zephyr1934

Looks like a great idea and a great build. While I've seen similar ideas, I've not seen one this efficient. The one potential weakness that I see is that the corner 2x2 tiles could rotate on the single stud connection below. Fortunately with the black 1x2 jumper plates underneath, you've also provided a solution, one could put 1x1 plates or tiles there to lock the 2x2 tiles in place. The one potential problem with the current design is the fact that this unit is not a clean and even 16x16, so it might not integrate well into a layout that is on baseplates, but here too, probably an easy fix- extend the 2x2 tiles until it becomes 15x15 on top. EDIT: okay, one quick LDRAW later and we have... (all three steps and ldraw file should be available once moderated)

Oh yeah. You can also see the seeds for many other ideas that eventually became themes or sets. There were some awkward moments too. I think it was the next train idea book after this one that had homemaker figures behind 1960's era windows with 6 wide trains. Doh! Click on that text and you'll see the specific page (I've also added a note at the end of the original post) How did you get curves with that design? Being in the US, I didn't have access to the lego train line (I drooled over the 12 v train catalog). I resorted to building my own monorail with 4 wide track. No curves, but I could do elevation with slopes. I think I even had a transfer table for a "switch".

Many AFOLs continue to lament the loss of the monorail system. Some AFOLs have gone on to make some really slick brick built monorail tracks. Very recently some AFOLs have started building steam monorails here and here based on insane prototypes. When I saw the track snaking around in this post of the steam monorails, I thought, "how perfect for a monorail." Though I was thinking more along the lines of an elevated system that is reminiscent of the classic monorail system. It took me a little while to realize that I had seen such a thing before, namely the following image from 241, the 1971 4.5v idea book (hopefully the photo will last), There are a few more shots of the monorail on other pages. I suspect this prototype was the seed that eventually grew into the monorail system. It strikes me that there is a lot of potential using the 4.5v/12v rails in this fashion for a much cheaper monorail system. You could even use a PF motor to propel it, but it would take some balance to do so since the center of gravity would be so high above the rail. With about 40 years of new parts since then, there are a lot more options, technic for the wheels (or perhaps the tiny train wheels for the unpowered units), hinges for quick and easy ramps, etc. I don't have enough time to pursue this idea, but maybe someone else out there wants to run with it. EDIT: click on "cookies must be enabled" to see the picture

Ah, if it is in your house and the PF battery dies, it is just a hassle- it is not that it is on display 1 hr away from you and in a public space. Given the fact that you are wandering into uncharted territory, it is hard to say what will work best in the long run. If you are most familiar with 9v and you have a lot of parts, then that is as good as anything to start with. However, you may find that the grades put extra stress on the 9v motors or ??? The biggest advantage of PF is that it is still made. So if you do burn out a motor, it is $5-$15. But you have to invest in and build around all of the PF components, you run the risk of a battery dying at the top of the display (unless you are doing a 9v powered modification), etc.. I'd say don't change any of your existing trains over to PF until you have a feel for PF and only then if you find PF is better for your needs. However, something like the Horizon Express would be a great, "let's see what PF can do for me" train. Maybe buy a battery or battery box, an IR receiver, 1-2 train motors, the IR train controller, 1-2 XL motors and play with them to see if you can build something to your liking. Most of my trains are 9v, but at least half of the trains I've built in the past few years are PF. I still prefer track power, but PF does have some nice features that make it worth my time to play with.

Looks like there will also be a bonus hand car too...

Hey, lego's bringing the duplo bridge back.

Thanks DaveB, I've only made one modification and it was quite small. I originally had a 1x2x2 train window where the wall power goes into the RCX. But when I took it to a show the transformer there had a larger cord around the plug so I pulled the window. Thanks BnB. The bridge sections were pretty much Jeramy's idea, I just stuck the semaphores on them. The transformer box was a quick and dirty snot build (the door rail idea was inspired by some of my train cars). The head scratching came when I was trying to figure out the roof- I wanted something light. These wacky 6x6 tiles came in handy. As for my lego room, well, my wife is very understanding and the kids like the room, so it is easier to slowly accumulate this way. When we moved in to this house it took me a year to strike floor in the lego room, another year to get it shuffled around, and another two years before I got the semi-permanent loops of track down. Since I'm now using all of my straight track this means no more field trips to the living room for a while. I'm still working to get a couple of boxes sorted, then I might put the switching yard in.

The yellow one is probably this one and the red one is probably this one

Okay, I've come up with a quick fix for a lingering problem. As I mentioned last month, the wheels had a tendency to jump the track when going backwards. I finally remembered my clockwork article from Railbricks 7. The 9v track joints are not even, as a train approaches a joint, the rail on the right is slightly inside the rail to the left. With normal wheel spacing and normal wheels it is almost never a problem. With large wheels or otherwise unusual wheels, it can be a problem because it provides an opportunity for a flange to catch, climb the rail, and cause a derailment. So the problem wasn't with my design per se, it was due to the fact that I wanted to use a wide wheelbase on the tight lego curves. That is exactly what was happening to my S2. So it struck me, why not use a guard rail keep the wheel in line if it ever tries to climb the rail. The idea is similar to the guard rails on a switch. I just used a simple stack of a 2x2 round plate and a 2x2 round tile. First I tried the "S" curve necessary to wind around a fixed obstacle. Note the black dot on the inside rail at a rail joint. Then a curve, note that the guard rails are on the inside of the curve on the junction between two rail segments. They are on the downstream end of each curve segment when the train is traveling counterclockwise since it is at only at the downstream end of the curve segment where the driver wheels will be pushed against the protrusion in the rail joint. Finally I did a switch I haven't looked too closely at PF track, I THINK lego may have fixed the alignment problem at the rail joints when they removed the metal, but you can easily check for yourself. It should be apparent to the eye or the touch. So far so good, the new guard rails have allowed me to run counterclockwise without an incident. This trick might help others who are having problems getting their steam engines to run smoothly. The one downside I've hit is the fact that now my cars with a wide wheelbase knock against the guard rails on the curves. So I'll probably remove most of them on the mainline and go back to running clockwise, but it is good to know what the problem is and I will keep the guard rails on the switch to facilitate entering and exiting the siding.

Ah good point, there are plenty of pictures all the way up to the 1920's where a temporary narrow gauge railroad on panel track was used on large construction sites. For quick track one rail is easier than two.

Nice build of an insane prototype

Looks good in real bricks

Yes, like alainneke said, I wasn't suggesting converting your entire fleet, rather, since your track cleaning train is rather unique in terms of how much weight it has to pull/push that PF probably has the power you need for this special purpose. I would estimate that a single XL motor has at least as much power as two 9v train motors (or more if you use gear reduction). I used this configuration based on the work of many others, It isn't fast but it IS strong. The PF motors are a lot smoother than the 9v, without the jolts they can pull more weight through the magnetic couplers than 9v can, but you still may need to either use a draw bar or rare earth magnets. In this case, putting the locomotive in the middle of the train will minimize the draw bar pull. Though seeing your post, the one big problem with PF is that when the batteries die, they can do so suddenly with little warning. Or if the IR receiver gets too hot, the train can stop abruptly then when it cools down half a second later lurch away and potentially breaking the magnetic coupling (I've had this overheating problem when using PF train motors, but NOT with the XL motors). Either one of these events would be especially bad if your train were up on the hard to reach part of your layout. So perhaps pure PF is not for this layout. Still, using a dead 9v motor as a power pickup, you could still use the PF motors without any batteries. I'm sure someone around here could sell you a dead 9v motor if you don't have any of your own (and kudos to you for being so gentle on your equipment, keep it up). Oh, and while I do have a few dead 9v motors, I am not yet ready to part with any of them. I have heard that often when the motors fail it is because the brushes wear out, which could also preclude using them as a power pickup if you do not replace the brushes. Still some motors die because the actual motor itself burns out and those would be ideal for a PF power pickup. Finally, nothing wrong with having two 9v trains that follow one another on your layout, that should work just as well and would require less experimentation on your part. Presumably the maintenance train is primarily for keeping the track clean. If it looks a little awkward that's fine as long as it gets the job done.

The prototype is simply insane, but the model does a great job capturing the spirit. Well built. You could even use a 12v switch to let the monorail into dual gauge track shared with normal six wide gauge.

A fantastic build and I snickered at the contrast in your opening sentence (a large build of a a small two station)

You could probably solve the propulsion problems with one or two PF XL motors. I've pulled over 50 cars with a pair of them.

Nice work

Excellent! The colors work very well on this train and the video from the camera train is great.

When I built my red EN the curved slopes were $0.40 or $0.50 because they were rare, but I am in a club that puts on displays so I was able to buy mine via lugbulk at a much more reasonable price. I think just about all of the other dark green pieces are fairly common in red so it shouldn't be more than $0.05 or $0.10 per brick for the red parts. It is neat to see all of the other color MODs come out too. L@go's lime green looks surprisingly good for the color that it is. Put a drill bit on the nose and you could fight the fiercest snow drifts in the winter or the nastiest rock monsters under ground (grin). Oh you are too kind, but no, that's just a fun challenge of trying to figure out how to build something nice in lego for a lot less $$$. The most important thing is that you build something you like. If I were using dark green for the windows, I'd probably use dark green for the entire tan band. You would have to use the 1x2x2 windows for the doors and instead of a 1x1 brick with handle you'd need to use a 1x1 brick with clip vertical. If you don't like the dark green/dark brown combination, you could also consider a different color for the brown portions, or make it all dark green (replacing the grill bricks with smooth sided bricks for cost reasons). For my tastes I like the 1x2x2 windows better than the 1x2x3 windows, but I think either one works. Even better, you can mix the two window sizes together. Of the two designs you showed, I like the even spacing with the windows in triples. But you might want to consider pairing up the windows and having the uneven offset on one end of the car (simulating bathrooms or closets on the inside of the train). If you keep the 1x2x3 windows for most of the car, you could put a single 1x2x2 window for the WC. If you build several cars, you could build a few identical coaches and then a different dinning car, etc. That is where customizing the tender comes in handy. Within the past month I think there was a post about using a train motor under an extended EN tender (or possibly a pair of train motors), moving the IR receiver to the tender, and I THINK doing a better job of concealing the battery. At which point, you've moved all of the PF to the tender (except the headlights if you have them). You could even start experimenting with tender designs now, before you finish collecting bricks. I started out this way- modifying the Super Chief to get a California Zephyr train. Edit, well there you go, a whole lot of inspiration for modifying the EN...

Hi Duq, okay, that is good that you were able to make the problem go away with the two diagnostics. Yes, after I typed my last note I realized that I misspoke about the washers. Way way back in a prototype of the rods I tried a super thin version (basically no cuffs on either side of the rods) and in that case I needed the 2 mm washers for spacers. In this case you would need about a 1 mm thick washer from your local hardware store for the quick and dirty fix. You might also be able to fashion your own washer from paper, cardboard, or a plastic container. If the washer solution is no good, then certainly a new rod design is feasible. I personally like the aesthetics of an added ring behind one end of the connecting rod, but looking at your render (very nice btw) I am also a little concerned that the side rod could catch the backside of the half pin on the piston. If the piston is mounted securely then in theory the cylinder should always keep the pin out of the plane of the side rod, even though the back ring of the half pin is exposed. On the other extreme, I could fabricate a rod that is roughly the same thickness as a technic half beam or play with the pin holes such that the cuff portion is on the back side and would protect the cylinder pin. The thing I don't like about this solution is that connecting rod would now rub against the face of the side rod and this wear might show on the side rod. I could put a ring on one end of the connecting rod (as per #1) and on the other end try to taper the back side of the connecting rod so that it thickens to the width of a technic half beam and protects the backside of the piston pin. Though this option also has the risk of wear marks forming on the front of the connecting rod. Again use the ring from #1 to stabilize the connection with the side rod. Then I could try to come up with a new connection for the cylinder end, completely eliminating that half pin. I know that I do not have the precision to fabricate something that would emulate a technic pin, but with the ladders, I also know that I can fabricate a bar. Perhaps have a thick bar on the front of the connecting rod for the technic connecter on the cylinder, and then drop down to a bar thickness so that you could push a 1/2 bushing on the end to secure the technic connector. The risk here is that I don't know how securely the bushing would grip the bar. It should work, but we would be flying into uncharted territory and the bushing would add 1/2 stud width to both sides of your locomotive. If you have ideas, certainly let me know and I will also keep scratching my head for other things that might work. Thanks much, Benn

I've also seen it repainted in black. Assuming the curved slopes are the rarest part, it looks like reddish brown might be the cheapest color to build it in, but blue would be striking as well. No, I wasn't much interested in the coach. While I liked the brick built doors, I've already got 50+ passenger cars and I'm moving towards smaller windows, non-opening doors, and slightly smaller than minifig scale in my designs. Still, with the EN car, I would think even minor experimentation for the windows and at least selective color substitution could yield a much cheaper build for the cars. Perhaps, or if you can figure out how to make purple work, those train windows are dirt cheap. Or heck, if you wanted to keep the 1x4x3 dimensions of the windows, I'd try a 1x2 trans brick on top of a 1x2x2 trans panel and put them in pairs.

If you just have to have an EN, but you don't care that much about it being a perfect match to the set, you could try doing it in a different color. Personally, I liked the design, but not enough to use all that dark green. So I built mine in red and skipped the stickers. One of these days I might go back and change the fenders over the drivers from black to red too. That's one of the great things about lego, customize it to your own personal tastes. There are also several small tweaks one could easily do to make it a better engine. Start with the mechanical improvements listed in the Railbricks article. Then the loco would look better with a bigger tender. I also think extending the side rod to connect with the middle driver does a LOT to improve the aesthetics (you do not have to use custom rods to do it, you could use technic axles and connectors, might be cheaper to do in gray, but...?)

Thanks Locomotive Annie. Yes, it is neat to watch the semaphores do their job from across the room. Though the rubber band drive was has been around for a long time, probably to the early days of technic. And thanks bjtpro, good eye. Yes, those are my CN&W cars, I rode on the prototypes a few times when I was young and they are still among my favorite MOCs. That's one of the things I really like about modeling in lego, if you like the train you can build the train without being at the whim of a manufacturer (okay, a scratch builder doesn't care about the manufacturer and we are still limited by the lego pallet, but I digress). Now as for Jenks Blue, isn't dark blue close enough? (I know I know, you can never get close enough, grin).

[ full gallery] I have finally had a chance to photograph my semaphores. First off the signal bridge is modified version of a design I first saw by Jeramy Spurgeon. I have since seen this idea duplicated on several other layouts, but so far all of the examples I have seen have inactive signals. Sure, I had working LED signals, but then a few years back I started thinking about semaphores. There is just something nice about the changing position. So soon enough, I combined my semaphore idea with the signal bridge design. The MOC is tucked away in a dark corner of my layout and my camera batteries were dying, so I couldn't get any good video, but I was able to piece together this animated gif to give you an idea of how they look when operating. The mechanicals are fairly simple, a PF m-motor with a rubber band for a clutch. The one non-obvious feature is the two 1x1 plates just below the red and white semaphore arm. These are twisted ever so slightly to provide stopping points, the plate in back for the white and the plate in front for the red. I use an RCX to run the whole signal tower with a simple "break beam" train detector consisting of a PF LED pair in the middle shining on two light sensors, one for each track. I used a technic half pin to keep the emitted light beam tightly focused and a 1x1 plate sized hole in front of the sensor to keep as much ambient light out as possible. Because the whole setup is in a dark corner, the light for the sensor looks a lot brighter in the photos than it would normally look, e.g., I had the semaphores at one show and some of my club members were puzzling over how it sensed the trains. Given normal light levels it was a lot harder to see the light used for the sensor. The RCX is tucked away in a snug shed along the tracks, with cables coming out for the sensors, light, and motors. The program isn't complicated, but it does have a few clever tricks worked in, e.g., at startup it samples the background light level and stores that for a reference (instead of using a hardcoded value). It then does a loop to check if beam a has broken (saving the result in a variable), then if beam b has broken (again saving the result), then checks to see if it needs to change the state of either semaphore (either due to a newly broken beam or timing out since the last detection). Then loops back. Since most of the action is confined to the conditional statements, the program can complete the loop quickly and sample both tracks with a fairly frequency. I should also mention that I do not actually cut power to the track, so these are just for show. It should be fairly simple to modify this set up to control a single block on one track. [ full gallery]

Hi Duq, sorry to hear that things are not working out smoothly. The rods plus the cuff on a pin should be pretty close to the thickness of a technic half beam. So there should be very little extra slop when using just a 3/4 pin and a single rod. However, when you use two rods on a full pin, you now have an extra "pin cuff" of slop that wouldn't be there with technic beams. I'll get to trying to solve the problem in a moment, but first let me give the logic behind the unusual rod dimensions. I made the rods thinner than a technic half beam for several reasons. First, I wanted to be able to paint the rims of the train wheels without a risk of the rods rubbing the paint off. Having the rods float on the pin cuff provides this option. Second, in case I got a batch of rods that came out too thick from the fabrication I wanted to be able to sand them down if I had to. If I had a full cuff I wouldn't be able to do that. Now for diagnosing your problem, I have two ideas to try and see if either solves the problem. If so, then we know what to do to fix it. First, try flipping the connecting rod over so that what should be the backside is now facing outward (and the side with the groove is facing inward). It will look horrible but we are just testing the spacing. With the rod flipped over like this, the side rod + connecting rod should be comparable to two two technic half beams in width on the pin (excluding the pin cuffs, which are holding the rods in place). If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll get you a photo of what I am talking about. Oh, and this tweak will add slop where the connecting rod meets the piston- the pin will now be loose there. Second, try replacing the the connecting rod with a technic half beam (or if it is longer than 7 studs use a couple of them pinned together like the side rod in the top of this photo). Again, don't worry about looks, this is just to test the dimensions. Be sure to keep the custom side rod on the engine for this test. I had anticipated that in some cases one would not want the slop, that is why I initially made the 2mm thick washers (now listed under the valve gear bars). I THINK a pair of these has a good chance of solving your problem. Otherwise, we could bring out the big guns and make a connecting rod that meets you specific dimensional needs, i.e., make it the thickness of a technic half beam by adding a ring on the back side, kind of like the following (meant to skip one rod), only not nearly as deep, Let me know the results of your diagnostics testing and then we can figure out how best to get you the long term solution. If none of the above works, I could also try to build up possible cylinder designs that meet your needs while eliminating the current conflict. For this, you'd need to send me photos and/or more details of your specific design (off line or on, whichever you prefer). Thanks much, Benn