zephyr1934

That doesn't seem bad at all, comparable to the Lego LiPo. A charge time comparable to a discharge time is good, that way you could run all day by swapping two locos. It is also a good idea to give a locomotive a break to cool down.

Actually I didn't have any qualms about the width of the coach. If you are going for something on the order 30 studs long then 6 studs wide is a good proportion. And I was completely wrong about how you constructed the sides. Now seeing how you are building it, for the white portion of the sides, if you do not care about having an interior one possibility would be doing 4 wide plates for the center, then some combination of brackets pointing outward (to get a half plate spacing) and then the 2 plate tall curved slopes. In this way, the top of the curve would be flush with the windows and you could get the sloped sides ending right above your trucks to keep the overall height down. You would need a row of plates above the curved sides to bring in studs for the windows though. If you are going for an interior, 1x2 x 1x2 up brackets with the thin bracket stuck into the bottom of the windows might be your friends.

To be clear, I meant nothing offensive to folks who want or need R72, I was just saying that if you took a survey of radii that people wanted right now, I bet the peak would be at R56 and a secondary peak at R104/120. So my concern was that future production rounds are contingent on the success of sales in what I suspect is currently a lower demand radii. I personally would have no use for R56 but I think that should have been one of the first offerings because most folks are used to a life of R40 and just want to go one step further (especially the 9v diehards). Then again, you might be right about R72/88. I remember being totally amazed with R88 when ME first produced it. Coming from R40, R72 is big enough to go "wow!" and small enough to fit on more tables. In the long run I could see R56 and R72 become the most popular radii, again, my thoughts are simply around what I think is the best radius to produce first. Of course the mold has been cast and I am just a spectator. The only thing that I hope might come from my ranting is that either more 9v people decide to support the effort and buy R72 even if it is not in their long term plans, or if low sales of R72 puts the investors on the fence about going further that they recognize other radii are likely to be more popular. (even better, I'm wrong about the popularity of R72, but then my ranting is only for naught, and will just show how poor I am at forecasting)

Excellent to see the progress, but... R72? That is not a radii to lead with. You have one segment that wants R56 so they can go one larger, and you have another segment who are now building to a R104/R120 standard, e.g., the LGMS stipulates,"The minimum radius for curved track on a mainline module shall be R104." Sure, you can't get injection molded R72 and R88 curves since ME went under, but that is probably because there is a lot less demand for those radii. I love that improved 9v track is coming and R88 is big enough to get my attention (especially since it would work with R104 if it ever comes), but I'm more interested in R104 and larger. If R72/88 is as far as the project ever goes then I would eventually buy in for R72, but not while there is promise of larger radius... and that's the problem, their milestone of success and my desires are not in line. I don't know, maybe I'd do R72 just to give my 2c to keep the project going.

Looking good, To my eye the coach looks too tall, and clicking on the link to see the detail it does appear that you could cut out one full brick of height. I think you are using a train baseplate and then a row of headlight bricks on top of it, if you build a 4 wide frame yourself and use bricks with studs on the side you can get the same width with less height. Also, looking at your trucks, you have technic axle wheels. If those are a place holder for roller bearings then you are in good shape. If you are thinking of using those for real... good luck. The technic axles are "friction-ritch". I'd suggest using the normal train wheel-sets if you are only going to have 1-3 cars, or roller bearings if you are going to have 4+ cars Now you are ready to move to the next level in building- figuring out how to build something cheaper. With all of the classic train windows it is no wonder why the coach is so expensive. Sadly, there are no great substitutions for those windows if you are building cars of that era and local. Then, looking closer, it appears to be on a black 6x28 baseplate. Change that to dark blay or blue and you'll save a lot. Building your own 4x plate assembly will probably be on the order of the cost of a blay train base. Then look through the prices on the rest of the pieces to see if anything else is stupid expensive. Sometimes a part substitution can lead to a significant savings. That's why I always have the BL price catalog open when I'm building.

Oh, I assumed that you were aware of the trade-offs. That was more a comment for anyone reading the post to remember the context. A great example of folks forgetting about such things comes in the way the hoods are attached in the standard crocodile set- using a single technic pin that pulls out any time you try to pull the hood off (like when you want to pick up the locomotive). Back to the main point though, sharing schematics and design ideas like that is always a good thing to do for the community, it sparks ideas, shares innovation, and so forth.

Be careful, about half of those are only safe for pushing through, e.g., the axles in "long space" or the studs in "only good for double axle trucks" are likely to pull out if you try to pull through them. The two recommended ones do not have this problem. There are a large number of things you can do with a strictly technic joint, but it takes some mind bending to shift to thinking studless building.

Suggest both, one for L-gauge and one for O-gauge

Here's one More can be found here.

Oh, okay, no, I did not see that. The two examples on the left do not have the plates and the example on the right is all black so it is hard to see the details. So yes, you've already done all that I would think of

You click on each one and then in your browser select "save". They are text files (but make sure you use the .dat extension so that LDraw will recognize them). I could bundle them up into a zip file if you continue having problems (but that would have to be in a day or two, I need to get running right now)

At the price point for the base battery, wireless charging should be an add on rather than a stock option.

I would put a 2x4 technic plate across the top (with the yellow axle up the middle) and maybe a few more plates going across, all under the tiles. I would also put 3 half bushings per axle to keep the bevel gears in place.

Very nice indeed (and for that matter the whole layout looks great)

You should be able to find the common rods here and valve gear here (the valve gear are in my old style but the lengths are the same). Readme and instructions are here. All of which is in this folder.

New powered train motors is a neat idea, but a huge gamble. One of the best things abut 9v was the fact that you only needed one truck for power, no need to hide a controller or huge battery in the model. Folks have adapted to hiding the battery and receiver, that is an easy trend to reverse. But with the ability to use other motors, folks have started building other drive systems, including steam locomotives powered via the drivers. Along with that, a lot of (if not most of) the heavy duty builders have started building trains that are not R40 compatible. So you would need wide radius curves and switches. I've got plenty of 9v trains and I still design my 50-60 stud long cars to navigate R40 geometries, but without wide radius curves I'm not going to build much 9v. Right now the only thing a new motor would do would be eliminate the fear of burning out my old motors. Even with wide radius curves the 9v system also has a lot of problems. I was a power user back in the day. The resistance at rail joints every 5 inches meant that the train went dangerously fast past the power drop and then crawled on the opposite side of the layout. (yes, I then used more power drops and even used more controllers). Foreshadowing a few points I will make later, I don't think power connecting wires are in the first round of FxTrack offerings; and the rail-joint resistance could be a killer for DCC (folks have done home built DCC for 9v so I know it can be done, but they might have also made accommodations for the rail joints) Before you go too far, do some research on the Fx Track system. Michael Gale's plan already includes motors and potentially DCC control. New 9v motors would be contingent on his track (or someone else making the leap). If the key to his success is also to sell motors, as a community I don't think we want to undercut that provider (that is my 2c) and if the key to your success is to sell enough motors to make the model railroad manufacturer happy, having two suppliers competing for a very small market is asking for trouble. And what if the Fx track never makes it to market? I think model railroad manufacturers would be a great option for L gauge, but whatever first steps they take should be well thought out to ensure success. The 9v lego train motor was an amazing piece of engineering. The running surface of the wheels have traction bands, so it is not metal on metal for the actual propulsion. While the power pickup was from the side using sprung flanges. I was at Michael Gale's presentation at Brickworld 2019 and I THINK he mentioned that when he gets to the motors he is going to replicate that approach. Any successful lego train motor is likely to need traction bands or a lot of weight in/on the motor Yes, the market today is small (there are at least three aftermarket Lego train suppliers on this thread who have hinted as much). I think Fx is in it for the long haul to try to grow the market, hence their system approach. As a consumer I hope they succeed, but to me it looks like a gamble. I think this one is potentially a winner. O-gauge drive with a lego pin on the top would likely get a lot of attention. It would also provide a gateway for model railroaders to wander into Lego. Of course you would need two more components: O-gauge wheel sets (ideally with ball bearings) and lego compatible O-gauge coupler mounts. While it is a very small sample, I have collected a small fan club of O-gauge modelers who love my lego trains. And I have also adapted to live in their world. What's more, many of the custom instructions out there could work on day one with such a system. If you made sure the system could retrofit to the city trains then you probably have yourself a winner here because it would bring in a lot of the O-gauge market and they are far larger than the lego train market. Just one suggestion, you want to do it right, so solicit feedback from the train builder community. There are a lot of things that could be improved over the current lego train components (e.g., a 1x4 plate with a coupler mount on the side) and special care needs to be taken to ensure that the system would work even if the components do not have the clutch of normal lego (nobody can match the clutch tolarance of Lego) Oh, and also taking care to figure out either to use traction bands on the drive wheels or how to get enough weight so that metal on metal will pull the train. If you need weight on the drivers you will probably want weight bricks too. Powered Up as it exists today is a huge step backwards from PF for trains (I say this accounting for the lack of a "charge in place" battery, poor performance of Bluetooth at shows, and the new plastic axle wheels). So that actually creates an opportunity to strike with a better system. But it would have to be an entire system. Fx is one approach, while O-gauge is another A lot of people have. The most common variant is to gut a dead 9v motor and turn it into a power pickup, but I've seen at least half a dozen folks make their own power pickups other ways too. As noted above, I'm pretty sure motors are in the plans for Fx Actually, I know a portion of G scale is moving to battery and I think there is some O gauge as well. Presumably the drive is to avoid the hassles of maintaining constant power around the loop (clean track, loss of continuity, etc.) Bluetooth sucks at shows Sounds like there is a niche for someone to become the "restorer of 9v motors" by offering a trade-in discount for dead motors Finally, remember that you want to lower as many barriers as possible. Does the approach need a special controller (including an existing one from the model railroad world), would it require soldering, etc. all of these things will reduce adoption by lego builders. The more you make the system "plug and play" the more likely it will be adopted, but also the more expensive it becomes to produce. O-gauge components that allow most standard lego models to run on O-gauge track is where I would put my money. Look at the number of pink trains that Lionel has produced over the years presumably to convince the fathers/grandfathers that they can bring their young girls to the hobby. There are a lot of model railroaders who are looking to bring the kids in their lives into O-gauge, so they will buy a city train and put it on their layout if they had the wheels. There are also a lot of potential builders who either like Lego already but don't want to invest in a new system or who do not yet know that they like Lego. Rather than being contingent on someone else to make the track, you only need three items (motor, wheels, coupler) to make this work. The prospect of track powered trains will then attract some of the Lego builders as well, and since there is already a pantheon of track geometry available in the O-gauge world already, that will lure some lego builders. Oh yeah, and there's nobody in that market yet. The lego compatible couplers will also be of interest to folks who want to stick with L-gauge (though BMR is entering that market)

Brilliant! And it is even to scale

Looking good. Meanwhile, with regard to the prototype, I trust the high-vis orange on the nose of is a recent retrofit for safety. If so, I'd aim for a pre-retrofit version, much more aesthetically pleasing.

Moving is the layout killer. If I knew a move was likely in a few years, I would probably devise some personal modular standard, be it "these 10 baseplates always go like this" or a standard conduit for running wires long distance. Looking at how traveling lego train clubs do it would be great inspiration. Some clubs (including mine) just extend the concept of "everything on a baseplate" to an extreme. There have been years where we've done half a dozen major shows with large layouts set up in a day, two at the most. Most things break down into single baseplates, with larger items segmented in to parts so that they can be carried. This approach limits the amount of terrain you can build. Then there are other clubs that have a display that also breaks down but when assembled it always goes the same way (Michael Gale's UK layout is one of the best I've seen in this regard).

Ah, yes, and if a reliable source of cables cannot be found, what about short "normal plug" cables? I would imagine that leaving a 2x3 or 2x4 spot for a shorty cable would be feasible in many builds. If the housing will be 3D printed into the foreseeable future, another idea would be future variants offering different locations of the plug. If I could pick only one spot for the charging plug it would be right where you put it (given the fact that the top is not an option). But I could see advantages to having the plug on the opposite side of the battery so that you can put that end one stud in from the end of a locomotive and just leave a small hole for the socket. Or having the plug in the bottom. Obviously this would not work if you are injection molding the housings.

That looks interesting. I don't know if all of those Duplo parts exist in black, and if they do, they are probably more expensive than doing it in similar system parts (if you can even get enough of the Duplo). I would also agree with The prototype of my last MOC building had black doors, but they just disappeared into the model, I had to redo them in white to make them visible.

Very nice, I'll be buying one of those yards before my next show... assuming the world will reopen some day.

Clearly from the Hub design Lego had envisioned a rechargeable battery alternative for the PUP Hub that would replace the AAA stack. Given the fact that the LiPo PF batteries disappeared over night, I wouldn't be surprised if the official PUP version never comes to light. So it is good to see someone else pursuing this avenue... and it looks like doing a better job in the process. After reading the introduction I was echoing the following My first thought when seeing the announcement in this thread was, oh no, I would have to pull the battery out to charge it, and now I can't even leave the base in for structural support. I went with the lego PF LiPo because it was easy and convenient to build the battery into MOCs and leave a small opening to get the power in. My biggest dislike of PUP is the fact that you have to leave so much space to pull the battery cover. That point was cleared up on the KS page though. Your solution, seems like a "must do" to me. Probably as an optional add on that can be bought from your store when purchasing a Keybrick but in my mind it should be easily available. This could open up new options to simply thread the power cable out to the bottom of a MOC or some other convenient location to bring in power (though one still needs to access the power button on the battery). Oh, one more thing, given the fact that shipping LiPo batteries has gotten more difficult, will this be able to ship internationally? Anyway, looks like a great addition to PUP

I have a minimal permanent layout for this very reason. One thing I'd suggest is to always have a working loop of track. That way you can still run the trains and find inspiration while you are building out the details. For me, it is the slow times- pulling parts for a detailed build... I was shocked how quickly the crocodile went together until I realized that I didn't have to pull any parts to build it. It was like being on holiday. I personally find I lose steam when building the grebling (e.g., underside of cars) where attention to detail is important but hardly ever gets noticed if done right.

Looking good!