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.

I come bearing another minifigure/character related question. Is the sw1161 minifigure intended to represent a human or a droid? I was told at one point that Dark Troopers are droids, but the printed pouches on this minifig's belt seem to indicate this is another character type derived from the clone troopers/stormtroopers, liken unto how the scout troopers are a stormtrooper variant. Photo for reference:

Hooray and Congratulations! All your design efforts have paid off! Out of curiosity, which wheelsets did you end up using - the 9v-era ones or the PF-era ones?

Just a personal opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but I don't think it's reasonable to try and predict the future of the system-sale Star Wars sets. Of course, if you want a good model and want it now, definitely get the older sets. Who knows, what you want might come in 2026, or it might come out in 2126 (okay, there's a little exaggeration there... ) My personal approach to the lackluster or less screen accurate models has been to modify the details that bug me most until I'm happy with the resulting modified model. Best example I can think of is the Luke Skywalker's X-wing set: there are a lot of detail deficiencies and play functions that were just missed by the designers, but I discovered that with a few handfuls of additional parts I could turn the set into a really good, approximately-minifig scale X-wing that is one of my favorite personal models. Another modified model I've posted to Eurobricks is this: _______ Also, I have a question of my own for this Forum. Does anyone know if minifigures sw1164 (Mandalorian Loyalist) and sw1345 (Mandalorian Warrior) are specific characters from SW, or are they "generic" minifigs? Photos below for reference. sw1164: sw1345:

Assuming you're using track power (which I will call "DC" from now on like conventional model railroaders do): - A passing siding, consisting of two parallel tracks connected by a turnout (switch) at each end, will not short out in a DC system. - A reversing loop, consisting of one track that returns back over itself, will short circuit in a DC system unless you have gaps in the conductive rails. A reversing loop is usually shaped vaguely like a balloon or teardrop, with the diverging paths of a single turnout at the apex of the teardrop shape. - Which way your locomotives are facing does not matter with a DC system. Two locomotives coupled back-to-back will run the same absolute direction, one forward and one backward, when DC power is applied to the track. If you want to only control one train at a time, you'll have to investigate DC block control wiring for your layout. If you're using 4.5V, R/C, PF, and PUP trains exclusively (no 12V or 9V,) then the track doesn't need to be powered and you can set up your tracks any way you like without worries. Does that help?

Hooray! Good to hear it was just a friction issue. If oiling the 38339 did the job, my personal guess is that part 2878 will do the job. My recommendation though would be to only by wheelsets in "New" condition for your train, as new wheelsets are lower-friction than older, worn wheelsets. Hopefully the simple substitution of 2878 for 38339 will save you the work of rebuilding all the wheelsets to use roller bearings, as that would be a much more significant modification. Also, if you decide to oil your wheelsets as a matter of practice (might not be a bad idea,) sometimes they sell plastic-safe lube oil as "clock oil" instead of "hobby oil." Just make sure the oil you buy is labeled as safe to use on plastic. If it isn't, don't buy it, not worth the risk. If you can't find any though, I've never heard bad things about using olive oil as a general-purpose lubricant.

That's very good news! Your weight for the train is likely sufficient, then. Okay. I think that means that your motor is operating at its maximum load capacity. Does this happen when you run the power car all by itself, minus the rest of the train? Maybe some plastic-safe hobby oil (like for conventional model trains) in the Technic brick holes where the cross-axles pass through them would help some. Also, at this point I'd try to test your motors and hubs outside of this locomotive model. Maybe build a test platform where you use whatever bricks you have available (window pieces maybe?) to attach the PUP hub atop the train motor, and run that around on your tracks a little bit. If your motor can't even carry the weight of its own PUP hub through a switch with nothing else, you might have a defective motor or hub. Perfect. It sounds like wheelslip isn't your problem, so no need to change anything there. Gotcha. I wouldn't worry about that. I see. Have you thought about trying to use the train motor as the rear bogie? I've noticed that I get more tractive effort out of my train motors when they are on the rear bogie of a locomotive as opposed to the front. Huh. I don't know about the PUP train motor, maybe it's stronger than the PF one, but in my experience the PF M motor is that it can outpull multiple PF train motors. When I was converting my 10277 Crocodile Locomotive set to PF, at first I used two train motors power the drive wheels directly. The locomotive would barely move under its own power, let alone pull a train. I replaced the pair of train motors with a single PF M motor, and now my Crocodile is one of my favorite engines I have because with the PF M motor it runs and pulls great. I do understand not wanting to take such a big financial risk, though. Let's see if we can't get those PUP motors to work for you. That's true of all the non-train motors in the PUP and PF range, to my knowledge. For me as a US modeler slow and strong is perfect, but for you that might not be as realistic. I agree, you should focus your efforts on the PUP train motor for that reason. Okay, so my solution for this would be mechanical: your two power cars need not be internally identical. Use your motors as the rear bogie ( the one not under the driver cab) of the forward-facing power car, and the front bogie (the one under the driver cab) of the rearward-facing power car. This way both motors will face the same direction at all times, and can be connected to the same Bluetooth channel. Not a bad idea. See if it's possible to face the motor either direction or if only one orientation is possible in this setup. Gotcha. That makes sense. Good idea trying the least drastic change first. It depends. The PUP wheelsets (38339) you are using do have less resistance to curves, but in fact they have a bit more friction than PF and 9V era wheelsets, because PUP wheelsets have plastic-on-plastic bearings as opposed to PF and 9V wheelsets which are metal-on-plastic. Technically 9V wheelsets are the lowest friction that Lego has made, but PF wheelsets are a close second. I'd try this for the sole purpose of making sure your motors work and aren't defective. If you don't rule out that possibility you might be making revisions to little avail. Hopefully these thoughts help!

Thank you! That's what I was going for so I take your comment as a compliment of the highest order. Oh, cool! Thanks for sharing that detail, I hadn't heard of Neil or his work before. Definitely. Even when you build 10-wide like me, it's still a challenge. I will keep this in mind. You are right, I should have mentioned that! Ah, the live steam fan has arrived! @Murdoch17 that's what @Kalahari134 is talking about. Miniature steam-powered model trains, AKA Live Steam.

Gotcha. Now that I see your render I understand a lot. I thought from the start that you were using an 88013 motor like in the Crocodile. I don't have experience with the PUP train motor, but if the internals are about like the PF train motor it is one of the lowest-torque motors produced by Lego. Ouch! I've had a hot summer, too. You have my sympathies. I know this seems like failure, but I was happy to read this. You have gearing that actually holds together, and that is a victory. Now we just have to find the right configuration to give the engine a bit more pulling power. Reading your description, I think you may actually be experiencing two separate issues at once. The wheelslip means that your power car does not have enough weight on the rear bogie. The best options are: 1. Power the front bogie. 2. Move the PUP hub closer to the rear bogie to shift the center of gravity. 3. Fill every gap in the power car behind the PUP hub with heavy stuff like fishing weights or coins. Now the motor stopping its turning and the train moving quite slow might be a different issue: those are symptoms that your motor is overheating. Likely what's wrong is that the PUP train motor is not powerful enough to overcome both the friction and weight of a full train. Your train is 7-wide, so the PUP motor should be able to handle it if, as @idlemarvel suggested, you use the motor to power the wheels directly (like in the Lego City train sets) and dispense with any geared drivetrain. You'll lose some detail, but it might not be all that noticeable. You shouldn't have to use two train motors per power car with this method. Assuming there is enough room, this would be the best option if it weren't for the fact that only the app can give the 88013 motor speed control. Worst case scenario, maybe it would be worth considering the idea of maybe converting the model to Power Functions and using a PF M motor to drive the rear bogie? PF M motors are quite respectable, and I imagine one in each power car should be able to move a 7-wide, 7-car (counting the power cars) train... Good to know... In that case, it sounds like any PUP motor other than the train motor isn't something you can practically use. If that's true, your options are either to replace the rear bogie of your power car with a PUP train motor (and accept the fact that your bogies won't be as detailed,) or convert the model to Power Functions (using PF M or L motors would preserve the bogies you have already, but you've already spent your hard-earned money on PUP components so you probably are just looking for a way to make what you've bought already work.) I personally would suggest trying first to replace only the rear bogie of your power car with a PUP train motor. Then test it to see if the power car has enough tractive effort to meet your needs. If so, you have a working "for-now" solution. If the look of the train motor bothers you later, you can think about re-powering the train with Power Functions motors at that future date.

Same here! I grew up with Lionel and Lego (thought it was a pity they don't share the same gauge track) and now model in L, HO, and N scales. You know, this is an interesting point that I bring up in the article. There's been a fair amount of interest in battery power among conventional modelers, mostly in the larger scales but some HO scalers as well. There's a great article in the June 2016 issue of Model Railroader on page 38 that talks about what's involved in converting an HO scale GP15 diesel to battery power, and I've seen a few other articles on battery power in Model Railroader over the years. However, what's missing in conventional model railroading that's present in Lego trains is a convenient plug-and-play battery power system, and I suspect that fact could tip the scales in favor of Lego trains in the eyes of some... especially the convenience of not needing to ever clean your track, which I can attest is quite the chore in the smaller scales. That lack of support is a legitimate problem that means Lego trains aren't for everyone, I will say that. L gauge is definitely best suited for people who aren't bothered by the dearth of commercial equipment in the scale/gauge. That makes sense. Certainly Lionel has invested a lot more into putting play value into their trains than Lego has.

Gotcha. Brilliant! You know, I wonder if a pair of 1x1 round plates might have just the teeniest bit more clutch power than the 1x2 plates... but might not be enough to make much difference. I understand your situation! Just a thought: if "bargain outlets" (stores that make money by buying overstock from big-box stores and selling that overstock for a very low price) exist in your area, I'd check them out. When I lived near a bargain outlet I took a stroll through there weekly and bought up any Lego sets they had. I was able to add a lot of great parts, both common and rare, by that method. Okay, gotcha. As long as both bogies are powered, one motor (or one motor per bogie for a total of two) should suffice.