Rijkvv

Eurobricks Knights
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    809

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rijkvv

  1. Posted

    Of course you can improve the locomotive, but there's room for improvement for the train itself as well. The two-axle open wagons have their axles spread further away than what was usual on official sets. While this may look more realistic, it increases the friction in corners.

    Maybe not much, but it should roll a bit better when you place the two axles closer together.

  2. Posted

    My LEGO train journey started with the 4559 train which I got for my 8th birthday. While I thought it was awesome back in the day, as an AFOL I think it has to be one of the most unrealistic trains ever released by LEGO. Maybe I'll rebuild it one day as a Res-Q one. :grin:

    My first post-dark age design was a red diesel locomotive, in 6 wide, not based on a real model. It seems all pictures are lost, but it was not that special.

    It took a while before I started designing trains again, but now in 7 wide, based on real models, mostly Dutch and mostly from the 1980s till now. Sometimes 6-wide as well.

    Now I'm working on a Dutch train again, in 7 wide, but from an era decades before I was born.

  3. Posted

    I didn't use a turnable when I mounted a M-mount vertical with the Technic axle through one of the holes in the train base plate. It wlll work without it. I think it is a stronger connection if you use the turnable too. I was onlly held on by a technic axle in the motor and gear in the bogie frame. Also the M-motor put some turning force on the bogie. I replaced it with a PF train motor.

    Whoops, I meant horizontal.Silly me. :blush: But I guess the performance will be similar for a motor inside the body, without a turntable.

    The train I'm working on doesn't have the space for a turntable, or a PF or 9V train motor for that matter. Neither for a bogie-fixed motor. That's why I want to use a horizontal M-motor.

  4. Posted · Edited by Richie

    From what I've read a motor mounted directly on the bogie gives the best performance. In the other examples the rotation of the motor tries to turn the bogie, this can cause derailments when used on 9V rails. See Railbricks 7.

    In this way, the XL motor can be used as a pivot point and as far as I know don't need a connection to the locomotive itself, but can only be used on locomotives of 7 wide and larger.

    As for 2 M motors: I think that should be sufficient for four cars. It depends on the size/weight of those cars as well. ;)

    XL is more powerful, but slower.

    I have a question related to this topic: with a vertical motor, can the driving axle alone be used as a pivot point or is a turntable really neccesary?

  5. Posted

    Spinning wheels generate drag. This can be avoided if the wheels are much smaller and thus can be integrated into a streamlined body. To compensate the reduced contact patch another pair of wheels were added, and so the P34 was born. :classic:

    It wasn't a big success however. It won the 1976 Swedish GP, but Good Year didn't like to spend much effort in developing small wheels for only one team. Besides of that, the brake disks have to be small and as a result will overheat sooner than traditional disks. After Project 34, Tyrrell never got near their successes in the early seventies.

  7. Posted · Edited by Richie

    I doubt we'll see an official Lego functional coupler. In the grey era a decoupler was available but it was unreliable from what I've heard. So far, I think this is the best purist solution. While I might use non-purist BBB wheels and Sbrick in the future (and would use ME tracks if I had the space) I personally don't want to use Kadee couplers.

    As for buffers, while European trains contain buffers I'm not happy about them either. Most of the modern rolling stock use square buffers, but in the Netherlands there are quite a number of locomotives who lack a plow and coaches and wagons never have those.

    Maybe nitpicking, but I'd like to see some more options (square buffers without plow, round buffers with plow or no buffers at all for example) without the need to brick-build everything.

  11. Posted

    Thanks for the review! :thumbup:

    Compared with the instructions I get the feeling you have spread the two axles from the small car too far, although that's just nitpicking.

    With the two cars coupled together, can the crane pick up all three utensils?

    While every separate available car had something to add, I think this has to be one of the better looking examples, both in looks and functionality/playability. I don't own one but I hope I will some day. :classic:

  14. Posted · Edited by Richie

    @Jay Psi: I don't like that one either. I think LMP cars are ugly, especially compared to Group C cars (those were the days). But even then: I think Nico71 for example has designed a far better looking LMP.

    As for the 8070, well, since it's called a supercar I would say one of it's predecessors is 8880 and you can't convince me there's a car that looks as good as or better than 8880. :classic: I'd rather see 8070 with a working gearbox to switch gears instead of electric functions, but even then when I see this^ picture, well, hideous indeed.

    While I prefer studded sets and still can't get used to studless sets, I would actually nominate a studded set:

    8244_brickset.jpg

  15. Posted

    A Star Wars set for half the price? Of the most iconic ship in the saga? I would buy it. I'm a fan of the OT so maybe biased but it shouldn't be too hard to modify the Falcon to your liking. I think Star Wars sets (or licensed sets in general) are too overpriced, and are getting more and more expensive. Chances are an eventual new Falcon is very similar in design, but maybe more expensive than 7965. If you can get the latter for less than half the price, well, it's a no-brainer for me.

    Buy it, and perhaps wait a while before opening it. If a new one is released I think it wouldn't be too hard to sell the old one. Plenty of OT fans around here.

    Just my 2 cents

  22. Posted · Edited by Richie

    Thanks Blakbird! Much appreciated.

    I discovered a typo, at the 1997 page under "Brick": 'The last new new length of Technic brick was released'

    I might have missed a part but maybe it's worth noting that 2004 introduced the new bluish grey colours.

    This is truly excellent and while I was hoping to read more about the 1997 models I have enough to read for a while. :thumbup:

  23. Posted

    I would just add my 2p on a topic that hasn't been discussed.

    That is: I do not endorse companies which have controversial behaviours.

    If all those people find TLG to be hypocritical, then I have serious problems in understanding why they buy LEGO products.

    I believe, but these are my 2p again, that people calling someone hypocritical and then buying their products, are hypocritical too.

    As for me, I don't understand the TLG policy according to violence in sets and themes, I disagree with some of their choises but that doesn't mean I don't like TLG at all. And even more I like the building product itself. I have to admit I shoud've expressed myself different though.

  25. Posted

    I've seen people wanting features like pop-up headlights, but for me steering wheels are actually more important. Sure, I want those headlights as well, but working steering is something that's missing from a lot of models other people call Model Team.

    I'm eager to see pictures of it. While I think the F40 isn't the best looking, it sure is iconic and a car I dreamt of as a kid.