Hod Carrier
-
Content Count
948 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hod Carrier
-
-
I've been giving this a lot of thought over the last week or so, and what I don't want to do is seem like I'm discouraging you because I think you've got some really good ideas. Wheels are already an in-demand item, and I'm sure that there will be really good demand for new designs and/or sizes that have not yet been done. I also like the idea of the Bracers, as I sometimes end up with little gaps that are half a plate high where a part like this would be very helpful.
What I'm a little less sure about are some of the curved parts. They seem very specific and may not be easily used by other builders. If their purpose is to help give you a rounder boiler than can currently be achieved with official LEGO bricks, then the radius of that boiler is going to be dictated by the parts you produce. While they may be suitable for the model you are designing, this may not be the case for others. You could end up having to design a lot of different parts in different radii to cater for the range of boilers that builders may be trying to replicate.
The specificity of these parts also give me a little disquiet, and for this paragraph I need to be entirely clear because I don't want to be misinterpreted. I have no issue whatsoever with 3rd party parts where the purpose is to provide something that is otherwise impossible to achieve using official parts; by which I mean things like wheels, controllers, decals/stickers, etc, and have spoken-up in defence of their use. Heck, these are things that I have done myself so I couldn't really say anything against them. Where I start to get a little uneasy is where new parts are provided simply to give a shortcut to a better result than can be otherwise achieved. I have said many times that, for me, the process of designing in LEGO is a quest to find the least worst solution to represent what we're trying to achieve while keeping in mind that it is never going to look exactly like the real thing. I want to be clear when I say that I know that you are not doing this, but I feel that there is a line somewhere that some day may be transgressed where a designer offers a box of specific interlocking parts that together build up into a perfect LNER A4 Pacific (for example) and nothing else, and when that happens can we really say that it's a LEGO train.
As I said, I really don't want to be discouraging because you've got some great ideas. These are only my own thoughts that no-one is bound to agree with. If it comes to making a start with the business side of it, I think that the Bracers in different sizes and colours could be a real winner as they are very usable part that is not limited to train building. I will wait to see how things develop and wish you every success.
And now I'm going to go and hide in a cupboard.
-
On 2/29/2024 at 3:54 AM, dr_spock said:It could be that the PU connectors have an active patent and may need licensing agreement with the TLG.
That seems to be the accepted explanation...
... and yet, BuWizz...?
On 2/28/2024 at 8:33 PM, Selander said:As long as the size of Technic hub can be accepted...it takes a bit of engineering, and a reasonably sized locomotive
And there's the rub. It's waaaay too big for most things.
So it's looking increasingly like I'm going to have to go down the route of creating some manner of hybrid system or go further yet with 3rd party motors and/or connectors. Any feedback on alternative products from suppliers such as Green Gecko?
-
On 2/8/2024 at 4:36 PM, Ts__ said:It was a great time, but unfortunately probably too much work for the organizers. I can imagine that it was a lot of work and also costly. And we do this as a hobby and everyone still has a life!
That's all very true, but the contest part of OcTRAINber always seemed to run fairly smoothly (or at least that's how it appeared from the outside). It's just the prize-giving that seems to have been where it came unstuck, with many people still waiting for items that were promised over several years. It might have been better if they'd taken a similar approach to the Brick Train Awards where the prizes come in the form of credit with the sponsors to be spent on their products. That way all that would be required is an exchange of emails and there would have been none of the complication of shipping things around the world.
Ah well. C'est la vie.
-
20 minutes ago, Lok24 said:But to be honest: yes, this a common request, but from LEGOs point of there only exist very simple trains with one motor and one light, all other is "technic" with the four port hub or even two of them.
Yes absolutely, which is why I'm not looking to them for an answer.
Which brings me back to my starting point, which is why are the other manufacturers persisting with PF sockets and not kept up with PU, because it's pushing me towards further 3rd party involvement on the motor front in order to preserve compatibility.
21 minutes ago, Lok24 said:Is there really a reason to use the train motor? speed, perhaps?
That's the main one, as using the train motor does get around all the additional space needed to gear a Technic motor up to the necessary speed.
-
Apologies if I've been unclear. Controller = Hub. So SBrick, PFx Brick and so on.
The PU app is actually not too bad (although it is far from perfect and does have some rather annoying features) and can be useful in accessing some of the features that PU offers that you don't seem to be able to get by using the remote, but the hub itself is the limiting factor because of the number of outputs. The use case is a fairly common one; that being a train with one or two motors and controllable lights. PFx Brick looks like the best option in terms of features and value, but it still has PF rather than PU sockets.
-
I have to confess that I am a little disappointed that more makers of 3rd party controllers haven't gone with the change from Power Functions (PF) to Powered Up! (PU). As it stands, it seems that the only option is the frighteningly expensive, but no doubt excellent, BuWizz 3.0, but that seems like overkill for most train models. I am aware that the PU plug/socket are TLG proprietary designs which may be holding some developers back, but that doesn't seem to be stopping BuWizz. So why the inertia from other manufacturers?
Looking to the future, it seems that the most realistic option would be to source 3rd party motors that continue to follow the PF design philosophy, in conjunction with the existing designs of controllers. The official PU hub, with it's two input/outputs, is limited in terms of it's usefulness, but PU allows for motor functions that have been proven to be very desirable. I know that many here are confident enough to take the DIY route with great success, but not everyone here has that level of ability to make that a realistic option. For folk like me who could probably crimp a bespoke connector but not much more, plug-and-play is still a valuable route, but one that is starting to look a little bit precarious.
I'm not so bothered about why we find ourselves in this situation, but as a builder I am starting to find that the decisions around power and control are starting to get increasingly complicated when before it was a more straightforward choice. I am not averse to 3rd party elements, although obviously I would like to be at least fairly sure of the quality that I am buying before parting with my hard-earned.
Thoughts...?
-
On 2/13/2024 at 9:27 PM, Imanol said:I ´ve tried the cheese slope technique in the S-130 car and it works great.
Thanks for testing the idea.
-
Part of the joy of designing our own things is that we don't have to stick to the rules and can do things in the way we want. I have made extensive use of stuffing studs into Technic pin holes and have never had a part break or show signs of excessive stress. It's a very effective technique which gets around this problem easily, and it's what I would use for the S-449. Besides, if you're worried about breaking the rules, the diagonal top link in my bogie design is probably illegal too.
I appreciate that you want the windows to be as secure as possible, but I'd be inclined not to worry too much. The windows in my railcar are done in long strips that are only secured at the ends, but because I know that makes them fragile I am careful about how I pick the train up and handle it.
9 hours ago, Stereo said:I'm not certain I'm understanding the part you want to modify, but if you use 1x1-1x1 brackets at both ends, they're not attached by studs, but they also can't move separately if they're pressed together. (symmetrical top and bottom, tile-> <-tile <-bracket, and bracket-> tile-> <-tile).
Another option for locking parts together without studs that I have found (although not yet tried) is to use 1x1 cheese slopes.
-
-
Thanks for posting these images of the underside of the car. Are there any linkages or mechanism to connect the outer and inner axles hidden within the coach or do all parts move independently of each other?
If you have omitted some sort of linkage you will have all sorts of issues when you run the car for real. Although I can see how the axles take the shape of an R40 curve all by themselves, you will still need something to bring all the axles back into line again for the straights. The problem is that a LEGO axle on it's own will not simply follow the shape of LEGO track and needs to be steered, otherwise it will do whatever it wants (usually turning itself across the tracks) which will cause friction and derailments. Trust me on this, as I spent a lot of time looking into this a few years ago.
As your car has three axles and not just two, you can make a mechanism that should work quite effectively by using the centre axle to steer the outer axles into curves as well as bringing everything back to the centre on the straights. I strongly recommend you have a look at @jtlan's Umbauwagen 3yg design and see if you can replicate something like his solution into your car so that you and your customers are not disappointed with the running qualities of your design.
-
I've sent you a PM.
-
On 1/6/2024 at 4:03 PM, zephyr1934 said:The ironic thing is that they decided to go with the IP holder. So instead of getting the classic train of history that everyone voted for, they produced the modern land cruise that is just starting up and no one even knew about. I bet everyone would have been quite happy if instead this set came out as the "Otherwise Express." Yeah, I know most of this has been said 1000 times, but the subtle bit about the fact that most of the target audience probably does not care about the licensing is the new bit. They could have done an ambiguous brick built logo on the side of the cars and folks would have been happier than the modern logo. They could even point to the misspelled cities and say "see, this isn't the Orient Express". But I don't care, as far as lego trains go, after you get it motorized it is better than most sets.
I fear that I must take issue with your history, as the "land cruise" that you talk about has been running in one form or another since the mid-1970s, even overlapping with the last of the "official" scheduled Orient Express workings, and the popular Venice-Simplon Orient Express has been running continuously since the 1980s. It's only that the official Orient Express brand is about to have yet another relaunch at the hands of the latest owners (Accor Hotels and French national rail operator SNCF).
That said, the rolling stock used in the new service will include a decent number of refurbished historic vehicles from the defunct Nostalgie Istanbul Orient Express which themselves date back to the 1920s and 30s and will look very like the ones included in the LEGO set, as does the rolling stock used by the Venice-Simplon Orient Express. As such, it means that a builder has plenty of options to decide what period to build in from the century since these vehicles were constructed, and what sort of motive power to pair with their coaches. I think that offers a good degree of flexibility by not pinning us down to one iteration or another.
Speaking for myself, like you I'm not unhappy with the set as, like all LEGO sets, it provides a good starting point and has already sparked a lot of complementary designs for both locos and stock. The only thing that irritates slightly is that the Orient Express is a European icon and some of the designs I've been seeing, although excellent in their own ways, appear to be a little bit too Americanised to my eyes.
-
All sets merely provide a starting point for folk to take different directions, whether static display or motorisation. The hollow tender is not necessarily a smoking gun, though. It’s a jolly convenient size/shape for sure, but you wouldn’t expect LEGO to fill the void up for no purpose.
-
4 hours ago, FGMatt said:The description says that the centre wheels slide, so presumably the outer axles are fixed.
The description also says that the outer wheels are on a pivot, the nature of which I was enquiring about.
-
Techbrick do sell at least some parts as separate items, although their stock level doesn’t seem great at the moment.
Kits are good value, though. You get a rechargeable Bluetooth hub, two motors and cables, plus all the bits to make a little tracked tank for 35 quid, which isn’t bad. I’d just be inclined to buy more kits for any extra parts.
-
So who was on Santa’s “nice list” and will be spending Boxing Day putting together their own shiny new OE?
-
3 hours ago, SerperiorBricks said:The outer wheelsets are on a pivot, which are necessary for anything below R72, but are not required for R72 and larger. The middle wheelset is using the same sliding mechanism as the Tender, which is necessary for any Radii.
That’s a very classy looking baggage car to carry a lot of very classy baggage. I have a question, though. How are you making the outer axles pivot? Are they on the same pivot as the couplers or do they pivot independently?
-
13 hours ago, BrickBrain said:Thanks so much for this Hod Carrier. My main motivation was to save the expense of buying the Powered Up kit as we already have Mindstorms. Your video's great though. Very inspiring! The kids are going to have a go at making an engine with the Mindstorms stuff and see if they can hook it up to pull the trolley along. Might not work but it will be an interesting project to keep them busy for a bit. Will definitely have a look online and the Circuit Cubes look interesting. Many thanks for all your help. Hope you have a lovely Christmas.
You’re most welcome. Wishing you and yours a great Christmas. I’m sure the Mindstorms project will keep the kids occupied over the holidays. I hope we’ll get a chance to see the fruits of their labours in due course.
-
Yeah, I like that. It’s nice to see something in City-friendly 6 wide scale, and the wheel articulation should work just fine. I’m sure it will look just right with your OE coaches.
The pantographs look fine and close to scale, but shouldn’t they really be red? I’d also have another look at the collector bows at the top to see if you can get them nearer to being central, but that’s really nit-picking.
-
34 minutes ago, idlemarvel said:Very nice. I wonder why you didn’t use the train motor?
Because a shunter needs to be slooooow. Shunting is all about low down grunt, controllability and precision.
She's a lovely little loco. Nice and compact just like a real shunter, and should have good pulling power.
-
The simple answer is "yes and no". What is the reason for wanting to use Mindstorms? Is it just to use kit you already have and save on the expense of buying Powered Up or are there Mindstorms features you want to use on the tram?
I've explored using Mindstorms EV3 in trains before now to create a semi-autonomous locomotive and to experiment with active tilt, and I have been able to make it work, although with varying degrees of success. However, the big barrier has always been packaging the kit inside the train. Although the current generation of Mindstorms hubs is smaller than the older EV3 brick it's still a significant lump of plastic, and that Winter Village tram is a small model to try and squeeze everything in.
If you want to stay faithful to the LEGO brand, my recommendation would be to use Powered Up with a train motor as the most space-efficient of the official offerings. If you're thinking of using Mindstorms because you want to code some functions, you should know that the Powered Up app allows for coding using a device of your choosing. However, if you're open to using third party alternatives I would recommend you look into Circuit Cubes as their motor and hub offering is likely to be the best fit for a small model like the tram. Have a search online for further information, both here and elsewhere, as I've no doubt that there are plenty of folks who have motorised this model and will have shared their designs and results. YouTube might be a good starting point.
-
Blimey!! That’s a proper build. Congratulations on getting the shape and details down to this scale.
Any news on motorising this? Circuit Cubes would be the way to do it, but with those tiny wheels you will likely need some gearing as the CC motors turn quite slowly.
-
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.
-
@zephyr1934 @Selander I shall be thrilled to be wrong because quite clearly the train should be dark blue, and if it isn't then LEGO should go and stand in a corner and have a good long think about their choices. However, I remain unconvinced, partly from looking at the colour as shown in the photos but also from looking at how it contrasts with the other colours. It just doesn't seem dark enough to me and I will wait to see for myself what shade it turns out to be.
Experience has taught me to be cautious about the published CMYK values for LEGO colours. I had to print a sticker to go on the dark blue section of the tail flash of my SEPECAT Jaguar and used these values as my starting point. However, when I printed the sticker it came out waaaay too light. Even after progressively reducing the lightness I ended up with a colour that still does not match and is too pale.
B-50-15 Boxcar reference?
in LEGO Train Tech
Posted
I did this with a BR Ventilated Van body that also has angled side supports. It's just a 1x6 tile on a jumper plate and turned against the cant rail to give the angle I wanted.