LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

[Train of Thought Creations]

Just now, RichardGoring said:

The Rainbow Express. I like it!

Thank you!
That's a fantastic name for it too. The color scheme, if you can call it that, makes me think of the VW Harlequins.

[RichardGoring]

6 minutes ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Thank you!
That's a fantastic name for it too. The color scheme, if you can call it that, makes me think of the VW Harlequins.

Ha! I have long considered wrapping my VW Golf in a Harlequin colour scheme.

I keep seeing this torso and thinking of the same thing:

[Train of Thought Creations]

26 minutes ago, RichardGoring said:

Ha! I have long considered wrapping my VW Golf in a Harlequin colour scheme.

I keep seeing this torso and thinking of the same thing:

No way!? You're a VW owner too!? Sweet. I'm a Beetle (2015) owner myself.
And yeah! That torso totally fits that vibe.

[LEGOTrainBuilderSG]

3 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Here is the test video, and a photo of the prototype used for the test.
@ToledoRails, here you can get a good idea of the cable length if you were still concerned about that.
Anyhoo, I want to spend a bit more time refining the studio model (dividing it into groups for parts that need to be added vs reused, nice colors, etc...), so that'll arrive whenever I am satisfied with it. It may well be tonight

That was quick! Brilliant effort. I'm assuming those coaches are 'heavy' with the plastic axles? 

[Train of Thought Creations]

15 minutes ago, LEGOTrainBuilderSG said:

That was quick! Brilliant effort. I'm assuming those coaches are 'heavy' with the plastic axles? 

Yes and yes!

[zephyr1934]

4 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Here is the test video, and a photo of the prototype used for the test.

Most impressive, I really thought it needed more weight... if it works with a normal L motor, why on earth did Lego make it non-motorized?

Heavy and plastic axles already confirmed, but is that R40 curves?

 

 

4 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Simply a thing of beauty

 

1 hour ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Very nice, and maybe this shows why Lego did not motorize it. I bet those bevel gears will wear out after tens of hours of operation. If so, that is probably not reliable enough for a general set, but at $0.10 each, not a problem for an AFOL to replace them every now and then.

Two suggestions, first, why not add a half bushing on the end of the axle from the motor? Second, are you still supporting the rear end (image left) of the 10 or 12 long technic axle that holds the slider simulating the crosshead?

[lego3057]

1 hour ago, zephyr1934 said:

Most impressive, I really thought it needed more weight... if it works with a normal L motor, why on earth did Lego make it non-motorized?

Heavy and plastic axles already confirmed, but is that R40 curves?

 

 

Simply a thing of beauty

 

Very nice, and maybe this shows why Lego did not motorize it. I bet those bevel gears will wear out after tens of hours of operation. If so, that is probably not reliable enough for a general set, but at $0.10 each, not a problem for an AFOL to replace them every now and then.

Two suggestions, first, why not add a half bushing on the end of the axle from the motor? Second, are you still supporting the rear end (image left) of the 10 or 12 long technic axle that holds the slider simulating the crosshead?

I think they didn´t motorise for 1 reason: The weight(drag) would put the "system" over the design limits (battery drain and hardware wearing). On the other hand, it has the advantage of leaving that job to AFOLS("US"), which may increase the interest in the set by around 20% (I guess). 

Now let´s wait for the other 2 solutions:

1-one or two train motors under a heavily modified tender

2-one or two train motors in the coaches (probably with 2 hubs).

 

 

 

[Train of Thought Creations]

6 hours ago, zephyr1934 said:

Heavy and plastic axles already confirmed, but is that R40 curves?
[...]
Two suggestions, first, why not add a half bushing on the end of the axle from the motor? Second, are you still supporting the rear end (image left) of the 10 or 12 long technic axle that holds the slider simulating the crosshead?

R40? - Yes
Weight? - I had slight wheel slip at one corner of the track, but that seems to be a problem with the carpet (it's about 1cm of fluff) at that side of the room for multiple trains, so I will test on hard flooring tonight.
Bushing?- I placed the 1x4 plate to protect the cable from touching the moving axle, and preventing the axle from coming out. The bushing would simply add more surface area rubbing against the 1x4 and would thus add more friction. You could totally add it, but that's why I chose to leave it off - well, that and it makes the parts list more efficient.
Axle supported? - You betcha! I can't even imagine the amount of friction that would generate when connected to the rods if that wasn't secured. If you look at the studio model you can see how it is attached to the body.

[zephyr1934]

2 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

R40? - Yes

Simply amazing

 

2 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

Bushing?- I placed the 1x4 plate to protect the cable from touching the moving axle, and preventing the axle from coming out.

My thought was keeping both the bevel gear on the motor in place and the vertical axle, but I don't play with gearing enough to know what's most efficient

[ToledoRails]

Great stuff!

Now I'm a little more on the crazy side and want that little extra kick of speed, so I've slightly modified the design to raise the motor and have a 1:1.67 output. I don't think this will decrease the power drastically enough for R40, but as it is I don't plan on running on tight curves so it might be less strain. The tender at the very least will be easy to convert over to metal axles. Coaches... still chipping away at that.

Edited November 21, 2023 by ToledoRails

[Train of Thought Creations]

45 minutes ago, zephyr1934 said:

My thought was keeping both the bevel gear on the motor in place and the vertical axle, but I don't play with gearing enough to know what's most efficient

That's an excellent point. Especially about keeping the vertical axle in place. I'll add that to the design. I don't think the added friction will outweigh the benefit of keeping the vertical axle locked in place. I'll add it before tonight's hard floor test.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Train of Thought Creations

[R0Sch]

@Train of Thought Creations Good job! There are just two things I don't like. The visible blue plate + axle pins and the red technic beam. Just add 2x 1x2 inverted curved slopes to cover the blue plate and use a black 1x5 Technic beam. ;)
Is there a reason why the bevel gear is not fixed on the axle in axial direction? Why even add the loose 1x1 spacer? To minimize the bevel gear wear I'd try to ensure the optimal and constant free-play by placing a bush + 1/2 bush on the axle instead of that 1x1 spacer. The gear forces will try to push the axle out otherwise.

[Train of Thought Creations]

2 hours ago, R0Sch said:

@Train of Thought Creations Good job! There are just two things I don't like. The visible blue plate + axle pins and the red technic beam. Just add 2x 1x2 inverted curved slopes to cover the blue plate and use a black 1x5 Technic beam. ;)
Is there a reason why the bevel gear is not fixed on the axle in axial direction? Why even add the loose 1x1 spacer? To minimize the bevel gear wear I'd try to ensure the optimal and constant free-play by placing a bush + 1/2 bush on the axle instead of that 1x1 spacer. The gear forces will try to push the axle out otherwise.

I like the red beam, and the blue plate is there as a reuse from the internals that were already there to help reduce the amount of extra pieces. As you said though, both are easily fixable if you'd like to make your own version. I'll keep my version the way it is on those two aspects.

As for the spacer, it is there to prevent the vertical 1x3 axle from dropping down further than it should and intersecting with the 1x6 axle. The bushings do not have an even surface like the spacer does, so the spacer is the optimal part to use for that purpose. This is based on the way it was done in the crocodile locomotive, which also did not use any additional bushings. It makes for an easier building experience - trying to wedge the 1/2 bushing in there too is very fiddly and unnecessary for the amount of frustration it could cause the average builder trying to recreate the design. But just like the other mods you mentioned, feel free to try changing it on yours!

Also, may I ask why you add a winking face whenever you share a criticism (both here and with the jab at the missing parts on my studio model)? Lots of folks mean different things with it, and I'm not sure what emotion you are trying to communicate to me with that, since, in the US at least, it can mean anything from friendliness to sarcasm.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Train of Thought Creations

[R0Sch]

@Train of Thought Creations If you don't want the 3L axle to drop, might I suggest a 3L with stop 24316 to be more useful?

Also, don't be upset about constructive criticism on a forum like this. We like to help other builders become better / find different solutions, especially one who recently joined.

And a winky smiley always means that the text should not be taken too seriously, which by the looks of it, you did.

P.S. Axles are only defined by their length. No need to add 1x. Besides, they are less than half a stud in diameter.

[Train of Thought Creations]

8 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

@Train of Thought Creations If you don't want the 3L axle to drop, might I suggest a 3L with stop 24316 to be more useful?

Also, don't be upset about constructive criticism on a forum like this. We like to help other builders become better / find different solutions, especially one who recently joined.

And a winky smiley always means that the text should not be taken too seriously, which by the looks of it, you did.

P.S. Axles are only defined by their length. No need to add 1x. Besides, they are less than half a stud in diameter.

Thanks for the help then! Glad to know what that means now. I figured that might be the case, so that's why I asked.

I do indeed take constructive criticism seriously, but in the sense of taking the point into serious consideration, not in the sense of getting upset over it. That's why I took the time to respond to each of your points. I'm a bit verbose at times, so I apologize if that came off defensively.

In regards to the 3L axle with stop, since it is 3L with the stop in included, the length of usable axle would be slightly less than that, and with the gears being at the very ends of that, I want to use the full 3L of axle. It's a great idea to keep in mind for future builds though.

[Train of Thought Creations]

The hardwood test is complete! In this test, the cars were given longer wheelbases to get closer to the length of the OE coaches, and were also weighed down with two handfuls of 1x1 plates, studs, tiles, etc. to increase weight. Here are the results.

Additionally, I ended up not adding the 1/2 bushing to the end of the motor as I originally indicated that I would, because the axle goes far enough into the motor such that doesn't give a full half module of usable axle after the bevel gear. So, the existing studio model is still of the current version.

[RedBrick1]

2 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

The hardwood test is complete! In this test, the cars were given longer wheelbases to get closer to the length of the OE coaches, and were also weighed down with two handfuls of 1x1 plates, studs, tiles, etc. to increase weight. Here are the results.

Additionally, I ended up not adding the 1/2 bushing to the end of the motor as I originally indicated that I would, because the axle goes far enough into the motor such that doesn't give a full half module of usable axle after the bevel gear. So, the existing studio model is still of the current version.

Excellent! Thank you for your continued work on this. The race to motorize will help to put those not fully in the loop more at ease as this set nears release.

[R0Sch]

9 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

In regards to the 3L axle with stop, since it is 3L with the stop in included, the length of usable axle would be slightly less than that, and with the gears being at the very ends of that, I want to use the full 3L of axle. It's a great idea to keep in mind for future builds though.

I only suggested this because the 3L is sticking out right now, so the 3L w/ stop would still give full length use. 7 stacked plates are less than 3 modules.

[lego3057]

My first concern with positioning these motors horizontally, is securing them with vertical technic beams, connected to the technic chassis of the loco. I once built the https://www.snakebyte.dk/lego/instructions/trains/steam_engines/br_78_steam_engine/index.php and the motor "jumped" after some minutes of rolling. In spite of being easy to fix, I later decided to take the motor out and go to the push solution.

[Venderwel]

On 11/16/2023 at 3:53 PM, RichardGoring said:

@kbalage has a great preview video up and addresses motorization. It's not designed to be motorized as it's too heavy. I'm sure someone can make it work!

I really like it and will also get it. I hope it can be motorized reasonably though, as that is likely how my kids will love it.

Oh man, must have been living under a rock, only jyst saw this set today! I want it! 

[Train of Thought Creations]

2 hours ago, R0Sch said:

I only suggested this because the 3L is sticking out right now, so the 3L w/ stop would still give full length use. 7 stacked plates are less than 3 modules.

Ah! Thanks!

[R0Sch]

Here is my V2 motorization mod with a Medium Linear Motor 88008 at 1:1 gear ratio. The biggest benefit of this motor over an L-Motor is that it's still available on lego.com to purchase and it's very easy to integrate in a System build. It supports the whole structure and will not move anywhere, thanks to SNOT construction.
I know, you might say it has half the torque of the L-motor, but it's still 4.6x (2.3x) the torque of one train motor. You could also change the second gear pair to z12 + z12 for 1.66x faster speed. Oh, and the mod only needs 19 extra parts. Enjoy!
Motorized_21344_V2.io

[Lyichir]

The motorization options people are coming up with are very nice!

I wonder if Lego's challenge with motorizing the set had less to do with it being difficult in general and more to do with it not easily allowing for a "plug 'n play" solution similar to previous train sets like the Emerald Night. Previous official motorization options have tended to involve minimal rebuilding (mainly swapping out some easily removable "modules" for motors, battery boxes, IR sensors, etc.), whereas these solutions require more disassembly/reassembly to integrate motors without compromising the aesthetics.

Whatever the case, I'm glad the ingenuity of the community is getting a chance to shine once again!

[ToledoRails]

So I only have 100kb to work with on EuroBricks so I'm posting a couple Flickr Links but here's my adaptation of @Train of Thought Creations 21344 mod. I've opted to use a 1:1.67 Gear Ratio hooked up to a L-Motor. It's raised just a little higher in the boiler so its packed in with about a stud's clearance to run the wire back and out under the cab. I like his design, but I wanted to make sure there were no external differences to the actual set (apart from the rod improvement. I've also adjusted the ball joint to a 2x5 with steps for the tender so a crew could climb into the cab. I don't think the loss of power for an extra speed kick would be too bad... there's no way those coaches are worse than any 8 Wide cars made by fans.

Here's a look at the outside of the locomotive so you guys can see those steps better, plus a 2H9L Trained Brick rod fitted onto the main rod. I'm not overly happy that the wire would go above the tender deck to the battery box, but that's a problem for when I have a physical wire to work with.

[R0Sch]

3 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

The motorization options people are coming up with are very nice!

I wonder if Lego's challenge with motorizing the set had less to do with it being difficult in general and more to do with it not easily allowing for a "plug 'n play" solution similar to previous train sets like the Emerald Night. Previous official motorization options have tended to involve minimal rebuilding (mainly swapping out some easily removable "modules" for motors, battery boxes, IR sensors, etc.), whereas these solutions require more disassembly/reassembly to integrate motors without compromising the aesthetics.

Whatever the case, I'm glad the ingenuity of the community is getting a chance to shine once again!

Cheers! It's not like LEGO didn't do it before, splitting the building steps into two or more sections, where one part would be up to page X without motorization (or main body color) and from page Y onward with motorization (or alternative color choice). The problems start when they don't include all the parts necessary for the add-on and people having to buy them separately (as opposed to the upgrade kits sold in the PF era). Pretty certain it was just a cost cutting measure to allow more details in the coaches without making the set more expensive than it already is, hence the plastic axles, regular windows and frames, etc.