6-wide Y-8000 series locotractors

[Ptchnk]

Hi, I started my first MOC project to go along with my 3yo son's new interest for lego vehicule including trains.

I foccused my attention on a common locotrator model i was use to spot in local french train stations: the Y-8000 serie.

 

I chosed to keep it to the 6-widish range to fit a train he already has. Colors of the non-motorized version are based on existing models (Infra, Fret, ...). The color of the PF version are custom to fit the body color of the battery box and the IR sensor.

 

"INFRA" color scheme

 

"FRET" color scheme

 

Power Function version (WIP): An air intake has been added on top of the engine for clearance for the PF wire. The motorized 2-wheels bogie still has to be design. Actual design only include PF battery box and IR sensor.

Edited April 14, 2021 by Ptchnk

[Frank STENGEL]

Very nice. You could try adding the orange (Arzens) color scheme. Adding a motor might be complex if one wants to keep the current wheelbase and lower decorations.

[Ptchnk]

That is actually the first design i did but i need to adust the color choice to fit bricks availability.

 

For the motor, either I go with the current PF train motor and use only one axle and mount it rigid to the rear and keep only the front bogie mobile. The base is only 24-stud so it should be ok on the turns but I don't really know as I'm new to Lego trains. The construction i used should allow me to keep the current lower decoration as it looks.

Or I go custom with a 3D printed brace for an electric motor and hold onto a Technic bricks chassis.

[Hod Carrier]

What a lovely little shunter/switcher. Congratulations on your first locomotive. 

2 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

The base is only 24-stud so it should be ok on the turns but I don't really know as I'm new to Lego trains.

 

Is that the total length or the distance between the axles?

I think the length of the wheelbase might cause you some problems on standard LEGO curves and points/switches as they are ludicrously tight. Having the axles so far apart might cause a lot of friction.

[Ptchnk]

My mistake. The plate base is 24-stud long. The axles are 16 stud apart only. Both bogies are mobile on the current version (using 2x2 turn plate)

[Hod Carrier]

Ah OK. I was trying to count up the studs from the pictures but I was having a struggle coming to the right number. This pandemic has made me overdue an optician's appointment. 

I'll be very interested to see the motorised version and how it runs. I'm glad that you've decided to give the axles some articulation as that should definitely help with curves, and I'm keen to see how your solution performs.

[zephyr1934]

Nice work and it is great that you are involving your son like this.

[Ptchnk]

Thanks.

Done some more reading as i'm new to this and it appears that mobile 2-wheels bogies do not work great. The 16 stud gap between the axles make to it goes thru the turns but it's quite terrible to the hear and to the sight :).

I'm trying to figure out a solution either by adding a small wheels 2nd axle that could be hidden by the underneath decoration or couple both bogies with a flexible stick as seems somewhere on the forum.

Technically, the first option works well but still have to see how it looks on the train. Still have to test the second one.

[Hod Carrier]

I did a lot of work on long wheelbase freight vans a little while back but not on locos, so what I learned may not be very applicable.

However, one thing that I would say is that I wouldn't recommend linking the two axles together nor using elastic bands to keep them centred. The problem with doing this is that sometimes you want the axles to steer the same way and sometimes the opposite way, especially if you're going to have points/switches. I found that linking the axles together on my freight vans caused derailments due to the wheels being turned in the wrong direction.

My personal recommendation would be to use small wheels on a second axle to form a proper bogie. I came up with a couple of designs that I have tested and found to work OK, and I'm sure that you could easily hide the small wheels behind some detailing. The first is a power bogie for narrow gauge, but you could always modify this design to make it suitable for standard LEGO track, and the second is a trailing bogie used on one of my vans.

[Frank STENGEL]

That idea of an extra small wheel is pretty slick. Especially if one has some side panels to hide the extra bits.

[Ptchnk]

6 hours ago, Hod Carrier said:

My personal recommendation would be to use small wheels on a second axle to form a proper bogie.

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I was aiming at the same one but wasn't about the outcome. Nice to have some experienced feedback :) Big kuddos for the explicit pictures

Here is the update design. I had to reduced the lenght of the underneath tanks to make some clearance for the "stability" axles. Also tried to add an extra layer of tiles on the tanks to see how it could cover the small wheels but the gain is limited. It would be difficult to hide them completely on a "6-wide" train anyway.

 

Same thickness for the tanks as the initial design. Tanks are less long.

 

With a extra layer to try to extend the tank

 

Last picture is to illustrate the clearance between the underneath tanks the extra wheels with the two above options

[jmchisel]

18 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

That is actually the first design i did but i need to adust the color choice to fit bricks availability.

 

For the motor, either I go with the current PF train motor and use only one axle and mount it rigid to the rear and keep only the front bogie mobile. The base is only 24-stud so it should be ok on the turns but I don't really know as I'm new to Lego trains. The construction i used should allow me to keep the current lower decoration as it looks.

Or I go custom with a 3D printed brace for an electric motor and hold onto a Technic bricks chassis.

It's the cousin to my (8-wide) Y7100 shunter!

I'm planning to motorise this one eventually but was really struggling for space, and it seems that Circuit Cubes have come along and solved the packaging problem:

 

[Hod Carrier]

18 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

I had to reduced the lenght of the underneath tanks to make some clearance for the "stability" axles.

I've been looking at some prototype photos of the Y-8000, and I think that would be OK. The fuel tank and battery boxes don't look enormous from the side. It's just that the loco frame (chassis) looks quite narrow and so these features appear to stick out a long way which makes them look bigger when viewed from other angles.

The alternative might be to turn the bogies around so that the small wheels are on the other side of the axle. Your underneath render suggests that the steps and coupler are part of the same assembly as the axles so clearance for movement would not be so much of an issue. Also you might find a way to hide the small wheels behind the steps. 

[Ptchnk]

 

1 hour ago, Hod Carrier said:

The alternative might be to turn the bogies around so that the small wheels are on the other side of the axle. Your underneath render suggests that the steps and coupler are part of the same assembly as the axles so clearance for movement would not be so much of an issue. Also you might find a way to hide the small wheels behind the steps. 

Thanks for the input. I thought about putting the small wheels in front of the axle as well but the width of the small axle, which is the same as the main one doesn't fit under the actual design. But instead of using wheels, I'm thinking using a bar guide which will seat behind the rails and prevent the bogie to desalign from the tracks. that should be easier to fit under the front of the current bogie.

A problem i have with the current bogie design is that the small wheels are a tiny bit lower than the big one which will be an issue for motorization of the train (see picture underneath)

15 hours ago, jmchisel said:

It's the cousin to my (8-wide) Y7100 shunter! 

Nice Y7100 :) . Your design help to modify the front of mine which i wasn't totally happy with as the front grid was going all the way to the edge.

Also made some attempts to upgrade the lower part of the train.

 

[Hod Carrier]

13 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

A problem i have with the current bogie design is that the small wheels are a tiny bit lower than the big one which will be an issue for motorization of the train

Really? That's strange. It's not a problem that I have had with my build, as you can see from the photo of the van that all the wheels are touching the track. If you've used a similar geometry your loco should also be fine.

I can see what you mean about there being daylight underneath the leading main wheel, but it may just be a trick of the rendering process that's creating the appearance of the gap. Looking at the shadows it looks like there might a similar gap underneath the small guide wheels too, but it's a little hard to tell for sure. In any case, as rendered the loco is sitting on it's wheel flanges and not on the wheels themselves as it would when it's on the track.

I like the visual improvements. Your young son is going to have quite a train to play with (assuming Daddy allows him ).

[zephyr1934]

4 hours ago, Hod Carrier said:

17 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

A problem i have with the current bogie design is that the small wheels are a tiny bit lower than the big one which will be an issue for motorization of the train

Really? That's strange. It's not a problem that I have had with my build, as you can see from the photo of the van that all the wheels are touching the track. If you've used a similar geometry your loco should also be fine.

I THIHK the train wheels line up in real life. Your model might have the small trail wheel one plate lower than it should be. It could also be an imperfection in one of the digital model files. You might want to test it on digital track to see where things line up on the wheels.

[Ptchnk]

You are both right. The actual design of the bogie is fine. I've built it IRL to check and it work fine with all flanges sitting on the tracks. And i think i will keep with the small axle behing the front wheel and in front of the rear ones as it is a simpler built.

I will look at what can be improved on the overall look of the shunter to make it feel less bulky even if it's how it looks in real like. The idea it to keep the built not too complicated so that my 3-1/2 son is able to built it on his own. He already does the new big fire engine by himself following the instruction. So the idea will also to make an instruction booklet for the shunter as well as a box for it :)

I will a try to rebuilt the main axle to fit better the real Y8000 and try to include the motorization. The circuit cubes is nice but i'd prefer to go with something compatible with Power Function (or Power Up) for compatibility with possible new additions to my son's set and the remote controls as it should quite fun for a shunter.

If i go PF, as the battery and IR sensor take most of the room inside the main body, i'll have to fit a motor underneath by designing one. I could salvage a generic motor and fit it in a 3D printed case to built a stud compatible half motorized bogie. That should be fun :)

Edited April 16, 2021 by Ptchnk

[Hod Carrier]

Welcome to the next stage of the puzzle; where to put the power and control systems. 

We've seen some ingeniously packaged small locos down the years, almost defying belief that they could possibly include PF/PU elements. PU has the advantage of not needing a separate receiver, which is one less thing to have to find a home for. Also, having the plugs on the side of the box means that you won't have to include the air scoop to leave room for the connection. It also has a bit more play and educational value than PF because as well as the remote you can use the app for coding to give the loco some automated features, which might be engaging for your son.

If it was my design (and I do completely understand that it is not), I'd be looking for the "easy win". My recipe would be a PU hub under the long bonnet and a Technic M Motor sited vertically in the cab driving the rear axle directly through bevel gears. It would also be more controllable than the train motor and give better slow speed control for shunting. But those are just my thoughts and you are perfectly entitled to go a different way.

[zephyr1934]

Boxing the MOC up like a set is a great idea. For that age group I would agree with you that the circuit cubes probably is not a good idea. PF and PU are good because they both have their own stand alone remote, so no need to hand your son your phone.

[Ptchnk]

Thanks for the feedback. Really appreciated as i'm new to that kind of build :)

If possible, i'd like not to sacrifice to much the cockpit and keep some room for the minifigure as my son makes up elaborated stories with his vehicules and they have to have a driver.

Here are some additionnal pictures of the "Motor" version with the previous design upgrades. Also managed to modify the cockpit so that the minifig will fit seated and with his hat.

 

Here is a view of the inside of the cockpit to picture the room left for the wires. The minifig has a seat without bottom and will seat directly on the connector (if i go PF) and will be hold in place by the back and side of the "seat".

 

If i can discard the rear mobile bogie and have it mount rigid to the chassis, i should be able to fit the M-motor in the thank assembly with sacrifing a bit of the appearance. This is just a very quick visual test to have and better idea of the size. Basically it would be an assembly including the motor and the rear axle.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Ptchnk

[zephyr1934]

16 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

If possible, i'd like not to sacrifice to much the cockpit and keep some room for the minifigure as my son makes up elaborated stories with his vehicules and they have to have a driver.

That should probably be top priority for this build, more important than copying the prototype. To that end, you might want to make the cab 2 studs longer to make it easier to sit 1 or even 2 minifigs and facilitate play value.

I like how you are already working with the colors of the PF components. On the short hood (IR receiver) the cab does not need to be full height, just tall enough to clear the PF connector on the given side. You could shift the windshield back from the short hood (making it longer) if you wanted to keep the cab itself 5 long.

[Ptchnk]

17 hours ago, zephyr1934 said:

On the short hood (IR receiver) the cab does not need to be full height, just tall enough to clear the PF connector on the given side. You could shift the windshield back from the short hood (making it longer) if you wanted to keep the cab itself 5 long.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure to picture well what you're proposing.

I've a question though. Does the dome of the IR receiver as to be totally out or could it be receded a little bit. that would allow me to keep the red strip going and gain one layer more in the cab to add a proper floor/seat for the minifig.

One last question. i'm working on the motorized axle with a L-motor under the train. To have a good fit, i need the shift the motor shaft one layer up vs the wheel axle. Would it still be OK for the gears (both 12 teeth) to work properly? I need to get some technic parts to test it out for validation i guess.

[ColletArrow]

I really like what you're doing here - it's not often we see a long-wheelbase 0-4-0 shunter in LEGO, but I enjoy the mid-size feel of this loco. It certainly has plenty of colour and character to boot.

3 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

I've a question though. Does the dome of the IR receiver as to be totally out or could it be receded a little bit. that would allow me to keep the red strip going and gain one layer more in the cab to add a proper floor/seat for the minifig.

One last question. I'm working on the motorized axle with a L-motor under the train. To have a good fit, i need the shift the motor shaft one layer up vs the wheel axle. Would it still be OK for the gears (both 12 teeth) to work properly? I need to get some technic parts to test it out for validation i guess.

It's not crucial to have the entire IR receiver exposed, but the more there is the better your signal reception will be. I got away just fine with only half exposed on my 7760-ish shunter, and I expect your open-window cab design will allow for good line of sight from wherever. As long as you point the controller at the train it will probably work fine.

As for gears, if they're out of line there's a much higher change of them slipping under high loads. I would heavily recommend using LEGO's various gearbox frame pieces wherever possible - they virtually eliminate the potential for slippage, resulting in better traction.

But however you proceed, I'm looking forward to seeing this project completed, it should be a cracking little loco!

[Ptchnk]

2 hours ago, ColletArrow said:

I would heavily recommend using LEGO's various gearbox frame pieces wherever possible - they virtually eliminate the potential for slippage, resulting in better traction.

Thanks for the feedback :) Could you linked me some example af gearbox you are thinking about. I'm a newbie and quit lost in all that is coming up when i google.

I've made some quick test and the design works fine in the curves with a fixed front bogie. So i've been reworking a little bit the design of the underneath to try to fit the motor inside.

Here is how it looks so far. Don't pay attention to the broken axles, i couldn't fit the 6L axle due to a tiny overlap due to the fixed angle of the arms used as "springs". IRL, their position will be adjust and the 6L axle will fit fine.

 

and with a base plate on top of it

[zephyr1934]

6 hours ago, Ptchnk said:

I'm sorry but I'm not sure to picture well what you're proposing.

I've a question though. Does the dome of the IR receiver as to be totally out or could it be receded a little bit. that would allow me to keep the red strip going and gain one layer more in the cab to add a proper floor/seat for the minifig.

One last question. i'm working on the motorized axle with a L-motor under the train. To have a good fit, i need the shift the motor shaft one layer up vs the wheel axle. Would it still be OK for the gears (both 12 teeth) to work properly? I need to get some technic parts to test it out for validation i guess.

Yes, you should have little problem with one more layer of plates around the IR receiver. When you use these in your house the IR signal typically bounces off the walls and ceiling, so even when you do not have direct line of sight the control signal usually gets in. If you ever run the train outside or in a large auditorium you might have to point the PF controller directly at the IR receiver.

 

Another thought, if space in the cab is of utmost importance, as others have said earlier in this thread, going to PU would eliminate the need for the IR receiver altogether. But that would change your color scheme.

 

Anyway, to clarify what I was suggesting in my last post, right now the IR receiver sticks into the cab by 1-2 studs. If you move the cab forward (to the right in the picture below) by one or two studs you get the receiver out of the cab. The trouble is, you now have the lower part of the IR receiver filling the gap behind (to the left of) the cab but a 1 wide hole above the PF connectors, e.g., where the yellow brick with a clip is in the picture. So I was suggesting that for this row of studs at the bottom you could have the cab be 6 wide  until clearing the top of the PF connectors, then drop to 4 wide for the rest of the way up.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Ptchnk said:

Thanks for the feedback :) Could you linked me some example af gearbox you are thinking about. I'm a newbie and quit lost in all that is coming up when i google.

I've made some quick test and the design works fine in the curves with a fixed front bogie. So i've been reworking a little bit the design of the underneath to try to fit the motor inside.

Here is how it looks so far. Don't pay attention to the broken axles, i couldn't fit the 6L axle due to a tiny overlap due to the fixed angle of the arms used as "springs". IRL, their position will be adjust and the 6L axle will fit fine.

If you build it this way, you could just use a train motor with an axle on one end.

 

I think ColletArrow was suggesting use of one of these,

 

or 40344, 6585, 48496, or 87408