Commander Wolf

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

    267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Commander Wolf

  • Birthday 01/06/89

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    c0mmander w0lf
  • MSN
    commander_wolf@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://nonsense-wars.com
  • Yahoo
    bradly_colin

Profile Information

  • Location
    California

Extra

  • Country
    United States
  1. The LDD model has two battery boxes because I ultimately wanted to have the entire power train in the locomotive itself, but I originally didn't have all the parts necessary to thoroughly test that configuration. I would consider this a feature though; you can choose to power it whichever way you like! I also originally had the idea of putting an old smoke generator in the engine and that probably would've needed a separate battery pack... Yes! Finally got around to taking new pics and videos this weekend: So yeah, here is the final, cleaned up and polished model: It was actually a pain to configure it with the lipo battery and all the electronics in the loco. In my original design the receiver was literally half a stud too far forward for the cables from the motors to reach, but structural integrity issues prevented me from moving it any further back. Thus, I had to move it forward and jam a whole PF extender cable into the gap in order to bridge something like 2-3 studs worth of space. Super, super lame. That being said, it's way more convenient to have the power functions contained exclusively in the loco, and you get rid of those goddamn cables. With the removal of the cables I tried to make some sort of cowling/flaps to fill the gap between the engine and the tender, but I couldn't make anything that worked. Nonetheless, the placement of the battery box means that you can push on the rear of the dome assembly to power the loco on and off, a la the similar mechanism in set 60052 - also very convenient. I was unable to reduce the gear ratio below 1:1, but I did manage to fix most of the switch/joint picking issues by moving making the 2nd axle the tired axle instead of the 4th and using a thin O-ring for traction. For reasons which are still not quite clear to me, the 2nd axle has better grip such that it doesn't need a fat O-ring, and the thin O-ring greatly helps keep it on the rails. This unit is numbered as IAIS 7081, which is the least modified of the 3 QJs here in the US. I originally wanted to use the Avery 18865 labels that forum member dr_spock had recommended because they worked very well on my FM H10-44, but they don't seem to work well on dark base colors, so I had to keep using my tried and true but not-as-good 3M labels. ... and that's that for this project. There is a full gallery, but most of the pics have already been posted. Have a nice day! Looking forward to this one too; I didn't find any other Lego QJs before mine, so I'm curious to see what other people do.
  2. On the "boxcars" (did you mean "gondola"?) I think the wheelbase should be a little longer; ie the bogies should be at the edge of the cars rather than the 2-ish studs in. Otherwise nice job!
  3. Thanks for your thoughts folks. Will try to post some video once I can clean it up a little more. Yeah, the wires definitely need to go. I need to get the LiPo battery before I can jam all the wiring into the locomotive itself, but hopefully soon. I've attached the latest LDD file I had before going to build the real thing - it's probably 98% complete relative to the current state of the model, but it should be easy to figure out the last 2%. Like I said I've never tested the configuration with the LiPo battery (though the LDD file will tell you were it's supposed to go) so you'll have to see if that works. Do post if you make one though, especially if you can improve on the design! qj_small_150831.lxf
  4. ... annnd here it is in the flesh! After placing and receiving all the various bricklink orders I needed, it took another week to put the thing together and work out the first round of mechanical issues. I would say it's in a good 'beta' state now where the appearance is close to final and it'll drive forward and backward through all the Lego track geometries and pull a decent amount going forward as well. I was pretty replused by the BFBFB driver arrangement for a long time, but it looks a bit better in brick than in LDD and probably is more accurate in the end. This wheel arrangement still tracks more poorly than the fully articulated wheel arrangement though; the wide spacing between flanged wheels (idle and driver) tends to make all wheels more prone to picking switches, and even moreso the little guide channels in the switches. Still don't have a LiPo battery so I haven't tested the configuration where the battery box and receiver are in the loco rather than the tender, but I'm pretty confident it should work - it'll also get rid of those damn wires between the cab and tender. I really like this tender though; almost as cool as the one on the T1. Still on the to do list: Stickers for logos, etc. Fix/replace a number of greebles that are crappy/don't work Gear ratio is currently 1:1, but ideally should be more like 1:1.5/2ish; currently there's really not much torque until you get to notch 3ish. Make it not derail going backwards through s-curves while pulling/pushing something heavy Still missing various parts from window panes to lipo battery Lubricate - maybe Load test
  5. Well, this project got derailed for a while because a) World of Warships open beta came out and b) I messed up. Long story short, I read some numbers wrong, and very late in the game I found out that I was making the loco too big relative to all of my other locos - the scale was about 15% bigger. This was really annoying because things were already tight and I'd have to make a lot of compromises to shrink the loco just 15% - but after a lot of Warships and mulling over it occasionally, I acquiesced and completed what I call the 'Small QJ'. Fundamentally, the idea is the same as the big QJ: The engines are in the body and connected to the chassis via a series of universal joints going through the pivots. This is such that I don't have huge amounts of overhang when going through turns, and it will be more stable than having the body fixed to what is effectively a very short center chassis. The main difference is that due to the smaller scale, the chassis has to have a non-articulated BFBFB arrangement, which I consider a huge tradeoff as I really don't like the difference in apparent size between the B and F drivers and how the drivers hang off the rail... Otherwise, much of the construction, layout, and greebles are about the same as the larger iteration. At this point, the first version of this design is more or less complete; much of the work that needs to be done is tweaking the drivetrain - there's a lot of funny business in trying to keep the weight on the drivers, especially on the axle with tires - and then just making sure the model actually builds in brick. It's probably in a state where I can start ordering parts, and looking at the inventory it might not be that many, Hopefully won't be another 2 months before the next update. At the very least I should be done before our LUG's Christmas show -_-
  6. Is it a permanent display? If so, does it gather a lot of dust and/or how do you keep it clean? I leave Lego in my room, and after a month it's already covered in dust...
  7. Made a fair amount of progress on this model over the past few days: Placing the battery box and receiver was more annoying than I'd have hoped. There's a lot of lengthwise room in this boiler, but the placement of the sliding-rotational joint above the front driver means that the receiver and battery box can't go right next to each other, and that there will be a lot of dead space. I tried to keep all the dead space together in order to fit cabling, etc, and initially put the battery box directly in front of the motors and the receiver all the way at the front of the boiler. There's actually a trick here that I'm using to get wires around the battery box to the receiver: I've made the bulk of the boiler 6-wide using the curved slope tiles which are 2 plates tall - this means that on each side of the 4-wide battery box, there's 1LU of space in which I can run wires, and hopefully that will take care of that. There's another trick here, though I'm not sure how well it will work. In jtlan's AGEIR boxcab he put a "len"s above his pf receiver such that the receiver could be recessed. I tried this in my FM H-10-44 and it work pretty well, so I'm trying a similar thing here with a 1x1 clear cylinder such that the receiver can fit within the diameter of the boiler. With the chassis in what I thought was more or less good shape, I spent time sketching out the body of the locomotive in more detail. As you can see, the general process for me is to first find the part and placement to suggest a particular feature, and then go back and see how to support that part (if possible). The idea is to start with the ideal and then backtrack or compromise if that isn't possible. Then did some work filling out details on the cab and making some greeble for the valve gear. You can see a close to final rendering of the cab: Typically, I only use the drawing to determine the placement of large features, and a model to determine what to do for individual details. It was at this point that I found some potentially showstopping flaws in the chassis while doing load testing with rubber tires. Because of the way this chassis is geared, with the motor driving the 5th driven axle and each subsequent axle then driving the axle ahead of it, the gear on the 4th driven axle tends to climb up on the gear ahead of it and derail the 4th axle if there is a lot of load. I've temporarily solved the issue by making the sliding rotational joint not loading bearing and redistributing that weight right between the 4th and 3rd axles, but there's going to be some balance between the derailing force and the weight of the locomotive that I'm not sure will balance out. That being said, here's a clip of the current chassis pulling some heavy stuff:
  8. I think all the aforementioned solutions are reasonable depending on what you value. Some quick tradeoffs I can see: For 9v the big benefit is that you can run the trains forever without swapping batteries, etc. The biggest drawback is the price. For the rechargeable Lego battery, it's still expensive compared to other batteries, but cheaper than 9v and probably has better energy density than Eneloops in the AAA box. Another drawback is that you can only use it with Lego. Eneloops are cheaper than the Lego battery, but it's easier to loose them, more trouble to charge them, and again, probably has less energy density than the Lego battery. Another plus is that you can use them for other things as well.
  9. Are you sure you weren't just looking when Brickshelf was down? I've been seeing it go down on and off the past few days, and I'd be surprised that it's blocked, even in China. I actually first saw this thing in "Ben" Beneke's 2006 BR39, and have since implemented it twice with various modifications. In my opinion, the biggest weakness of Ben's original implementation is that the "bogies" with the pairs of drivers are held toward each other only by the friction of the #1 connector on an axle, and this can easily loosen up over time and cause the gears to fall out of sync. As you can see, my previous implementations both involved having something to reinforce that connection. That being said, while running on fairly flat track the reinforced mechanism does do a good job keeping the axles in sync, and it's mainly when you pick up the loco and slide the bogies around that you can mess up the synchronization. The point about the ridge on the 20-tooth double bevels preventing them from sliding against each other smoothly is interesting: now that I think about it, I would think that it would be a problem, but in practice it has not been. However, I have not actually been transmitting significant torque through these assemblies until now (because my previous models were not powered), so it remains to be seen if that will be an issue in that case.
  10. By definition a "tank engine" wouldn't generally have a tender attached to it, but at least in the US and UK there were definitely non-tank 0-6-0s that had tenders.
  11. You're missing another loco behind the Big Boy This is actually a pretty unique train to model though; I doubt we'll see anything like it soon. That being said, I can't wait to see the real thing back in action, though I've also read ominous things about UP's steam program imploding...
  12. Well, been a little distracted from this project, but managed to make some progress the last few days. Worked on polishing up the chassis including detailing the front and back trucks: On the back truck I couldn't think of a way to get a rounded corner on each side of the frame over the bearing, so that's kind of annoying. Around the front truck, I think the cylinder block is pretty decent, but as is often the case it needs to be shortened to accomodate the pivoting motion of the front axle. Making sure the support of the front axle (green) fit between the cylinders (blue) was also a big issue, even though the cylinders go out to 9-wide (and this would be like triply bad if I used a rigid 10-coupled section). I think I got good mileage out of this (purple) technic joiner though: With most of the chassis figured out, it's time to build some of the "real thing". This is mainly a sanity check to see if I've still got stupid things in the assembly (like using two 1x1 bricks where I could use a 1x2 - it happens a lot!) and to double check that everything comes in the colors I think they come in. And of course it gives me a chance to start seeing what said "real thing" will look like. To Redimus' point I was fairly comfortable not connecting axle 3 to axle 4 at all at first, but I'd be open to re-evaluation.The flex connection has definitely crossed my mind, but it could add a lot of friction to an already large mechanism (but admittedly I've never tried). That being said, my first inclination was to extend the connecting rods toward each other, but 7 is not too different from 6. I'd have to think on this one more. Next task is probably to find out if it's possible to fit the battery box (and that darn receiver) in the boiler.
  13. Hi, all! After piddling around with some small projects for the past few months, I decided it was time for a challenge! I'm building a Power Functions steam locomotive where the locomotive is powered (as opposed to a tender). To make things harder, the prototype isn't some small shunter, but the 2-10-2 China Railways QJ: The QJ is a fairly large mainline engine whose roots can be traced back to the various German 2-10-0s used extensively during WWII. Its primary claim to fame is probably the longevity of the design and quantity of units built - 4700 between 1956 and 1988. The QJ was used extensively on Chinese mainlines throughout the latter half of the 20th century, and a few soldered on in revenue service toward the end of the 2000s. Three survive in the US, two owned by Iowa Interstate, and one by RJ Corman. Anyway, I've decided to do a log of the build and share some of the process. We'll see how this goes. As always, the first step for me is finding drawings. I had previously wanted to try my hand at some smaller Chinese locos like the SY or JS, but having not found any drawings, the QJ was it. Resized to my usual scale of 15" per stud, it looks like this: The next task is to decide on the layout of the chassis. The "obvious" way to do it would be Emerald Night style - 2-10-2 with a blind-flange-blind-flange-blind configuration for the 10-coupled section, but this method results in a lot of overhang on curves, especially so if the body is attached directly to the 10-coupled section, and I really don't like that. That and other issues with the 10-coupled arrangement led me to look at more fun (complicated) designs, and I eventually settled on the following: This is a 2-2-4-4-2 articulation where the cylinders are actually locked to the middle 4 wheels because that's where the drive rods will connect. This arrangement lets me have driving and connecting rods across all flanged drivers, which I really like, and this also keeps the maximum width of the chassis at 9 studs at the cylinders. Yes, the 3rd and 4th axles aren't visually connected, but I would prefer having a gap over a thick or uneven connecting rod (full/overlapped half beams). At this point I had a vague idea of how I'd connect everything together, so I dumped it into LDD to sketch out the overall shape. Here I've just thrown together my intial thoughts of how I'd build various parts of the loco just to line things up with the drawing and evaluate the overall look and feel. I start like this because to me it's much more important that the overall proportions of a locomotive are correct and less important that individual details are all modeled. Now we can start on the detailed design. The first issue I tackled was the all-important method by which I'd connect all the axles that weren't already linked with connecting rods. To that end, I had known I would probably use a mechanism I had already used multiple times in the past, but I spent a lot of time trying to make it more rigid and compact. I also discovered how much easier it is to compact various assemblies by going to an all-studless chassis. Next up, connecting motors to the now coupled drivers. This has proven to be by far the most difficult part so far. One of the things that's really important to me is minimizing the overhang of the locomotive body inside and outside when it goes around a curve. To adjust this, you can move where the body pivots on the chassis (typically two points, one toward the front and one toward the rear - on a diesel these are the points at which the body connects to the bogies) forward and backward. The catch is, now the drivetrain connecting the motors to the wheels has to flex through these points as well. I settled on an initial design like this: As you can see, the drive train comes up from the last driven axle through the point at which the trailing axle is connected. Then it goes backward and there's a univeral joint through the point at which the body is connected to the last axle. How the motors are supposed to be joined to each other and to the wheels is still unclear here. At this point, I decided to make a mockup and do a test run, because you never know if things you make in LDD are going to work in reality or not. In this case, it did not. Turns out that the joint above the last driven axle was far too flimsy, and trying to transmit any significant amount of torque through it would throw the rear drivers off the track. And so here I am at the moment: This is actually the first design that made it around my test track, and it seems to do so fairly reliably for now. You can see the (yellow) more rigid redesign of the flimsy transmission and the (orange) more detailed design of the first driven axle. The actual testbed is not quite as pretty colored: More updates to come, stay tuned!
  14. To the first point I think custom cables are the way to go. It's not hard to do and the PF cables are pretty cheap. I'm not actually sure you're "losing power" with the hack Duq posted, but I haven't studied the wiring too carefully on the PF stuff. jtlan could tell you more. To the second point we looked at 3 or 4 used micromotors and we've found they can vary quite a bit in performance. Presumably if you got two brand new ones they should be the same, but we didn't look at that. Either way if you have enough weight on the bogies and the wheels have enough traction it should even out the performance. I wouldn't worry too much about this second point in general.
  15. I've found that most people have no idea how to pack something (or are too lazy to do it?). I have gotten laptops in USPS flat rate boxes with absolutely no padding whatsoever. It's a good thing most Lego is pretty much indestructible. Have fun putting it back together!