Hod Carrier

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hod Carrier

Recent Profile Visitors

554 profile views
  1. The search facility can be a bit of a blunt tool if you don't use precisely the right search term. But thanks for reposting this thread. Maybe this is one (of many) that needs to be pinned for reference purposes. But to answer to OP's question, surely the easiest way to use a second motor without the expense of a polarity switch or modifying the motor itself would be to mount both motors facing the same way around so that they both run in the same direction. Admittedly it may mean you'll need an extension lead to make sure they both connect to the IR receiver, but that's cheaper and less bulky than the polarity switch. Also it may not be suitable if you're using one-piece train bases because of where the holes are for the cable runs, but if you're building your own base you can put the holes where you want them.
  2. @Ashi Valkoinen Thanks for the advice and pointers. I've provided one train motor at one end but it wouldn't be difficult to add a second one at the other end too to help it around. I was intending to use an SBrick that I've hidden inside the roof rather than an IR receiver which I think will deliver sufficient grunt. I didn't want to use window panels because, although slender, the Desiro ML does have black window frames, but I do take your point about the cost and availability of the parts I've used in the LDD file and will probably substitute them for something else. It may not appear so from the prototype photo I posted for comparison, but the front profile of the Desiro ML is curved rather than slanted and the SNCB/NMBS livery follows those curves up to the roof. There is meant to be a narrow pale grey strip between the black panel surrounding the cab window and the darker grey stripe that runs up to the roof, which is the part that's missing so far. I'm not very experienced with SNOT techniques so I might not be heading in the direction you were thinking, but I have revised the design around the cab slightly to deal with the gap. Not sure if this is any better.
  3. Thanks guys. I'm glad you're liking it too. I fear you may be right about the diameter of the hose, especially as there is a void inside the larger outer arch. I did wonder about threading Technic half bushes onto a flexible axle cut to length, but I guess I shall just have to experiment. It does strike me as slightly weird that there appears to be one size of arch missing from the sequence. Maybe someone somewhere has come up with a custom part to fill the void, if you'll forgive the pun.
  4. Seems like there's an arch missing. How do I fill that gap? Is there no custom part?
  5. Well, I figure that using LDD is free so I'm not bankrupt yet. However, I have decided to dip a toe into the world of "proper" LEGO trains by knocking up this 8-wide rendering of an SNCB/NMBS AM08 Desiro passenger train. These EMU trains can be seen operating throughout Belgium on local and intercity services and are among the most modern passenger trains used by this operator. NMBS SNCB Desiro 08209 Zichem 01082016 by W Daelmans, on Flickr So far I've only got as far as designing the train in LDD but, unlike my earlier Desiro UK, this one is both buildable and intended to be powered. I wanted to make this model to scale, which is why it looks excessively long by LEGO train standards. I took the formula of 1 stud = 15 inches to arrive at a total length of 210 studs. I appreciate that this might make it difficult to operate on anything other than the widest of ME Models radii, but I'm taking looks over operation as my starting point. It would be possible to reduce the length somewhat if necessary, but I'm hoping to avoid that if at all possible. There is a gap between the black and dark bley arches at present because no brick exists that will fill that gap, or at least not on the LDD palette. The intention is to use a length of light bley pneumatic hose instead. Thoughts, comments and reactions are welcomed, especially as this will be my first venture into full-size LEGO train construction.
  6. Cool model for a first effort. Instantly recognisable as a pannier. It's also nice to see another person trying out with 4-wide scale. I can't wait to see an auto-coach in the same scale to go with it.
  7. Without wishing to delve too much further into comparative signalling methods, these lightly used lines don't have just two aspects. Each signal may only be capable of displaying two aspects but the signalling sequence still uses three aspects, as you will never get a red directly after a green under normal circumstances. Therefore the signals will be capable of displaying either yellow/green (distant signal) or red/green (stop signal) and will alternate along the line. That way you will always get a yellow to warn you that the next signal is red. I could go further and explain overlaps (which ensures the driver doesn't see the signal revert to red while it's still in his/her line of sight), blocking points (which protect the rear of the train by keeping the previous signal at red until it has completely passed the next signal) and different methods of signalling that a diverging route is set, but it occurs to me that McWaffel is building a fictional system that follows no existing practice, which makes sense to him and is easy to build and operate. Hod Carrier (UK train driver)
  8. That's a very simple but effective system so far. I'm not up on the electronics, but it looks very good. As the system develops will you be adding caution (yellow) aspects between green and red?
  9. Well, although the Stormtroopers are not armed they've clearly been drinking. I think I'd be giving them a wide berth. Fabulous builds!! You've captured the original really well. Congratulations!!
  10. Yes!! That's a fantastic model. The looks and proportions are very good indeed. Picking 1996TS as a prototype was a good move. Powering the model could be problematic, but not impossible. There is already a 9V Underground layout in existence running some deep tube as well as sub-surface models. The solution that builder, David Tabner, came up with was to use the small train wheels on all except the motor bogie. The motor itself unavoidably protruded into the body of the car, but David disguised it using skirts. Fitting the power and control functions may be your biggest challenge, but even that is not impossible. You could use the smaller SBrick for control linked to a 9V PP3 battery via a MiniZip cable and control the train by Bluetooth from your phone.
  11. I've had some success using a PP3 9V battery on a MiniZip cable in my tiny TRAXX loco. It has enough grunt to run an SBrick controlling an L-Motor although I've not had any chance to test it's longevity on a long run or with any sort of train though, but it's certainly possible in a 4-wide body or other compact applications. Check out my Flickr album or search here for some photos if you wish.
  12. The problem would be snow ingress. That excavator keeps all it's PF high and away from the snow, but a PF train motor is a good bit lower. Clearly it's possible to run in the snow, but I would be careful about clearing the snow away from the tracks slightly or tamping it down a bit first just to try to reduce the likelihood of any loose snow being inadvertently hoovered up into the motor.
  13. Beast!!!
  14. She's a lovely little thing. In common with a lot of BR's Standard Classes, these unsung workhorses were not the most aesthetically pleasing but you've captured it very well indeed. A packaging alternative that would allow the use of a larger motor would be to use a PP3 battery in place of the LEGO box.
  15. 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.