RedBrick1

LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

Recommended Posts

On 12/8/2023 at 7:02 PM, Lyichir said:

To be honest even without OE's input I imagine Lego might opt for a color other than dark green, simply because dark green could be perceived as too similar to the Emerald Night (still one of Lego's most iconic and recognizable steam engines, whose shadow looms large over all such builds). If the locomotive were the same color as the Emerald Night, many potential buyers might consider buying another steam locomotive in the same color to be somewhat redundant even if the design of the locomotives was made very different.

 In that respect, I feel like dark blue was a good choice not only because it matches the carriages, but also because it's sufficiently different from past Lego steam locomotives which have most often been in colors like green, black, or red.

If the loco was produced in olive green, I think that it would be pretty recognisable as a Prussian P8. I don't think that's an accident, I suspect that LEGO decided upon that as a prototype before Belmond vetoed the colour. I'd better start researching whether the right parts exist to recolour the loco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dtomsen said:

You mean down to TLG's own standards :tongue:

Ball bearings and metal axles are inherently better traction solutions than current plastic one provided.
Heck, even the rubber bands from the Crocodile train set would be an instant improvement. 

Here I was thinking of what the passenger cars hold inside. That, is Up, in standard. Very much up.

Ball bearings and metal axles, those would been nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone yet managed to get digital scans of the decal sheets? Some of these digital models are looking rather naked and I'd love to provide proper decaled bricks for everyone to use in Stud.io, I've figured out a way to make chrome decals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lego train sets have always been a great starting point for more creativity! Every train set I own gets improvements, even if just adding lights!

Quite some time ago I did my own 'Polar Express' train - Pere Marquette 1225 in Dark Green and Black to be precise. A great model and runs well on R40 corners and points.

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-163401/TrainsWithLights/pere-marquette-1225-steam-locomotive-and-coal-tender/#details

Following Lego's release of the 21344 Orient Express, a blend of PM1225 with Orient Express locomotive and tender parts was created! Quite the impressive train set, whether through the eyes of adults or children and a train robust enough to endure a rainy afternoon with the Grandchildren!

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-165958/TrainsWithLights/pere-marquette-1225-orient-express/#details

Orient Express - PM1225 - Full Set R11.jpg

Edited by TrainsWithLights
Removed " see attached - the photo actually appeared in-line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I - am - speechless ...

Yes. This is a locomotive, the OE coaches deserve ... wow. And runs on R40 ... beautiful. Simply beautiful.

Congratulations!

With best regards,
Thorsten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, just want to show my first modding attempt. Motorized with 2 PF L motors and added a lego weight to improve the grip.

The boiler radius increased by one plate to fit in the motors and the loco's height is now +2 plate as well. Also added +1 brick to the length.

Digital only, but the parts are ordered. :)  1280x720.png   

Inside:

 

1280x720.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mdbz It's nice, but I worry about the motors. Just a fair word of warning: If you don't start / shut them down them both a the EXACT same time (nanoseconds or less), and run them at the same speed, things will go wrong fast. Especially since you're using the sets fancy side rods. (You don't want to snap them into pieces doing this, which in all likelihood is going to happen!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Murdoch17 I more or less run exactly this configuration in my ÖBB 399.04, also with 2x L Motors only connected by the siderods. Until now I ran into 0 issues while pulling up to 5 LGB cars around the garden layout. Also, the rods I'm using are 3D printed, so even a bit more brittle than the Lego ABS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Murdoch17 said:

If you don't start / shut them down them both a the EXACT same time (nanoseconds or less), and run them at the same speed, things will go wrong fast.

Whoa - you know, light travels about 0.3 m in a nanosecond ... I believe this can be safely done at least 6 orders of magnitude longer than a nanosecond without breaking anything - in a very worst case scenario (VWCS :pir-laugh:), which is highly simplified, as we only consider linear motion in the worst rod position:

Let us assume the i) side rod is in full up position and ii) the pinhole for attaching this rod to the wheel is centered at half the radius of the LEGO train 85489a/b wheels, as per L-Gauge website; we then get the following:

(All numbers rounded heavily, not of concern here, it is just for illustration of a "nanosecond")

  1. Wheel diameter = 0.03 m; radius described by rod connection point = 0.015/2 m = 0.008 m. Circumference = 2*PI*0.008 m = 0.05 m.
  2. PF-L runs at max. 390 rpm (no load), according to Philo's motor page; 390 rpm = 6.5 rps; this corresponds to a (linear) travel distance of 6.5 s-1 * 0.05 m = 0.35 m/s
  3. In a nanosecond, this becomes 0.35 * EXP(-9) m = 0.35 nm (nanometer).
  4. A human hair has an average diameter of 0.8 mm (millimeter), which is roughly 6 orders of magnitude thicker than the above calculated distance.

I thus believe we are well in the tolerance range of several or even hundreds of ms, before considerable stress would build up on the pins/rods/gears. The PF electronics is way faster than this; even with the train remote, you should be fine. When both motors spin, things become much more relaxed.

I have never had any issues with two motors hard coupled to one 9V/PF/PUp "driver" - when you take care of about similar settings and reasonable "starts and stops" - as said, the timescale is "much" different from nanoseconds, but well in the control range of humans.

Best regards,
Thorsten

 

Edited by Toastie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is strange...

This is what Stud.io thinks

Locomotive Stud dimensions  : Length - 49.5 x Width - 11.6 x Height 15.3 : 1150 pieces.
Coal Tender Stud dimensions  : Length - 28.4 x Width - 7.2 x Height 12.6 : 525 pieces

That seemed too wide so I built a frame around the train in Stud.io and the train easily fits inside a 10 wide box

I tried including the image but I've used up all my allocation on one email post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would I get into using ball bearings and lubrication and such? I know it makes a huge difference, especially on technic axels. I sort of recall many years ago someone modifying technic holes to put bearings in them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TrainsWithLights said:

Well this is strange...

This is what Stud.io thinks

Locomotive Stud dimensions  : Length - 49.5 x Width - 11.6 x Height 15.3 : 1150 pieces.
Coal Tender Stud dimensions  : Length - 28.4 x Width - 7.2 x Height 12.6 : 525 pieces

That seemed too wide so I built a frame around the train in Stud.io and the train easily fits inside a 10 wide box 

I tried including the image but I've used up all my allocation on one email post.

 

I think sometimes stud.io incorrectly measures the size of parts to the edges of the bounding box rather than just to the edges of the part — which can cause it to measure a model's size incorrectly if it has non-rectangular parts at unusual angles (and often gets EXTRA weird if you include parts with "flex" functionality like hoses). Some of the parts you used that I know from experience can be prone to this issue include the skeleton arms and battle droid arms. Submodels can also result in screwy bounding boxes at times, since stud.io draws a new bounding box around these at an angle matching whichever piece is "first" in the submodel's part list.

If you "select all" on stud.io to highlight the bounding boxes of every piece, you should be able to see which (if any) of the bounding boxes are protruding past the model's actual maximum width. But suffice to say, it definitely sounds like just a quirk of the software and not a problem with your build. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2023 at 6:21 PM, Murdoch17 said:

@mdbz It's nice, but I worry about the motors. Just a fair word of warning: If you don't start / shut them down them both a the EXACT same time (nanoseconds or less), and run them at the same speed, things will go wrong fast. Especially since you're using the sets fancy side rods. (You don't want to snap them into pieces doing this, which in all likelihood is going to happen!)

mdbz is using PF motors, so presumably the connectors are stacked and the problem's solved. I used that configuration on my Daylight and it works great. Unfortunately the PU L motors are one stud longer, so you'd have to make the boiler a lot larger for PU. Though it would be fair to simply raise the boiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very much looking forward to getting this set in-hand and actually building the thing. I ordered it last week from S@H and it hasn't shipped yet. The one downside of ordering during a busy holiday season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Train of Thought Creations said:

A gear grinding issue was found with my Brickset solution, so I have developed a fix for it. In the meantime before that rolls out officially, here is a google doc detailing the changes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C__sIMK5q0f9HydMhKIdL28V558edhDAefVvtXwMEuk/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you for keeping working on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@something_fabulous may I ask what are the differences between v1.2 and 1.3 of your MOC?

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-165803/StijnD/21344-orient-express-motorization-powered-up/#details
 

@Train of Thought Creations I was just reading the comments section of your MOC here:

https://brickset.com/article/102806/motorising-the-orient-express#google_vignette
 

about clicking noise and burning smell. I also saw the fix, but may I ask what was the issue and if it is reliably fixed now?

 

Thank you both!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ElGreco said:

@Train of Thought Creations I was just reading the comments section of your MOC here:
https://brickset.com/article/102806/motorising-the-orient-express#google_vignette
about clicking noise and burning smell. I also saw the fix, but may I ask what was the issue and if it is reliably fixed now?

So the issue is mathematical. The height of the tan bevel gear (which is 1.25 plates thick) at the vertical position placed at was 1/4 of a plate too low from its typical proper position relative to the tan bevel gear attached to the motor. By moving the red 2x2 tile with hole 1 plate lower, we can add the black gear with bevel (which is 2.5 plates thick) to mesh properly with the gear that is directly connected to the motor. Because of the 1/4 plate gap in the original design, the pieces holding the gears in place can eventually become loose enough (read: aren't 100% pressed down and brand new) that they start to grind (I shook around and slightly loosened the internals of my original design, and was able to get my unit to replicate the error), and presumably the builder with the burning smell kept it running for a bit after the gears were already ground into an unusable shape - but, since I have not heard any correspondence from that user since their public comment, that presumption is only just that - a presumption.

As for reliability, my answer is a bit more nuanced.
In theory, yes, it is reliable - the math checks out for the relative positions of the gears.
However, with any newly developed technology only time will tell if it's in a truly reliable final form. With use, wear, and time, issues may become apparent that were not foreseen, as again can be the case with any new tech.
We are also dealing with human error here, as it is up to each individual to rebuild their locomotive and install the motor properly, so there is room for error and reliability issues there as well.

I have been running it just fine for the time since the solution went live, and to that solution's credit, the engine even performs more smoothly than it did when it was performing properly with the old design. But again, that's only been for a few runs over the course of a day.

TL;DR - Yes, the new solution is more reliable and should be permanent, but only time will tell, and I cannot guarantee anything for you at this time.

Edited by Train of Thought Creations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gears fit on a design software (with collisions ON), it should be "reliable". The problem is prolonged use under over stressed conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lego3057 said:

If the gears fit on a design software (with collisions ON), it should be "reliable". The problem is prolonged use under over stressed conditions.

Not necessarily. I have discovered that Stud.io allows a certain amount of overlap between parts before flagging a collision. This is something you need to be especially aware of when sliding parts along bars or axles.

I may have misunderstood the problem, but from the description, it appears that the issue is not a collision between parts but a 1/4 plate gap that can result in the been gear being pushed back and unmeshing. 

Edited by Hod Carrier
Typo

Share this post


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

Not necessarily. I have discovered that Stud.io allows a certain amount of overlap between parts before flagging a collision. This is something you need to be especially aware of when sliding parts along bars or axles.

Indeed, it is always important when building a mechanical structure like this to build a physical prototype to make sure everything fits together, i.e., don't trust any Lego CAD to guarantee that a mechanical construction will or will not work.

Meanwhile, the design by @Train of Thought Creations was physically tested and worked before being published, but it is impossible to identify all potential bugs. You see that in software patches and you even saw it in the official Lego instructions for the EN (they added a few "fixes" to the instructions after the early production runs, e.g., putting a 1x1 technic brick to keep the crown gears in place). Lego literally pays their designers to do this type of testing and to do so with an unlimited supply of parts. We as the AFOL community out number the Lego staff but the potential for a couple of small bugs to arise is to be expected while doing something Lego said they couldn't do. And Train of Thought came out with a simple bug fix as soon as the problem was identified. Kudos!

 

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.