RedBrick1

LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

Recommended Posts

That's kind of how Union Pacific does it with their Big Boy using an EMD SD70ACe?   :pir-classic:

TRN_BIG_BOY_FAQ_08.21_Wrinn_pic00.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kalahari134 said:

Good review. When you were trying to propel it with the city locomotive, were the coaches on straight or curved track?

That was a sort of "worst case scenario", intentionally. The City locomotive tried to move the 2 wagons + the locomotive from the rear, and half of the train was on curves already. Already experimented with other configurations and e.g. the City locomotive has zero issues pulling the 2 wagons alone. I also plan to test some of the motorization ideas that were already shared in the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, R0Sch said:

I guess this is the second simplest way to motorize the train without modifications as demonstrated in this video. With the PUp Hub there is no need for IR sensor so you'd only have the cable sticking out.
https://youtu.be/_U43N4zTQ4I?feature=shared&t=950

 

Runs well, considering it only uses 1x train motor - with everything TLG said, I thought it would be slower. Because of this, I'm planning on putting 2x PF train motors in a carriage, and putting the battery box in the dining carriage as well, in the door section, so most of the interior is preserved. I guess the weight of the coach is giving the train motors lots of traction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, samsz_3 said:

Runs well, considering it only uses 1x train motor - with everything TLG said, I thought it would be slower.

Maybe that went unsaid by lego, "any solution that disrupts the car interiors was forbidden by the IP owners" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, R0Sch said:

I guess this is the second simplest way to motorize the train without modifications as demonstrated in this video. With the PUp Hub there is no need for IR sensor so you'd only have the cable sticking out.
https://youtu.be/_U43N4zTQ4I?feature=shared&t=950

 

It is indeed a simple method, but as you can see in his video as well the tender derails fairly quickly. He added straights between the curves to make it run smoother, if you have a half-circle at both ends then it derails even sooner, I just tested it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kbalage said:

It is indeed a simple method, but as you can see in his video as well the tender derails fairly quickly. He added straights between the curves to make it run smoother, if you have a half-circle at both ends then it derails even sooner, I just tested it.

Did you use magnetic couplings like he did or the original ball joints? He didn't align the magnets and just improvised. Try putting metal axles on the tender? I recon that might help too by keeping the wheels at a constant distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, R0Sch said:

Did you use magnetic couplings like he did or the original ball joints? He didn't align the magnets and just improvised. Try putting metal axles on the tender? I recon that might help too by keeping the wheels at a constant distance.

I used ball joints, no magnets, and did not modify the axles. The point was to test a "simple" motorization, and apparently pushing the tender instead of pulling it won't work without further tinkering. Pulling the tender and the 2 wagons works like a charm with a City locomotive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbalage said:

I used ball joints, no magnets, and did not modify the axles. The point was to test a "simple" motorization, and apparently pushing the tender instead of pulling it won't work without further tinkering. Pulling the tender and the 2 wagons works like a charm with a City locomotive. 

Pulling works better because the ball joints are always tensioned. Pushing will compress the double ended ball joints and misalign the tender, therefore derailing it. Yet another reason why magnetic couplings should have been used by Lego. They can take up axial loads in both directions. If not strong enough secure them with a 1x2 plate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

Pulling works better because the ball joints are always tensioned. Pushing will compress the double ended ball joints and misalign the tender, therefore derailing it. Yet another reason why magnetic couplings should have been used by Lego. They can take up axial loads in both directions. If not strong enough secure them with a 1x2 plate.

Realistically, apart from some slight up and down travel (which might even be preferable for some layouts), I don't see why there'd be a substantial difference between ball joint couplings and secured magnetic ones. It's a fixed distance between two points either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to motorize the train by incorporating the standard Powered Up train motor and a city hub inside of the hopper. 

I am pleased to report that it only required about a dozen parts and is working well so far.  I plan to share photos and instructions at brickarchitect.com later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, ToledoRails said:

https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjB4GZg

Here's better renders and a parts list for what I intend to do to the Orient Express set using a Powered Up Battery Hub and L-Motor. Please feel free to use this for your own modifications.

If I had more spare time this week I would give it a go...  This looks like a more elegant solution than jamming everything into the hopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m still looking forward to your post on Brick Architect. I’m a newbie st this and it always seems easier to me when the train motor is is on the tender with the wire going right up to the battery hub. I’m not a mechanical person so it always seems amazing to me that people can jam all those gears and motors into the locomotive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, R0Sch said:

Pulling works better because the ball joints are always tensioned. Pushing will compress the double ended ball joints and misalign the tender, therefore derailing it. Yet another reason why magnetic couplings should have been used by Lego. They can take up axial loads in both directions. If not strong enough secure them with a 1x2 plate.

Magnets were used in the video and the tender was still pushed off the rails, so I don't see what difference would that make, especially if the magnets are secured. You said yourself that pulling works better than pushing, I will go in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbalage said:

Magnets were used in the video and the tender was still pushed off the rails, so I don't see what difference would that make, especially if the magnets are secured. You said yourself that pulling works better than pushing, I will go in that direction.

I guess because he just used a magnet between tender and sleeper wagon and not even attached on the same level and the original ball joints between locomotive and tender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've published my article showing how I motorized the train using only a small number of parts from my collection.  Please excuse the brightly colored parts - I did this to make it easier to follow the instructions!

If you want to see all of the steps, check out the whole article, but I've added pictures of some of the key steps below...

Brick_Architect-Motorizing_21344_LEGO_Id

The first thing you need to do is remove the trucks and the three 4×6 plates from the bottom.


Brick_Architect-Motorizing_21344_LEGO_Id

Then you need to carefully attach the battery box upside-down, and add the colored plates shown in this photo.

 

Brick_Architect-Motorizing_21344_LEGO_Id

Three sub-assemblies including a longer linkage in the front allow you to connect it to the Engine in front, and passenger car behind.

 

8Y1A8669-1200x480.jpg

It drives smoothly on curved track and can manage the transitions from curved to straight tracks well.

 

LINK TO ARTICLE: https://brickarchitect.com/2023/motorizing-21344-lego-ideas-the-orient-express-train/

 

I am eager to see more advanced modifications like the one that @ToledoRails shared earlier, but am pleased to report that a simple modification is possible to help bring more people into the LEGO Train hobby.

Sincerely,
—Tom Alphin

P.S. I am happy to answer any questions you might have about the set or this simple mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, henrysunset said:

I am eager to see more advanced modifications like the one that @ToledoRails shared earlier, but am pleased to report that a simple modification is possible to help bring more people into the LEGO Train hobby.

You can scroll back a couple of pages and find several other motorisation mods. Your mod, albeit easy to do, takes away the working 3 axle tender that should be kept imho since it looks more realistic.
Another way would be to put 2x 9V train motor and extend the tender in length. This way even PF users could have plenty of space hiding the IR receiver. But next to the locomotive a longer tender would look out of proportion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity (I won't buy this set):

There is no chance to get a PoweredUp 88008 medium linear motor (brick-built integration) nor a PUp 88013 L motor somehow into the boiler, correct? If it were, then smooth speed control (same speed on curves as on straights) would be possible. Provided the torque is high enough, but even 88008 has some power reserves. I would not even hesitate to put a sticker in the color of the boiler onto exposed surfaces of the PUp motor ...  

Best,
Thorsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Toastie said:

Just out of curiosity (I won't buy this set):

There is no chance to get a PoweredUp 88008 medium linear motor (brick-built integration) nor a PUp 88013 L motor somehow into the boiler, correct? If it were, then smooth speed control (same speed on curves as on straights) would be possible. Provided the torque is high enough, but even 88008 has some power reserves. I would not even hesitate to put a sticker in the color of the boiler onto exposed surfaces of the PUp motor ...  

Best,
Thorsten

Of course it's possible. I did exactly that here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

Of course it's possible. I did exactly that here:

Ooops missed that - very nice!!!

And now you don't only have improved torque as compared to the train motor, you can use that reserve to have constant speed regulation - and it will soo nicely at very low speeds!

Wonderful!

Best,
Thorsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, R0Sch said:

I guess because he just used a magnet between tender and sleeper wagon and not even attached on the same level and the original ball joints between locomotive and tender.

As I mentioned I'm looking for a simple solution with the least amount of modifications, so I'll leave the testing of this one to you.

Btw, you might want to look at the empty space above the lower 12T bevel gear in your V2 motorization, I'm afraid it gets pushed up as soon as you turn the motor on. I'm not 100% sure it fits (as I don't have the part to test), but I've seen the 11010 ring piece used as a spacer on other designs when something thinner than a half bush was needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbalage said:

Btw, you might want to look at the empty space above the lower 12T bevel gear in your V2 motorization, I'm afraid it gets pushed up as soon as you turn the motor on. I'm not 100% sure it fits (as I don't have the part to test), but I've seen the 11010 ring piece used as a spacer on other designs when something thinner than a half bush was needed.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.