Hod Carrier

Another lovely little historical creation there. You’ve got a real passion for your subject. I can see that you had the choice of having a driver or driving controls but not both, but I’m just wondering if it’s possible to create a bit more space on the footplate by SNOTing the rear panel with tiles rather than building it out of bricks. Just a thought. I did see a couple of books on the WDLR in an Ian Allan bookshop and thought of you, but I expect you already have them.

I thought this was amazing last year and I still do now. It’s such a clever idea which has been so well executed, and it looks fantastic too. I can only see it improving and getting ever better as you add more detail. What’s the issue with loco weight? Are they breaking away from their magnets when running light (e.g. on their own without a train)? Is there any way to either increase the strength of the magnets or maybe making baseplates thinner so that the magnets can run closer together?

Thanks for the update. I’m just not sure that in their current form they can be relied upon to have enough clout to produce an exclusive model.

Didn’t Toys R Us go to the wall last year...?

I’ve not seen anything like it in the UK, although without the side chutes it might pass for a PGA aggregates hopper. UK wagons with side chutes tend to have below the solebar rather than above it as with 10017.

I think it might be a bit too wide for 4-wide MOCs (plus maybe too long also), but I can see it being very useful for 6-wide. As @sed6 said, by the time you add tiles it’s going to be 5-wide. I think I’ll pass on this for any future 4-wide scale creations I might build.

More tiny brilliance!! I can only echo what others have already said. It looks perfect for a park railway.

I still think this is ruddy genius. True thinking outside of the box to create a unique and innovative solution for motorising tiny trains. Kudos to you, sir.

Most people buying 3rd party curves tend to go for larger radii rather than smaller, so you may not get a definitive answer based on experience. However, an R24 curve is getting on for half the radius of the standard R40 curve. I would say that a fixed 11L wheelbase would be too long to successfully negotiate them. Could you not consider using bogies rather than fixed axles?

...and there are already rails that sit inside standard R40 curves to make dual gauge track (see the Ferrobus presentation video on my Flickr page to see some in use).

I just want to add my thanks for the hard work put in by @raised, @Cale, @HoMa and especially @Glenn Holland for his patience. It's these guys selfless efforts that make OcTRAINber work. I also want to congratulate all the entrants for creating some truly amazing MOCs and inspiring and absorbing WIP stories. There was some truly awe-inspiring and top notch brickage going on, together with some brilliant and unexpected prototypes.

@Glenn Holland Thanks for drawing our attention to this. Can that really be right...?

@Glenn Holland Thanks for the update. News of the judging is eagerly awaited. I have hesitated to say this so far because I don't want to appear disrespectful and I certainly don't want to be misinterpreted. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that the time and effort that you guys put into running, administering and judging this contest, together with the generosity of the sponsors, is very greatly appreciated. We understand that this is a voluntary effort on your part and the time required has to be balanced with other commitments. However, we also have lives and commitments outside of the hobby that need to be balanced. When you see the quality of the entries and appreciate how much time and effort has been invested in these models and how the entrants have prioritised OcTRAINber in order to meet the deadline, perhaps it isn't so much to hope that the timeframe for judging the entries could be a little tighter. In summary, we have prioritised OcTRAINber and we hope that you have too. As I said above, I really don't want my words to be misinterpreted. I am a firm supporter of OcTRAINber and always look forward to it coming around for the challenge that it brings together with the outpouring of creativity that it generates. It is not my intention to be discouraging or to "bite the hand that feeds", but rather to warmly suggest how the contest might be improved. Best regards.

I think they’re enjoying JUDGEvember too much. Actually, I wouldn’t like their job. No doubt the guys are having a tough time separating the entries. That said, a little update wouldn’t go amiss, even if just to reassure that everything is still going ahead.

I think the word you were searching for was “reviewing”. I don’t think I want to add too much to what has already been said, except to say that Tony has given a fair review of an available product for the benefit of folk who might be considering buying it. You may be right in that the injection molded alternative may be superior, but until it’s produced no-one can say. Lets just relax a little and not get so hett up.

The gears are skipping when overloaded because the vertical shaft that brings the power down from the motor will spin the entire motor bogie round and round if the bogie is not contained. It's only the track and the body of the train that prevents this from happening and causes the turning motion to be transmitted to the central driveshaft and from there to the wheels. However, even when on the track this torque will still be trying to deflect the central shaft to one side or the other. This means that, when travelling in one direction, the gears on the central shaft will be pushed towards the gears on the axles giving a much better mesh, but when it's driving in the opposite direction the gears will be forced away from each other making skipping more likely. @pagicence's design should be fairly robust. The part holding the central driveshaft should keep everything nicely aligned. If you're experiencing flex I can only assume it's because the two sides of the bogie are not joined sufficiently rigidly. I would recommend swapping the two 1x4 plates for a couple of 2x4 plates and the 2x4 plate with holes for a 2x6 plate with holes orientated along the length of the bogie rather than across it. At present you only have four studs joining each level but making these changes would increase this to eight and should help to reduce flex. Thanks for spotting the tiny TRAXX. I hadn't noticed that space2310's design has disappeared, but you seem to be right. A quick search on Flickr confirms this. I used it to create a 4-wide scale power bogie, but the restriction on size makes it fairly weak and prone to failure due to the required narrowness. Basically the part you mistook for 2711 holds the central driveshaft but is not actually attached to the rest of the bogie. All that's keeping it together are the ends of the axles nestling inside the stud recesses so it's quite easy for the torque of the motor to push them apart sufficiently for the gears to unmesh or even for the central shaft to drop out completely. However, if you are going to use it for regular 6-wide track you do have some more scope to beef the design up a bit to keep everything aligned.

@pagicence Yes, very much like that. I’ve not tested this set-up either, but I agree with @Daedalus304 that plates added to the bottom will create problem with clearing the rail. How strong the bogie needs to be will depend largely on how much power you’re trying to transmit and how much weight you want to move. There is a risk that the centre section may pop out in use as this design is not going to be anywhere near as strong as the all Technic bogie posted by @Daedalus304.

@pagicence I think you're close to a solution. You could swap the 1x6 Technic bricks for the sides for some 1x2 Technic bricks braced with 1x6 plates. That way you can have round holes for the axles and a cross hole each side to secure the DBG part together with some half bushes to prevent it sliding side-to-side. Will mock something up later on LDD, but I'm away from my computer at the moment.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't. I must have bought these sometime during 2016 off eBay, so even the purchase records have been purged. @Ashi Valkoinen You're most welcome. Hopefully it will help your tram's performance a bit. Looking at your photos I am wondering if perhaps you're getting a lot of unwanted additional friction, because the front and rear sections don't appear to turn as much as I had expected. I know that successful Talgo trains have been built which appear to use some species of steering linkage to ensure correct articulation, but I don't think there is quite enough space inside your tram to implement this without losing the signature low floor that I know you were keen to replicate.

These are the chaps. They are rubber nitrile gasket rings of 1.5mm thickness and 14.5mm diameter. I found that they sit very nicely inside the groove of the LEGO train wheelsets very nicely in place of the standard traction bands. Hoping this helps.

Fabulous work as always, Greg. We’re getting a real history lesson from you as well as being treated to some excellent brick work.

They tried something broadly similar here too in the shape of the Leyland Experimental Vehicle (LEV), a series of prototypes that eventually lead to the almost train-like Pacers that are still with us today. @Ashi Valkoinen Your suggestions are noted and I shall have a look and see if any changes could be made in the light of them. It would have been nice to have had the space for some sort of interior.

I’m away for a couple of days so I can’t send you any specs for the ones I bought, but what you’re looking for are rubber gaskets (Google Translate suggests tömítés...?) for domestic water pipe installations. I’ll try and get you some more specific details over the weekend. I know what you mean about LEGO purity, but sometimes a little outside help can go a long way.

Thank you, doctor. Yes, the transmission seems to be holding up pretty well and caused no trouble at all.

You've just floored me with that fact. Wow!! I'm going to have to search now for the K'antus version you mentioned. The music I chose was one of only three suitable tunes in the library, all of which have the same meter and feel. I could have used any of them but, of the three, I chose this one simply because it was the right length. To know that the K'antus song evokes the railroad and rail travel just makes it seem even more appropriate to use it. I do know what you mean about doing things against deadlines, because I'm not terribly well-organised either. I tend to leave things to the last minute and then rush to get things completed on time. But in the case of things I enjoy doing it doesn't seem like so much of a chore. I like OcTRAINber primarily because I don't see myself as a particularly skilled builder. I have a fairly haphazard approach to choosing subjects and build things without any particular idea how they go with each other or anything else. I have a cupboard slowly filling up with Dutch 4-wide scale models, two UK freight wagons, a signalbox interlocking frame and now a Bolivian narrow gauge railbus. I don't have the backing of a LUG or any other contact with the AFOL community at large except through this forum. I just seem to have a knack for putting one brick on top of another and creating things that look not entirely unlike what they're meant to look like. For me, OcTRAINber is a way to get a feel for where my skill level actually sits by having my work judged by some of the best LEGO train builders and being in competition with other skilled builders. And, wouldn't you know it, I even won a prize last year, so I can't be doing too badly!! Ultimately it's just a bit of fun; something to look forward to and join in with. It's great to see all the amazing designs that come out of contests like this one. We get to see some great creations throughout the year but, thanks to the guys at BMR, October now brings the richest outpouring of new MOCs. It would be great to see you involved (and everyone else too) next year if you can spare the time and resources.