zephyr1934

Wow, impressive, is that strictly using parts from the set? I had in mind a design that used a lot of additional parts in dark gray and captured the rough form of the Maersk, e.g., as my Conrail MOD did with parts in blue.

That is looking really good with lots of nice subtle details, e.g., the cab steps, the 6 wide mudguard over the diaphragms, the fuel tank, etc.

That is a great small build. You mentioned that you can not bring the couplings closer to the wheels, what if you replaced the pair of 1x1x1 panels for each set of steps with a single 1x1x1 panel?

Great trackside detailing (and if you use the LiPo battery you could even include a charging station here so that function follows form, grin)

I think the red train could easily be MODed into an SP/SSW GP40 in the style of the Maersk. I suspect it could also work as UP, but the side tiles with studs to cover the battery box might be expensive in yellow and the studs on the tiles could be a hassle to work around. If someone was thinking about doing a GP 40 mod like that for any road to share it with the community (e.g., as an LDD file) drop me a PM if you want to talk about the possibility of custom stickers. You can never have too many nice builds like that.

If I follow correctly, you are using the 9v motor for pickup, but are you then powering it too from the PF output? On the battery side, are you using the LiPo battery and just using the output port to also charge when on powered 9v track? If so, does the battery like that solution? Just one quibble, when you add the bluetooth receiver you are doing better than either world (grin).

Oh wow, those are looking great. While I usually prefer tender locomotives (and anything is better in dark green), in this case I still think I like the tank engine best. They are both very good though.

WOW! Those locomotives are a tour de force. The F40 has bricks going every which way in an excellent work and the curves in the F59 are simply impossible. Then doing that brick built swooshing curve throughout the train... unbelievable. What about the articulated cars, do you have a photo of those on a tight curve? Oh, wait, there it is in your photostream, you tell all of your secrets. All around incredible. Not much of a train builder??? I can't imagine what you would do if you were... No, that is unacceptable. I will refrain from commenting on this impressive piece of work until you give it its own thread that it deserves. (grin, but true that it is deserving of its own thread)

Truth be told, I'd prefer dark red, dark green, dark orange, or dark blue. But if it were the only sand red set in a decade it would sell like crazy just because of the color. Since lego has thus far failed to recognize the impact of colors on train sales, the large sales would likely guarantee a few more creator trains. I think the HE was a good design for a train given the necessary constraints of a set (I still would have preferred 8 straights in place of a few of the minifigs), but the set was only good as a specific train. There was little incentive to part the set out for anything else... even for other trains. So it sold poorly. I still have many parts from EN, Maersk, BNSF, Super Chief in my building supply, but almost none from HE. In terms of alternative builds the HE parts were mediocre. I don't think lego would want to include that may extra parts in a set given their experience with the Hobby Train (which failed for other reasons, but lego never figured that out). The fact that they still do not understand this aspect of the AFOL market is exactly why I would like a sand red train. At least originally the creator sets were meant to hark back to the universal building sets of the 1970's, with a focus on building with plain, rectangular bricks. From 2001 to 2005 the creator sets were just brick buckets/boxes/bins. In 2006 they added several 3 in 1 sets and several small sets with a single model. 2007 brought the first few houses in the 3 in 1 line, all built to minifig scale, but no minifigs to be found. The trend with the 3 in 1 sets continued through 2010 (though by this point a few of the buckets/boxes of bricks had a single minifig). It was during this time as an ambassador I suggested including a simple mini-fig to serve as a focal point for the houses, not sure if they listened to me, but they did eventually do just that in 2011. Since then more and more specialized pieces have been creeping in to the creator sets, with several looking more like city sets than what I think of as creator (e.g., the micro modulars have few rectangular bricks). The true creator sets have been among my favorites, the ones that can be built in to different things either by the very fact that they don't have instructions or at the very least because they have three variants. All of the creator expert sets have had a single build, many more specialized parts, etc. etc. Of course lego can group things how they wish and the creator expert sets fit with creator as much as they do with any other line. <huff! huff! huff!> So yes, I guess what I really wish for is that lego would adopt the "3 in 1" idea for the AFOL train sets.

Oh wow, these are fantastic. Great work! My favorites are the Metra and Super Chief, but my preference is strictly based on my interest in the prototypes. Your builds did a great job capturing all of the details in the various prototypes.

That is looking really sharp (well, that family of locomotives to be more precise). Very clean lines and just a nice looking, well proportioned locomotive. Splitting the cylinders the was you did was brilliant. Is there any chance you can align the cylinder exhaust pipes with the stack? It is hard to do on lego locomotives, but since you've split the cylinders it might be possible. The details in the cab are nice too. Have you considered using the 1x1 round plate with flower edge for valve handles? Looking at the mechanicals, you will probably want to build those up in real brick and test how they work. There is a lot of slack in the rods that could cause problems. It looks like you have a 5 long technic half beam that is only pinned to the front wheel and a 6 long that is pinned to both wheels. Then the connecting rod to the cylinder is held in by either a standard pin or a long pin, but in either case it looks like it is off by half a pin (perhaps sticking half a brick inside the wheel). That will likely cause unnecessary friction. The other end of the connecting rod is not connected to the axle pin, but probably better to use a half pin. All of these seem easy to fix if you build up these details, e.g., you could use an 11 long full technic beam for the connecting rods across the wheels and then test it to make sure there are no problems. You will also want to test the clearance on the underside, you have a risk of catching switches or grade crossings with the lowest level of plates. The ball couplers might also prove to be problematic if you run on uneven layouts... still might be fine but probably worth testing to make sure.

The newer train motors should not have problems with slippery traction bands, it was only the first year or two that had major problems. Still, the O-rings probably won't hurt. Looking at your train, you might be approaching the limits of a pair of PF train motors, especially with a grade to and from the bridge and the "S" curve. The rule of thumb is one plate per track section, but if you are already near the limits of your locomotives even this shallow grade could be a killer. If the motors are in separate locomotives you should not need the pole reverser switch.

Good call powering a flanged wheel. I'd suggest only putting traction bands on one pair of wheels per wheel set. If you have two they are more likely to fight one another in a curve. In this case all of the other wheels are powered by the rods, but none of those wheels actually pulls any load.

Doh! I missed that discussion my first time through. I think the large "CSX" in my decals are about 10 studs wide (I can get exact dimensions if needed). I designed them for a Maersk repaint, but they should also work for a similarly sized MOC. The nose artwork is designed for flatter builds (e.g., the Masersk nose) while yours looks like it has a one plate high jump. So it probably would not work in this case.

If/when there is a new AFOL train, I hope it is mostly sand red. At this point I really don't care what the design is, I just want it to be in a rare color that will get many AFOLs to buy it and part out. The rare colors have been true of almost all of the modular buildings (a lot of my rare colors came from those buildings). The rare colors have been true of the two successful AFOL trains (EN and Maersk). And common colors true of the unsuccessful AFOL trains (Hobby Train and HE). With common colors few will buy the set to part out. HT had all of the parts simultaneously show up on PaB, HE had few rare parts that were of use outside of the HE (e.g., orange baseplates and the printed bricks). So they didn't sell well, not surprising. It is the part out possibilities that make for a great AFOL set. Many AFOLs will buy multiple copies of a set if it contains rare parts and never build the original model, it is this second use that keeps the model sales up (hence my wish for sand red- even though I personally have no use for that color, it would sell like crazy). I also wish lego would abandon the "Creator Expert" designation since these sets are not true creator sets that typically have three different builds. In fact a true creator design would be the perfect solution for an AFOL train, allowing them to overcome the multinational problem inherent with trains. It is REALLY hard to find an iconic locomotive that everyone in the world would embrace (heck, it is hard to find one that everyone in the US would embrace, e.g., someone on the west coast might have little interest in eastern railroads or vice versa). With a true creator set you could have three variants in one box: a nice Euro loco, a nice North American loco, and maybe some generic freight car. The three variants will get the collectors to buy three copies, the car option will get the operating folks to buy more than three copies, the rare colors will get the parts-pack people to buy many copies. Then the world is a happy train-ey place.

Depending on the design you do not need the turntable part. Several of my engines have technic beams on the underside, since there are no studs or receivers in this case you do not need the turntable. One big problem with using the turntable is that the powered truck can only rotate in one dimension. If you have unlevel track that can become a problem and/or cause a derailment. So in this design, I just use the base of the turntable. I don't remember if it was old or new turntables, but either should work. It provides a round bearing for the rotation without fixing the truck to the frame. Sometimes the truck can fall off of the axle, but as long as you are careful with the axle length that will only happen when picking it up (or at least that is the case for me). Also note that these are three axle trucks. The outside axles use the plumbing o-ring solution while the middle has the thner, normal lego rubber ring. The difference in height allows the trucks to take the curves, but come to think of it, the middle axle might still cause troubles when taking the divergent track on a switch. As for the vertical mount, my tender (link a few paragraphs up) has vertical mount motors that are fixed to a train baseplate (this approach was deliberate since it is hard to beat the train baseplate for longitudinal strength to weight ratio). Others mount the motor directly to the truck, as was the case in your original post. In this case the locomotive (or tender) is not attached to the motor and often can be lifted clean off of the motor (oh that gravity). davidzq solution is something of a hybrid, motor attached to the truck but held in place to the engine. I would add PF train motor 2 M Motors / 2 XL Motors / 1 L Motor / 2 PF train motors = 1 v1 Sensor, 1 battery box With PF train motors (v1 sensor, single output, LiPo bat) I've pulled some trains with a lot of drag (long cars through the tight lego curves). The train slows down considerably in the curves due to the limited power of the motors. If the train is then allowed to speed up in a straightaway it will derail when it hits the next curve, so it likes square layouts that roughly has the train in exactly one curve at any one time. If I set the speed too fast either the IR receiver or the battery overheats and starts dropping out (stop for a few seconds, then back to full power, separate from the train, crash!). If I start at about 2/3 of full speed no problems. However, after about an hour I need to notch the speed up one step to get back to the original speed and that lasts for about another hour. Of course I can go full speed in and out of ME 104 radius curves (sigh). I haven't tried the v2 sensors yet, but I fear the lower start up spike could scuttle my hopes that it would allow for these trains to go a little faster without dropping out. As for more than 2XL motors, as I've said in a few other posts, if you are not changing the gearing I am not sure you ever need more than two. In my experience the train will derail before a pair of XL motors are limited.

I like it, looks good and it has the feel of an official set.

Oh wow! That is an impressive little puller. On the one hand it is amazing that you fit so much PF in such a small space, on the other hand, she's a fantastic looker with great detailing. Great job

I think I started collecting Duplo trains before my first one was even in the oven (I stumbled on a clearance sale at 50% off... but even at full retail they seem like a good bargain to me). It all depends on your son's disposition. He might be at the stage where he likes holding 2x2's and just waving them around. It was not until we had kids that I found out why there are so many 2x2's in Duplo sets. Presumably if you are hanging around this neck of the woods you are a lego builder. If you take the right frame of mind there are a lot of really challenging building constraints with Duplo. Get down there on the floor and start seeing what you can put together, approach it with the same "I want to make it look the best" that you likely do with your MOC's (of course no one beside your son will mistake it for a real train, but it is fun to see how far you can get). Also see if you can come up with interesting creations that both challenge yourself and entertain your son, e.g., I built this spiral where the train would run up, turn around, come back down, repeat At around 2.5 it was utterly fascinating to my son and I found it to be a fun building challenge. I also built similar constructions with level track and set the boy inside the creation with 2 trains running loops around him. Eventually he took over building the trains, he now has a Duplo challenger that he built and still plays with while at the same time he's also starting to get into technic. I think Duplo was originally targeted at up to 8ish and it really does seem to work that old, but there is such a big push for "realistic" toys at a younger age that now I think the recommended Duplo age range ends around 5.

That drill-tipped one looks like it escaped from a mine, but add some round brown barrel-like cylinders and you could pull off a steam punk fantasy. Some of the other small steamers have a CP Huntington look to them.

Quit tempting me with your evil 8-wide ways! (grin) Seriously though, it is looking really nice. The doors are probably an easy one, build something studs out with mostly tiles for the outer layer in a pattern that matches a typical boxcar door, a few 1x1 tiles with clips to put a couple of bars on, etc.. My first thought is that the grab irons on the end for the brakemen would be difficult to do since they should be about a plate or less to be prototypical and those areas are all studs to the side, but then again, maybe you could use 4265 (longer stem than its replacement 88072) to make grab irons or perhaps any one of a number of hinge plates, e.g., For the steps, I like 1x1x1 corner panels with the "stud" out.

Could you make an IR controlled unit mounted on the 9v controller to rotate the dial? Might be a little roundabout, but it does have some Rube Goldberg charm going for it.

Thanks for an excellent tutorial... and like the others, I am in awe of your ability to cut a full pin in half so cleanly. I will never approach you when you have an xacto knife in your hand (grin).

At least in my experience I have had no problems with two XL motors, one conventional IR sensor, and one rechargeable battery box. I only run into occasional overload problems with a pair of PF train motors. I bet a pair of XL motors would be all you need in the Big Boy to meet your power needs... that is if you can figure out how to get them in there. In any event, looking good! I like that you showed the progression as well as the behind the scenes tools necessary to pull it off. So how did you do the centipede tender wheels? One of the things you could do while fine tuning the rods are to use half thickness technic beams stitched together to make a longer full width beam (and thinner in the spots where you need it), e.g., as done on this engine. Though you might have meant that you had less than a half beam's clearance.

No problem, meanwhile, I haven't built anything with L motors yet, but I can tell you that a pair of XL, a single "v1" sensor and a single battery box should be sufficient for anything that will stay on lego tracks. That example in my last post pulled a 50+ car train and could do more if it were not for the fact that the weight of the train would pull the lead cars off the track on curves. Of course it is also important to have enough weight on the (actual) drive wheels.