LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

[kbalage]

17 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

It's not empty space. I just blended the Technic plate out for the rendering. You can see it in the Studio file I provided.

It must be me then, but I don't see anything between the black mudguard piece and the tan gear:

 

[Space78]

Very nice and thorough review @kbalage.  I particularly appreciate that you went through the building process so we can see how different components are put together, and what options there might be for powering this set.  You video certainly made me more excited about this set from the stand point of a nicely detailed, beautify model.  However, the 8 studs wide basis for the carriages makes me pause as I only have 6 stud wide trains.  While the 8 stud wide bases makes for more internal room and details of the carriage interiors, I'm a bit worried this train is going to look out of place on my 9V track layout. 

It also looks like 9V train motors would look ok and fit under each carriage, but it sounds like the tender is too light "as is" to handle the force of being pushed around curves.  Maybe adding weights to the coal tender would solve that problem.  I'm sure I'll eventually get this model, but might be waiting for some discounts.

[Mondo-TRON]

  What are the differences between   88008 and 88013 motors, like in speed, power,  strength, etc?

Have anyone tried both for OE?

Have anyone tried either motors but with 4 carriages.

[kbalage]

@Mondo-TRON since the set is only released on December 1st, I don't think anyone will have 4 of the OE wagons yet, maybe something similar & custom built. 88013 has approximately double the torque of 88008, so it is definitely more suitable for this purpose. If you want to have exact measurements about the motors, I suggest Philo's excellent article. 88013 can provide a decent speed and torque to run the train, I'll share a video about it soon.

[Toastie]

@Mondo-TRON,

in addition to what @kbalage said - and simply because I like to stress that as it IS one of the most advantageous PoweredUp features - it is not only the torque and terminal speed (expressed as no-load rpm's): The thing for me when using #88008 and #88013 (others will work as well, but >not< the PUp train motor) in combination with a smart hub, 2port City or 4port Technic hub, is the SetSpeed programming feature. I know that I am annoying as I wrote this over and over again, I just want to make sure. Just trash this post ...

The SetSpeed command has essentially 2 relevant parameters: Speed (desired = regulated speed), and max. power to be used to maintain that speed. For trains, I usually use whatever speed and 100% max power. The latter is critical only, when your build cannot withstand max. power of the motor.

In addition, you can set acceleration and deceleration profiles, which essentially is a time interval as variable to reach desired speed from the initial speed value. To start a train, I set the acc profile to 10 sec (for 0 speed (stop) to desired speed; scale is always 100, so let's say 40 is full speed. Then I issue the SetSpeed = 40 command and nothing more is to be done: The train will very smoothly start a follow that profile, always with regulated speed. No issues with initial additional friction, no speed changes in R40 curves, as the hub regulates the power fed to the motor.

This has its limitations as well, of course: When either friction is too high or slopes are too steep, the regulation cannot work, as the power delivered by the hub to the motor simply maxes out. It really works nicely. I tried to illustrate that here; others have done similar things: 

Best regards,
Thorsten

Edited November 28, 2023 by Toastie

[lego3057]

1 hour ago, Toastie said:

@Mondo-TRON,

in addition to what @kbalage said - and simply because I like to stress that as it IS one of the most advantageous PoweredUp features - it is not only the torque and terminal speed (expressed as no-load rpm's): The thing for me when using #88008 and #88013 (others will work as well, but >not< the PUp train motor) in combination with a smart hub, 2port City or 4port Technic hub, is the SetSpeed programming feature. I know that I am annoying as I wrote this over and over again, I just want to make sure. Just trash this post ...

The SetSpeed command has essentially 2 relevant parameters: Speed (desired = regulated speed), and max. power to be used to maintain that speed. For trains, I usually use whatever speed and 100% max power. The latter is critical only, when your build cannot withstand max. power of the motor.

In addition, you can set acceleration and deceleration profiles, which essentially is a time interval as variable to reach desired speed from the initial speed value. To start a train, I set the acc profile to 10 sec (for 0 speed (stop) to desired speed; scale is always 100, so let's say 40 is full speed. Then I issue the SetSpeed = 40 command and nothing more is to be done: The train will very smoothly start a follow that profile, always with regulated speed. No issues with initial additional friction, no speed changes in R40 curves, as the hub regulates the power fed to the motor.

This has its limitations as well, of course: When either friction is too high or slopes are too steep, the regulation cannot work, as the power delivered by the hub to the motor simply maxes out. It really works nicely. I tried to illustrate that here; others have done similar things: 

Best regards,
Thorsten

I used SetSpeed in BAP (BrickAutomationProject) controlling software. I thought it would maintain the same train speed regardless the battery level. This doesn´t happen, which is a bit disapointing.

Edited November 28, 2023 by lego3057

[Toastie]

3 hours ago, lego3057 said:

BAP (BrickAutomationProject) controlling software

I am using Legoino (Author Cornelius Munz on Github) on an ESP32 Dev kit1. I can also provide some code that works. However, as said, you need such an ESP32 as well as the Arduino or the like IDE to program the device. The hub's firmware remains as it is.

I am pretty sure PyBricks works as well, @Lok24 is one of the experts here on EB.

No clue whether TLG has fixed their PoweredUp app in this regard - chances are they did, but I am again not sure. If they did not, the app will crash after some arbitrary time when using the SetSpeed code block with tacho motors (88008), at least this is what happened before.

Best,
Thorsten

[zephyr1934]

48 minutes ago, Toastie said:

No clue whether TLG has fixed their PoweredUp app in this regard - chances are they did, but I am again not sure. If they did not, the app will crash after some arbitrary time when using the SetSpeed code block with tacho motors (88008), at least this is what happened before.

Didn't the official GUI for the crocodile use the SetSpeed functionality of the L motor? I had not even thought about the possibility that it isn't the default mode (having horrible performance from bluetooth at shows I'm mostly in PF)

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, zephyr1934 said:

Didn't the official GUI for the crocodile use the SetSpeed functionality of the L motor?

As far as my experiments went back then, no. I was rather disappointed to notice the slow-down in curves (not pulling any coaches, it wasn't that serious), but when holding it by hand nothing with regard to power ramping happened. As you know, the L-motor is a rather high-torque motor. Nevertheless, it becomes much more interesting when using speed (rpm) control.

Best,
Thorsten 

[kbalage]

Here is my video with the motorization attempts, and a short summary:

• Pushing the tender & the loco with the motor under the first wagon is not the best idea, the tender gets pushed off the rails. Might be improved with some tinkering but a simple motor swap is definitely not enough.
• Installing a Large Powered Up motor in the boiler and adding the Powered Up City hub to the tender works well, with a 1:1 gearing it has a good balance of torque and speed.
• With this configuration the tender *might* derail in reverse, but it can be a neglieable problem, only happened once during ~20 minutes of testing.
• Adding the red rubber bands to the locomotive is crucial, otherwise it cannot pull the train.
• The 60336 City locomotive can pull the Orient Express tender & the 2 cars easily, so it shouldn't be a problem for other locomotives either.

 

 

[JopieK]

44 minutes ago, kbalage said:

 

Great video @kbalage! Thanks for sharing.

[R0Sch]

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

Here is my video with the motorization attempts, and a short summary:

• Installing a Large Powered Up motor in the boiler and adding the Powered Up City hub to the tender works well, with a 1:1 gearing it has a good balance of torque and speed.
• Adding the red rubber bands to the locomotive is crucial, otherwise it cannot pull the train

Great video! So to sum it up the LEGO Designer was not able to motorize the train and thought it was too heavy because he didn't want to use a rubber (band).

Jokes aside, it's pretty obvious TLG is phasing out, as promised, PUp by 2024 (maybe 2025). So having a motorisation would mean either the set gets discontinued too (=bad for cashflow) or they keep the set 3 years but say no motorisation available. Also the warranty period has to ensure spare components up to 2-3 years after EOL.

[NoOneOfImportance]

50 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

Great video! So to sum it up the LEGO Designer was not able to motorize the train and thought it was too heavy because he didn't want to use a rubber (band).

Jokes aside, it's pretty obvious TLG is phasing out, as promised, PUp by 2024 (maybe 2025). So having a motorisation would mean either the set gets discontinued too (=bad for cashflow) or they keep the set 3 years but say no motorisation available. Also the warranty period has to ensure spare components up to 2-3 years after EOL.

Considering that city trains have used wheels with friction bands on them, this is very likely not the issue. I'm sure some bands were used. If bands were the issue, it is very likely a situation where it would involve creating a new mould of some sort to have the friction bands on the larger locomotive wheels, which they did not want to do (unless I am unaware of a currently available part with that).

My guess is that (as @kbalage said in his video), it was a situation where any method of adding motorization caused some unknown stress that was not allowed within the QC testing for trains - similar to how @Anio and his 75060 Slave 1 bar modifications caused some kind of unknown stress that was not allowed when designing the set but may work fine for individual redesigns (apologies if I am not crediting the correct designer of the Slave 1 mods). We don't know enough of how LEGO does testing on train components to make a definite conclusion here, but it is nice to see some solutions working now. 

[R0Sch]

55 minutes ago, NoOneOfImportance said:

My guess is that (as @kbalage said in his video), it was a situation where any method of adding motorization caused some unknown stress that was not allowed within the QC testing for trains - similar to how @Anio and his 75060 Slave 1 bar modifications caused some kind of unknown stress that was not allowed when designing the set but may work fine for individual redesigns (apologies if I am not crediting the correct designer of the Slave 1 mods). We don't know enough of how LEGO does testing on train components to make a definite conclusion here, but it is nice to see some solutions working now. 

By that logic, the Technic Bucket Wheel Excavator or the Osprey would never have made it to series production. The BWE was seriously underpowered and 1 XL motor had to run every function, even multiple at the same time and THAT is a heavy set.

Edited November 28, 2023 by R0Sch

[ToledoRails]

Is it reasonable to infer that they tried the set on a loop similar to, if not the same as, the sales pitch video to show off their plastic axles a few years ago? I'm wondering if running it on R40 S curves put heavier strain on the motor or stringlined the tender.

Edited November 28, 2023 by ToledoRails

[Toastie]

4 hours ago, NoOneOfImportance said:

some unknown stress that was not allowed within the QC testing for trains

I certainly believe that: The stress test is revenue, what else? Come on, there were so many TLG trains not living up to physical stress tests. I simply don't believe in QC issues, my guess it is pricing that PUp stuff in, coherently. Put the PUp stuff in there, and it gets out of control, in TLG world, that is. The PUp hardware and firmware(!) is simply brilliant. TLGs software is not, and it appears it will never be. As it (again coherently) was in the past.

Well, just my take.

Best,
Thorsten 

[zephyr1934]

11 hours ago, Toastie said:

As far as my experiments went back then, no. I was rather disappointed to notice the slow-down in curves (not pulling any coaches, it wasn't that serious), but when holding it by hand nothing with regard to power ramping happened. As you know, the L-motor is a rather high-torque motor. Nevertheless, it becomes much more interesting when using speed (rpm) control.

Thanks (Toastie) and !@#$%$ (Lego)

 

3 hours ago, Toastie said:

I certainly believe that: The stress test is revenue, what else? Come on, there were so many TLG trains not living up to physical stress tests. I simply don't believe in QC issues, my guess it is pricing that PUp stuff in, coherently. Put the PUp stuff in there, and it gets out of control, in TLG world, that is.

They could have made it PU ready but not included the electronics, that's what they've done with every AFOL locomotive since the Super Chief... well, I guess that's redundant, every AFOL locomotive. Just look at the way they over-engineered the propulsion for the EN, a bunch of double bevel gears, I bet using the normal bevel gears for the anticipated loading is not allowed by the lego police.

[M_slug357]

We deserved at least a hand crank like the oversized Hogwarts Express

[lego3057]

The PU was made for around 1kg trains and that´s it. 

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, lego3057 said:

The PU was made for around 1kg trains and that´s it

The PUp train motor you mean, right? "PoweredUp" was made for many things, particularly Technic stuff. I believe monsters like the Liebherrs weigh more than 1 kg and generally feature medium, L and XL PUp motors, all of which have built-in rotation sensors.

Best,
Thorsten

Edited November 29, 2023 by Toastie
one gazillion typos

[lego3057]

24 minutes ago, Toastie said:

The PUp train motor you mean, right? "PoweredUp" was mas for many things, particularly Technic stuff. I believe monsters like the Liebherrs weight more than 1 kg and generally feture medium, L and XL PUp motors, all of which have built-in rotation sensors.

Best,
Thorsten

Hello

Yes that´s what I mean. There´s also another Lego train that could be useful for comparison: the 71044 disney train.

[R0Sch]

On 11/27/2023 at 1:06 PM, kbalage said:

It must be me then, but I don't see anything between the black mudguard piece and the tan gear:

 

Sorry, you were right. And because there is no way to add half plate spacers I had to redesign the whole thing. Gear ratio changed to 1:1.667 and motor cable routing runs along the back. Hope the cable is long enough. Maybe someone can measure the length exactly, because I don't have this motor in hand.
These 30 parts are needed for the mod. The rest are just rearranged from the original locomotive. Here is the Studio file: motorized_21344_v3.io

  
Left over pieces:

[Train of Thought Creations]

1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

Sorry, you were right. And because there is no way to add half plate spacers I had to redesign the whole thing. Gear ratio changed to 1:1.667 and motor cable routing runs along the back. Hope the cable is long enough. Maybe someone can measure the length exactly, because I don't have this motor in hand.
These 30 parts are needed for the mod. The rest are just rearranged from the original locomotive. Here is the Studio file: motorized_21344_v3.io

Only 30 extra parts, and so few leftovers!? This is wonderfully efficient.

[R0Sch]

And here is V4 with rear driver powered instead of middle blind wheel just in case the power cable is too short: motorized_21344_v4.io

   

Left over parts:

Edited November 29, 2023 by R0Sch

[CrispyBassist]

On 11/28/2023 at 11:50 AM, kbalage said:

• Pushing the tender & the loco with the motor under the first wagon is not the best idea, the tender gets pushed off the rails. Might be improved with some tinkering but a simple motor swap is definitely not enough.
• Installing a Large Powered Up motor in the boiler and adding the Powered Up City hub to the tender works well, with a 1:1 gearing it has a good balance of torque and speed.
• With this configuration the tender *might* derail in reverse, but it can be a neglieable problem, only happened once during ~20 minutes of testing

 

 

One takeaway I see from this is that the adding weight to the tender - around the equivalent weight of a battery box - could help prevent it from derailing when pushed by a power car 🤔