ALCO

@legoman666 I tried this mod but the axle was still rubbing the two tabs in the middle. I made sure the cross-axle parts were all the way in the 3x6 bearing element and seated as indicated in your OP. Any thoughts?

I can't imagine what all is involved it determining what needs to be tweaked. There are so many studs and combinations of building on and under the tracks that it must take ages to review!

Wow! This is really great! I have been meaning to find a solution to bearings in the wheel holders but now you have saved me a ton of time! Thank you!

Just by looking at the picture I would think you might have to modify the connectors on the straight track to make that work. Could look good as part of a transition to an abandoned or dis-used line. I definitely thought of that when I saw the photos, balasted on MILS of course.

@Ludo I have also noticed that some axles fit in the bearings and some don't. All the axles I got from @coaster fit great and I do recall seeing somewhere maybe even in this same topic that older axles...I believe from the 9v era don't fit. But all the RC axles do.

From everything I have read, it seems the suggested grade is a plate per length of straight track. Depending on your trains, some running smaller trains with more powerful locomotives, you could probably get away with two plates. I have never built an incline so I don't know from personal experience, this is just what I have read on here.

The weight keeps it on the track. I also use the same design. In your OP, you mention you need to pull some heavy freight. Definitely put ball bearings in the cars with all the weight and you will find they will try to roll away from you on uneven track...meaning the bearings will make the task of moving those cars so much easier for whatever locomotive design you go with.

Good questions! Two PF train motors can pull a good sized train especially if you are using ball bearings in your freight cars. I recommend the ball bearing wheel sets from Brick Train Depot. You can find them here.

@Goldenmasamune is there a particular brand you recommend or a store where these might be found? Do you know what material the ones you recommend are made of?

I agree, the new trucks look a lot better.

This looks really good! I too would like to do something like this. But for me it's one of those distant future projects. I'm excited to see what happens with this. I wonder about your compartments though, I recognize that are not minifig scale but to me they still seem small...

Yes, 2.4GHz has greater range and can go through walls better, but in the show environment, how many cinder block walls will one need their Wi-Fi signal to pass through? Also, it's more congested. 5GHz has less congestion and for a show, if using an access point (router) centrally located in the layout, range should not be an issue. Thanks! I will check that out. Not that I need any of this equipment but reading this conversation made me think of Wi-Fi as a possible solution to the Bluetooth connectivity issues in the OP.

Just curious, has anyone developed an "sbrick", "pfxbrick" or the like equivalent that uses Wi-Fi 5ghz? Seems like this frequency will have much less interference and greater range at least adequate for shows. Could still be controlled with an app and the signal could be either direct from the controlling device or from an AP for running multiple trains. I don't know enough about the hardware required or if it would be feasible. But just a thought.

Sometimes I find going back to the beginning helpful. I guess in this case back to the design that worked. I have this train too...while I have not motorized it yet, I have had my other trains push it around with no problems as long as the locking mechanism is up so the front truck can swivel.

Use ball bearings in technic bricks/parts! How about replacement for 2920 as well?

I was thinking the same thing and it looks like it could be. That would mean the driving wheels could be bogie and since the front wheels are a bogie that will really help the locomotive corner the R40's especially considering all the added friction from the new wheels sets. Just wondering what the likelihood of removing the small tab on the inside of the bearing element to make way for a metal axle and sticking a ball-bearing in the wider part of the holder right next to the wheel....using the old wheels on the metal axle that is...

I sure hope some Ambassadors are reading this! Looking at the image linked to in this thread, it look like they are the new wheels on the wagons.... although, it also looks like they may have the actual wheel in red...or that is a red small train wheel as used in the Winter Village Holiday Train and a 2L axle can be used with the new bearing element. Look closely at the front wheel of the pilot truck. I guess that is a twist to the new element, an axle and standard train wheel can be used as well.

Looks like the new wheel sets on the wagons.... Ugh oh.

I think this is the case. They don't care. Or they have realized that it's cheaper for them to make all plastic parts and the metal axles are more expensive to make. Also, we have a cheaper source for axles in BrickTracks. In addition, we have found ball bearings so they may have a mind to reinforce the toy element of their sets with these new parts. I'd like to hear what the LUG ambassadors have to report what TLG has said about these parts. Let's hope they quickly realized these are a dud and keep producing the wheels and axles used in the City trains, Winter Village Holiday Train and the Hogwarts Express. Any LUG ambassadors out there that can chime in on these new train wheels?

My concern with this design is that you will find the battery to be a counter weight and lift the front truck/drive wheels off the track. The WV holiday train is so short the enough weight is on the front to provide enough traction for such a short train. I made one of mine 4 studs longer and had to put a 2x6x2 boat weight in the boiler above the motor and still it has a hard time with a consist longer than 3 cars...easy wheel spin because there is still not enough weight over the drive wheels. You might want to try making it appear the engine and tender are connected, but have the motor under the tender and the battery above it. This will ensure you have plenty of traction.

Just want to add a note here to the side-rod design in the MOD for the WV holiday train: the parts I had on hand were the friction pins but if the half-lever was positioned correctly between the friction ridges, it would function properly, and the friction ridges would actually keep the lever in the correct position so long as a "Hand of God" did not pick the locomotive up and squeeze the levers onto the friction ridges. Anyway the frictionless parts @zephyr1934 recommends would work great as long as the bush on the end of the axle is not too tight. Concerning the motor: I have a 4-4-0 American where the standard train motor is powering the drive wheels. A 7 long half lever is just the right size for the side rods but the wheels might make your engine a little too long for your fancy. One of the fun parts of this process is experimenting. This will also make your engine quite quick and a several laden cars will slow it down quite nicely. I also like the locomotive doing the work and the batteries in the tender. You can check my Flickr for photos and I think even a video of the 4-4-0 running with rods and all. PF motor is driving the large driver wheels. The rods technique is the same as the WV holiday train.

Here is a video of the Position Indicator working. (Click image for video) This video is the bare-bones mechanicals at work. Note: the white 1x2 brick is needed to prevent the indicator from turning too far same with the red 2x4 brick. But you can use whatever bricks or combination of plates to achieve the same function. There are more photos of how this works on my flickr.

Wow! This looks great! I'm curious though, the compressor will run your decoupling set up and the switches? What is the PSI required to operate the switch? Have you been able to figure out the switch issue you mentioned in the Pneumatic Switches thread?

Yes, there is a reason. I actually tried that setup. The reason I went with the longer lift-arms is that they provide more leverage for the small pneumatic cylinder. It's a simple lever... Like a crow-bar. Small force on the long end yields greater force on the short end. So long as the cylinder is at least 5L away from the pivot or fulcrum there will be enough leverage for the small cylinder to move a stiff switch. I'm working on some more photos, but I have this landscaped a bit better now. The basic construction is the same, I have just moved some of the parts around to make it look better and hide the air hoses. Hopefully I'll have some photos later this week.

I have two of them for the same reason.