Train of Thought Creations

Alrighty! Once I get a chance, I absolutely will post the model in both. I'm sorry to disappoint with the lack of an update to the article, but I am delighted to know that it has served as a resource that you have sent new builders toward. Also of note, I still would consider that version a valid design for folks to be directed towards, with the weighted version serving as an alternate, more extreme option for uneven conditions. Most beginning train enthusiasts probably don't have a weight brick handy, so I like still having a finalized version that uses just common parts.

Woah! That's super cool! I'll give it a look this evening. Alrighty! I'll post the studio model here when I get a chance to clean it up! As for the article, updating that is out of the scope of the project at this point. If the comments weren't locked, I would post a link to the updated studio model there though.

Nice! I did not know that they had separate indicators for such things. Do you remember where you found this? Official documentation for Powered Up is shockingly scarce, so I'd love to see the whole document. If you don't remember, then don't worry about it!

@zephyr1934 Thank you for sharing this in such great detail. After hearing from you that 2 weight bricks and a motor could be successfully fitted, I felt inspired to give it a shot, and see if I could add just 1 weight brick to the design I posed on Brickset. I did have success, and it holds itself together fairly well! Additionally, with this design I have yet to run into the flashing indicator problem. Something of note: I was told by LEGO customer service back when I was developing the Blue Comet that the blinking light is meant to be a low battery indicator. I spoke with some electrical engineering friends about that, and they told me that a low battery indicator looks for a drop in something, voltage if I remember correctly, and it being under excessive load can cause that - or something like that. My memory about the conversation is foggy, but the one thing that I can say for sure its that the blinking is intended to be a low battery indicator - that as a side effect - is indeed tripped when under excessive load as well. I can share the studio files here this weekend if you would like to see them.

Awesome! Thank you for sharing that! Also, your descriptive answer was plenty understandable for me! So, if you still want to share the CAD model, that's awesome - but I do not need it, and thus, would not want to make you put extra work into polishing it up.

This thread is nicely timed! I just started running my Orient Express with the Brickset modification for the first time since January this past Wednesday, and decided to see what people were saying about the train on Eurobricks. Anyway, in my experience, when it runs well, it runs very smoothly. I don't run my trains super fast anyway, so the current speed that it goes at doesn't bother me any. It takes a bit adjustment of the distance between the driving wheels on their axle to find said smooth performance though. However, to even get it to run well, it needs to be on a completely even, flat surface. When there's any sort of surface inconsistency, like on the carpet, it will often start spinning its wheels in certain spots. As such, @zephyr1934, may I ask where you put the weight bricks? When I place one weight brick on top of the loco, it seems to help with the wheel slip. I'm not certain where a good spot would be to fit one though (let alone 2!? How'd ya do that!?). If you're willing to share your studio model that would be even more amazing, but I do understand if that it something you wish to keep to yourself.

Both of those explanations for the slipping are the conclusion I drew as well. Mine isn't as "locked down" in the gearbox area the way yours is, since the axle from the motor is only connected on one side in mine, so the parts pulling away (hence, not properly assembled anymore) even a bit causes my design to bind. You lock yours on both sides, so that's probably why yours is stable - it can't be pushed up slightly from one un-anchored side. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that, as it helps me, (and I'm certain others too,) in understanding why such failures can happen. Since we both came to the same conclusion, I believe that our hypothesis is strong at the moment.

For the O-rings, I have done exactly that with my emerald night and it runs much more smoothly, but my Sapphire Star runs fine with 4. I'd say if you already have 4 bands, give both options a try and see which setup works best on your layout. I find that different terrains can change the number and placement of O-rings that I'll put on my models. Trial and error is my method for that, since it changes in a case by case basis. I cannot answer your first question (I also realize I'm not the target audience for it, as I have yet to run both designs), since you'd have to run both designs with the same type and charge of battery to get a proper answer for battery life. As for heat, I don't know how you'd measure that other than by putting some sort of thermometer in the loco. When mine is functioning properly, I have yet to have any issues with overheating. I looked at the instructions for @something_fabulous's design, and the gears appear to have the same geometry with the 1/4 plate offset that my first design had, but I have not heard of any failures with their design, and they seemed to have used it for a long time, so I do not know if that is a failure point on that design. It is braced differently than mine, so maybe it holds together better . At the end of the day though, @something_fabulous would have to weigh in on that, as they've mentioned that they've used that mechanism for a long time before in other locos. All in all, for me, running trains is a lot of trail and error. I'd say if you already have the parts on hand, try both designs, and see if one suits your needs better! You'll get a more complete understanding of the performance of each design by having it in hand than any paragraph on a forum could give you.

So the issue is mathematical. The height of the tan bevel gear (which is 1.25 plates thick) at the vertical position placed at was 1/4 of a plate too low from its typical proper position relative to the tan bevel gear attached to the motor. By moving the red 2x2 tile with hole 1 plate lower, we can add the black gear with bevel (which is 2.5 plates thick) to mesh properly with the gear that is directly connected to the motor. Because of the 1/4 plate gap in the original design, the pieces holding the gears in place can eventually become loose enough (read: aren't 100% pressed down and brand new) that they start to grind (I shook around and slightly loosened the internals of my original design, and was able to get my unit to replicate the error), and presumably the builder with the burning smell kept it running for a bit after the gears were already ground into an unusable shape - but, since I have not heard any correspondence from that user since their public comment, that presumption is only just that - a presumption. As for reliability, my answer is a bit more nuanced. In theory, yes, it is reliable - the math checks out for the relative positions of the gears. However, with any newly developed technology only time will tell if it's in a truly reliable final form. With use, wear, and time, issues may become apparent that were not foreseen, as again can be the case with any new tech. We are also dealing with human error here, as it is up to each individual to rebuild their locomotive and install the motor properly, so there is room for error and reliability issues there as well. I have been running it just fine for the time since the solution went live, and to that solution's credit, the engine even performs more smoothly than it did when it was performing properly with the old design. But again, that's only been for a few runs over the course of a day. TL;DR - Yes, the new solution is more reliable and should be permanent, but only time will tell, and I cannot guarantee anything for you at this time.

A gear grinding issue was found with my Brickset solution, so I have developed a fix for it. In the meantime before that rolls out officially, here is a google doc detailing the changes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C__sIMK5q0f9HydMhKIdL28V558edhDAefVvtXwMEuk/edit?usp=sharing

Sounds awesome! Sadly your picture didn't load on my computer, but that's good to hear that you have a system that can pull a solid amount of coaches! Now I can see it! I love the green! Looks classy. The cats are fun too

Yep! I made sure to run it before sharing the tutorial. The coaches are lighter than the test ones I used with the "Rainbow/Harlequin Express" so it runs great on R40 (I only have official track at the moment). I plan to make a quick YouTube video of it running tonight. It moves at the same speed seen in @kbalage's video.

All aboard! Here's the tutorial article for my modification. If you have any questions, let me know! https://brickset.com/article/102806/motorising-the-orient-express

@ElGreco & @Riggar I wanted to follow up after speaking with you both yesterday. My guide is now complete, and will be published sometime before Wednesday this week. I do not know if it will go live tomorrow or Tuesday, but you can be sure that when it does, I'll post a link here. Also, for those wondering about the video tutorial I mentioned, this written/photographed one took the place of that. I'm much better with graphic work (Photoshop, in this case), photography, and writing than I am with YouTube video making

You're welcome!

Here is the Bricklink XML file for the extra parts: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c-SLm4diAMT6tsVEVuZRs3oh08Id8jhv/view?usp=sharing And here is a photo of all the parts knolled that will be used in the upcoming written/photographed guide.

@ElGreco & @Riggar, Sure! I'll get a parts list together shortly, and I'll upload that here within the hour. I am currently developing a proper guide that should go live early this week (hopefully tomorrow if all goes well) so that everyone can easily implement the changes.

Yes, that's exactly why I did that. Additionally, the two gold push pins that brace the rear of the motor keep it from pivoting up and down, and thus help prevent additional slippage. Using both may be overkill, but they work, and I'd rather make something too reliable than not reliable enough.

Only 30 extra parts, and so few leftovers!? This is wonderfully efficient.

@R0Sch & @ToledoRails, both of your mods look super cool! I'm glad that there will be so many options for both different motor types and different speeds for folks to choose from on release day. There's 3 already, and we've still got over a week until release. Like @Lyichir said, the ingenuity is really shining! R0Sch, I really like the way use used the gray bevel gears with the middle axle passing through. It's super satisfying to picture the motion of them in my head. Toledo, I like your subtle exterior mod with the steps as well.

Ah! Thanks!

The hardwood test is complete! In this test, the cars were given longer wheelbases to get closer to the length of the OE coaches, and were also weighed down with two handfuls of 1x1 plates, studs, tiles, etc. to increase weight. Here are the results. Additionally, I ended up not adding the 1/2 bushing to the end of the motor as I originally indicated that I would, because the axle goes far enough into the motor such that doesn't give a full half module of usable axle after the bevel gear. So, the existing studio model is still of the current version.

Thanks for the help then! Glad to know what that means now. I figured that might be the case, so that's why I asked. I do indeed take constructive criticism seriously, but in the sense of taking the point into serious consideration, not in the sense of getting upset over it. That's why I took the time to respond to each of your points. I'm a bit verbose at times, so I apologize if that came off defensively. In regards to the 3L axle with stop, since it is 3L with the stop in included, the length of usable axle would be slightly less than that, and with the gears being at the very ends of that, I want to use the full 3L of axle. It's a great idea to keep in mind for future builds though.

I like the red beam, and the blue plate is there as a reuse from the internals that were already there to help reduce the amount of extra pieces. As you said though, both are easily fixable if you'd like to make your own version. I'll keep my version the way it is on those two aspects. As for the spacer, it is there to prevent the vertical 1x3 axle from dropping down further than it should and intersecting with the 1x6 axle. The bushings do not have an even surface like the spacer does, so the spacer is the optimal part to use for that purpose. This is based on the way it was done in the crocodile locomotive, which also did not use any additional bushings. It makes for an easier building experience - trying to wedge the 1/2 bushing in there too is very fiddly and unnecessary for the amount of frustration it could cause the average builder trying to recreate the design. But just like the other mods you mentioned, feel free to try changing it on yours! Also, may I ask why you add a winking face whenever you share a criticism (both here and with the jab at the missing parts on my studio model)? Lots of folks mean different things with it, and I'm not sure what emotion you are trying to communicate to me with that, since, in the US at least, it can mean anything from friendliness to sarcasm.

That's an excellent point. Especially about keeping the vertical axle in place. I'll add that to the design. I don't think the added friction will outweigh the benefit of keeping the vertical axle locked in place. I'll add it before tonight's hard floor test.