zephyr1934

Another amazing MOC, the whole train... both trains actually... are great too

Yes, the BBB XL do not nest, presumably because at integer stud spacing they do not need to. You cannot have 4 studs center to center for B-F XL, and at 5 studs there is room to fit the flange next to the blind rather than behind. So while 4.5 stud spacing would work in theory, BBB XL do not allow for it.

I have no inside lead or anything, but I would think any train they produce in the adults only line would have to be iconic, something a non-train person might want to put on their bookshelf. It can't be too big (i.e., expensive) so similar in size and complexity to the crocodile. It will have to be able to handle R40 track (so no massive articulated and at most 3 driver axles like on the EN), and it probably has to be able to take a motor. So here's my guesses if they do another train and they go steam: The golden spike locomotives A NYC Hudson LNER A4 an iconic German steam engine like the BR-10 As for what I'd like in a set, well, but I think a GG1 in Tuscan red with pinstripes, NW-J, SP GS4, and several others would make amazing sets but they all have too many wheels and would probably be too large for a price point of $100 so I really don't see any of these ever becoming official sets. Something like the rocket or Tom Thumb would also be neat, but also probably never happen.

Whoops, I didn't mean to spark controversy. Adding the minimum spacing to the chart with a clarification that some wheels of the given size might need greater spacing would be good. I think the number system is great, and I think it should be based on plates. While rounding up would make more sense to me, I don't think it will be much of an issue since it will probably only impact #10 and that will likely always be a specialty size. Furthermore, if you add the minimum spacing to the table there is less need for a user to learn the meaning, the numbers will simply be a name that clearly conveys #7 is larger than #5. Only the power users will think in terms of plates because that information is almost redundant now (and that is a good thing). I'm pretty sure the BBB L wheels nest with F-B only needing 4 studs center to center. That was one of the key features to allow x-6-x and x-8-x locos to handle R40 track.

Except for the NYC Hudson I suspect all of these are too big, too specific, or both. Any official lego train has to handle R40 curves, which limits you to 3 drivers. And a model has to work for all countries around the world, so if an engine is unique to a specific continent it has to either be iconic or generic (Maersk)

Actually, I had meant that without the numbering system all we had was the minimum spacing in studs between wheels of different sizes and even that wasn't so easy to remember. With the numbering scheme, the "L" becomes "9" (short for 9.5 plate diameter). So if I have two of these next to each other (F-B) I need at least 9.5 plates from axle to axle, that rounds up to 10 plates which is 4 studs. Whereas the XL is #11 and thus, needs 11.5 plates between axle centers, which rounds up to 12.5 plates or 5 studs between centers. If you use two flanges (F-F) you will need a larger spacing, but that will vary by the size of the flange, most likely adding 2 studs between axle centers. To get the distance per revolution, that is pi * d, or 3.14 * d. So the #9 wheels will travel just under 30 plates per revolution (12 studs). Of course all of the above is rough since some wheels will have a taper to their profile and some will have traction bands. Now thinking of the number as the minimum number of plates between axle centers, it might have been better to round UP to the next integer rather than down (so the #9 would become #10). That would give a safety margin for traction bands and tapers. But without it, the only potentially significant confusion would be #10 and #5, but I'm not aware of any bind #5's and #10's are likely to be uncommon forever.

"The resulting track switch is an item of beauty and mechanical elegance!" (from the blog post) Indeed! (pardon my drooling)

Wow, that is an impressive piece of work, great job capturing the feel of Art Nouveau, and the interior really does capture the essence of classic building remodeled with modern design. The only suggestion I have is to tweak your post and imbed the links as images. Below the box where you enter your text there is a button "insert other media". Choose "Insert image from URL" and your pictures will appear in your post, e.g., (the interior is equally impressive)

I think every design choice is to either add a feature with some amount of imperfection, or omit a feature with some amount of imperfection. So in each case it comes down to figuring out which is the worst outcome, but really, it is the combination of multiple trade-offs taken together. If I build this wall studs up I can easily make thin horizontal features, if I build it studs sideways I can easily make thin vertical features, but with studs out with a tile front..., etc.. Then again, I could do a hybrid with studs facing all sorts of directions, but now the interior gets really complicated, the model gets heavy and there is no place to put the battery box. Not to mention part availability in a semi-rare color. Oh boy, solving all of the optimization problems is half the fun when you finish the model and can say, "I built that." But getting back to omitting features, the hardest one for me is pinstripes on passenger cars, so many liveries in the US used stripes that would be half a plate or thinner at scale. Ugh, there is no good solution unless you are fortunate enough to be able to squeak in a thin element (e.g., the hinge brick trick)

You could buy a few switches from bricklink, they can be had for less than $5 ea and try it. Worst case, you are out $20 and a little time. Here are a couple of resources, a video, and a blog post. Or if you are not handy with tools and you don't mind non-lego, Trixbrix does sell switches that can be configured into a single crossover. Although for that price, you might be able to find someone who will modify lego switches, e.g., here.

Looking good so far. I also like your idea of continuing to tinker with it to make it look more like what you want. For example, replacing the dish on the front with a 6x6 round plate (perhaps with a 4x4 round plate and 4x4 dish, or round tiles, or...)

Yes indeed, captures the high end of what can be done in the classic 12v style

Excellent to hear!

I can confirm, I bought one of the PU train motors to get over a "free set" price point last month and I was surprised that it came with wheels when the photo does not show them. Maybe Lego is keeping their options open to drop the wheels in the future. The motor feedback is really cool, but lego needs to also make dumb motors (which fortunately we have in the train motors) and dumb battery boxes so that simple projects do not cost $75. That said, what you can do with the sophisticated system is amazing, e.g., color sensors. Another drawback of the (unmodified?) PU system is that you need a phone or tablet to be connect to the hubs at all times. It would be great if your automated train could just do its thing without regard for being connected to a phone. I understand why it is not the default option, but for the cost of the system, we should be able to select it.

That is a crazy complicated build with all of the gentle angles. Great work capturing all of the details.

Oh yes, I don't disagree with either of you that updates would be better. But for me at least it is not critical. Especially since a lot of things are taking way too long to ship from China right now. I loved it when I went to a bike shop last summer (a respectable national brand), they got me all excited about one of the bikes and then said that if I wanted a bike I'd have to pay for it now and there was no guarantee that it would be available within 12 months. I have also learned (e.g., via ME models and their semi-frequent updates) not to count on anything until it is actually ready for distribution. Unlike ME, FX did not take pre-order money. There might be some folks who either started investing in 9v or are really anxious to do so based on the FX announcement and for them an update is critical. For those of us with legacy 9v, I'm just tickled that someone is even contemplating wide radius 9v curves. If they make it to market I'll buy some and if they don't, well, I have survived with R40 so far.

The thing that threw me off was that I would think of the car as being 24.5 m. So then expressing it in mm it was not clear to me that you meant the real car, and not accidentally describing your MOC with a typo since 67 studs is just over 500 mm. At any rate, no matter how long it really is the car looks great.

Another great build! And I assume you mean 500 mm or 450 mm.

It doesn't look like there is any room in the engine to put the battery box/hub. So you would need to add a battery tender similar to the 4.5v trains or enlarge the locomotive to make room for the box.

Sure, more frequent updates would be nice, but it is a different scenario. I believe you pre-sold the Stud Counter kits while Michael has not sold any of the track yet, so I would have lower expectations of updates from him. His production cycle is also a lot longer, similar to the BrickTrack switches. My suspicion with the FX Tracks is that he approved preliminary (final?) designs and placed the production orders many months ago, and since then nothing else has changed on the fulfillment side. In fact his situation is probably more difficult than the BrickTrack switches since FX has to deal with multiple suppliers to make the track, the metal, and do the crimping. And then dealing with delays at some unknown point in the supply chain that everyone is blaming on someone else. So really all Michael can say at this point is he is waiting on the shipment and doing all he can to expedite it. At any rate I'm glad to see all of the wonderful new options that are coming from BT, BTD, FX, and others and my pocketbook is glad it is not all hitting at one time.

Okay, so version 1.0 was amazing, and it keeps getting better with each iteration. So what would that be, Amazing^3? Brilliant touch on the smokebox, and on the whole it looks so realistic. Two thoughts, first, if you do add valve gear then maybe having the cylinders sticking out isn't so bad (I didn't even notice until you mentioned it) since the valve gear add width beyond the rods. And second, if you are going to redo the air tanks, what about this piece, (which BL apparently reclassified as a curved slope)

Noooooooo!!! Don't do that, I want a chance to win. (just kidding, I think it would be very competitive and you should definitely enter it)

Excellent. I try not to build below the technic bricks for clearance reasons. If you build enough strength above (e.g., a 4x6 plate) you should be fine. Also, if you are building your own wheel assemblies, you can always use a 1xN technic brick or technic beam. At worst, Design -> Build -> Test -> Repeat

Amazing work, there is so much going on in the build, literally an eye catcher. Once isn't good enough for you, you have to wipe out the planet twice? The empire only wiped out planets once. (grin) PS, and thank you for the very educational tour of the plant

Ignoring any decoration to make the trucks look good, the following stack: 4x4 turn table (2 plates) 4x6 plate 1x2 technic brick with ball bearing and train wheels (or tecnic axle wheels) Is one plate shorter than: 4x6 bogie plate standard lego train wheel assembly So if you did a one for one swap, your train would be one plate closer to the track. Which is great when designing from scratch since the normal lego train wheels are so tall, but you might need a one plate spacer if you are retrofitting.