Jack Rimer

Straight track might be fine, but I would make a small valley ( almost like the old Arrow shuttle loops). This way you can also have some practice bending the rails and testing to see if the 4th dimension rails create too much friction. The best thing to do is drop the train and see how many times it goes back and forth and how quickly it slows down. A typical CoasterDynamix train will go back and forth 25-35 times in a valley. This is a good reference point since these are the most efficient scale trains on the market. My opinion would be to leave off the rails for the 4th dimension effect. Just run that style train on a regular track. It will introduce waaayyyy too much friction on small, lightweight model trains.

Some important questions that can be answered by mocking up a train and section of track: 1) What are the efficiency numbers of my train? 2) What will I use for wheels? 3) How do I limit the yaw movement of the lead car while still allowing rotational movement? 4) How do I couple the cars? 5) What will be the distance between the cars needed to allow proper articulation? 6) Given the extreme width of the train, what will be the minimum radius it can negotiate? 7) What oil should I use in the wheels? 8 ) Will it attack the styrene rails? 9) What effect will the rail connections being every 12" have on the train's efficiency? 10) Is it even possible to have a train that will rotate in the 4th dimension without the added friction slowing it down? The trickiest part is getting a train that is free enough to drop from, say 36" and climb back up to at least 30". If you can do this, you will be well on your way.

Noooo, but I bet they knew the coefficient of friction before they began. And I would venture a guess that their working drawings consisted of a little more than pencil sketches. Why does the fact that I only have a few posts make me any less credible? Can someone please address what I have said and tell me where I am wrong?

Let me state a few things here. I am not trying to bash him for his effort. I think it is a very ambitious project. I am simply saying (rightfully so) that in order for this project to succeed, he must spend less time "designing" and more time "building". I don't see how anyone can argue this point. I don't see how you can design a ride if you don't even know the coefficient of friction of the train. How do you know how high to make the hills? My advice: build a train and a section of track. Start there. Things will go much easier if you do this.

What does this mean?

On the contrary...I do know how hard these are to build. That is why I know it won't happen. I have 30 years experience building coaster models. How many do you have?

Wow. I'd hate to see you TRY to be rude. When it doesn't happen, can I rub it in your face?

I have been looking over all 19 pages of this project and I must say that it angers me to see this much attention paid to a project that obviously will never happen. If you spent as much time working on the actual model as you have trying to impress everyone with drawings, "name the coaster" contests, and descriptions of the ride, you MIGHT be well on your way. However, considering that despite the advice from other members to get focused on the model, there is no progress on the actual scale model. The people reading this thread need to understand that this is not going to happen. There are only a handful of operating scratchbuilt coaster models on earth. These were made by experienced modelers, some with extensive engineering backgrounds. Computer renderings mean nothing until you actually constuct an operating prototype. Everyone is dazzled by the thought of a 4-D coaster model and you are keeping them interested with the little updates here and there, yet you are no closer to completing this model than you were almost one year ago when this all started. I'm sorry, but it isn't going to happen.

The general concept of WHAT you are making should be secondary to HOW you will make it. What type of wheel system are you using on the trains? Pin friction or bearings? Are you going to make a mold for the crossties? You mention that the wiring for the station is a problem. You need to have a working train to test the braking force needed before you can even attempt to design a brake system. Forget about the station for now. Just get a train that runs. It will help determine EVERYTHING that follows, from the thickness of the supports to the rigidity of your base. I know it is exciting to talk about what the model will do and how it will look, but trust me when I say all that means nothing unless it actually works.

Well, I see you have all the important things figured out...like the name, the station rendering, and the all important pencil sketch of the ride. You have even given us a step by step synopsis of what happens after you leave the station all through the ride. Unfortunately, none of this has anything to do with making this ride actually function. Has ANY thought been given to the efficiency of the trains? If you drop them from 3 feet, how many feet of track can they traverse? Has a mock-up of the trains been made to test their articulation and efficiency. I am not trying to discourage you (I hope this thing someday exists), but you are going about this whole project backwards. The last thing you should be concerned about is the name of the ride and the station. All of this work is for naught if it doesn't even work. The trains are the single most important aspect of any model and until you get them figured out, I'm afraid this won't get much past the fantasy stages.

Are you serious? You can get Scorpions online all day long for around $170. The new Statix models will be $20-$25 and a whole new operating kit is coming out later this year for under $100. Do us all a favor and refrain from posting this negative rubbish until after you find a clue.