Toastie

I do - but this is just because I know it by heart - there are many other nice tools out there handling mpd (and the like) LDraw based files - maybe much better but … you know … I am using MS Word as well for texts … grew up with Word 5.5 on DOS 6.0 … now I am on Office 2013 (= 6 years outdated!) and Win10 (= in the loop) … people keep telling me that I am nuts. Well from my perspective it appears to be a cool thing being nuts - everything simply works around me. And this is all I want … I am very happy to do some rendering (using Stud.io) - is Sunday OK or do you need to rush things? I'd rush things for you then as well. All the best, Thorsten

OK, I can only repeat: My RCX's are from 1998, 2001, and some are from 2005. I have total of 10 (the V1.0 type). 4 of them run on 15 V DC power since more than 8 years, see above. What else should we check to be completely sure? To be honest, I believe they will give up because they are that old, but not because of the DC supply. Even sometimes washing machines need to be replaced after one or two decades ... Best, Thorsten

You are very welcome! OK, I checked that reference, but it does not make any sense. Really. I am powering switch drives with DC powered RCX, bridges and lights, as well as trains, see examples below. In any case, all RCX are powered off from the track or DC wall warts. The track is permanently powered using an old 15V/8A laptop power supply. It gets even better: When you run a train with an RCX and you have some track power pickup means, any polarity change will never hurt the RCX (e.g. when traversing (electrically isolated) reversing loops etc.). The built in bridge rectifier always takes care of that. Don't even worry when your DC supply has "+" polarity on the shield an "-" on the center: It works. You can also see that the first thread is 9 years old. These trains still happily run around - with "frequently" changed (every year or so) backup batteries, to keep the programmed RCX bricks intact when track maintenance is scheduled. And that change is >only< a safety measure - I don't want any batteries leaking and corroding the contacts within the battery housing. Basically the batteries are never doing anything. They just serve als UPS systems. Best Thorsten

Well, the conductivity issue as well as any voltage drops etc. become much less of a headache, when you use some sort of "buffer" between pickup and Hub. Capacitors will certainly do. However, TLG provides us with an almost perfect - but expensive - solution: The rechargeable battery pack 8878 - now phased out. But: They are still available all over the net. The 8878 accepts any DC input voltage from 9 … 18 V. It delivers on its output solid 7.2 V. Four of my 9V trains use a modified 9V train motor as pickup, feed that into 8878, that on powers a 2I/O Hub, which drives the 9V train motor. Let me know, if this is of interest to you. This would also work very well with your custom pickups. Best wishes, Thorsten

@Haddock51 It depends on what you want to do: Remote control and/or clearance of way. When it is remote control then there are ample of options. Motors, pneumatics … but I though that was not your main motivation for the invasive switch modification method. When you want to manually throw your switch than indeed there are as many option to clear way. When you'd ask me, I like Ben Coifman's approach the most. Simply because the throwing mechanism never exerts any forces perpendicular to the motion of the (extension) lever. This is, what I tried to point out in the link to the various switch point drives I am using. You can kick the mostly technic brick built lever as hard as you wish, but the whole thing will not come off the point. This is a pain in the butt when you don't do it that way. There are always uplifting forces, eventually separating the switch from the attached mechanism. The Coifman design does not need any track elevation or the like. It attaches plainly >onto< the switch. Do you have MLCAD? You can easily figure out how it works. If not, I am happy to render some pictures. And for sure, @ALCO's and @baard's suggestions work as well. All the best, Thorsten

Hi Duq, this is absolutely not necessary. You can use >any< 9 … 18 V >DC< wall wart as well. The bridge rectifier inside the RCX is very happy with both, AC and DC supply. I recommend a reasonable 12 DC power supply. My RCX' run happily on 15 V DC für years now. Center is "+", shield is "-". Best, Thorsten

Well, sounds like, I'd say. But I would not use the word "true" here. Other LEGO train AFOLs may find it not so true when cutting through bricks is regarded as true. Others do, including me. I'd rather use "for me as LEGO train AFOL". It may also be a piece of cake for you - for others it is not - and they are still LEGO train AFOLs. True or not. With regard to the jigsaw you are using: What is the thickness of the material removed when cutting? I am using a cheap Dremel clone from ALDI (saving money where I can - to many others in the household having rather demanding hobbies) but with the original Dremel blade - which produces a cut so thin that you can barely see. And I am using a simple jig for the tool mounting for straight cuts. You can only cut to limited depth of course, but again the material removed is next to nothing. At least it is a (cheap) option, as budget limitations have to be taken into consideration. Best regards, Thorsten

@hsousa I completely agree with you on @treczoks work. Yes, the LWP3.0 protocol and documentation is out, it vis good, but to be honest, whenever I run into trouble figuring out things, I go back to his document first. It is a very nice and educational approach he has chosen. Good luck with your future work! All the best, Thorsten

Best option ever! Best Thorsten

@Haddock51 It was not about electrification, but maybe using a drive mechanism (without motor). Here is a link to a number of switch drives (photos as well as MLCAD files), which are all based on Ben Coifman's design. With reference to the picture "__SwitchDrive RB12P37ModPFMotor.png": The two panel tiles as well as the cheeses are just for the looks. When you take them away, would that be enough clearance? If not, you can move the bulky drive mechanism further away by small modifications. See MLCAD files for details. Best Thorsten

Hmmm - I don't think it is the only remaining alternative … the whole "switch electrification" ideas (where the yellow lever is removed from the stand), which were discussed amply here, may be another one, depending on your needs. When the stand is not in your way for sure. When the stand remains to be a problem, you may cut away that one off instead of being much more invasive and then use LEGO (technic) bricks to proceed. All the best, Thorsten

My goodness, all that "IP type stuff" is creeping in here as well - and I was so happy when I told my administration at work that I don't care anymore: When I believe something could be patentable I don't tell them, instead we publish that stuff. On the other hand … why not asking them für "permission"? Kindly? That will almost always do it. Plus, in most cases you will be offered help. Back in the days I motorized Ben Beneke's BR 23. Thought it could be of interest to the Train-heads an made instructions. But posted them here only after asking Ben for permission. He responded extremely friendly, offered help, told me things I did not know. It was a great experience. And when you can't track the original builders/authors down, mention the source/author/builder. Give a note that you could not get in touch with them. I bet - all builders active on this website, and most others - will be pleased to see their ideas/models being useful to others. Al the best Thorsten

I don't know, but isn't this the core of @Jeroen Ottens question? Because he also said: When this is the case then all the "personal money issue" is (maybe) not that important for him(???). As all this can't happen to me (I am nowhere close to the league you guys are playing in) - I can't really voice any relevant thoughts. But maybe in my professional life I am coming close to the question and (personal) issue raised above. I do research - with SOE in a public institution - in an area where you can make a lot of money - provided you want: founding your own company, find some folks to work with you, get Angel money, attract more etc. etc. IP is core to the matter. A friend of mine made a fortune by following this path. I decided not to. I also decided the whole IP crap is nothing for me, the public, nor for a public university. We publish our results - when possible in open source journals. Freely available to everyone: Companies, undergrad students, who ever is interested. Sometimes companies pick up some "ideas" we have published - and make (a lot of) money. There is much more to it - you need to get the university's administration on board as well to go this route - which sucked even more - but: It worked. We publish openly - and that is it. And here is what my very personal - and emotional - way of looking at that is: All the best Thorsten

OK, pure speculation, but I have modified a good number of 9V switches - others may have much more insight. Without any evidence and just taking the "20 min time frame" as given: Remove the base plate: Use a 3 mm sharp metal drill (battery screw driver or the like) to cut off the "riveted" plastic bolt heads. Carefully remove the lever inside - this one is spring loaded, learn the function of the springs how to reattach. Cut the part originally located on the left side in your picture with a very sharp and thin Dremel (or the like) cutting blade. Cut the base plate at exactly the same line. Remount the lever in opposite direction, the geometry allows to do that (it is just mirrored). Reattach the base plate with some (careful!) superglue at some spots - far away from moving parts. This does not need to be attached as close as it was originally; just here and there a few drops. At this point the lever should stick out to the left side Use the 1x2 plate to rearrange the throwing mechanism part appropriately (there is a small gap due to the cutting, which is taken care of this way). Optionally glue the remaining base plate piece to make everything perfect. Again: Did not do that, but did "comparable" (i.e. open heart surgery type) things to my 9V switch points. Good luck! Best regards, Thorsten

I believe the "app" capability speculations in this thread regarding the functionality of this model are one thing, the model itself another, TLGs LWP3.0 protocol is a third. Whatever TLG will provide us with in terms of an app is up in the air; it depends on >their software engineers< and >your hardware< capabilities. The various PuP devices (boost and so on and so for) are using Bluetooth LE (BLE) radio, with the (by convention) required services and so on. BLE relies on asynchronous communication, so you can "bind" as many BLE devices (= servers) as your hardware/software (your smartphone, tablet, computer … = client) can handle. Using a cheap BLE stick on a laptop, this may be as low as 4 or 5 devices. Using the built-in BL radio in a laptop with a software based Bluetooth stack may allow you to "bind" many, many more devices (20+). When there is a need to bind to one BLE device and disconnect to be able to bind to another, either the hardware, software or both are "not good". The difference between the different BLE servers TLG provides us with is not their BLE communication capabilities. It will rather depend on whether or not these devices have intelligence on their own. Spike Prime will have that and will be able to act autonomously on e.g. sensor events. The "2I/O Hub" (as in Batmobile, train) is dumb in that regard: It does what the client is telling it to do - perfect for remote control. So a hub with 4 outputs is just fine; four channels to control remotely. However, another thing that happened with the new BLE devices is that a port can be both, input (for sensors) as well output (for motors, light …), depending on your "app" (= client) telling the port what it has to be. And this is totally cool! In summary: We need to separate the capability of the BLE device/server (e.g. Hub), the capability of the BLE client (hardware/BLE stack) and the capability of the software running on the client ("App"). All the best, Thorsten

Maybe a good idea to get a new one. As bevor I strongly suggest to check out Bricklink - the 2I/O hubs (as in the Batmobile) sell for rather little money around €15 each. And there are ample of them. Search either for battery box (you need to scroll quite a bit down) or search for item bb892c01. Good luck! Best regards, Thorsten

I fully agree on that! As @dr_spock has already mentioned, the links he provided do take you to some in-depth information about the Powered Up hardware as well as TLGs Bluetooth wireless protocol (LWP3.0) they are using for communication. There are others who have implemented Powered Up control software/software stacks; the Mindstorms forum has links as well as the TrainTech forum. TLG themselves are actually not doing much in that regard - as far as I know, and in comparison what has been achieved already by others. This software (developed by @Cosmik42) is as far as I can tell the most advanced. It controls all sorts of hubs and third party Bluetooth devices such as SBrick etc. It is tailored towards train operation, but goes much, much beyond. Within the software you can run your on event driven code, i.e, automatically respond to sensor readings etc. I strongly suggest to download the software, unzip and run right from the unzip location to get an impression. The link is in the 3rd last post on the last page of the thread. Best regards, Thorsten

Did anyone follow the stuff happening in TrainTech? Controlling multiple hubs is not only possible, but is essentially built into the approach of using Bluetooth LE communication. Just because the LEGO app is not providing such functionality means next to nothing. I have no clue who and how many people are involved in developing this app - but seeing what is possible elsewhere is more than breathtaking. Even I (and that means a lot - I am nowhere near any programming gurus) can control 5+ hubs at the same time using stone-age VB6 along with an appropriate ActiveX control for the Win10 BLE stack. Best regards, Thorsten

@Frozen Assasin Your analysis was a real pleasure to read. Thank you very much for the time and effort you put into that. I fully agree with your conclusions. All the best, Thorsten

@Lok24 Oh my, I am not the guru here but: The 60 apparently does not work anymore after the update. After updating to latest firmware version, everything works according to the LWP3 protocol though, which is very nice! As far as I read that document you have tow options (have tested both on my updated 2I/O hub): Using the "write mode direct" (51) sub-command of 81, which I believe addresses devices on a "lower" level: 08 00 81 PP 00 51 00 VV Using the "start power" sub-command (01) of 81 07 00 81 PP 00 01 VV At least, this worked for me with PuP train motors and PF and 9V motors wired to behave as PuP train motors (ID 02). @Mr Hobbles provided that insight. When it comes to pairing outputs things have also changed at tiny bit but that is not what you are looking into, right? Once again: I am not the one who provided all that insight. I am just applying what others have taught me. Good luck and all the best! Thorsten

Hmmm. The weird thing is that during testing the hub worked fine and after turning it off it did not turn on anymore >after a few days< (correct?). All I/O cables unplugged, right? When true, take out the battery pack. Wait a little. Plug back in. Does it turn on? I don't see any reason that the shortening of regardless what I/O pins should cause this behavior. I fried the outputs of one of my hubs by applying accidentally 15V DC, "unlimited" amperage to the I/O port when this one was trying to do low PWM to the motor (this happens, when you do power pickup via 9V motors ad forget to clip the metal rails going from the track to the motor). But: That fries the H-bridge output drivers but not the brains of the hub. That is the weird part. On another thought: There are these (to me) miracle "resettable" SMD fuses built into the hub, as TLG did with the rechargeable LiPo battery. On that one it takes days to reset when tripped by wrong usage. I don't know about the hubs fuses - they look the same. But you said you were doing your experiments and then days went by before you wanted to continue, right? Weird. Hopefully, your hub will wake up again! Best, Thorsten

Careful! I am using endless pieces of VB6 spaghetti code on a Win10/64 bit laptop. Even in full debug mode this is blistering fast. (Well, "blistering" as in "to me") I love BASIC. And I love VB6. Best Thorsten I do share this notion. On the other hand, I cannot find that much wrong with the Spike Prime concept. I do see the advantage of the screen (used it for debugging an info on the RCX and NXT). Best Thorsten

Nice! Truly reminds me of M*A*S*H - Through early morning fog I see visions of the things to be ... Best Thorsten

This is truly breathtaking. Congratulations! And - as before - I simply admire how you turned your rather "not building boxes on wheels" comments ages ago into a "beautiful box with so many details that it may actually catch-up with steamers - and on wheels". Amazing. The color scheme is also very, very nice. Question: Did an actual FP7 with one B-unit attached pull the corresponding 5 meters of coaches or is it because of the power of (at least) two 9V motors? This is so great! Best Thorsten

Well, I am not the expert here, just learned from others. @Mr Hobbles is pretty much the one who knows it all and @Cosmik42 makes everything just work. As far as I understand, the hub does no longer send the virtual port ID when two identical devices are attached to the two I/O ports, now you have to ask for that one. It is always 0x10 on my hubs but I am requesting a pairing with "06 00 61 01 00 01". I the get the virtual ID as reply, which I then use with the "StartPower(Power1, Power2) sub command (02) "08 00 81 VirtualPortID 00 02 Power1 Power2". But you have to ask the experts for in-depth information! I just had some spare time riding an IC train from Hamburg to Düsseldorf Best Thorsten