zephyr1934

Noah_PL, thanks for posting the link to the video. Looks like they have worked hard to reproduce the functionality of the RC train controller, only now with 5 extra sounds... ugh... wish they had the option to put the control buttons on the right side too Um, excuse me, your train is ringing. (grin) Wow, you're good and you're fast! They definitely gave the review set to the right person. Might I suggest a new thread for your controller? Which is already shaping up to be quite beneficial. But before you go and do that, here are a few more suggestions to consider: Having a variety of user interfaces would be great (slider, push button, dial, etc.), having the ability to set a few variables would be great (max speed/power level, how many button presses it takes to go from zero to full, how quickly should the "slow to a stop" take, etc.)

From what I have seen of the stand alone PU controller, it recognizes a train motor and uses the "set and forget" control style of the PF train controller, but if I recall correctly then it recognizes a non-train motor (Boost?) and uses the "only run while lever is pressed" control style of the standard PF controller. Can this default control be overridden? There are many excellent train designs that use M, L, and XL motors that would need the "set and forget" style of control. It sounds like the hand controller has a range of about 5m and then the motors stop of the connection is lost. Could this be overridden and operate like PF, where the train will keep going even when it is out of communication range? Will there be a rechargeable option of the battery box/receiver that could be built in to a model and have a charging port like the LiPo battery, so that it can be charged without having to disassemble the entire model? Will there be dumb battery boxes so that you can simply run a motor without a controller (e.g., for GBC, windmill, etc.)? How long will the old PF system be available? Will we have warning to stock up on specific components? Or will they simply disappear suddenly? Currently we have the M, L, XL, servo, and train motors from PF, will there be comparable motors in PU? Will there be extension cables, so that motors can be placed further from the receiver? If there are splitter cables, will there be polarity switches (e.g., to have two train motors oriented in opposite directions under a locomotive, with both power cords coming from the center of the train baseplate)? If one dial can control both output ports on the receiver, can the outputs run in opposite directions (e.g., for two train motors under a locomotive with both sets of wires coming from the center of the train baseplate)? ============= echoing questions I've already seen -what is the max current that can be delivered -is there an ability to power two motors off of one port (e.g., a splitter cable) -is there an ability to control multiple receivers with a single controller or the App -Will there be PU to PF converter cables so that we can use legacy PF motors?

The SBrick is great because it can deliver more power than the PF IR receiver (I think it is 2x), which helps a lot for heavy trains, long cars on standard curves, etc.. Though the fact that you can completely hide it is equally good. The UI has a small learning curve to set up, but once you have figured it out, it has a lot of flexibility. On the purist side, if you are building a big steamer and don't mind the slow speed of XL motors, here is a pure lego solution that I have not been able to stop (it will pull magnets apart, and if you use super magnets it will pull cars off the tracks on tight curves) It looks like this with the tender built on it I've also built a version inside of a boxcar, though I did not take any photos.

What a (giant) beauty. An amazing piece of work (and thanks Tenderlok for the cross posting or I never would have seen this)

Nice work, I like the progression from your first build a few years ago to the dark red version. Each new picture another improvement

Yep, that's the part. They don't have much clutch (enough to stay on, but they are also easily knocked off).

Great review, very thorough, I like the fact that you gave a good overview of all of the parts in the bags. I am most curious about PU and multiple motors on the same battery box (or multiple battery boxes to one controller). I wouldn't be surprised if the app allowed for some of that. Could you give more of a shakedown of the controller performance? For example, does it cut out when you move the controller more than 3m away? (as per the earlier video)

Great job getting so much detail in such a little package.

That is an insane amount of detail for an 80's era MOC. Incredible.

I pull my head out of the hole it has been in and look at this beauty that was awaiting me. The dark blue is stunning and then you went and captured all of those impossible lines yet again. Great work!

What a beauty! Always fantastic when new builders show off their work and MOCs like this are simply amazing from any builder, doubly so if it is your first. You clearly put a lot of time into it and it shows. Great use of the throwing disk too.

Yes it did (was 9v themed, probably been gone about a year?). Anyway, thank you thank you for the theme change, I can see my unread threads again!

That is insanely brilliant! The stickers I make go on wet and after they dry they stay in place (but they are not decals, they can be removed and reapplied). It is so much easier to just float the sticker in to place than to try to get your aim just right on the first shot. That floating has broken me for normal lego stickers, I can't stand my poor aim when putting them on dry. Now knowing that I can get the same effect with regular lego stickers... I'm regretting several years of normal set building. Getting back on topic though, I would think there is a chance that the nose piece is printed.

Does that trick actually work? Without degrading adhesion in the long run? That would be amazing if true. Perhaps you could post a new thread with a tutorial about applying lego stickers this way?

So I have been thinking more about the BT PF2 train bits. Here are a few of the things I am hoping for (concerned about) 1) no more than 4 studs wide for the battery/receiver unit 2) option for a rechargeable battery that can be built inside MOCs without being removed to charge 3) use the existing wall-wart for recharging 4) given the new plug system, is it even possible to drive two motors off of one output from the receiver? Hopefully yes (or perhaps the two outputs could be controlled together via the smart phone app but not the hand controller). Or maybe there will be a Y-splitter? 5) Even better if the software allowed you to control multiple receivers working together so that you could have 4 motors under a train all working at the same speed. 6) Hopefully the new battery/receiver can deliver more power than the current (no pun intended) IR receiver.

That is just a reinforcement on the ends, it has been there forever, I'm pretty sure it is even present on 9V track.

Yep, that's the part, completely new to me.

Looks like there is a new roof piece above the windows/windshield on the green locomotive, either a pair of 2x4x2/3 or more likely a single 4x6x2/3 with a slope on the outer set of what would be 4 studs. The windshield looks to have clear glass. Also an interesting use of the white snotted 1x6 train wagon end. You can see the battery box/receiver light through the front windshield at about 10 sec in, it does not appear to be lined up with the side grills. But maybe part of the battery box is wider than 4 studs, as the battery box on the passenger train seems to also be aligned with the grills. It does appear that the on/off button is visible on top of the passenger train, but that appears to be a 2 wide section between 2x4 slopes, so maybe that is just a brick built button that presses the actual on/off switch below. The passenger train is growing on me, but I'm a sucker for dark blue.

Pictures of 60238 the switching tracks are out... looks like the only differences are that the new set comes with a $5 cost improvement and a 5th digit in the set number over the old 7895 set.

Looks to be a great set for the money. I would say the design style is similar to the Lone Ranger locomotive, at least in terms of the running gear (with the addition of the connecting rod). Shrewd move excluding the side rods, keeps the locomotive 2 bricks narrower while also eliminating the need to explain quartering. I bet the pilot truck is similar to the LR locomotive and if so, my mod for that will likely work on this build too. Definitely enough bits for an AFOL to modify it to a satisfactory train. The set does seem stubby, the use of drawbars instead of magnets (probably saving $6 or more off the price), two axle car (another couple of $$$), etc. seem like reasonable compromises to keep a licensed set at a low price. It has a lot of play value. Even if PF fits in the tender, it will look poor... but I suppose not much worse than the EN with a big battery box in the tender. I bet they go the way of the Lone Ranger though and not provide instructions to motorize. The lack of train windows is unfortunate, though it does not necessarily mean they are gone forever, just that the standard windows are cheaper to produce. It is a magical train, so who needs a driver?

I recently built a MOC with a non-standard gauge and needed washers to get the spacing right. I could use bushings and gaps to make it work without washers, but as soon as it gets nudged on the track or ??? it would lose the gauge. I just took a technic axle to the hardware store and found whatever standard washer fit on it. I think the ones I got were about 1mm thick. I don't remember the size off the top of my head, but I have the package downstairs if you have problems finding washers on your own. Oh, and thanks for the shout out ALCO, though the washers I sell are intended to get the spacing precise for valve gear bars.

I would agree that having the option of going to 6 cars is nice, I personally thought the current 3 car trains with cabs on either end seem short, though I know there are plenty of prototypes with such a configuration. The one annoying problem of pairing two sets together gives you a ton of curves, having more straight track would be nice. While I doubt Lego would ever go back to unit packages, it would be great if you could just buy 8 straight segments again, then buy the curves you need separately. Then they could do the trains in bundles- a base train without track or power (e.g., 3225 or the HE); a couple of loop configurations available at S@H that are actually combinations of straight, curve, and switch track packs; and a generic motorization set. Have a super-pack for stores that combine the base train, some track, and the motorization in one box, but allow people to pick and choose online, e.g., a big loop of track, two passenger train sets, and only one set of PF. Yeah, won't happen. The single cab unit on what seems like it should be a double ended train, specialized nose piece, and lack of train doors is actually consistent with several 9v era sets from 1996 to the end of the line, e.g., 4559, 4560, and 4511. From an AFOL perspective getting an extra set of PF is nice. I wonder if they will have a rechargeable version of the battery/controller (or might that be the standard design and dropping a non rechargeable option?). Hopefully it will be able to deliver more power than the current PF system.

But if you put a round 2x2 brick with a technic axle on the rotating control, you could then do a simple gear train to achieve a connection point to the side of the control stand that does allow you to go down.

Even to this day it is not uncommon for Lego to revise instructions for a given set from one production batch to the next. For example, at some point during the run of the Emerald night they added a 1x1 technic brick to the power train to keep one of the gears from slipping off.

I haven't had any problems with M-motors and un-modified switches using a direct drive (see p37 in RB 12). Only trouble is that you have to be careful to cut power after the switch throws since the motor stalls. If you do not need the ability to run through the switch, there are also variants of the spear switch (first, second), which exploit the crimping holes in 9v track. That functionality can be replicated with the addition of a 3.1 mm hole in the side of PF track or by going under the track.