L-Gauger

I noticed you are using an MRC power pack, is that a 12V DC model railroad power pack? I am not an expert on 9V Lego trains by any means, but I remember an N scale modeler who had a similar issue. He had made the mistake of wiring part of his layout to an 18V power supply instead of the N scale standard of 12V, and this caused one of his locomotives to overheat and stall after a short running time. Lego train motors are designed to run on 9V, so is it possible that a 12V power supply is causing your motor to overheat after a few minutes? If the MRC 1400 is a "pulsed-power" pack, it would be supplying 12V power to the track regardless of speed setting. I guess the cheapest way to test this theory would be to replace the MRC 1400 temporarily with a 9V battery. If the problem goes away, the MRC power pack is your culprit. You could either spend the money on an official Lego power pack, or wait until Fx Bricks releases their power pack and buy that.

Don't some numbers have rational square roots, like 4 and 16? If you're right, maybe that could be a path to discovering the right polygon dimensions... So, doing a little quick calculator testing with the 360/n formula, I discovered that a 5-degree angle (produced in LEGO by introducing a 1/2 stud offset on the 6th stud out from a hinge plate) yields a 72-sided polygon, 18 sides per quarter circle. A 4-degree angle produces a 90-sided polygon (this is the Grand Curve technique of @HoMa) but this can only produce a half-circle. Now, I'm just trying to figure out how to calculate the radius of the polygon from the length of one of the sides. (Now I'm starting to think I should have taken Geometry instead of Statistics for my math credit-hours... )

Great idea! Quite probably so. I like your calculations on track geometry - I think you might have discovered a few new possibilities for custom track! In that respect... I have a question that you might be able to help with. I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to create L gauge track from ordinary plates and tiles. So far straight track, flex track, and switches have been simple enough, but the math for making a "curve" (really a polygon) is proving a challenge. So, here's my question - is it possible to have a polygon where the following are all true: - The total number of sides is a multiple of 4 (this will make exact 90-degree curves possible.) - The sides and the radius can both be expressed as whole integers (this will make it possible to build "legal" brick-built curves without stressing joints.) If such a polygon exists, what are the dimensions of the sides and radius? And, what would the angle between two sides be, measured in degrees?

No problem, I'm not challenging your name convention. As you say, it is probably the best choice for your purposes. I like brick-building track, so I'm used to calling L gauge "5-stud gauge" because that's the distance between rail centers. By the way, the thickness of 4.5V rails is different (slightly thicker) than PF rails, so L gauge has only been constant throughout time if you measure over rail centers, or minimum tie length. Interestingly, those are the standards we've independently gravitated towards! Fun fact: if you have a rail thickness of one tile, and set the rail centers 4 studs apart, you get track that is exactly Q gauge, which if I'm not mistaken is identical to Proto:48 in terms of gauge. Cool! This reminds me, one thing I didn't mention is that Lego retractable ladder elements, like the ones used on large fire truck sets, are HO gauge... or close enough that HO trains will run on them. Yeah, right now I foresee 3 problems - 1st, how to manage the spring that lets trains run through it the wrong way. Can it be a 3d printed leaf spring? Suggestion: make switches of the "derailing" type, where no spring is required. Real railroad switches work this way, after all. This may or may not work, but I would have all the ties from points to frog be straight, like real railroad switches. After the frog, all the ties on both the straight and curved paths can be standard. The hardest part for sure, but isn't that the solution used by TrixBrix and other makers of 3D-printed switches?

Oops, I meant to say B-B-B. Thanks for catching my error! I can see why, but at least they look cool! Hey, no trouble! The solution you have looks great! Oh, wow! Didn't think of that, but what I had in mind was pairing a "Japonesa" with an S-241. Probably would short out the substation just the same, though...

I like where your work is going, @Stereo. I've been examining some alternate gauges for Lego trains myself, and found some interesting things: - As you noted, a 6-stud-long plate will carry a pair of 4.5V rails at the correct L gauge. However, measuring gauge in the conventional way (between inner edges of rails) L gauge is 12 plates (4 bricks or 4.8 studs.) - One stud wider than L gauge (what you call "7-stud gauge") is similar if not identical in gauge to the conventional model railroaders' Gauge 1. - One stud narrower than L Gauge (what you call "5-stud gauge") is the same gauge as conventional Q gauge or Proto:48 trains. (Realizing this has made me think it would be cool if some fans of 8-wide trains would try converting their models to Q gauge...) - Lego narrow gauge track is the same gauge as S scale track. American Flyer trains will run on Lego narrow gauge or roller coaster track (I have tested this,) and presumably vice versa. I'm hoping to someday convert one of the official LEGO 6-wide trains to run on S gauge track, as that is the correct gauge for 6-wide, 1/64 scale standard gauge. Hopefully this information about compatibility is helpful!

See, this is why I say you need a functioning front coupler, so you can put both these magnificent engines at the head of the same train! Wait... is this S-251 a C-C-C wheel arrangement? I think that's the first of the kind I've seen. Thank you! You know, I think this would be easy to adapt to a chain coupling. The technic half beam already can serve as the coupling point the only thing left to figure out would be where exactly to anchor the fixed end of the chain. I agree, the magnets are way more convenient. The only reason I offered the suggestion was because I was thinking that maybe you could keep the magnet coupler in the back while upgrading the front bogie to use my chain coupling. Then you would have a good-looking engine that also has some kind of functioning front coupler whenever that might be helpful (such as when running with the S-251 in a doubleheader, or when shunting.) Personally, I like making all my engines with at least some kind of excuse for a front coupler, because for whatever reason anytime I leave the front coupler out on a model, it is needed on a frequent basis.

I know these locomotives are really boxy, but I think I might have a new favorite Spanish electric locomotive. Lots of NPU all around - you did a fantastic job modeling this locomotive! I echo @Toastie's comments in this regard! I do have one thought regarding the couplers - I can't quite tell how you have everything arranged on the bufferbeam, but for my European-prototype MOCs I have chosen to forego magnet couplers. Instead I use plates with Technic holes like this: or this: For the coupling proper, I use a chain, 5 links: I incorporate one end of the chain into the model, and attach a Technic half-pin and a Pneumatic T-bar to the other. This system allows two coupling options, 1) attach the chain from one coupler to the Technic plate of another, or 2) use a 5-long Technic half-beam as a drawbar. Method 1 looks better but requires functional buffers and is best suited for wide curves, so normally I only depend of method 2 as a backup option. So far though, I'm happy with the deign. Maybe you can adapt it to give this locomotive a functional front coupler? So you can see what my coupler design looks like assembled, here's a link to my model of Thomas the Tank Engine, equipped with bufferbeams and couplers of the type I've described: https://www.bricktrainawards.com/entries/north-western-ry-no-1-thomas/ If I didn't make it clear, your work is excellent! I especially love how you were able to replicate the slightly angled nose... that must have taken a lot of SNOT!

I can't wait to see what you come up with. My guess is that when you're done this model will look right at home next to a UCS Millennium Falcon!

Wow! An incredible design! It's a good fit for the 'Star Wars' look for sure. The only thing is that in the Star Wars universe, it's rare for equipment to remain in "as-built" condition. The general aesthetic of your build looks like a brand-new ship, but the color scheme of the hull (gray and tan) is more normal for older, well-used ships in Star Wars media. A great point of reference is the Millennium Falcon. When new(er), the ship is white and blue: Then later on the ship is silvery gray with small patches of remaining paint: Your build is excellent, don't get me wrong. But I think it would be even cooler if you could build some "history" into your model, like was done with the Millennium Falcon. Note how not only the paint color changed, but the escape pod was removed and the communication dish was changed, along with several other harder to spot changes. I think your model would be a great base to develop into an "as built" variant and a "well-used" variant, something like this: As-built variant: - Make the ship a tad more colorful. Maybe try swapping white for the gray, and dark red or standard red for the dark tan. Well-used variant: - Keep the color scheme as you have it now. - Integrate lots of greebling on the hull, engines and possibly even the sail, to make it look like some of the exterior panels are missing and some improvised repairs have been made. A project like that would be big undertaking, but for this model in particular I think either variant of your ship would fit absolutely seamlessly with a collection of official UCS Star Wars sets.

It depends on what kind of trains you'll be running. 6-wide trains can take steeper grades (generally speaking, not always of course) and often 6-wide trains are a tad shorter than their 8- or 10-wide counterparts, which means less height clearance is necessary. I would do tests with the trains you intend to run, and see what kind of uphill grade your weakest engine + heaviest train will handle. In my own collection I have trains that can't take even a 1-plate-per-track-section grade, and others that have no problem with a 1-brick-per-track-section grade. So your milage is almost guaranteed to vary. If, in the absolute worst-case scenario, you find that it's not feasible to go under the harbor, I have two ideas for what you can do: 1. Relocate the track to stay off the water. You might have to move some buildings, but you might just make enough room to put in a small siding or two to make for some operating possibilities. 2. Keep your track loop where it is, but go up with your grade instead of down. Build a gravel fill or trestle bridge under your track, with a truss bridge at the highest point so it looks as if ships enter and exit the harbor by going under the truss bridge. This might be parts intensive, but the result would be very visually impressive. Hope this helps!

If you zoom in on the photo, you can see that this is exactly what is going on. Good observation! The level crossing proper uses 4.5V-style straight rails (the modern version of them, I might hasten to add...) and connects to PF track sections using the Dark Brown tiles, or at least so it appears.

Wow! That is a big difference!

@Darth_Bane13 and @TeddytheSpoon, thanks for the clarification!

So the PF ones, where the metal axles are blunt on the ends and the hole for the metal axle doesn't go all the way through the wheel? That's the kind I'm most familiar with. Cool! I imagine that was a big help.