rsb0204

Yeah, it looks like a class 93. Its great to finally have some news.

Aside from what deraven said, I've noticed these old motors can get "stiff" over time. When I got my 113 it hadent been ran in decades, and didn't move at all when I first turned it on. After much fiddling I went outside for a smoke break, and forgot to turn the battery box off. About 10 minutes later I came back in and the train wasn't where I left it, it had managed to move about 2 inches. I imagine the the grease/oil had managed to "set" over the years. after that I left it on and kept a close eye on it, and indeed it was moving, just almost inperceiveably slowly. As I continued to let it run it started to move faster and, after about half an hour or so it seemed to be functioning normally. Now, i doubt this is the cause of your problems, but I feel it is a possibility worth mentioning.

Thanks, your the only other person I've seen try it. Glad to inspire you I think the 4093 motor had rev limiter, if I remember it right that's why I wanted to use it. you mention trying to make a new motor, as long as your modifying parts I'd say the end all would be to use a Marx wind up motor. Those things have a long run time and plenty of power. I use a couple on my O-27 layout

Wow, you must have done a lot of digging to find my old thread, I haven't been on in a year or two. That wasn't my only clockwork job, just the only one I posted. Nice too see someone else interested in clockwork. I have little love for technic but I like what your doing here, keep up the good work. By the way, have you considered using one the motor from set 4093? I was getting parts together for a little wind up shutter that used one, but life happened.

strain the 4.5v motor? your kidding right? ive had 4.5vs rip the rails out from under themselves and separate magnetic couplers, im not sure you can overload them without reaching the limits of the couplers first. they may be slow but dont let that fool you, these things have more raw torque than any other train motor you can find. they will run on any track, just like pf/rc. my 4.5s are really nothing special, i have a 7722 with a MOC tender (didnt care for the box car batt box) and 1119 service pack rods, and a 112 that i converted to blue era magnetic couplers. EDIT: - good example of 4.5v power

I agree with others about the tram being a bit to "simple", however with the overall design (long carriage, very short carriage, long carriage) would make it a great candidate for a monorail conversion.

I run a 7597 with PF, only I use the batterybox from the monorails (you know, the ones that actually take a 9v battery). they are much smaller than the PF batteryboxes, I think 7597 looks more natural this way than the other PF mods ive seen (with their huge tenders ).

Depends on how heavily you pockets are lined, 9v aint cheep. I run 9v not because its "better" par se, but because of flexibility. with 9v I can (and do) run everything but 12v. The ability to slip a 9v motor into just about anything is another perk, especially with smaller models. I also find the metal topped rails to be pleasing to the eye. Honestly it just depends on what your comfortable with financially. curves are cheap enough (sometimes they go for less than 1$), but straits are out of this world, most want like 4-5$ per strait. Switches generally run anywhere from 20-40$ then theres the transformer, wires, motor(s) and that's just to get started. motors are like gold, whenever I see one for less than 35$ I tend to buy it weather I need it or not, those things are worth a mint. In short, if you can afford it its worth doing, but you'll pay through the nose for it. also, you asked witch runs "better/smother". generally speeking, PF is "smother", 9v only runs as good as the track its on. if your track is corroded/dirty your trains will be jittery. also on long lengths of track 9v is subject to voltage drop. Pulling power wise, 9v has way more power than RC but PF is slightly* more powerfull than 9v. (ofcourse if your just into pulling power 4.5v is the end all ) As far as "better" goes, well that's a matter of opinion. But a well maintained 9v on good track will run just as good as a PF on a full charge. just don't try to run 8 of them .

I prefer to use AAA battery packs for 2 reasons. #1. I don't have to wait for my battery packs to recharge if I run them down, I just swap batteries. #2. I like to think ahead, that is to say, my 4.5v trains still run because the batteries in the box are easily replaced. if TLG had made rechargeable batteries back when 4.5v was around, im shure there would be approximately none in working order today. in the future (after PF gets discontinued for whatever "better" system comes along) id like my PFs to work as well then as my 4.5s do today. A good middle ground would be AAA battery boxes using rechargeable AAAs, that way your trains still work in 20 years, and you don't have to buy 20 years worth of AAAs.

lol, cute!

id be more worried about the paint wearing through than it chipping. If I understand correctly, he painted the actual rail. still they look real nice.

I could use some help finding a particular set of instructions. as the title says its for a MOC a4 mallard. ive found a few instructions for mallards, but the instructions im looking for use only he pieces from the 10194 emerald night. ive been digging through the forums for a few hours now and still no luck, but Im shure ive seen them posted here. if anyone knows their whereabouts id really like to hear from you.

Thank you for that link mikka, I think that's the engine I was looking for in the first place! however I must say, your additions are a major improvement over the original. I was just looking for an alternate build for 10194. but Im always on the lookout for new/interesting building techniques as are many other forum members, so (if you don't mind pulling her apart) im shure some of us would like to see how it was done. Very nice engine by the way.

Finally! I found something. https://www.flickr.c...s/62018714@N04/ seems I was alittle off about what I remembered, its BASED off the EN, with extra pieces added rather than being soaly made from its parts. and as far as I can see, there are no instructions. sill, curiosity alleviated.

@BricksMcgee if I find them ill be shure to post them here, just incase anyone eltse is looking.

@BricksMcgee I found that thread while I was looking, but this loco was definitely not the flying Scotsman. thanks for your help tho. @Redimus that sounds like the right one, this engine was not "perfect" but there was no mistaking it for anything besides an A4. almost like one of the "alternate builds" you would see on the backs of boxes for older sets, not spot on but very nice considering the parts provided.

ha, I had the same experience back when I bought 4837, these little trains are addictive. anyway I found that grey/blue era rails work quite well with these, well unless you want a curve.

I fully expect the next "special" train (like the HE, Maresk, or Emerald) to be the BTTF train/time machine as it got its 10k on CUUSOO some time ago. Its not really my cup of tea, I (like many others who have posted) would prefer to see an A4, but I would probably buy one none the less.

I didn't know they had released a new receiver, but looking at Philippe's tests it certainly seems more robust. I might have to grab one, it seems like the weak link in my 7957 was the V1 receiver. never tried running 2 of the pf motors on any of my V1s, but from what ive heard it works fine, ofcourse you could alwase use the V2, as a little overkill wouldn't be a bad thing.

I (and im shure many others) are fans of 4.5v lego trains. only thing is, they are quite slow. I know there were some 4.5v train motors like x469b that allowed the use of technic axles as well as the standard train wheels. that got me thinking, the new large train wheels that the emerald night, toy story, and lone ranger sets have use technic crosses, and I see no reason why they wouldent fit, so I wonder how a 4.5 motor would cope with them? im shure the 4.5v motor has enough torque to handle the large wheels. anybody tried it? and does anyone know if the gearing of the technic axle is the same as the train wheels on these motors?

I like 4561 better than 4559, but id go with what Lazarus said. piece for piece 9v track isn't too expensive, cost more than RC/PF track shure, but it would probably be more cost effective to by a 9v transformer and a loop of track (that's all you would get with the sets anyway) then put 9v motors in your 12v trains, you cant run 12v motors on 9v track so you would have to change them out at some point anyway. why not do it first and save some dough?

just an odd thought I had the other day, some semi functional eye-candy relly but I think one would look cool with a mine and I haven't seen one done so... I don't see any reason why it couldent be done, granted id probably try to make a smaller one but I just wanted to see if anyone had tried it.

why? incline drums typicly don't use motors. loaded cars are at the top of the incline and empty cars are at the bottom. gravity does all the work. wow, those are really nice. really like the eurobricks one. so I guess a " funicular " is an incline for passenger service? I wasent fimilar with the word.

I like the way the one in the 241 idea book came out. I did have a go at it (well in ldd anyway) and a table incline works pretty well. a real table incline for reference.

one day I was playing with an old wind up motor i had. I alwase liked the way these motors spun at a fairly slow pace for a long time, rather than spinning all their power away in the first few seconds after winding like most wind up/pull back motors do. thats when it hit me, sence it has such a long run time, just how far would it go on my layout? well, it worked better than you would think, so i carefully removed the road wheels the motor came with and fitted it with a set of blue/grey era train wheels (easier said than done). i decided id make the loco in the classic 80s style sence the running gear was from that time period. the end result? I tried to make it as small and light as possible, its smaller than it looks in the pic, fits in the palm of your hand. heres it is next to 7722 for size comparison. theres just enough room for a minifig in the cab. his head just barely touches the roof. well it was a fun experiment to say the least, the engine isn't exactly what you would call practical, but it works ok for what it is. its actually pretty suprising what it can do, really under rated motors these.