Athearn 0-4-2t - binding gears?

This sounds like a great way of hayduking someone whose done you dirty. Just slip a key into their door, turn it, take it out and walk
away. Cause them hours and dollars worth of hassle.
Wolf K. wrote:
"Or cars: Just a few weeks ago, my niece and nephew bought an new car. The niece tried to open the car with the keys to their older car (same make, same key-series), and the new car promptly shut down. Completely. Took a tow, and a couple hours work by a technician to persuade the onboard computer to let the car run again. I guess the shut-down is a "security feature." Stoopid IMO. "
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nice work. When is the Plymouth model going to be made?
How does one pick up how to to CAD? I learned mechanical drawing in JHS and college back in the early 80s. I never did it profesionally. I've been trying to learn CAD for like ten, twelve years now by myself with no luck. I've tried Deltacad and Cad 3-D. I just can't get it.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com wrote:

[...]
Never heard of 'em, which should tell you something. ;-) I've found no two CAD programs to have the same quirks. IE, there is _no_ standard to their operations. EG, some draw a circle with the clicked point as the centre, some draw it tangent to that point. Etc. -- What I'd like is a CAD operation that allows me to draw a line or curve, and then drag and rotate it to where I want it.... haven't found one that does this, but it must be out there.
Try starting with free-hand, dimensioned sketch. Then draw one line at a time. A proper CAD program allows you to specify a line by end point in terms of x, y co-ordinates, and length. So think graph paper, and things will start to become clear. I hope. ;-) It worked for me.
Not that CAD is that much easier than paper and pencil, in fact it's more of a hassle than it's worth for the kind of small projects most people want to draw -- you know the kind for which a sketch plan is usually enough, anyhow. Such as an 8x12 garden shed, for example. You really don't need drawings accurate to 1/16" for that. ;-)
The fairly steep learning curve for any kind of computer assisted creativity program (whether it's CAD, or music composition, or image processing) is the reason that few amateurs use them. That's why track planning software is not as widely used as its makers would like: just how precisely do you need to plan a 4x8 layout? Or a 18"x10' shelf layout? Sketches on 1/4" squared paper are more than good enough.
CAD is worth the learning effort for professionals, because it eliminates the professional's bane: the effect of a design change, or error in dimensioning, which will require the redrafting of at least that drawing, and usually many others. But the actual design of the drawing, ie, the design of the object being drafted, is as much a creative task whether you use hand drafting or CAD, or 2D or 3D. Creativity, the envisioning of possibilities and the translation of these into visuals that others can understand, is not made any easier by CAD. If you have 5 thumbs on each hand, CAD just makes it easier to make nice, neat drawings, is all. Once the design is more less settled, then CAD proves its worth: it's easy to create variations, and easy to make production drawings.
That's my two cents worth.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:07:13 -0500, Wolf K. wrote:

But for planning to use something other than one manufacturer's sectional track, it's a marvelous tool and worth the time - as well as being useful for all sorts of drawing projects (at least Cadrail is).
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

Sectional track? Wozzat??
(Just kidding.) ;-)
I've designed a lot of layouts, at least five designed for others were built. I never assumed the use of sectional track, just used the radii that the commissioning friend said he wanted to use. Since sectional track comes in certain radii (eg, 18", 22", etc for Atlas), that's all you really need to know. It's easy to estimate the number of sections of track needed, and if some won't fit as sold, just cut 'em up. One should never be limited by the manufacturer's notion of useful lengths of track.
For turnouts, I had a template cut out of card, showing location of points, frog, and clearance points at each end (where the tracks are far enough apart for trains to pass each other safely.) Actually, I used templates for everything, including curves. I allowed enough clearance for easements. I never tried to squeeze in an extra few inches of track, as that guaranteed construction problems.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

*snip*
Have you tried CadStd? From what I remember (I'm short on time here so I'm not going to research it), it allows you to choose your circle drawing method from the menu. You can also sorta drag and drop your shapes once done, by moving them. Select the shape, activate the move command, select a point on the shape, move to where you want that shape, place it.
Nice simple program, but it does have its quirks. It looks at the GUI differently than most other programs.
Puckdropper
--
Marching to the beat of a different drum is great... unless you're in
marching band.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper wrote:

I've been using CadStd, it's free and it has just the basic functions so it's easy to learn.
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Puckdropper wrote:

[...]
Thanks for the pointer, just downloaded it, but won't be trying it until sometime later. It's 12:17AM here, time for sleep.
Nitey nite.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Plymouth is proceeding slowly as there are other, higher priority projects ahead of it (mostly honey do's). I need a little more work on the brass casting (the bottom part) to get it ready to be quoted. Luckily here in Rhode Island there is still some remnants of the jewelry industry that used to be a major part of the economy. So there are several investment casting houses that excel at small, detailed castings.
As far as learning CAD, I would resist any temptation to learn 2-D first, especially if this is a career move. There is no future in it. In fact, there is no future in 2-D drawings in any form, digital or paper. As an engineering communication tool, they are headed for the shredder. All required information for any purpose can be imbedded in solid model files including dimensions, dimensional and geometric tolerances, material and finish and anything else required. The advantage that a machine operator has when (s)he can view a solid model on the computer screen and rotate it all directions first before proceeding cannot be overstated.
Before going to the computer, look at some simple shapes and think about how they could be (and are) formed. A solid cylinder is often formed on a lathe by turning it on its axis. For a hollow cylinder, move a circle along a line perpendicular to its plane, as in forming a hole by plunging a drill or end mill. Form a donut (torus) by rotating a circle about an axis in its plane. For a free form piece of wire or tubing, move a circle along a 3D spline. And so on.
These are the same ways the computer will form solids. Frequently you draw a shape on a plane or existing planar surface and then move it through space in some controlled way. It is either adding or subtracting "material" as it goes, depending on the need. Real and computer parts are combinations of these simpler moves.
For learning the mechanics of using a particular program, I found it most helpful to do every tutorial I could find. Also, see if you can find a users group to join, especially a local one in which you can meet face to face with people who have either already learned it or are going through the same thing you are.
Good luck. It will be worth the effort.
Bill MacIndoe
snipped-for-privacy@bigfoot.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
*snip*

*snip*
While I won't disagree that 2-D drawings are going out as far as finished drawings are concerned, I do disagree that learning 2-D drawing is a waste of time. All a 2-D drawing is is a straight-on view of one side of a 3-D image. Sometimes you lose important details when you try to look at multiple sides at once.
I find them easier to dimension and read dimensions off them, but this is only for my own use. If I had to do just a 3-D drawing, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use CAD.
Disclaimer: CAD and mechanical drawing is just a hobby to me.
Puckdropper
--
Marching to the beat of a different drum is great... unless you're in
marching band.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, please. Right now, you sound like one of those old fogeys who complains about all those young whippersnappers. You could have started this rant with, "Back in *my* day..." It would have fit right in.

Have you ever done CAD or hand drafting? Do you have idea of the skill involved in creating a CAD drawing? It certainly doesn't appear so. I was in the very last mechanical hand drafting class in my college (Wentworth Inst. of Tech., Boston, MA) in the Fall of 1993. I consider hand drafting to be one of my hobbies as I enjoy putting pencil to paper. I still do a lot of my initial sketching for any drawing by hand. But there's no way in hell that I would ever consider doing it for a living with deadlines and such hanging over me. One little mistake in drafting, and you either burn a lot of eraser or start over. One little mistake in CAD, and I can just lasso the whole part and move it over a fraction or whatever I need to do. I have used AutoCAD r11, 12, 13, & 14 (it's been a while), and I also use 3rdPlanIt for layout design. It's a different skill to be sure, but CAD needs just as much skill as drafting to get it right. Sure, there's less artistic skill in CAD...but this is mechanical drafting, not art class.

Aren't these drawings in MR, etc. also famous for being frequently wrong?
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:

I have used Acad 13, but prefer Microstation. I currently use M-station 95 on my old 486 computer. It's more than enough for my needs.
One thing I have noticed since CAD has become so readily available: people drafting who know just enough about it to put their idea on paper, but not enough to do a proper drawing. My pet peeves are overly complex drawings and improper dimensioning. If a design is complex enough to do more than one drawing DO it. Also, keep the fershluggener dimensions out of the way and to a minimum, the term "typ" seems to confuse some people. I have seen extension lines obscure details too many times. Back in the paper and t-square days my instructors were fanatics about dimensioning.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When I was a carpenter (up until this last August) I would love to call up the architects or more commonly Designer (this means Art Major with CAD program and pretensions of Frank Lloyd Wright) to get them to explain their math or to get useful dimensions. The first answer would be that we must have screwed up our framing and they would come out to the site and show us how we screwed up and then we would get out our plans and show them that are measurements matched the plans. The next target was always the computer must have made a mistake. I often wondered of these guys would benefit in lesson on the computer acronym GIGO
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jeffrey David Miller wrote:

Don't you love it? I love to mess with engineering types with useless metrics like velocity measured in furlongs per fortnight.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jeffrey David Miller wrote:

[...]
And the irony is that a good carpenter can build a sound structure with no more than properly dimensioned _sketch plan_. That's what our friend did when he added an enclosed porch to our house. I gave him a ground plan, and front view, and cross section. He modified my roof truss design, and suggested an 8ft width rather than the 6ft I'd sketched, because he doesn't liking cutting plywood any more than he has to. Did a great job - the porch is now a sun room, too.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.