|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 23, 2013 19:14:49 GMT -5
Thank Jeff:
Would a stereo surround sound system work for this? I have one that was given to me well over 5 years ago and I haven't used it in at least 3. I thought that might be the idea thing to use since it has the sub woofer and 4 other speakers.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 23, 2013 10:12:31 GMT -5
Well that's a BUMMER!!!! Why the wait?
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 21, 2013 15:52:27 GMT -5
Rob and Rob:
Is AZL done producing Heavyweight Passenger Cars? I'm curious as to whether more cars of the other liveries will be produced. I purchase 3 different baggage cars of different liveries, and so far only one of these has had additional cars produced. I have been waiting for additional cars for the other two liveries to come out. Are these still coming or is the run finished and you've moved on to something else?
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 21, 2013 15:42:11 GMT -5
I have a question about the MRC-AA555 Symphony 77 Sound System for anyone who might have one of these gizmos.
Is there any way to increase the sound output on this device?
The problem I have with this thing is this: It works just perfectly in my basement when there is myself, son and grandson running the trains. But when I take my layout to a show and try to use this device, it can't be heard over the din at the show. Even on full volume the only way to actually hear it is to put your ear right next to one of the speakers. Now I know these just have computer style speakers and are not designed to put out a lot of volume, but there must be a way to boost the level substantially. I considered hooking it to an external set of speakers like in my surround sound, but there is no way to attach them without tearing apart one of the speakers and without an additional amplifier of some kind, this idea wouldn't fly anyway.
If anyone has the same problem or if anyone has any ideas on how I can get a higher level of sound out of it, please let me know.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 21, 2013 15:31:15 GMT -5
Cliff:
As you know from reading this thread I had this problem with my 3 GP-38's. I did much of the testing as you did and even sent the last one I bought back to AZL for analysis. Long story short, while the basic problem hasn't completely been solved, and because one of my 38's has a different livery then the other two and therefore runs on a separate line, I decided that the slowest of the 38's, ie; the last one would be the one that runs on one of line and the two faster one's would be on the other line. To do this I had to swap shells of one faster with the slower. I all works fine now. As you did, I did all the testing but did not do the time test. This was a big mistake I think. However, Mark brought up a very good point. It's possible that the first two 38's were running far above AZL's specs. as far as speed and the third was either right on or slightly below their specs. This was the only logical way I could solve my problem and keep my sanity. In your case though, if all three are of the same livery, try lashing up your slow poke to the speeders. As I do with many of my engines, AZL and MTL alike, the slower engine will naturally bring the overall speed of your faster engines down. It's sort of acting like a brake for the other two. I do this with my SD75's. Works like a charm so far.
|
|
|
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 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 boxcarwilly on Sept 11, 2013 10:33:48 GMT -5
Not a bad idea Mark
|
|
|
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 boxcarwilly on Sept 9, 2013 11:02:50 GMT -5
Continued from last, I've done all the experimentation I can think of with these racks and although all 16 now couple easily enough and hold together on flat surfaces, the problem with separation on my 2% grade still persists. I have tried repeatedly to haul all 16 racks up this grade, and on a solid piece of 1x3 and still the separation continues. I've interspersed my original 8 racks with the newer 8 and have met with no better success. I added a long straight at both the upper and lower ends of the wood, and added an additional piece of 1x3 so that I had a 16 foot run. This was no help. I have to agree with my engineering friend when he speculates that the couplers on these racks are just too week to handle the weight of more then 6 cars to say nothing of the stress. They simply let go. This is disappointing in that one of the things I wanted to accomplish on my layout is running theme trains through the main focal point of my layout. A consist of just auto racks, one of tankers, one of hoppers, and of course a mixed general freight. The whole idea being that these trains would be long enough that the same train could be seen in three different places at the same time. In short, a maximum of 50 cars. Now to be fair, I have run trains of mixed freight up to 35 cars and made it up this grade without separation, but that with mixing heavy cars at the front behind the engines and lighter cars in the rear so that I didn't get clotheslining. I've also tried consists of just hoppers with AZL, MTL, Intermountain, and Full Throttle but again the most I can pull up this grade is 37 before separation happens. Likewise with the tankers. So I'm really at a loss to explain why this is happening or how to remedy the problem except to shorten my consists. I guess what I can do for now is stay away from the long theme trains of 30+ cars, and just stick to a consist of general freight with a mix of heavy and light cars. Start with as many as I know I can pull up the grade, and then gradually add a car every revolution until I reach the desired length and visual affect. If I can't get that, then I'll settle for whatever works. Sometimes one has to make sacrifices in order to achieve an alternate goal.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 9, 2013 10:42:43 GMT -5
I think I may have solved my power loss problem on a one of my turnouts. On the two short track pieces that enter the frog, there is a small gap between the track and the actual frog. On close examination and comparison with other turnouts, I notice that this gap seemed to be a little wider then on other turnouts. I very gently removed the roadbed and track joiners and with a very small hammer, tapped these two tracks back so the gap wasn't so wide. After putting the turnout back in operation and testing engines over it, I found that there was no power loss. I really don't know if that was the reason for the loss or if something was lose inside and my tapping the tracks with the hammer fixed it. It's a mystery to be sure, but this one works. I also added some thin styrene under the turnout and all inbound and outbound tracks making sure to leave enough room for the underside slider to move unhindered. My problem at least for this turnout in this location is solved, now I have to figure out if this is the same problem with the other two which are in more difficult places to get at and inbound and outbound tracks are glued down and ballasted. I'll try shimming first as this would be the least messy way to solve the problem and go from there. We shall see.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 5, 2013 15:11:15 GMT -5
Tony. Anthony. It's the same guy. He answer's to Tony when I talk to him and he doesn't seem to mind at all. HMMMM!
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 5, 2013 15:09:35 GMT -5
Well I got the replacement coupler/truck sets from Rob K and have installed them on the autoracks and have been testing them in as far as coupling and they seem to be working just find. It takes very little effort to couple one rack to another and this is a good thing. One problem solved. The real test will come as I try pulling all 16 racks up my 2% grade. I'm hoping they will have enough strength to hold together. If I still get pull apart, then I guess I'll have to settle for pulling only as many racks up the grade as will hold together. I think I'll try them first on an 8 ft. length of 1x3 on the same grade just to see how far they will go and how many make it to the top. More to Follow.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 3, 2013 12:20:25 GMT -5
I sent 6 coupler/wheel sets back to Rob Kluz for replacement. I haven't received these as yet. Hope they arrive soon.
|
|
|
Post by boxcarwilly on Sept 3, 2013 12:17:00 GMT -5
quote]"Tony"? I believe his name is Anthony. And... yes... he sells all of the AZL trucks and couplers. You could also check on eBay.[/quote] Yes his name is Anthony. Tony for short. DAHH!
|
|