Narrow gauge straights and cross track

[Lowa]

On 1/20/2017 at 0:37 PM, ritzcrackerman said:

@Lowa

I am still following this thread - did you ever make the smallest wheels (that accept technic axle) available on your Bricklink store?  I'll purchase what you have and do some field tests - see if I can get them to work.  :)

Cheers,

James

I haven't worked on the small wheel but I did look at the medium wheels and bought some 1mm thick rubber o-ring.  They work fine but I'm wondering if 1mm is not too thin, so I ordered some 1.5mm thick ones to compare.  I should have them by the end of next week.

I guess the small wheels need o-rings too, even if you don't power them.  Without rings the wheels tend to slip over the tracks; they are not spinning.  The LEGO tracks are very smooth and I guess the axle just gives a little bit too much friction.  I'm waiting for the 1.5mm thick o-rings to arrive and than I'll decide whether I should get 1mm or 1.5mm o-rings for the small wheels.

If you insist I can print you some, but I think it would be better to wait another two weeks until I have the o-rings for the small wheels.

[jrathfon]

On 1/20/2017 at 1:56 PM, coaster said:

Hi @jrathfon, just realized I never answered you on this, but you have brought up an interesting point.  The crossovers have always assumed connecting the switches directly together.  If, however, we concede a straight section between them, then yes, not only is it possible to adhere to the stud grid, but you can also do it with integer length straights (you still need bizarre-o angles for the switches, but they're at least consistent).   

Hey Coaster,

So lets work to nail down a system so we can start to print some narrow gauge track!! The first question is radius (as we've been discussing). A few points we discussed and agreed on:

1. 12 stud intervals for narrow gauge track, this leaves the 8 stud gap between rails as with standard gauge.

2. Narrow gauge straights are covered with Lego stock single piece rail. The adapter piece (already drawn up), will help going back and forth between IJ R24 and straight rail. A one piece narrow gauge straight with Lego track connectors is nice, but not completely necessary. (I can't see this competing on price-point)

The BIG question with a few caveats:

1. Rail spacing: IJ R24, R36, R48, R60, etc. to keep IJ R24 relevant? (though R24 is pretty useless in scale) OR R30, R42, R54, R66, etc. to use the "magic" R30 ideal switch? (R30 is still a small radius for "scale")

2. Do we make narrow gauge mesh with R40 standard? I imagine half of users will likely run narrow gauge along-side of standard gauge, but is that important enough for a "narrow gauge system"? Because IJ is 6 studs wide, and R40 standard is 8 studs wide, the "ideal" 8 stud gap leaves a 15 stud spacing, making no choice of "narrow gauge system" ideal to mesh with standard gauge.

3. Switches: We should pick a "standard" radius for the first switch solution (much like how R40 switches are standard). If we are not picking the R30 spacing, what will this be? We will have to use a small adapter track to do cross-overs vs. turn-outs. (I would argue an R30 switch is too small a radius, F-B-F already binds in R24)

Nailing down our curve radii will allow for the "complete" straight, curve, switch narrow gauge system and get us up and running. Should we create a poll?

[coaster]

8 minutes ago, jrathfon said:

Hey Coaster,

So lets work to nail down a system so we can start to print some narrow gauge track!! The first question is radius (as we've been discussing). A few points we discussed and agreed on:

1. 12 stud intervals for narrow gauge track, this leaves the 8 stud gap between rails as with standard gauge.

2. Narrow gauge straights are covered with Lego stock single piece rail. The adapter piece (already drawn up), will help going back and forth between IJ R24 and straight rail. A one piece narrow gauge straight with Lego track connectors is nice, but not completely necessary. (I can't see this competing on price-point)

The BIG question with a few caveats:

1. Rail spacing: IJ R24, R36, R48, R60, etc. to keep IJ R24 relevant? (though R24 is pretty useless in scale) OR R30, R42, R54, R66, etc. to use the "magic" R30 ideal switch? (R30 is still a small radius for "scale")

2. Do we make narrow gauge mesh with R40 standard? I imagine half of users will likely run narrow gauge along-side of standard gauge, but is that important enough for a "narrow gauge system"? Because IJ is 6 studs wide, and R40 standard is 8 studs wide, the "ideal" 8 stud gap leaves a 15 stud spacing, making no choice of "narrow gauge system" ideal to mesh with standard gauge.

3. Switches: We should pick a "standard" radius for the first switch solution (much like how R40 switches are standard). If we are not picking the R30 spacing, what will this be? We will have to use a small adapter track to do cross-overs vs. turn-outs. (I would argue an R30 switch is too small a radius, F-B-F already binds in R24)

Nailing down our curve radii will allow for the "complete" straight, curve, switch narrow gauge system and get us up and running. Should we create a poll?

Those are all excellent questions, none of which I can answer at the moment.  The easy solution to have everything simply 3/4 of the standard (i.e., R30 base curve, 12 stud spacing, etc).  This does, as you mentioned, render the R24 useless.  It also means we'll never have a dual gauge layout, unless we make more specialty pieces.  For the record, the "magic" radii in the small gauge are R30, R78, and R150.

I think a poll is absolutely in order.  We should come to a consensus as a community what the narrow gauge system should look like.  

[ritzcrackerman]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:01 PM, Lowa said:

I haven't worked on the small wheel but I did look at the medium wheels and bought some 1mm thick rubber o-ring.  They work fine but I'm wondering if 1mm is not too thin, so I ordered some 1.5mm thick ones to compare.  I should have them by the end of next week.

I guess the small wheels need o-rings too, even if you don't power them.  Without rings the wheels tend to slip over the tracks; they are not spinning.  The LEGO tracks are very smooth and I guess the axle just gives a little bit too much friction.  I'm waiting for the 1.5mm thick o-rings to arrive and than I'll decide whether I should get 1mm or 1.5mm o-rings for the small wheels.

If you insist I can print you some, but I think it would be better to wait another two weeks until I have the o-rings for the small wheels.

@Lowa Thank you for the quick response!  No, there's no urgency - the small wheels are what I'm after primarily, so I will definitely wait.  Looking forward to seeing the end result when you get the o-rings in.

[Lowa]

9 hours ago, jrathfon said:

1. Rail spacing: IJ R24, R36, R48, R60, etc. to keep IJ R24 relevant? (though R24 is pretty useless in scale) OR R30, R42, R54, R66, etc. to use the "magic" R30 ideal switch? (R30 is still a small radius for "scale")

@jrathfon  I'm a bit confused, a R30, R42, R66, etc radius gives 6 studs between the tracks not 8 studs like with the standard tracks.  I thought we wanted an 8 stud gap between parallel tracks, or did I get that wrong?

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Lowa

[Hod Carrier]

If I may be permitted to give a very personal and probably minority view, I actually think that those radii together with a gap of 6 studs looks fine.

Admittedly I'm modelling primarily in 4-wide scale rather than 4-wide gauge, but even those who are not may not necessarily require a larger gap, as most narrow gauge stock is generally much smaller than mainline stock, both in terms of width and length, so a larger track spacing may not be necessary. Also, a gap of 6 studs will allow for more compact layout design.

I expect that other people will have differing views. Maybe this topic should be opened up to more general debate.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Hod Carrier
Formatting

[M_slug357]

I agree that it should be a smaller gap between lines... I forgot, are we measuring the rail to rail distance or the sleeper to sleeper distance? I could go with 4 studs ' spacing sleeper to sleeper...

[coaster]

20 hours ago, Lowa said:

@jrathfon  I'm a bit confused, a R30, R42, R66, etc radius gives 6 studs between the tracks not 8 studs like with the standard tracks.  I thought we wanted an 8 stud gap between parallel tracks, or did I get that wrong?

An 8-stud gap would be really weird, as that would represent 14-stud centers.  Most seemed to agree that a 6-stud gap (i.e. 12-stud centers) looked the best.

18 minutes ago, M_slug357 said:

I agree that it should be a smaller gap between lines... I forgot, are we measuring the rail to rail distance or the sleeper to sleeper distance? I could go with 4 studs ' spacing sleeper to sleeper...

I'd suggest we should measure centerline-to-centerline.  So where the standard gauge spacing is 16-stud centers, I'd propose the narrow gauge should be on 12-stud centers (6-stud sleeper-to-sleeper).

[ZorkZ]

It is a shame that the tracks are one printed parts. It would be much better to print just rails and use simple Lego plates as slipper. A system of rails would be perfect. This way we could build 4-width and 6-width tracks, and we can use 1x8 plate or 2x8 for sleepers as we wish. Do not forget that Adults buying those 3d printed elements and we prefer to build or own track instead of just clicking together some prefabricated element.

A system of rails could even help us to make our crossovers, switches and even double slip switches as we wish. I would be extremely excited to build up my own switch. :)

I even thinking of to redesign my own switch and double slip switch plans in that spirit.

[pirzyk]

You may want to get yourself some me model track.  The problem with the track as parts is it falls apart too easily to be usable.  Many of us wind up kraggling the track together.

[jrathfon]

That, and you can't simply use the same track for "4-width and 6-width tracks", the radii is different for different spacings. Lego already creates loose straights if you would like to make a "4-width" stub switch.

On 1/24/2017 at 4:39 PM, coaster said:

An 8-stud gap would be really weird, as that would represent 14-stud centers.  Most seemed to agree that a 6-stud gap (i.e. 12-stud centers) looked the best.

I'd suggest we should measure centerline-to-centerline.  So where the standard gauge spacing is 16-stud centers, I'd propose the narrow gauge should be on 12-stud centers (6-stud sleeper-to-sleeper).

I believe we are all mostly in agreement here with 6 stud gaps between sleepers. Sorry, I mis-stated some studs a few posts back. I believe 6 stud gaps would mesh well with the visual of 8 stud gaps on standard gauge. With ballast and overhang, I believe 4 stud gap would be too small. A lot of narrow gauge in the US was/is fairly large engines, and would be modeled 6-wide on "4-wide" gauge, with rods and hand rails overhanging (so ~7 studs). Check out these 2-8-2 beasts:

So the main options are:

R24, R36, R48, etc: Advantage: fits with Lego IJ R24 narrow gauge track, Disadvantage: R24 useless for Med drivers F-B-F, and bogies with spaced wheels. No "magic radii" switch.

OR

R30, R42, R54, etc: Adv: R30, R78 magic radii switch, Dis: does not mesh with IJ R24, though R30, and R54 fit inside/outside R40 standard gauge. R30 switch is tight.

 

[jrathfon]

Welp. Went to go make a poll, but you must have 500 posts to create one... so none of us in the thread can create one.

I believe it should be called something like "Narrow Gauge System" and have three options: R24, R36, R48, etc; R30, R42, R54, etc; or "other" as write in votes. Thoughts?

[Lowa]

On 1/27/2017 at 9:06 AM, ZorkZ said:

It would be much better to print just rails and use simple Lego plates as slipper.

Personally, I like the 'one part' style tracks because you can give the rails a less 'bulky' shape as you don't need space to fit a stud inside the rail.  But it's a bigger effort from both the designing and printing side of things.

Having a 'rail' system as you suggest has indeed a number of advantages.  A 'dual gauge' system built on the exiting R40 curves would require a rail-based design anyway. I gave it a try and found out that it's a fairly straightforward modeling job.  I did try to make it as 'elegant' as possible, e.g. keeping the cross section of the rail as close as possible to the cross section of the PF rails.  I ended up making 3 prototypes: 2 rails to make a R30 narrow gauge track and one to make a dual gauge using an R40 curve.  The conclusion is that it would be feasible to make a wide range of rails with different radii.  

I thought about it and I don't see an issue in having both systems:

• teh 'one part' style for a limited number of radii: a set of radii selected by the community
• the 'rail' style for a wide range of radii: any radius you need

@pirzyk In the horizontal plane, I can easily customize the clutch power to get it right.  These rails have 'standard' clutch power for the plates in the middle but an increased clutch power for the plates at the ends.  It makes it slightly tougher to add/remove the plates at the ends but once they are on it they won't come lose!  It think the increased clutch power is absolutely needed because you connect the rail with just one stud to that plate.  By increasing the clutch power at the ends I can now put the end of the rail one stud of the plate and shake the rail vigorously, it doesn't come loose, it doesn't even move.  So there's no need for kragle ...

R30 narrow gauge rails on 2x6 LEGO plates

 

dual gauge rail on a R40 curve

 

 

17 hours ago, jrathfon said:

Welp. Went to go make a poll, but you must have 500 posts to create one... so none of us in the thread can create one.

I believe it should be called something like "Narrow Gauge System" and have three options: R24, R36, R48, etc; R30, R42, R54, etc; or "other" as write in votes. Thoughts?

A poll would be perfect!  But besides the 'system' (R24-36-48- or R30-42-54) if would also be interesting to figure out within those systems, which radii are the most popular ones.  

[ZorkZ]

It sounds very satisfactory to "increase clutch power". Well done. This dual gauge rail is very exciting. Have you tried flexible filament for flexible rail?

[M_slug357]

@Lowa I think it best to go with r24 system, but also maybe go up to r60 & r72?

Honestly, I'm just excited for whatever the community ends up choosing.

[ZorkZ]

To desing a good swithch isfor Lego is very dificult. So it would be much better to decide the distance betwen the radiuses after we have a persuading switch system. The most imprtent thig for swithes tht the track distence nad the end of the swithch have to be on round stud. I think it is importatn tdemand for the seith that we have to be able to use it to build multiple track stations.

So there are two Pythagorean round number what we can use for switch design:

(1) 3,4,5 stud sided triangle with arc of 33,87 deg and

(2) 5,12,13, stud sided triangle with arc of 22.62 deg (22,5 deg is acceptabel).

If we have such a good switch design it give us the track distance of 9, 10, 12 or 15 stud. Maybe not 12 stud is the best.

[Lowa]

On 1/31/2017 at 8:50 PM, M_slug357 said:

@Lowa I think it best to go with r24 system, but also maybe go up to r60 & r72?

Honestly, I'm just excited for whatever the community ends up choosing.

Ok, noted.  Thanks for letting us know your thought!

On 2/1/2017 at 9:17 AM, ZorkZ said:

To desing a good swithch isfor Lego is very dificult. So it would be much better to decide the distance betwen the radiuses after we have a persuading switch system. The most imprtent thig for swithes tht the track distence nad the end of the swithch have to be on round stud. I think it is importatn tdemand for the seith that we have to be able to use it to build multiple track stations.

So there are two Pythagorean round number what we can use for switch design:

 

(1) 3,4,5 stud sided triangle with arc of 33,87 deg and

 

(2) 5,12,13, stud sided triangle with arc of 22.62 deg (22,5 deg is acceptabel).

 

If we have such a good switch design it give us the track distance of 9, 10, 12 or 15 stud. Maybe not 12 stud is the best.

I see your point, but the two sort of go together: you need to choose a radius for your switch.  My initial idea was to start with one for R24 (existing LEGO curve) but according to some users R24 doesn't work well for narrow gauge trains, but others like @M_slug357 seem fine with it.  I don't have any experience with narrow gauge trains, so my question: does it make sense to make an R24 narrow gauge switch or not ?

[Lowa]

On 1/23/2017 at 0:29 PM, ritzcrackerman said:

@Lowa Thank you for the quick response!  No, there's no urgency - the small wheels are what I'm after primarily, so I will definitely wait.  Looking forward to seeing the end result when you get the o-rings in.

FYI: I received the 1.5mm thick orings (9mm outer diameter).  I prefer them over the 1mm thick orings because they look sturdier.  So that's what I would go with for the medium sized wheels.  For the small wheels, the 1.5mm thick rings look a bit too bulky...  so I ordered some 1mm thick ones to give it a try on the small wheels...

[jrathfon]

On 2/6/2017 at 9:43 PM, Lowa said:

Ok, noted.  Thanks for letting us know your thought!

I see your point, but the two sort of go together: you need to choose a radius for your switch.  My initial idea was to start with one for R24 (existing LEGO curve) but according to some users R24 doesn't work well for narrow gauge trains, but others like @M_slug357 seem fine with it.  I don't have any experience with narrow gauge trains, so my question: does it make sense to make an R24 narrow gauge switch or not ?

As I mentioned earlier, R24 is very tight. even two minimally spaced "RC train wheels" (the normal lego motor drivers with a technic axle hole in the center) have A LOT of friction in R24. A switch would be the same or worse. If you want to make single axle trucks it would work, but anything else rubs (two axle bogies, steam drivers, etc, etc.). So my vote, in terms of modelling in narrow gauge, would be a large radius as the "base" radius, the one we choose for switches.

Let's get an admin to create a poll re: R24, 36, 48 vs. R30, 42, 54.

Also, we don't necessarily need to use the "magic radii" for the switch as coaster mentions. You can use a compound curve, or "adapter straight" to get the off radius switch to align to the stud grid, on say an R36 switch.

[ritzcrackerman]

On 2/6/2017 at 8:02 PM, Lowa said:

FYI: I received the 1.5mm thick orings (9mm outer diameter).  I prefer them over the 1mm thick orings because they look sturdier.  So that's what I would go with for the medium sized wheels.  For the small wheels, the 1.5mm thick rings look a bit too bulky...  so I ordered some 1mm thick ones to give it a try on the small wheels...

@Lowa awesome - I'm excited to hear how they turn out.

[Pelzer117]

Are the wheels still in development? They would be exactly that what we are looking for our tramway!!! 

 

On 12/15/2016 at 3:36 AM, Lowa said:

@ritzcrackerman, @Hod Carrier

This is the latest version of the 'medium sized' train wheels for the narrow gauge trains.  The pictures below show them in comparison to the LEGO train wheels.  Both wheels are the same, but the one on the left has a traction tire and the other one not.

...

What do you think ?

 

 

 

On 7/22/2018 at 10:35 PM, Pelzer117 said:

Currently I am working on a new motor concept for the tramway. And I am freaking out. Inspired by the solution of ScotNick for his 4041 I start working, unitl I realize that the "small train wheels" are not made for the technix axle (red on picture). It HAVE TO BE so small when you look at the pictures from the original E1. But I am afraid that there are no better LEGO wheels - so I can't use a motor (the "Der Klassiker" solution with motor looks ugly). Any suggestions?

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Pelzer117