Brickthus

8mm scale Class 08 shunter with 2 gears 0.5-3.5 and 3-20mph and a 3rd gear for decoupling. Crams in LiPo battery, IR Receiver, M-motor for gear selection and L-Motor for power. Mark

This Tube Wagon uses a standard 6x24 baseplate. Similarly for Brake Vans. The low-loader baseplate lends itself to a Nuclear Flask Wagon. I find it more of a pain for wider trains that the coupling is joined to the buffer beam. Surely TLG could use a 2x3 plate with hole instead, with separate buffers, and still claim that a child could not swallow the coupling? Mark

I think a return to 9V is extremely unlikely - I am more likely to have a flying car! One part of the idea of Power Functions trains and the move to plastic track as that more custom track pieces are possible e.g. the double crossover. It is frustrating that TLG has not produced more specialist track pieces like a 22.5 degree crossing or even a 90 degree crossing like the 9V one, though some AFOLs have made their own either by cut-and-shut or 3D printing. I had hoped for an express point with both tracks nearly straight or at a wide radius; the track overlap would be long though, too long for use by younger railway enthusiasts with living room floor layouts. I hope Power Functions will be around for at least 20 years - AFOLs have barely started using it yet after 7 years! Mark

The easiest way to reverse polarity without using a PF switch is to cut the two centre wires of a PF extension lead (C1 and C2) and swap the connections. 12V single-pin plugs would be the easiest way to reconnect the wires either way round. I have used these for PF train experiments. You would need to separate the 4 wires for about 2cm each side of the break, and probably fold the cable when C1 and C2 are connected. I doubt the whole solution would fit in a much smaller space than the switch, considering the need to accommodate the cable. The cost would not be cheaper than a switch by the time you've bought the plugs. Mark

I would assume that any H-bridge driver chip has flywheel diodes across the transistors to cope with inductive discharge from the motors when the stop command is given. This would mean reverse polarity would be shorted through 2 series diodes (with 2 parallel paths). The PF system would not have reverse polarity by default - it would only be by a hack like using another power source and an empty PF battery box to connect it to the 9V and 0V rails. If you use that method I recommend adding a baulking feature to stop you putting the battery box switch in the reverse polarity position by mistake. Mark

It looks like the gearing from the L-motor to the diffs is too high. The diff cage has about 3:1 higher ratio than the XL motors turning the bevel gear. This would lead to overtorque and tripping the current trip of either the L-motor or the IR Receiver. A better torque balance would be an L-motor on each diff and an XL motor for the steering. If I were building a subtractor then I would take the outputs from the cages of the diffs. The principle is: always gear down for LEGO motors driving land vehicles. One of the few times I gear things up is for propellers. The PF motors were designed with full-voltage speeds in the range 110 to 400 rpm. The most efficient use of a motor is for it to do half its no-load speed under load. Mark

I remember buying the resource set 1034 in 1988. It was £105 RRP at the time. It was the largest Technic set of its day, with 1516 parts. I had started thinking about building robots, so the set with 2 motors was ideal at the time. Previously I had kept running out of 8-tooth cogs, but with 50 in the set I never ran out since then! Mark

That would be excusable at 3:06AM UK time! I think it is good to have vision and be idealistic within reason. Comparison with reality shows the gap as the aspiration. How to bridge the gap is the engineering challenge! Seriously though, I think a telescopic pneumatic cylinder is a bit beyond TLG's reach, as demonstrated by the difficulty of keeping the top chamber shaft seal reliable on a normal 48mm cylinder. I suggested it to them in 1997 and have heard nothing since A 64mm cylinder would be within reach but would be no more reliable than the 48mm cylinder. It would also be more vulnerable to sideways forces when extended. This is possible but I want to see the pictures to believe it An 80mm cylinder would be possible with current technology but this is unlikely because of the same issues What has been used previously is two 48mm cylinders end-to-end, with investment demonstrated by a specific piece being designed for the job. Unfortunately, far from improving the extension over length (l/d) ratio, it makes it worse by having more distance in the middle whilst holding the cylinders. 1M between bottom hole centres is unavoidable but the piece adds another 1M. This could be combined with a doubling chain mechanism for a decent fork lift or tipper height. I certainly think a 2M-wide compressor is a good idea. Current technology has shown good enough reliability from the bottom chamber of the 48mm cylinders so this is very possible. The choice then is between a hand pump cylinder with the spring removed and a new piece, perhaps shorter and with shorter travel such as the 2M travel of the compressor in the Unimog 8110. A hand pump compressor would need a relatively slow crankshaft rotation, perhaps using 40-tooth cogs or the recent weapon barrels as the cranks. A shorter compressor with 2M travel could use 2M "++" liftarms as used in the Unimog and have faster crankshaft speed. What I would like to see is a more-even load distribution for the compressor crankshaft by using two opposing compressors on the shaft, doubling the compression rate for the same rotation and the same peak load, but that is a matter of set economics - if we AFOLs would buy two $200 trucks to get two compressors then TLG would be happy to sell us two - kerching! Another thing is the motor power for a compressor. An L-Motor is capable of powering a couple of 32MM 1M-wide compressors in anti-phase. I have experimented with more, using a pair of 5292 motors with 16 compressors. Even those most powerful motors in the LEGO range overheated after a few minutes. Then I tried 4 compressors with both motors with faster gearing and a variable-stroke mechanism. This means I could reduce the stroke to maintain a pressure and reduce motor load. This worked well up to a point - the motors could still overheat after a while at full stroke. It was better overall than using 16 compressors but it shows the amount of power required - still more than the PF motors will provide, yet they are such a great step forward from the previous era. Before PF the 12V train motor was the most powerful at 8 Watts (12V, 0.667A) peak and I harnessed them like this. A pair of L-motors could take 9V at 600mA for a while in the Crawler 4x4 - a sustained 5.4 Watts (600mA is the limit of the IR Receiver V2 motor driver chip in single-channel mode). For us it is still a case of more motors for more compressors because the market for even bigger motors is too small. I still think a pneumatic loop in a set is well overdue - in fact 24 years overdue since 8868 in 1991! Mark

Yes, the handsets are effectively a 4th type of device, though they really only provide the input to the IR Receiver so they are an adjunct to the control device. They would now include an NXT/EV3 IR Link sensor and a smart phone for the S-Brick. These would be the control input devices, as opposed to the power input devices that are battery boxes. I have corrected the list above. I suppose I listed 3 types for 2 reasons: 1) that was the original concept in terms of physical electrical connections and 2) it was 2:40AM in the UK as I posted it If you would like to power a motorised device from the mains then the LiPo battery with the charger plugged in would be the current PF-only option. Paying an extra £42.99 for the privilege of using the PF charger seems silly, but there are other options. A 9V train controller and PF extension lead would do the same job to drive a PF motor. This would not power an IR Receiver unless you modified a PF lead or used an empty PF battery box to connect the C1/C2 power to the 9V/0V wires. Any 9V power source could power PF devices using the PF leads and a battery box, making a composite power input device. A device that will power a PF Medium motor from USB is the WeDo USB Hub, but this provides only 5 Volts i.e. not much power at all. I have managed to communicate both ways between WeDo and NXT using motor power levels and the sensor interface. I have used a 9V 300mA wall wart to power a control panel for 9V motors controlling rail points before - this worked fine at a show. This would also work with a panel of PF switches 8869 and either PF motors with clutch gears or PF Servo Motors for points control - examples here. I might need a higher current supply in future e.g. 9V at 800mA would be similar to the capability of PF battery box. It depends how much current a pair of servo motors needs when changing 2 points as a pair. Interfacing any 9V supply to a 12V LEGO plug is easiest, then use half a 9V lead with another 12V plug and a PF lead to convert 9V to PF for the switches. Mark

Best possible pipe-dream result would be a tipper with double- or triple-concentric pneumatic cylinders with large extension compared to their length Next best would be like fork lift truck 8843 where a chain doubles to length of movement achieved by a longer (64mm rather than 48mm) pneumatic cylinder. A 64mm cylinder has not yet been made with double-ended pneumatics - I would have to see the pics to determine whether a new cylinder design is likely. However, a function like lifting a tipper body does not need best reliability from the top chamber in the cylinder; this has been a problem with the existing pneumatic cylinders. I have sorted mine according to how good the top seal is, and have used those with poor top seals for rail points control in pairs, using only the bottom chamber. A cylinder will usually take air in between the metal shaft and the top hole if the seal is not good and leakage out of the top is rare but has occurred once or twice under heavy load. A scissor mechanism could also achieve the tipper raising cylinder extension multiplication, though I suspect the usual design of cylinder(s) underneath would prevail. Another question is what it means for the B-model of the truck. If it would use the pneumatic parts in an automated loop, like the refuse truck B-model of classic crane truck 8868, then this would be the very best thing for learning in the Technic community. It would get more people into pneumatics. If you have at least 2 cylinders and 2 switches and would like to try a pneumatic loop then start here. Once you understand the basic loop, you can move on to more complex circuits like this one that controls a 4-function robot. Mark

As one who helped to develop the PF system... I believe the PF system will be around for a long time yet. You can see how different devices have been added to it. The system comprises four types of element (list corrected!): Power Input devices - currently battery boxes but also 9V sources with a PF lead or empty PF battery box to connect power to the 9V/0V wires Control devices - The switch and IR Receiver, and now the community-based S-brick. Output devices - currently motors and light brick Control input devices - handsets, NXT/EV3 IR Link sensor, smart phone for S-Brick. These are usually not physically connected to the rest of the PF system. I see the XL Motor and Switch are back to their regular prices. The Standard handset 8885 is temporarily out of stock, which means more will arrive. If there were ever to be any design change to the switch, it might because some idiot with both eyes on the money tried to remove the extra switch on the back. I persuaded TLG to add this as a means of reversing the polarity so that the switches can be used as a control panel. This means you can make a panel like a signal box and the points can be set straight with the lever up (or centred) and to the curved track with the lever down, whichever polarity the motor needs in order to achieve it. It also ensured backward compatibility with the previous 9V pole reverser switch, which could rotate freely through more than 360 degrees. The move to a limited travel for the main lever was a cost reduction in the first place. It is imperative that all LEGO elements retain maximum versatility - any reduction on cost-cutting grounds should result in the person suggesting it being sacked from TLG IMHO! In fact I think the community has barely got to grips with PF up to now. It is definitely not time to change the system again. There is so much more opportunity to add more elements of all 3 types to the PF range. As a new control input device (a 4th type of device) I would like to see a dial and execute handset where you dial a number from -7 to +7 and press to send that speed signal to that channel. Not an unreliable incremental device but a precise control where a PF Servo could drive the dial and another motor could press the "send" switch to change to a precise speed (or Servo position) in one move. Control devices have standard input and output protocols if you would like to make your own transistor circuits. I've had a go - examples here As a new output device I would like to see a light brick that changes the colour of an LED as the input varies. This would be for a single-aspect searchlight railway signal between red, yellow and green with a 3-lead LED but there are also 4-lead RGB LEDs now so blue and purple could be in the range of another device. I notice that some sets of Christmas lights contain 2-lead RGB LEDs with a colour-varying flasher circuit built into the LED - not much use for controlling the colour but interesting and easy to use - just apply 3V dc. For the 3- and 4-lead LEDs I would use an oscillator circuit to tune the colour - one I have needs 70% duty cycle of the green and 100% red to do the best yellow for a signal. As the rumour mill turns for the new Technic sets it seems we will still have a motor driving a pneumatic compressor in the flagship truck 42043. I suspect there would never be a combined electro-pneumatic device because it is so easy to add PF and pneumatic devices together in more versatile combinations and then re-use the parts another day. In industry the combined electro-hydraulic devices generally cost more and are less reliable than devices in a single domain. This means use an L-motor to drive a compressor and use a Servo motor to drive a pneumatic switch valve. Then control both with an IR Receiver and handset or NXT/EV3. Mark

There are two possibilities with the servo motor: 1) The steering angle could be not very much. I reckon it would be geared down 3:1 anyway, to give 30 degrees either side of the centre position, but it might be less than that. The less it is, the easier the servo motor would cope with the load. 2) The servo motor could control a gearbox. Even 3 positions of +90, 0 and -90 degrees = 3 gears per motor = 9 functions, or 6 if the two L-motors are ganged electrically, each driving a pair of wheels. It could be steering and drive in one gear, bucket lift and tip in another gear. Mark

Interesting to compare notes. My layout is 16ft x 12ft, a modular double-track looped-eight with 2 straights between each curve on the corners of the main lines. So far I have the outer track working and have built the slope modules and fiddle yard of the inner track. The fiddle yards are under the station. The total elevation is 48 plates at the moment, leaving a bridge clearance of 37 plates. It takes half a lap to do the elevation. I use slopes of 1 in 40 (1 plate per track piece) in the curves. This increases to 1 in 30 on the straights (4 plates in one 48M module of 3 track pieces). 1 in 30 is the maximum slope recommended for a model railway by the books I have. I use 1 in 80 (half plate increments for the first couple of track pieces) at each end of each slope. I have a see-saw module for use at home in the middle of the slope straights. It can change from 1 in 30 to 1 in 120, allowing insertion of 2 32M modules to go round the attic pillars. All the track slopes, cants and ballasting are achieved with LEGO parts as part of the modules. I have succeeded in doing this for flexi-track too, for the future, if PF trains improve. In layout design I did look at helixes for elevation change but decided that with the slope rules I use they would be too big and also unrealistic on all but a "rabbit" layout (Swiss mountain prototype). I run 8mm:1ft scale trains which are 8+ wide, using a dual 30V 3A bench power supply on the main line and 9V controllers in the yards. This allows me to start one train as another is stopping in the fiddle yard, so that the next train arrives sooner for people to see. The power supply has worked well at 2-day shows for both 12V and 9V layouts. The highest single-train load is 1.3 Amps for my Hogwarts Express at the top of the hill. This has 4x 9V train motors, 2x 71427 gearmotors for the driving wheels and 3x 9V light bricks in the firebox. I try to keep to 200-250mA per 9V train motor, 300mA for short periods only. This ensures long motor life. I have 9V track power feeds at each end of the layout on each layer. I have divided each main line into 4 sections with a power feed at each end of each section. I intend to use suitably-rated diode networks to drop voltage from the up slope to flat and from flat to the down slope. This will help to bias the power in favour of continuous climbing and not running away on descent. On the previous flat layout, one power feed at each end sufficed for each main line. I have 2 Power Functions trains so far, but only for yard work and maybe an occasional trip round the main line. I tested PF and found the LiPo 800mA current limit was no enough for some of my trains. If PF gained a slave motor driver and wireless inductive charging then I would be more encouraged to use PF on the main line. I use 6mm thick 30cm high clear Lexan sheet panels along the front and sides of the layout at shows, which will arrest the heavy trains and help keep little fingers out of the way. In practice, with the previous flat layout, these have also taken the brunt of the germs and kids have tried to chew them without success! I may buy some 500mm high panels now that the layout height has risen above the baseboards. Lexan is tougher than perspex, which might shatter. I have attached the tables, legs and Lexan sheets with coach bolts. The tables are covered in Sundeala board, which reduces noise. It is used by many model railway builders. You didn't say whether the 9V controller was controlling the voltage for some power transistors or not. My power supply is effectively an LM317 chip with 2 2N3055 transistors in darlington configuration. I expect a 317 chip on its own in the controller, with 4 motors for a long time, might overheat. The controller was designed for about 300mA mean load. Have you tried using just the bench power supply on the layout without the 9V controller? Mark

This should not have been done by TLG. The practice of changing a piece in this way and keeping the same design ID is poor quality. This could be raised with LEGO ambassadors. I wonder if the two pieces have the same 7-digit number as well? That is the unique ID that should have been changed in the point specification. As TLG exhausted the supplies of the old 9V point moving parts it looks like they supplied the same part but without the metal rail attached to it. Someone did not realise that the lack of metal rail would derail trains. Perhaps it was tested with typical out-of-the-box trains and found to be OK. Perhaps the change to the guide in the lower photo is a "because we can" change. I have had some issues with long wheelbase locos with EN wheels clashing with these, even with flangeless centre wheels. It's not easy to make a coupled 6-wheel set articulate and it was not possible to move the flangeless set to the end because the coupling overhang would be too great. Other industries have big problems when a supplier changes the specification of a part without notice. Looks like LEGO is no exception! Mark

Yes, unfortunately there have been problems with most of the AFOL-aimed train sets, usually revolving around coupling strength, friction or underpowering. Once we move beyond toy trains i.e. ready-to-run sets with lighter panels and POOP where bricks would do, we have to redesign the traction scheme to make decent trains, including adhesion weight and number of powered axles. Most of my diesels have 2 powered bogies so the HE with 2 motors follows the same principle. At least the HE loco is heavier than the coaches so the bias of weight towards traction is right, leaving just the trailing loco as being a bit heavy. Real trains have locos around 130 tonnes and half of that is the bogie weight. 12V trains had the weight blocks to help with adhesion; I find them a bit puny with larger trains but they have been useful for the new monorail. The servo problems - quality issues including one AFOL report of a Servo motor moving to +180 and -45 degrees rather than +/-90 degrees - have meant that the Servo motor and L-motor have not been released as single part sets 88004 and 88003 as was promised for March 2013. After repeated requests to Customer Service, including a missed date of September 2013, I'm still waiting for a new release date; my current expectation is around March 2014. The release of the dark blue Crawler 41999 didn't help the stock levels. At the moment they are "coming soon" to the US and Canada but there is no news of UK, EU or RoW release. The reason this is important to trains is that I have found them to be ideal point motors. They have electronic end stops, so there is no need for white clutch gears as I used previously with gearmotors. They are something we have wanted for ages and they can't come soon enough, except that the quality has to be right. Unfortunately over the years new motors have had as many problems as AFOL-aimed train sets. Motor reliability issues are worse for TLG; train sets can be fixed by AFOL hacking so they don't need replacing! A bit ironic that we have lots more motors to choose from with Power Functions but fewer train sets to choose from compared to 1982's 12V selection. Decoupling as a train function has moved onboard with PF, replacing the old 7862 set, but it is unlikely to appear in a train out of the box. Functionality is what AFOLs call play value Mark

Whilst it is true that the AFOL perspective is greatest for me, I have LEGO trains experience from the age of 5, since 1978 through childhood, teenage years and student years without a dark age. From a child's point of view, LEGO trains are not as widely available as they used to be. You need the internet or a visit to a LEGO shop to find them. I note the comments by one parent or grandparent on the Shop At Home website, saying that it was a discouragement to have to buy all the PF accessories separately for the HE train. For that market it is desirable to have the train work "out of the box". I compare that with my first experience. I had set 171 at age 5, with set 107 motor added, so the motor was separate again. I didn't have the battery tender so I had to sacrifice a truck in order to carry the battery box. In that sense the user experience is similar for HE and 171 but the functionality has grown. I think the composite HE + PF set for £174 is better because you can buy all the parts as one starter kit. The other point that applies to all markets is that this particular train needs 2 sets to get the other end. This makes the 6-car train heavy and we get the to the point of needing 2 motors and going beyond the instructions. How old does a fan have to be to be able to fit the 2nd motor to the front loco of the train and add 1x2 tiles to the couplings to stop them pulling apart? Some 8-year-olds would be smart enough, but not all. During my years as a TFOL I pored over the 12V railway catalogue pages. At this stage I could not afford any train sets, just a couple of wagons and adding conductor rails to my blue rail track. With today's products it is good that the track is cheaper - this is a major advantage of PF over 9V or 12V. Then it comes down to product range - LEGO trains do not have additional wagons in the current range. I used to buy as many as I could when I started buying 9V, because the wagons were compatible with both 9V and 12V. 6 of the dual-sphere Octan tankers made a good train. LEGO train sets these days have a loco and 2 wagons or coaches. Without extra wagons the trains are a bit short. Success depends on rebuildability. The HE train front end is heaps better than the RC train but still the orange slope parts have few other uses. Compare this with the 7745 roof tile approach. Of course I have high expectations as an AFOL. Exhibiting trains puts them into the public imagination, which is a great asset to TLG, given that the trains get little coverage otherwise and are not in most high street shops. I have even higher expectations because I am a professional engineer and have also helped develop and test PF parts. This meant I was able to influence the design of the light brick and ensure the train motor torque was sufficient to make it a successor to the 9V motor, not weak like the RC motor. This means I really want PF trains to work well as a system and be reliable and successful in their engineering. Sadly I was not involved with the more recent parts or I might have detected the servo problems! The number of sets in the trains range has indicated the success of LEGO trains over the years. These days TLG is tentative about train sets. Granted there are more than there were a few years ago but compare it with 12V in the 1980s - multiple train sets, loco, wagons, track and extra electric functional sets like the level crossing 7866 and decoupler 7862. In the 1990s we had a passenger set, a goods set, a loco and a few wagons as well as the track sets - still quite successful. I long that we should reach the levels of the 1980s again! I think an extra wagon set would sell well. AFOLs would buy rakes of them if they had a good parts selection and the right functionality and aesthetics. I bought quite a few of the caboose, log wagon and tanker a few years ago, 10, 10 and 6 respectively I think. A particular one for you Erland is to bring back the train window glass to complete the range of part numbers 4034, 4035 and 4036. That would be my biggest request for the success of the trains theme - a key part for the theme was lost a few years ago when there was a cull of part numbers (11000 part/colour combinations down to 4000 was it?). The plain glass in the HE just doesn't cut it. On the Shop At Home website the HE has the Exclusive tag. If it is an Exclusive set then it means no discounts even for staff. I like that the lone ranger train has the driving wheels - it means they are still available till we get another steam train int he trains theme. I would welcome a train with some changeability, but the real trains of different continents should be studied properly to ensure that such a set truly addresses the key features of both - the likeness has to be good for all customers, like having an "A" side and and "AA" side on a music chart single. I like that the PF train motor is able to pull heavier trains per motor (and I was glad to press the point with TLG during its development) but you have revealed the problem - the overheating IR Receiver indicates that you should use one v1 receiver per train motor. A v2 receiver can power 2 train motors, just as it powers 2 L-motors in the Crawler. Too slow means you have either too few motors, too few IR Receivers or low batteries. The system is modular so that we can build in enough of each element. The problem for AFOL trains is getting all the elements to work together when we need to power several motors. We need a slave motor driver so that a single IR Receiver can control several motors. The driver would have the same motor driver chip as the v2 receiver, take a motor drive signal as its C1/C2 input and replicate it on the output with fresh power from the 9V and 0V lines. Mark

Functionally this is a good idea. The trick is to make it both easy to use and cheap. I made a circuit to control two of the existing light bricks: Originally I wanted to make train lights turn on in the direction the train was moving. Then I added a latch function to keep them on in the previous direction of movement when the train stops. Then I added an alternate flashing function. This has a frequency and duty cycle proportional to the capacitor values but this could be enhanced with a variable frequency as you suggest. For an easy-to-use product I suggest a new 2x2 brick in the middle of the light brick, perhaps a different colour to differentiate it from the original light brick. I have been tempted to re-do the circuit in a light brick to make the two LEDs turn on in opposite C1/C2 polarity. Therefore flashing would be easier, railway signalling a doddle and an AC input would turn both LEDs on as before. Perhaps the new 2x2 brick for your idea could have a rotatable frequency setting with a Technic axle socket input, like the PF pole reverser switch? Mark

Bought 2, tested them with 1 motor - not enough power. Tried adding another motor to the 2nd carriage - OK but torque can decouple the train because the couplings are weak. They often need re-engaging to ensure the coupling strength is sufficient. If a motor and battery box were added to the other end, with 2 IR receivers on the same channel then only one loco getting the IR signal is a problem - derailment or detachment. This is especially problematic when there are tunnels on the layout. This is a terminal issue for PF Trains. It is also very expensive to buy an extra LiPo battery for the other end of the train - another motor and IR Receiver is plenty to spend! Therefore PF Trains have issues that are unresolved. I would say it is not just the Horizon Express that has limited success but the whole of PF trains. They are not as popular as 9V trains were. Those who have 9V tend to stick to it until PF proves to be as good. I have 9V and will experiment with PF in the yard but I don't consider it to be as good for exhibition main line running. I have two shunting engines, a Class 08 and Class 14, which works with a PF brake van. At least the PF train motor is good. It is slightly better for torque than the 9V motor. It means a PF diesel loco with 2 motors at the front, using either 9V couplings or liftarms, would work reasonably well. A multiple unit train of more than 6 6-wide carriages or 4 wider (heavy) carriages does not work as a concept with PF. The Emerald Night train raised another issue - if a steam train is powered through the driving wheels then it is difficult to match the loco speed with a train motor under a carriage over a reasonable range. This limits the length of train that can be pulled by a steam engine unless more motors power more driving wheels. In some ways it keeps us honest - an 0-6-0 like Thomas cannot pull more than a few coaches. However, this applies equally to a Hogwarts Express where a bigger engine pulls 4-5 coaches. My 9V one has 2 train motors in the tender and 2 in the first carriage. This would take 2 battery boxes to do with PF as it needs 1300mA on a hill and the battery is limited by an 800mA current trip. This pic shows the layout of PF items in the carriage from my tests: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=4509752 Limited battery life is an issue requiring "Hand of God" charging and hence a removable roof section - no good if the train is stored in a tunnel! I have suggested inductive charging of the LiPo battery as a way forward - please support it on LEGO Cuusoo: http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/40403 As PF trains go, Horizon Express is a good one. Clearly aimed at the AFOL market, with useful parts and good building techniques. I think the generic PF train problems mean TLG will find it difficult to measure the relative success of each train because they would need to re-baseline the sales figures more to the AFOL market. LEGO trains are not seen as much in the shops as they were in the 12V or 9V eras. Mark

I look forward to seeing the pictures I have to work on my trains too. I have a good layout of the functional parts and the train is well able to climb the hills but I need to confirm reliability and make it look like a decent train. Mark

Well I jumped on it It's good to support it on LEGO Cuusoo but it's even better to have a go at building some yourself I decided that the 2-wide basic brick system was the best future for LEGO monorail, so I set about making sure I could replicate track sections like all the original bespoke pieces. I have made: - straights of various lengths (no shortage of straights like the original!) - curves of multiple radii - a 90-degree crossing (one was patented but never released for the original monorail) - a start/stop rail with sliding stop and reverse switch on the train - trains from a single loco to 5 cars with longer trains possible - tracks of different colours for town or space (in this case Blacktron) - hills of various heights - track over track supports and circuit testing - points and a Y-point, following Masao Hidaka's example. - hot off the press, a multiple-point junction operated with a single PF pole reverser switch and servo motor, which was never possible before. This one has 3 positions: as shown, 4 tracks straight and a mirror image of this picture. It can interface 2 middle tracks and 2 sidings to a 4-platform station. I have also shown that helical tracks are possible, even with multiple radii, so world record track lengths are quite feasible. I have enough parts for about 45 metres of new monorail track but the record for the original monorail is about 500m so far. The only question is: are there more lots of 1x2 and 2x2 plates and 2x2 tiles in existence than the number of original monorail curves? So all tracks are possible and a lot more besides. Train control is standard PF IR, so a layout with 8 trains is quite feasible. This system is simple, obsolescence-proof, reliable and versatile - and ideal LEGO theme! Have a go and let's see what you can build with this system. The more of us build some and share pictures, the more support it will get and the more TLG will be convinced it will sell as a kit More pics in my Brickshelf folder when moderated: http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=517847 Mark

I have submitted a new project to LEGO Cuusoo, an inductive charging system for Power Functions trains etc... The idea is that the train would stop over an inductive pad, similar to the ones available for phones etc... but tailored to fit between the rails. It could be placed out of sight in the through-sidings of a fiddle yard so that one train would run while the others charged up. I would like this to become a single LEGO piece similar in size to an IR Receiver i.e. 4x4 with a flying lead. The same coil device would be used under the track and on the train. This is the simplest possible form and probably the cheapest too. I would equip all the sidings in a fiddle yard with coils (perhaps 10 on my layout) and each train (maybe 16), so 26 coils in all. I hope each one would not cost any more than an IR Receiver. It would also have application for Technic and Mindstorms, so making the same piece work in all markets makes it most viable. Please follow the link, support, leave comments and spread the word! Thanks, Mark

Following the trials of the real APTs, BR sold the design to the Italians, and later we bought back the Pendolino. Therefore, if you'd like to make your APT tilt, a mechanism like the one in my Pendolino might do! It uses bevel gears. Each carriage is like a differential gear, tilting by the average of how much the two bogies are turning. Mark

The 42008 box image has a yellow vertical bit next to the orange panel, which looks like a pneumatic cylinder (1 of 2) to raise the main recovery crane arm. This technique has been use before in tow truck 8285. Looks like 42009 will use an L-motor for power. If you need lots of pneumatic pieces, go to the LEGO Shop at Home website, to the Customer Services section, to Bricks and Pieces and dial up Unimog 8110. You should be able to order each pneumatic piece (large and small cylinders, switch and hose connector) but I think the compressor is not yet available. I just received some small cylinders that I ordered. You will need a credit card as it's the commercial side that handle the orders - they might merge it with PaB ordering in a year's time. the price of the small cylinders is not much more than it was in the late 1990s, so well worth it IMHO. I would still like TLG to make a small cylinder of the same dimensions as the new grey compressor as it would make it easier to do crank systems with it, but to get them is great for now! Mark

Here is the link to my cascade circuit. There is approximately 0.2V drop per IR receiver cascaded. I will be using cables and a switch panel for point motors, leaving the IR channels for trains. Servo motors make good point motors because they are reliable in moving to a set position without a sensor, hence it is OK for them to be out of reach for an 8-hour show. It won't be cheap though! I expect I will have some 9V trains (at least one main line) and some PF (the yard and maybe the other main line). Mark

The voltage I measured from a 12V transformer was 14.7V. An LED needs 2V at 20mA. The resistor has to drop 12.7V at 20mA, which gives an ideal value of 635 ohms. A 560 ohm resistor was chosen. This will drop 11.2V at 20mA allowing a mean loaded transformer voltage as low as 13.2V whilst maintaining 20mA. Bear in mind that the switch panel is supplied from a separate winding from the train power ones and the switch devices are mostly off, being on only when switching (points, level crossing, decoupler). Only the signal LEDs will be on all the time, so the voltage is likely to be high end of the 12V to 14.7V range. The maximum power dissipated by the resistor is 12.7V x 20mA = 0.254W. You have used 1/4 Watt resistors, which is why thery get hot. This application needs at least 0.5 Watt resistors. I think there are some 0.6W ones that are as small as 1/4W ones used to be. The design needs to shed the heat too, so holes in your housing would be advisable, and don't set the resistor too close to the case or it might melt the plastic. Well done for reviving the 2x3 brick signal idea. I would consider driving some of these signals from Power Functions pole reverser switches on a 9V supply. It might be cheaper than PF light bricks with color filters, depending on convenience of location. It means I could use the PF light bricks for semaphore signals (1 white light with moving filters) and LEDs for colour light signals, either discrete ones back to back or a bi- or tri-colour LED for a searchlight signal. Assuming the same LEDs (2V, 20mA) and a better-regulated supply (or batteries), the maximum PF voltage with fresh batteries would be 9.15V The resistor would have to drop 7.15V at 20mA, so the ideal value is 357.5 ohms. A 330 ohm resistor is common and allows for a supply value as low as 8.6V whilst maintaining 20mA. The resistor will need to dissipate up to 0.143W so 1/4W resistor would do in a domestic application, but I might go for 0.5W or 0.6W if the size fits because of the long term operation - 8 hours at a time for a railway show. I would probably cut a PF lead in half and solder the wires into the veroboard or PCB. Mark