Strength in B&M track.

I remember having a discussion with someone here on why I thought Intamin track was stronger than B&M track. I briefly outlined my idea that all of the triangles on a piece of Intamin track had made it able to support much more structurally, but was told that B&M also uses triangular cuts in their track. I see it on the SIDES of their track, such as here:

http://rcdb.com/ig1549.htm?picture=17

But is that all there is? I am not trying to stir this debate up again, but I am wondering what, overall, gives B&M track such strength? Are those cuts on the side really all it takes? Thanks for any insight.

I think it depends on what you mean by stronger. I'm sure both track types are plenty strong enough. I think what was said is that Intamin's box track (found on MF, TTD, and WT) is built to stretch long distances with very few supports.

*** Edited 6/10/2006 3:48:12 PM UTC by Gomez***

I have been saying all along that I think the Intamin track is more structurally important, hence the use of less supports.

Remember that Anton Schwarzkopf used this track design long ago. Actually, he also used a design that is seen in a lot of the Premier Rides' stuff. Also, the early "Intamin" (Giovanola) rides used the B&M box style, and they eventually switched.

Well empty, Raptor's traina are 8 tons while MF's are 29 tons. Does that tell you anything? Combine this with the fact that Intamin's the track structure is very self supportive (requiring less support nodes over longer distances) I would say that Intamin's track is pretty much the obvious winner in the "strength" category.

Wow I didn't know it was that big of a differnce in weight, and honestly would have thought Raptor trains were more weight.

Speaking of train weight, can anyone remember how much Magnum's trains weigh?

I think our manual said a train weighs something like 2.1 tons, which always seemed really light to me compared to the weights of other trains. I might be wrong on that number since I don't have a manual in front of me, but I do remember it seeming really light.

It is funny though that when they take the fiberglass body off of a car, there isn't much left - basically a flat board with lapbars sticking up! :) Bit at the same time, I've held the grab bars off the front of a car and the padding off the front of a car in my hands and they are surprisingly heavy. Or maybe I'm just a wimp! :)

Both Intamin & B&M tracks are quite strong - both have a wall thickness around 1/2" (12 to 13 mm) the big difference is the overall "fit" section to section. B&M calls for +- 2mm and when their tracks are fabricated - usually the last section of track fits like a glove. Intamin on the other hand requires a lot of shimming and adjustment as erection progresses section to section. Thence more vibration - thence more freqency cracks - thence more maintenance.

The Arrow Magnum type trains weigh around 1600 to 1800 lbs. each - the Intamin type vehicles weigh around 2500 to 2800 lbs. each depending on which car. Older Arrow coaches weight around 1500 lbs. each. B&M I can't remember but I think around 2400 each. Wheel design is important also - B&M uses the concave/nylon type wheel and B&M uses the slightly concave poly wheel. The poly wheel requires no lube but the nylon does (on the track)

Very interesting about how the whole "fit sections" work. Apparently they weren't quite up to B&M standards when they built Raptor then were they....? ;)

Personally I like the Intamin track better than B&M. Intamins looks less bulky and it just seems smoother.

Jim Hancock said:
Thence more vibration - thence more freqency cracks - thence more maintenance.

According to whom? I can't think of any track maintenance on Millennium Force anywhere, and it's sure as hell not rough. Batinator at Geauga Lake, on the other hand, will rattle you to death.

OK ------------ Guess I'm wrong.

I did not mention MF - I said Intamin tracks per se and was talking industry wide. HMMMM and just when I thought I knew it all POOOF

Either way, both are based on the triangle, which, when used correctly, is very strong.

Millennium Force's trains are not 29 tons. Before Millie opened in 2000, Cedar Point had on their site a Millennium Force Facts page. On it, it says that the weight of one Millennium Force train is 19 tons (a.k.a. 38,000 pounds).

And it also states: 229 pieces of individual track sections, topping the scale between 11,000 - 17,000 pounds each!

With 226 massive steel support columns, that's almost one column per track section

I can post all of it if anyone cares to see it.

Jim Hancock said:
B&M calls for +- 2mm and when their tracks are fabricated - usually the last section of track fits like a glove.

Actually, I believe that B&M calls for <1mm on fitting the track to the braces.

Quote the National Geo. Ch., "B&M is regarded as the Mercedes of roller coasters and at their Ohio manufacturing plant, when the tubular track is fitted to the braces, it has to be perfect- even a millimeter off is unacceptable and will not give the rider the smooth ride that B&M is known for."

As for structural integrity, both designs are sound, however as said throughout the post, Intamin track is of a stronger design (overkill but gives a smooth ride). Intamin sports much redundancy in its engineering, taking out the flex of a track from under the wheels of the train and putting the flexing off to the sections between posts. This type of design is ingenious that the track is more self sufficient, the riders are given an enjoyable ride, and track is able to safely flex. (have you ever stood near the tower under TTD, where the trains go vertical?- the track sways and flexs in huge segments. Its important) IF B&M built that same coaster, instead of flexing over 100ft spans, there would be more flexing inbetween the failure points (Track Support Bracing) every 5 feet (or so) giving a teeth shattering ride. *** Edited 6/11/2006 10:58:11 PM UTC by tonymtdew*** *** Edited 6/11/2006 10:59:38 PM UTC by tonymtdew***

The 2 mm number I quoted was one the fabricators usually work to (corner to corner). The last time I was at Southern Ohio Fabricators in Cinn. they told me the 1 mm was nearly impossible to hold. If you move the section from indoors to outdoors (cold/heat) the expansion and contraction flexes the section just enough also shipping and handling come into play. Thats why I stated 2 mm, I didn't want to take time to describe a lengthly fabrication process.

The vibration your describing is an inherent problem on B&M tracks. They call for track lubrication 3 times a week using a paint roller on the lower sections of track with a special concoction of lube that carries around the track. If this is not applied in a timely manner then "cups" or "flat" spots appear on the surface of the roadwheel. There is usually exactly 12 of these around the surface of the wheel and once they start it gets worse, quickly. First loud noice then vibration. Only way to fix is machine smooth or replace, wheels.

I got the 29 ton number from Sandor's Q&A session at one of the CoasterManias. I believe that the number of wheel assemblies on each car had the most to do with the weight. I think we figured that all but the front car were 3 tons each, and then the front car was 4 tons (with the extra wheel assembly). So actually, the weight might have been 28 tons instead.

I won't dispute the fact that the original fact sheet said 19 ton trains because I know it did, but you also have to remember that it was originally predicted to travel 92 mph.

tonymtdew said:
(have you ever stood near the tower under TTD, where the trains go vertical?- the track sways and flexs in huge segments. Its important)

Yes, and clearly they weren't comfortable with it, because they used inverted V-shaped supports on Kingda Ka. Someone here theorized that the shimmy in this case is caused by the energy transferred out of the catch car in its deceleration at the end of the launch run.

Jim Hancock said:
They call for track lubrication 3 times a week using a paint roller on the lower sections of track with a special concoction of lube that carries around the track.

What are you talking about?

Jeff said:

tonymtdew said:
(have you ever stood near the tower under TTD, where the trains go vertical?- the track sways and flexs in huge segments. Its important)

Yes, and clearly they weren't comfortable with it, because they used inverted V-shaped supports on Kingda Ka. Someone here theorized that the shimmy in this case is caused by the energy transferred out of the catch car in its deceleration at the end of the launch run.

At Kingda Ka, it is a tradeoff, that shimmy is then transferred to the train itself. That shimmy is transferred safely to the ride structure in TTD. What is safer? I would argue for TTD, as the track itself absorbs the shimmy better, where as the Train itself (with ultimately weaker construction than the track) on KK takes the load of the shimmy. That flexibility in a *rigid* structure is safer. My old Engineering Statics/Dynamics prof had this discussion with me before in 2004.

As far as the catch car theory, I would doubt it. It would be more like, the train is in a controlled launch and cannot move freely until it is released from the launch car. As it is being launched down the track, the catch car simply decelerates as the train continues down the track at its top velocity without the train coming into any further contact with it. It's the same principle as if you are puching a baseball across a table, then all of the sudden stop pushing it, the ball will not slow down by your stopping the push but by simple friction. If the cable car would inadvertantly catch the train at all while the train is moving nearly 130MPH, bad things would happen, (snapping the sled dog, launch cable, etc).

Jeff said:

tonymtdew said:
(have you ever stood near the tower under TTD, where the trains go vertical?- the track sways and flexs in huge segments. Its important)

Yes, and clearly they weren't comfortable with it, because they used inverted V-shaped supports on Kingda Ka. Someone here theorized that the shimmy in this case is caused by the energy transferred out of the catch car in its deceleration at the end of the launch run.

Jim Hancock said:
They call for track lubrication 3 times a week using a paint roller on the lower sections of track with a special concoction of lube that carries around the track.

What are you talking about?

Tony stated a "teeth shattering ride" and it reminded me of an problem B&M has with flat spots on their wheels, causing extreme roughness. I was trying to describe the technique B&M requires about lubricating their tubular track. They state in their manuals to use a paint roller and special mixture of oil and apply the lube in the low track areas (where the track is accessible in other words) on the run surface of the track. It will then carry around the rest of the track via the wheels on the train. This keeps the road wheels from getting excessive wear. This HAS to be done at least every 3 days.