start of the grade below, it will have climbed 14 inches over 26 feet approximately including what is hidden in the tunnel at the top. I do have a pile of trucks without couplers here so trying your idea is possible without a lot of expense. Drawbars might work but again if I want to remove cars and store them in their boxes, they would make this impossible unless they could be easily unfixed. Thanks for the MTL education too. I was not aware of that.
Mark. I'm not quite sure how your idea of brake pads would help solve my problem. To my way of thinking adding extra tension would only exacerbate the problem would it not? There should be enough tension in each coupler to hold the weight of over 30 cars. I was wondering if making them truly magnetic to give that extra hold. That magnetism could be broken by an un-coupler track such as MTL's or Rokuhan. By the way, I wasn't aware that Rokuhan was going to make couplers of this nature. I know they only make cars for Asian markets and not North American so I don't pay attention to them. I can't comment further on the couplers they currently use. As for D.K.Smith, never heard of him. I do have to disagree with you in that I think strength is the most important issue. How that can be accomplished and maintain integrity of design, well, I just don't know.
|
|
|
Post by markm on Sept 12, 2013 13:46:18 GMT -5
Willy, You might want to check out David's blog: protomate.blogspot.com/ I'm not use how the Rokuhan couplers fit into the mix. The felt brake pad was meant for a comment to a "slinky effect" comment. Sorry. The 30 car requirement isn't a practical one only because the of variation in load. If you're doing 30 40' MTL boxcars that is only 200 gm load while the AZL cars (big boxcars, autoracks & heavyweights) would be 750-900 gm. Very different design requirements. At the 2 lbs of load for the later, I would have concerns about defomation of other elements: bolster pins and truck frames. A strong coupler isn't of much value if you pull the wheels off. But I do believe existing couplers (all designs) could benefit from an evaluation of the plastic compound used. I see a problem with magnetic couplers: polarity. Cars would have to be aligned north-south on the train. Mark
|
|
|
Post by shamoo737 on Sept 12, 2013 13:47:20 GMT -5
I use draw bars on the Gotthard which is a constant 2% grade. Not even Marklin couplers would hold more than 20 cars up a constant 2% grade. But something to consider - if you use tight radius curves (200 mm radius or less) on a 2% grade, you still run a huge risk of pulling the cars over the sides of the rails. They want to string out. Based on what your layout sounds like, I would try draw bars on a test train and see how it works for you. You might even want to invest in some extra trucks to try it out. Something tells me that would be $50 well spent based on the amount of time you already have invested. Rob, did you have the drawbar specially made for you or did you use the ones from Marklin.
|
|
|
Post by rvn2001 on Sept 13, 2013 0:09:17 GMT -5
Have you considered gluing or "welding" the 2 coupler pieces of each coupler together? I don't think any of the available couplers will handle the load you're planning with all the turns and steep incline. I realize that you would have to pick the end of each car up to couple or uncouple the cars but, unless you plan to do "touch-less" switching, I don't see any option but this or drawbars.
Thom
|
|
|
Post by markm on Sept 13, 2013 10:37:37 GMT -5
One other possibly would be to take design data for the coupler to a 3-D printer for duplication. We have several very talented 3-D guys in z scale who just might find this an interesting project. Checking the Shapeways site it looks like you could do this for about $8-$10 a pair in stainless steel.
And to bring this back to AZL, won't it be nice if manufacturers, like AZL, would make their applied parts available at a 3-D printer? They wouldn't have to make and maintain a stock of parts that we'll all accidently break off sometime in the life of the product and we could order them anytime we need them.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by markm on Sept 13, 2013 10:38:38 GMT -5
One other possibly would be to take design data for the coupler to a 3-D printer for duplication. We have several very talented 3-D guys in z scale who just might find this an interesting project. Checking the Shapeways site it looks like you could do this for about $8-$10 a pair in stainless steel.
And to bring this back to AZL, won't it be nice if manufacturers, like AZL, would make their applied parts available at a 3-D printer? They wouldn't have to make and maintain a stock of parts that we'll all accidently break off sometime in the life of the product and we could order them anytime we need them.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by mrja on Jan 10, 2014 13:39:15 GMT -5
Seems someone else is having a bit of difficulties with couplers...
|
|