Brickthus

I checked out a PF receiver and can confirm that there is a smell. I don't think it's the external plastic, either ABS or polypropylene. The smell is greatest near the holes in the base where Technic pegs can be inserted. This means the smell comes from something inside. I think it might be the black stuff that surrounds the Alpha chip on the circuit board. It's a standard type of potting compound. Worth checking out other LEGO products that use similar stuff, to see if they also smell: The RC train loco base has a similar Alpha chip. Not sure if it's potted the same way. I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Mark

About 14 years ago I worked in a bookshop for a while. There was a light pen to scan book bar codes to enter new stock into the computer. Some books didn't have bar codes, so I created them on a BBC Micro with a 300dpi inkjet printer, decoding the ISBN number to produce the correct bar code. If it was that easy for me to do that for books, for a legitimate purpose, creating false bar codes has always been too easy. It used to be that all LEGO set bar codes started with 5 702010 9xxxxc where xxxx is the set number and c is the check digit (easy to calculate). It would have been child's play to create false bar codes for sets years ago. The move by TLG of dissassociating the bar code number from the set number was a good one because it reduced the ease of bar code falsification. Now a thief has to study real sets to get a code to substitute, rather than just creating them automatically from a set number. Obviously it didn't stop all potential thieves! Just have a check digit using one of the digits with the most black lines to reduce the thief's ability to add black stripes. I've seen worse actions in a toy store. I once watched as someone opened two LEGO RC car sets and moved parts from one box to the other. I hope the security cameras caught him too. Mark

Interesting to see if there's any correlation between preference for passenger or freight trains and preference for town or trains. Freight trains don't have to have a town because a freight yard can be purely industrial e.g. container port, power station, mine. Passenger trains need an interface with town items - station, bus, taxi, food outlet unless it's just a small village station with only a 2-car train. I favour freight trains because of the variety of wagons and the opportunity for shunting. Shunting tends to be a home pastime because at an exhibition the aim is to leave trains running (that's what people came to see) and talk with the public. My latest MOC is an ordinary small wagon, but there's actually a lot to it. Photos when I've finished Mark

I'd quite like to do a Leader class loco, but I might do a Fell loco instead. Something on my long list of projects! I built a '66' soon after they went into service in the UK: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=178205 Doors open inwards. Roof sections can be removed in order to close the doors or put the driver in either cab. My latest work on the '66' was when I converted my main line trains from 12V to 9V in 2002. I might re-do the bogie fascias, given what I've learned on several loco builds since then. I will fit PF lights (6 light bricks) when I convert all my locos to 9V/PF hybrid operation. I think main line 'B' units were once proposed in the UK but AFAIK it was quite a few years ago. For shunting, the class 13 was two class 08s where one was a 'B' unit with the cab removed. UK main line operation often has a second loco controlled remotely (class 20s are usually in pairs and 2 class 37s might substitute for a '66'), but presumably that type of remote operation is the same as for any 'A' unit in the US? A Pendolino EMU operates a bit like a series of 'slugs'. The power is received on one of the two pantographs and is distributed on 25kV busbars throughout the train. Motors are in more than half the vehicles. A snow blower with two small jet engines would be possible, but they're rare in the UK. Since I've already built a class 44 Peak loco, I had considered a snow plough based on a class 40 or 44 bogie set. Mark

Yes, all the best models are well planned. Nice one Tony. Have you stuck to the support / design of the real loco in the way the various sets of wheels move and support the boiler? Mark

Upside-down beards is unusual too! If a set had no new building techniques, I would learn nothing, so I would probably not buy such sets for that reason. Therefore I'm pleased it does something different. I'd like to know whether the horses move up and down as the carousel rotates. Any carousel worth its salt should do that. The motor could have been hidden better (i.e. flat on the baseplate) but that would have increased the cost and added more gears. It might not have been as reliable that way either. Any motor in that position would have been obvious. It's not just because it uses Power Functions! The squashy tyre contacts the non-circular edge of the carousel to rotate it. That saves putting the motor in the middle, with a wire trailing under the rotating parts to get to the battery box on the outside, so I can see why it's built that way. It saves £2 of wire too! It also makes more opportunity to replace the 8:40 gears with 24:24 gears and speed up the carousel by five times! Mark

For those of you into Power Functions or electronics, I've posted some more diagrams on my Brickshelf. PF Light Brick: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/...t_brick_cct.jpg One-at-a-time light brick (what I'd do if I had surface mount build capability): http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/..._brick_cct1.jpg This would be useful for an emergency vehicle, replicating the functionality of the 1x4 9V alternate lights. Cascading PF IR receivers can overcome the 4-channel limit. It also has the benefit of reducing interference from other sources of PF signals, especially reducing spurious train movements from rest. Cascading PF IR Receivers for 128-device operation (e.g. 128 trains on an exhibition layout): http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/...cascade_128.jpg Cascading for double header train: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/...uble_header.jpg Cascading for multiple header train (we know how US trains have at least 4 locos at the front!): http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/...ulti_header.jpg Mark

Thinking of motor power, is there any will to speed up the rotation of the carousel? This was done with the ferris wheel, with total collapse at significant change of speed! Mark

The IR Link sensor allows the NXT to send any of the IR codes understood by either RC trains or PF trains, to do more for PF than the range of codes available from a PF handset. For maximum flexibility you should use NXC / NBC to program the NXT and download the relevant IR Link sensor code modules for those languages from the HiTechnic website. A normal PF handset does temporary forward, temporary back and stop. A PF train handset does permanent accelerate and decelerate and stop. An IR Link sensor can do "set speed to n/8", reverse, "set C1 and C2 lines to any combination temporarily or permanently" or any other code built into the IR receiver. The main advantage for trains is that you can start your PF-enabled Emerald Night on speed setting 3 from rest, to get it going at the speed you want it to run at without having to send 3 commands. You can also use it well if you use the C1 and C2 outputs individually. I have a thought that the speed setting of each train at a particular point on the layout could be set by using an RFID sensor with tags on each train to recognise each train, then sending the appropriate speed setting codes with the IR Link sensor. This might be especially useful out of sight in a tunnel, to catch any trains that are going too fast. I would intend to use the system on entry to a fiddle yard for train storage sidings and on any change of slope. Such automatic operation would leave me to talk to the public, which makes an exhibition more enjoyable for both me and them. Mark

In 2001 I exhibited this 12V layout I motorised some of the points in pairs. There was a level crossing near the point on the diagonal double track bit and a station at the top. It was enough to run a train each way and shunt in the yard. There was a gantry crane over the diagonal double tracks and a goods shed over the end of the lower track. I isolated the crossovers between each main line and the yard because their polarities could be opposite. I used a LEGO transformer in the yard and a bench power supply on the main lines. Having moved to 9V for my main line trains, I had a plan to one day do a 12V layout of Baker St. underground station (Metropolitan platforms). I think 12V trains are good for trains with a centre electric rail. Consider the cost of the 12V parts for this layout: 10 electric points at £20 each 10 12V train motors at £20 each 58 curves = 8 packs electrified at £10 each 218 straights = 28 packs electrified at £10 each 1 transformer at £40 Total = £800 Lights, level crossing etc... on top It's brave, but it's not as much as the £1300 it cost me to switch to a similar amount of 9V soon afterwards! The main thing with that was having to use two 9V train motors for every 12V one. Needless to say, my 9V collection expanded significantly from there This was the 2003-4 layout for comparison. As long as you're happy to clean the tracks (a pencil eraser works well, as does a cloth dipped in a minimal amount of methylated spirit) and motor contacts, it should be just as rewarding as 9V. Not sure I'd be prepared to pay silly prices for custom units such as a decoupler though. That also depends on the couplings with an extra vertical bit so that the device can push them apart. The vertical bits disappeared when 9V came along. I did burn out a 12V motor and a couple of others started getting intermittent. That was why I switched to 9V because I couldn't replace the motors after 1996. OK, I had been applying the motors to Technic like this! A 4-wheeled robot with a motor per wheel (62mm model team wheels 32020 with tyres), geared down by pulley and then 16:24 by chains, that could climb a pillow at 60 degrees, powered from a 12V 6A computer power supply! It melted a 9V pole reverser switch! 12V at 0.67A x 4 = 32W! I was more reckless in those days! Mark

I guess you're familiar with Chernobyl being a positive-coefficient reactor and most others negative-coefficient reactors? That means Chernobyl was inherently less stable to begin with, whereas most PWRs are quite stable. I think in the US people might be more focused on 3-Mile Island! The design has changed since then, to incorporate additional valves that reduce the risk of that particular occurrence. A lot of risks were taken during the Cold War, partly because there was an arms race and partly because less was known about controlling nuclear power and its effects on people. I saw a TV programme about the early UK work at Windscale / Sellafield. Some early experiments were seriously risky but all that data has produced a much safer system of regulations now. Statistically, in the 21st century with the relevant regulations met, I'd feel just as safe in a nuclear plant control room as on a plane! I think I saw the programme you mention. A solar mirror farm would look good, especially if the panels tracked a light source! I'm sure an NXT with a couple of light sensors could control the panels to do that. Regarding solar in the UK, I once tried out a 10x30cm panel to charge my car battery. It produced about 30mW into 4700 ohms on a sunny day in winter. Considering that the car alarm took 41mA, the solar panel performance was rubbish! I sent it back! If solar panels would improve by the factor of 10 I've heard is possible, there's no reason why all electric and hybrid cars shouldn't have a solar roof to charge their batteries. Mark

Hold on before you buy RC. RC and PF have different infra-red controls. The RC passenger train is just that, and has a lot less MOC capability than PF trains. It is fixed to the standard loco base that carries the batteries. It has only 3 channels, for 3 trains at most on a layout. If you're happy with the RC passenger train as it is then fair enough. PF-compatible trains like Emerald Night are a lot more versatile. The instructions show how to add the battery, motor, light and IR receiver. Ordinarily PFtrains have 4 channels but if you piggy-back the light it instantly becomes 8. With more electronic tricks you can get to 128 channels! The advantage of PF is that the parts can be placed where you want them - battery hidden somewhere with a wire to the loco etc... instead of being forced to use a fixed RC loco base. Both systems will use the same tracks but do you want to hold 2 remote controls? You could also put other PF remote devices in your town - a windmill, lit-up buildings, fairground, the list is endless... and all controlled from your train remote handset. To do 9V now would require a serious investment including enough kit to support it for as long as you want to run it - a lifetime buy for an obsolete product line. Most 9V enthusiasts have made lifetime buys by now and Bricklink prices are going up. Availability of track, especially in old grey, is dwindling. I recommend PF. You can convert the holiday train to PF this way: Hide the PF battery in the tender or in the coach. the loco, tender or coach could carry an 8866 or 10153 train motor. If you get a 10153 9V train motor, you would be able to run it as 9V on someone else's 9V layout without modification. The IR receiver can go in the porch of the coach or be embedded in the tender. Other trains might be easier to convert than the holiday train. Emerald Night is simplified by the instructions but any 9V train can keep its motor and just add the battery and IR receiver. Consider the PF battery as an investment. It is best for 500 charge cycles over 3 years. Each charge cycle is equivalent to a set of Zinc batteries or about half a set of alkalines in this motor application, so you save a lot of batteries! £42 for the PF battery or 200 x £4 = £800 for AA batteries! Saves £700 by the time you have a charger. I recommend that you build the battery in in such a way that it can be removed for charging. Then you could have many trains but only two batteries if only 1 train runs at a time, saving even more cost and getting the most out of a few batteries. 1st train comes in, 1st battery taken out and charged, 2nd train goes out. 2nd train comes in, 2nd battery taken out and charged, 3rd train goes out with 1st train's battery etc... Mark

By hand, which is why it's so expensive, and probably why there are so many errors. A machine ought to be quicker, cheaper and more reliable. They use them for sets, so why not just read the parts list sent by email, put a box on a conveyor and have the machines drop the parts in the pot? It's not that difficult! Come on TLG, use machines to get the PaB and Factory prices down! Also, give us bags of 100 or 1000 of a piece at a substantial discount, and no more 25-part limits! Mark

Heh! 2x yellow round bricks and a sticker = nuclear waste barrel! European countries vary. France has over 80% nuclear electricity, Britain was just over 20% nuclear but we need to get a move on in replacing those plants. That's part of the commitment to reduce CO2 - coal and gas don't help with that. As for small nuclear plants, there is plenty of campaigning against the devices used in spacecraft. They have added risk from the launch vehicle exploding! There are four major players in the civil nuclear industry. I'm not sure TLG would want to be associated so closely with these companies as they are with Vestas for the windmill! There is a home windmill available from some DIY stores in the UK, but the price (about £1200) is about the same as the saving in electricity over 10 years, by which time the windmill has worn out. No saving = no incentive IF TLG did make a nuclear plant, I have the train to take the waste to the reprocessing plant A solar plant would be appropriate for desert countries, but not Europe! Too much rain in the UK! An HEP plant would be better for the UK, but the size of it would require quite a layout before it would fit! I think the windmill has hit the right spot because it's easily recognisable and visible to customers in many countries. Why the Vestas windmill is not more widely available is a mystery for TLG's marketing dept. to think about. Along the lines of windmills, how about a new LEGO plane with open rotor engines? They are up to 40% greener than normal jet engines for the short haul aircraft market. The Power Functions battery box is green - saves all those batteries in the waste! Mark

I thought golden bricks were expensive enough, but a golden fleece? Or is there a suitable Belville garment that fits the bill? How about a "Classic Toons" range? Some characters would be great excuses for a supply of bricks in a less-common colour. Tom & Jerry statues in blue-grey and dark orange perhaps? Mark

I had one of those break too. It leads me to think that we don't need to ask TLG for parts that can be cut down from others. We just need the courage to do the cutting ourselves Some people see this as sacrilege but it is the way TLG develops new parts. Often the first prototype is one cut from existing parts. I guess the next step would be a draft mould of the approximate shape, which is again cut to refine the design. I'm sure all new parts need a business case, given that Bionicle 'steals' (from an AFOL point of view) such a large proportion of the new moulds that should be used for small, versatile pieces! The successive cutting is part of establishing whether a piece is useful enough to be sent for proper drawing and production. Each stage involves greater investment. Following the 'cut down' philosophy, we already have the double sided 1x1 round plate - just buy a surplus of plate modified 1x1 with double stud clip and cut it in half. You can even use the other half as the 1x1 plate it is! Those are the mods I like best, when both halves of a cut piece are useful. I have been modding parts since I was interviewed by TLG in 1997. They asked if I had modded any parts. I had not until then but took their question as encouragement to do so. My first one was an axle pin with the pin cut off, leaving the 1M axle and bezel. It's great for fixing two thin liftarms together for Technic mechanisms. That and four other modded parts are in this model: The modded axle pin holds the nearest rod (valve gear rod) onto the crank. The wheel axle is a 2.5M axle, two made by cutting a 5M axle in half. The wheel is a cut down 32020 wheel hub, procedure here. An improvement over 40-tooth cogs for large train wheels. The main crank pin is a shortened 3M axle with stud on the end, shortened to 15mm plus the stud. The bush on the crank next to the wheel is a crenellated bush with the crenellations filed off, making a 3mm bush. I have also made 1x2 thin liftarms with one cross hole and one round hole, by cutting a 1x4 thin liftarm in half and rounding the cut ends. So many parts can be made by cutting down existing ones, so we can have these parts without taking up the precious moulds, keeping the moulds for parts we cannot make ourselves, or at least not without using glue, which I have avoided so far except for repairing parts. Why ask TLG for something you can already have? I have found that turning parts on a LEGO lathe (usually a 4000rpm 9V motor) with a modelling saw, file and Stanley knife, brings good results. Cut parts are less easy to get smooth. Baseplates are fair game, using a knife and a finger nail clipper for the corners! I have it in mind to make some 1x4 strips from a baseplate, to fix thin liftarms together. It would be a good use of a warped 2nd hand baseplate. My philosophy is to only modify parts that I bought as PaB or 2nd hand. I don't endanger my ability to rebuild all my sets. When modding, I always have a reasonable surplus of the initial piece, in case it goes wrong. I plan each mod carefully too! I usually stick to mechanism parts because it is difficult to get cuts smooth enough to show as aesthetic parts. Tiles are most of the aesthetic parts that I have cut. If a 1xn double sided plate were made, it should have the 3.2mm holes in the studs for maximum versatility. Not sure where the LEGO logo would fit though! Mark

Yes, great review Brickster. I recognised the low bridge and didn't buy this set, given my larger trains! I work to a minimum bridge clearance of 37 plates. I could build it higher instead. The bridge could do with a few more handrails. The Batcave shows how, though this was released a few years later. The style of signal box irked me a bit. A bit too modern and rounded, with too many pieces I'd be unlikely to use in a MOC. A classic UK 'box with sash windows and pitch roof looks a lot better. I have to build one about 16x30 for my layout. One flaw that almost all LEGO level crossing sets have had is that they are tied to the current fashion of road plates. It used to be that a level crossing would be in the shops for 5 years, longer than most sets. The road plate design has often moved on in that time, and indeed the roads have become wider and grown drains since 7866 days. Almost better to supply a plain baseplate or perhaps a 16x32 positioned along the track, such that the ramps overlap the edge and do not dictate the adjacent road format. I have a couple of the older crossings, 7832 and 7835 (both 2nd hand), as well as 12V crossing 7866. 7866 is in a class of its own with the automatic barriers, but modern PF methods can help others catch up. The Technic worm gear block is good for barrier mechanisms. I agree about the stickers - it is a shame about needing them for the crossing lights, especially compared to 7866, though the sign pieces are better than most for use with stickers because it's a single sticker for a single whole surface of one piece - no stickers over brick joints. I was thinking of trying such a scheme for more railway signs, buying a few sign pieces, depending on what sort of stickers I could use. For UK crossing lights I have made light clusters 4x3 with a couple of white 2x3 plates at the back and a black 2x3 plate with the lights on it, because those lights have a yellow warning light and two alternately flashing red lights. PF lights might make things interesting if modded... Mark

Shame. I thought the cave from HP6 could make a good scenic set. Lots of BURPs and LURPs, a rowing boat, trans tiles, ... Maybe the orphanage too (if memory serves correctly - it's a while since I read it) Mark

Poor chap! That is seen by many AFOLs as the worst trains range! Power Functions trains would be an improvement in every respect (you have no reason to hark back to 9V like many of us!). That white train front end piece contended for the "Most Useless Piece Ever", narrowly beaten by the dino body. I hope you might move a little towards trains if you have a better experience of them! Mark

Having challenged myself earlier, here is the result: Brickshelf Folder when moderated. I dare say this goes slightly beyond a wheel fix for Emerald Night! In fact the 120 degrees is not exact for Flying Scotsman (or other Gresley 3-cylinder loco) because the middle cylinder is inclined at 1 in 8 in order to miss the front axle. The three angles are more like 117, 120 and 123 degrees. Thompson and Peppercorn 3-cylinder locos (e.g. Tornado) use divided drive, with the middle piston actuating the front axle, avoiding the need to incline the cylinder. Tony> I currently have 20 large BBB drivers, 10 blind drivers and 20 small wheels, all in black. With the large drivers I've done an 0-6-0 chassis, 0-10-0 chassis, Shay Chassis and Class 14 shunter. I used some of the small wheels on my rail crane and more on a cardan shaft drive chassis concept. I have a few others on a Class 02 chassis and a 2-6-2 mock-up chassis for evaluation as to which UK loco it might become - perhaps a Great Western 44xx class for the wheel size, though this is one of the rarer classes of prairie tank engine in the UK - other more numerous classes had larger wheels. The Emerald Night banded wheels might improve traction for such a tank engine, using PF motors, since train motors would have to be under coaches otherwise (no tender to hide them in!). I haven't yet investigated the medium sized BBB wheels. Are they the same size as the old 12V red wheels from 7750? If so, I could use them for 3'2" to 3'8" bogie wheels on a few engines. Just wish I could get more colours of 32020 wheel hubs for the drivers! Mark

Of course I'm a Train fan. That hardly goes unnoticed! Question: Can a town be without trains or can trains be without a town? I don't think it's as simple as "yes" or "no" - I think it depends where the boundary is. If a station counts as Town by being a building, passenger trains cannot be without Town. Perhaps signal boxes or sheds do not count as Town. In real life, show me a sizeable town without a railway station and I'll show you a town that is poorer for it. Corby in England is a town whose station opened just a week ago, on April 27th this year. It needed the rail connection to London for commuters and shoppers. Therefore I contend that a real town should not be without trains. Whether this is also the case for a LEGO MOC town depends on your preferences, modelling space and cash! In the LEGO community we see some layouts that are railways with a few buildings and others that are cities with a single line railway. With the advent of the Power Functions car chassis, Town builders can now reduce their dependency on "Hand of God" for vehicle movements. This is a bit more like trains in operation. I wondered whether the preference for Town or Trains has anything to do with what type or level of control a person likes to have. Does Town usually have more people focus than Trains? Do train builders prefer the predictability of the route? I don't expect there are quite as many Train fans here as Town fans, but let not a survey be divisive! The themes depend on each other. Mark

When visiting a preserved railway it can be fun to work out how fast you're going by knowing what size the driving wheels are and how many chuffs there are per wheel revolution. You would be able to tell if the train exceeded the UK preserved line speed limit of 25mph! As I mentioned in the other thread, another factor in wheel locking is the alignment of the cylinders with the centre of crank rotation. in this picture of 92220 Evening Star (a 2-cylinder quartered engine), notice how you can draw an imaginary line extending from the piston rods, straight through the centre of the middle set of driving wheels. In this picture of 4472 Flying Scotsman, notice how the piston rod is horizontal but aligned with all three driving wheel centres. The piston rods in Emerald Night are horizontal but are above the line of the driving wheel centres. This is one reason why it jams. Hopefully the level of jamming is tolerable as long as the quartering is done OK on Emerald Night. If not, I suggest swapping the 5M half beam for a 7M half beam, fixed to the coupling rod 2M further back. Flying Scotsman and Peppercorn Class A1 pacifics like Tornado have three cylinders, with the third cylinder being between the wheels. This means that, in a LEGO model of such a loco complete with the third cylinder, the crank pin alignment should be at 120 degrees, not 90 degrees. Setting the wheels at 120 degrees would be a challenge, though it is possible with wheels that have 6 holes, so I'm tempted to have a go sometime. I believe this is still called quartering, even though the angle is no longer 90 degrees. The use of 3 cylinders, and 6 power strokes per wheel revolution, is smoother. It also helps the gear ratio when starting away with the larger 6'8" driving wheels compared to Evening Star's 5'0" wheels. Of course Evening Star was designed for slower goods trains and has 1/3 more tractive effort than Flying Scotsman. Evening Star's brother 92203 Black Prince started a train of 2162 tonnes, the heaviest train hauled by a steam loco in Britain (no doubt a US Big Boy has hauled a lot more). Given the differences in design age (FS 1923 vs. ES 1954) further comparison may prove futile owing to the evolution of the technology. One reason Evening Star is newer but has just 2 cylinders is ease of maintenance - you can get at them on the outside! BTW Tony, how many BBB wheels is too many? I keep thinking of buying some more! Mark

The swash plate moves vertically, with collective pitch, but also tilts with cyclic pitch. That means it needs ball joints to transmit leverage to the blades. The blades rotate about their axes but the tilt of the swash plate at 0 degrees to that axis means ball joints are needed at the top of the levers as well. This pic shows one of the lever mechanisms that adds the differential and collective pitch together. The alternative of differential gears would have had too much play in the system. I cheated slightly with the splined ball by filing its axle slot, allowing it to slide more easily on the axle. There are also a few other modded parts at the bottom of the rotor tower - cranks pre-dating the 1x2 liftarm with two cross holes. I first built the rotor system in 1996. It was important to attach the blades securely to the hub, to prevent blade loss during rotation. The grey plates fix additional load-bearing parts to the central 4x4 brick. Back in 1996 I had a plan to fit two 12V train motors for rotor power. Now I can use PF XL motors instead, as well as controlling rotor speed by PF IR rather than a long wire! PF has been great for controlling big rotating things! There remains the challenge of adding aerodynamics to the rotor! I think the existing blades with plates will just about lift themselves enough to be flat rather than drooping at the tips, but it would be nice to have the blades lift up above horizontal or even reduce the overall weight of the model if it were resting on scales. Back to topic - the model is definitely stronger and more rigid for using studded beams. The 80s and 90s sets had those beams with sloped ends, which are great for the Apache's weapon pylons. Of course this was built before the advent of studless full-width beams. In 1997 I had the 5-, 6- and 7-long thin liftarms, so I suggested to TLG that they made shorter and longer ones. Unfortunately they went for wider ones. Perhaps thin ones longer than 7 would have been judged as too weak, though both the 12V signal mast and the new 1x12 plate are longer and thinner. Shorter ones are no problem with an abundance of 5-, 6- or 7-long ones, a modelling saw and a file A 1-long one would make a good spacer for use with pegs. Mark

It could make 6-wide trains fit O-gauge track, which is nearer the scale of the trains (less alteration to models). It could allow those with bigger ambitions to model G-scale 10mm:1ft! If someone would make 1x8 tiles or plates with O-gauge rail clips over the 2nd and 7th studs, we could use O-gauge rails for 9V trains at L-gauge and deafen the flexi-track with the sound of our silence! (Sean Connery voice from The Hunt for Red October ). Only one piece is needed, so mass-production is feasible. Mark

Despite the swash plate being used for the whole rotor in the 8856 set, you can use it to make a proper helicopter rotor with full collective and differential pitch control of the blades. It's also another use for those 1x3 steering parts! I bought two 8856s years ago and used the two rotor swash plates to make 4-wheel drive before 8880 came out, but the swash plates couldn't hold the wheels on very well. Glad TLG made the 8880 4WD parts. Mark