Search the Community
Showing results for tags '1:22'.
Found 2 results
Paperinik77pk posted a topic in LEGO Train TechHi all, these days I'm working a lot with Lego Technic, since I've bought some parts to experiment a bit this new world. I'm used to build old Lego Technic from the 80's and 90's...but these new sets are very very complex, and require a lot of time to figure out where and how to put a certain part. So , back to the Stud.io I started designing again...and came out with this thing: It's similar to old steam trams, to the GE 2/2 and HGE 2/2 locomotives, to some service railway cars...to the alternate 7720 model. Oh, well...it's a box and it's similar to all those boxy things! Dimensions are 13/14 stu...holes, units? for width and 25 for body lenght. Both buffers add an additional 6 studs to overall lenght. I'd say it is a small 1:22,5 locomotive, like my old yellow shunter with PuP. Since I'm still not so much able to recreate details such as doors and ladders...I simply avoided them. Pantograph is designed to use a rubber band for the moment - it could be nice to make it foldable with some gears! At least the body is self-consistent and can easily be removed. The battery is fixed on the central upper part of the body, right in the middle to increase weight on all 4 traction wheels. Rods are somewhat triangular and quite strange, but they're strong! Other kinds of rod arrangements can be done. Using a normal gear transmission could also avoid rods at all. The boxy body gives me the internal space to experiment for transmissions and motors. This chassis probably will change a zillion of times like the one of my XXL locomotives. In the picture above, you can see the possibility to have the double gauge solution (left axle is L-Gauge and right axle is configured for 45mm G-Gauge track). The gear you can see in the middle of left axle shows the possibility to implement a cog railway system using Lego flexible track. I sincerely do not know if the 45mm cog tracks could work with a Lego gear - so let's limit the cog solution to original Lego track It can become also a fancy Tram locomotive, like the "Gamba De Legn" ("Wooden Leg") used in Milan for many, many years. But for this one - I'm still struggling to create a proper, working engine. I've seen few full Technic locomotives, but it's really fun to build them! I hope you like it!!! Ciao, Davide
Hi, I recently went back to Lego after a while and have decided to try replicating the new Volvo L350H wheel loader. This MOC is meant to fit the scale of my improved Mack Anthem (dimensions corrected): So, it is roughly 1:22 scale. The finished product will be red (yeah, another red loader) and will be equipped as the one above.All of the functions will be manual, except the arm movement operated thanks to Power Functions. I have obviously begun by the front end of the loader. This was quite hard for me to put all the functions in, as the quasi-vertical cylinders, while keeping proportions correct. The front is quite robust, and functions run smoothly. I think I manage to get a correct Z linkage (see photos). I am now building the rear part of the loader. It will have a 42078 inspired engine as I think the Lego cylinders are way too big for this scale. In addition, there will be a pendular axle and easy battery replacement. Mechanical functions will be operated by an L motor via gearboxes. In the following photos, you can see how I progressed. At this stage, there is mainly beaming to delimit the spaces (cabin, trunk, etc). At first, I wanted to put two two-way gearboxes, but it resulted that I have not enough room because I am limited to 7 studs wide in most parts of the loader (this is partially due to the 94.8 wheels and scale). I ended up with a simple gearbox... Be aware, the gears are not held properly, but I just wanted to show the routing. This one is meant to reduce the number of gears and thus maximize lifting capacity. https://bricksafe.com/pages/grego18f/mack-granite/volvo-l350h If I submit this loader at its early development stages, this is to obtain your feedback. I really think there is room for improvement (and maybe two-way gearboxes!). So, any suggestion is welcome. At the same time, I am reworking the lower central articulation. In the previous iteration, I realized there would be 2 studs ground clearance. That is why I ended with the actual design (allowing 3 studs ground clearance). I am not yet satisfied with the connection because it limits the lateral movement of the U-joints… That’s all for now ?