Brickthus

12V and 9V LEGO railways can be run just like any standard 2-rail model railway. Layouts with two terminii might need more feed wires to reduce voltage drop along the distance of the layout, but in any model railway the power is ideally fed directly from the control panel to each isolated track section. They do not need to be closed if the power is fed correctly. BTW last chance to get 9V feed wires from LS@H! To operate a layout with two terminii you need 3 engines because the engine is changed at each end, just as it would be with loco-hauled operation on the real railway. DMUs, EMUs and Driving Van Trailers have reduced the changing of locos on trains nowadays. For LEGO trans, a DMU or EMU should have either a motor in the middle of a 2-3 car train, or a motor at each end of a longer train (to avoid pushing too many vehicles). The engine shed or turntable is only required if that fits with your layout design - tender steam engines on the main line need a turntable because they cannot run fast tender-first. This is not the case on a British preserved railway at 25mph maximum speed. One railway that does use a turntable is the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch railway in Kent, England. These are 1/3 scale steam engines and presumably they cannot safely run tender-first at 25mph! Reversing loops and triangles are possible with the correct isolation. A reversing loop is good for a layout with 1 terminus, making it is easier for one person to operate the layout. Cyril Freezer's book "The PSL Book of Model Railway Wiring" gives 20 model railway wiring rules and shows how each track formation may be successfully wired and operated. Mark

Not just that, it completely ignores the C1 and C2 inputs. There are three main types of Power Functions device - inputs, processors and outputs. There are also edcational WeDo products and custom devices of my own invention. Inputs are battery boxes. Processors are currently just the IR receiver. Outputs are motors and lights. WeDo products have different requirements that do not necessarily conform to standard protocol. Custom devices may be non-standard processors or anything else we can create. Inputs provide a constant full supply voltage on the +9V and 0V pins and a switched or variable output on C1 and C2. Processors take in a supply from +9V and 0V and generate a C1 and C2 output from it, using fresh power from +9V and 0V to generate the C1-C2 output in every processor. All official processors to date have passed the +9V and 0V supply straight through to the same pins on the output ports and have generally ignored any input on C1 and C2. The passing on of +9V and 0V has allowed the same supply to be fed in via the output port: pic Outputs take a signal on the C1 and C2 pins and produce another type of energy from it. Some outputs may also connect to the +9V or 0V pin - the light brick has a 0V connection. Custom devices could do anything and do not necessarily conform to standard PF protocol. My devices to date range from a modified lead, which connects a variable C1-C2 input to +9V and 0V output, to circuits that produce other outputs on +9V and 0V as well as C1 and C2. Using these it is possible to repeat IR commands inside a tunnel, set and latch train lights in the direction of travel, flash lights alternately or cascade IR receivers and hence run more than 4 (or 8) trains on a layout. For devices to be cascaded, it is best to have only one transistor between +9V input and +9V output and to compile the logic for that one transistor before controlling it, rather than putting several components in series, which would reduce the available maximum output supply voltage. WeDo devices include sensors, which receive +5V on the +9V and 0V pins and return signals on the C1 and C2 pins, and a USB interface, whose ports may be inputs when driving a motor or outputs when reading from a sensor. The two sensors released so far are a tilt sensor and a motion sensor. There is a "third way" with PF trains, for those who have enough 9V components already: Keep the 9V rails and train controller. Convert 9V train motors to PF operation. Use constant 9V track power and control each loco with an IR receiver. For a 9V train motor to be converted to PF operation, the wheel contacts would be separated from the motor and have their track power input rectified and smoothed within the motor and sent into the loco body on the +9V and 0V pins of a PF lead. The motor control signal, probably from an IR receiver, would be returned on the C1 and C2 pins, making the converted motor a non-standard processor. With the feed-through of +9V and 0V on the IR receiver, the receiver would accept the track power from the motor on its output port. A large capacitance would be needed across the +9V and 0V pins in order to hold enough power to power the motor(s) over power interruptions, otherwise the IR receiver would turn off, stopping the train. This could be a discrete device inside the loco body. For the Emerald Night, this would require a PF-converted 9V train motor under the coach, to pick up track power, and a PF extension wire or two to connect it to the same port of the IR receiver as the cab motor uses. The capacitor or battery would be in the tender - either doing something clever with the PF LiPo battery (not easy) or doing something different, like a large 10V or 16V-rated capacitor with some current limiting, to allow infinite shallow charge-discharge cycles without wasting too much energy. Bear in mind that 9V train support is now community-based with limited support from TLG, so it's up to us to keep it going for as long as we want it. For all the snags that have been seen with PF, there have been two significant victories won by AFOLs: 1. The PF extension wire has a 9V plug on the bottom of one end, for backward compatibility. 2. The PF light brick has lights that fit in Technic beam holes and in the back of 1x1 headlight bricks for small cars (compare with 9V and previous light bricks). This shows that the AFOL input has been a very positive thing and that TLG has listened to our input on PF. What would we have done without these provisions? I started writing a 1-line answer and out came an essay! Mark

Not quite right there! The C1 and C2 pins of the battery box will supply power for the speed set on the dial of the battery box, just as those pins on a 6-AA battery box supply a switched +/-9V. The +9V and 0V pins supply constant full battery power (of 7.4V), just as those pins on a 6-AA battery box supply 9V. The PF IR Receiver takes its power supply directly from the +9V and 0V pins and controls a motor independently of the C1 and C2 output from the battery box. No speed setting of the battery is necessary in order to use an IR receiver. A train starter set with a diesel or electric train might use just the battery, a wire and an 8866 train motor to give a variable speed but no remote control. A PF IR receiver may be added later, in which case the speed will be only from the IR receiver and the battery speed output would no longer be used. The Emerald Night pack has all the parts because the Emerald Night itself is aimed at AFOLs, who would also prefer remote control. Mark

Selling LEGO? That's an alien concept to me as I don't have a Bricklink store! £1500 would be 18 sets of [a LiPo battery and 2 IR receivers per train], a charger or two, a handset and 32 packs of 8867 flexi-track pieces to replace the 104M radius curves on my layout. Having said that, it would be best to wait to get most of the LiPo batteries only for exhibitions where their 500 cycles will be used within the 3-year shelf life (google LiPo battery life). Better still to design the layout so that the whole battery can be removed, charged and sent out in another train = less capital cost of batteries. Mark

If you want your Emerald Night to pull a long train, put 1 or 2 8866 motors under the first carriage. 9V ones could be used instead. It might be good to speed up the loco by changing the gearing while you're at it. Not sure if 24:8 gears will fit in place of 16:16 but that is a ratio more suited to the speed of the 9V and 8866 motors for a given electrical power input. Alternatively, try with a PF medium motor in the cab as that will have the same 3x speeding-up effect. Then wire all the motors in parallel on the one IR receiver output. You might need to adjust the parts inside the boiler or use a PF extension wire to bring all but one of the plugs into the cab, tender or coach, where there's more space. Mark

I think PF answers most of the RC disadvantages you mentioned: 1. A PF IR receiver can power two train motors from one port, so that solves the RC limitation. Another receiver on the same channel can power another two motors and so on, so multiple motors on one channel is possible, if a tad more expensive. 9V motors can be used with PF. Adding another motor to a loco should really add a wore between the two motors to help with load sharing to stop the motors pulling or pushing each other and hence extend their life. 2. I'm with you there! I didn't buy an RC train. PF is deliberately versatile, with separate battery, IR control device and motor, to enable people to build a greater variety of trains. 3. I agree here too. This was a second reason for me not buying an RC train. PF appears at first to be limited to 4 channels but I have worked out how to have up to 128 bidirectional devices on a layout powered by PF. Co-ordination of this between members of a club for a collaborative layout requires pre-planning and allocation of channels. A few modded PF extension wires are needed too - for trains that may all be stopped at the same time, use the top right circuit here. 4. I have made an IR Repeater for tunnels. I would just aim the PF remote at the amplifier input and the whole inside of the tunnel would then be illuminated with the repeated IR command. It is also possible to have an NXT with IR Link sensor set the speed of the train in the tunnel. I might do this to automatically reduce train speed as it enters a fiddle yard. 5. I think the idea with the PF battery is that if it is mounted in the loco with roof access, the charger can be plugged in when a small part of the loco roof is removed. For a cheaper solution, make a larger piece of roof removable an swap the battery to a different loco. Some people swap train motors between loco bodies in a similar way. Schemes for automatic battery recharge, by pickups or inductive means, would add more cost. It might be possible for someone to do this in the AFOL community. For 9V I would use multiple feed wires for long tracks. For this layout, which I exhibited at quite a few shows, I had feed wires to the top two and bottom two tracks, the pairs of inner and outer circuit feeds being in parallel for this flat layout. Given the two routes for current to a train from the feed points, and the effect of parallel resistances, the greatest effective distance from a feed to the train was only 13 track pieces. In the yard I had feeds to both roads in the run-round loop (tracks 5 and 6 from the left). Your PF questions: 1. Using NiMH AA batteries in a conventional battery box might be a cheaper solution if the PF Li-Po battery is too expensive (assuming you are using IR control). It's not quite so convenient to remove the box to change the batteries though. 2. I agree the check rails are ugly. I think it was a choice between that and an unacceptably high rate of derailments. I have sought to ballast the flexible track to make it look more like real track, but I will have to adapt the scheme to what is possible with the product. To do the original scheme I had devised would require mods to track pieces, which would have taken time and not been so universal. 3. Some adaptation of operation is required for clubs, like what mix of trains to run on a layout and who will control which trains on which channels. Cascading IR receivers, as per my modded lead scheme above, allows more trains to run and helps to avoid operators controlling the wrong train, as well as reducing the risk of any member of the audience causing a train to start or accelerate by means of their own remote handset. 4. The official information released from TLG explains the reasons for converting to PF. Metal has also increased in price. PF is standard across most themes and the Li-Po battery will work for Technic too. The train motor 8866 could be used with other wheels in a non-train theme. Kids get more track for their money with plastic track. The market has to be a balance between AFOLs and kids. Kids can either run with normal batteries and an IR receiver for cheapness, or use a Li-Po battery (with its built-in speed control) and not IR control. AFOLs can more easily afford a Li-Po battery - from a manufacturer point of view, the size of some people's railway layouts is evidence of that. 10194 Emerald Night is aimed at AFOLs. A kids' starter train set can be done for £125 or less, even with the Li-Po battery and a light. I agree that a wholesale conversion of a big layout to PF is not the best way to go right now. I will run 9V on the main lines of my layout and start with PF in the yard, at least till PF has proved itself. I worked out the total conversion cost, even keeping 9V motors and metal track for the straights, to be about £1500, similar to what it cost me to convert from 12V to 9V in 2001 (that was 10 years behind the availability of sets!). One advantage of the plastic-wheeled motor 8866 for 9V trains is that for trains requiring extra booster motors at the back, I can put plastic wheeled motors at the back of a train, wired to the 9V motors at the front of the train. Then if I have a sectioned 9V layout (using insulating tape between track sections), the train will stop just like a single loco would (it would otherwise pick up power from the rear motors too and need a section longer than the train in order to stop). In parallel with my layout strategy I will probably experiment with the flexible track and investigate what the derailment risk would be without check rails, at various radii. The advantage of flexible track for me is to allow curves that have straights between them to become one continuous curve, potentially allowing a train speed increase. However, that depends on the output of the PF Li-Po battery, which is 7.4V and may cut the available maximum speed. An unloaded 9V motor would do an 8mm:1ft scale speed of 125mph at 9V. I will have to compare this with other configurations - 8866 motor, Li-Po battery etc... Mark

I've made just one circuit so far, and it's still on a breadboard! This was proof-of-concept stuff. I tested one circuit by cascading two receivers and controlling a motor on the desk - not quite full layout running conditions but enough to verify no transistor overheats and make sure there is enough base current for the maximum expected load per transistor. 0.2V for C-E saturation is the usual ball-park figure - transistors may vary and it's more for power transistors. The BC327 will control 0.5A, so I would have to increase base current and add more output transistors for some trains (maybe 1 ohm load-sharing resistors would be required, but these would have to be 2 Watt ones at 1 Amp and 50% derate). In its present 9V configuration, my Pendolino draws one amp at 8 volts with 4 train motors. I like to run at no more than 200mA/motor to extend motor life. Yes, it will waste some battery power but 0.2V/stage is the minimum that can be expected from a relatively simple circuit. Not sure how much the IR receiver drops but it has the advantage of a MOSFET motor driver chip with low enough Ron for the application. I can't get the LB1836 in DIL format, otherwise I might have used that instead. A 1 Amp IGBT would be the best possible solution - easy to control with a voltage and fixed voltage drop at the output, rather than a resistance. I've never looked for them though, not sure if they exist, especially in a small TO-92 package. I've installed the one circuit in a loco to do the lights, which it does when S1 is made (in reality it's a couple of wire links for now). The idea is that putting all those functions in one box, with tiny switches like the PF IR Remote ones for S1 and S2, might make it commercially viable, especially because the flashing function would be good for kids, for a police car. As I say, I expect 2 receivers and one circuit should be enough to minimise disruption on a public layout, but it depends how many trains I want to run. I might experiment with 3 receivers and 2 circuits when I have tried enough trains with the system. By the time my layout is finished I will probably have 18 trains. My layout will run 1 of 5 trains each way at a time, with other locos as shunters in the yards. That probably means cascading to 3 receivers for at least one group of locos. There is a lot of experimenting to do and I need time to build the layout too. It's already at least a year behind where I had hoped to be on a five-year build Mark

That's right. I had to move the rear lights back a bit to keep them away from the wheels. The rear wheelbase is no wider than the front wheelbase. I would have brought the wheels in by half a stud on their axles but they would then have hit the chassis. The 6M axle I added limits the turning of the wheels so that they miss the chassis. It seemed odd, in the original build, that the steering should have 2 8-tooth cogs when the second one is barely used with a shallow steering angle. The sharper angle makes better use of the second cog. Mark

This circuit enables IR receivers to be cascaded. In order to control 128 trains, using 4 receivers per train, you would need 3 circuits per train. 32 trains = 3 receivers and 2 circuits per train. 8 trains = 2 receivers and 1 circuit per train. The circuit would connect to the red or blue port of the receiver, depending which group a train is in. The next receiver connects to output A or B of the circuit, depending which group (+ or - polarity) the train is in. If you are using the circuit for cascading, this simpler circuit will do. Add one circuit (the first type) per train, with the latch switch set to ON and you can have automatic lights set to the direction of travel whenever all the receivers are powered, even if the motor is off. The direction latches into the circuit and is maintained on output A or B until the input power is disconnected or the motor direction changes. In reality I think there would be minimal disruption using just 2 cascaded receivers per train. No-one could maliciously start a stationary train unless they knew what system of cascades you were using and sent two codes in sequence. They could stop the running trains but that's no problem unless you had co-ordinated another conflicting activity (such as a level crossing or lifting bridge). The worst case is accelerating a running train, causing derailment. Keep a stop button handy! I have two further steps to minimise disruption: Plan which way each train will run around your exhibition layout by default, and place the receivers of all trains on the operator's side of the carriage. I have embedded the IR receiver in the side of the carriage, replacing one of the windows: Pic1 Pic2 . If the audience don't see any IR receivers, they might not realise you are using PF IR signals. Even if they do, the receiver windows are facing you, not them, so your remote gets priority by having the stronger signal. Use an NXT with an RFID sensor to recognise each train, each train having an RFID tag on it. Use the NXT with an IR Link sensor to send the appropriate PWM speed codes as a train enters the fiddle yard, which may be out of sight or reach of the operator. The NXT sensors may be out of sight in a tunnel. Keep your remote handy for backup. If the audience don't see you interacting with the trains by holding a remote, they might not realise the potential for disrupting things. With cascaded receivers, the NXT could send one code on channel 1 to turn on the channel 2 receiver, then another code on channel 2 to start the train at the right speed. It could also stop all trains in a group by sending a Stop code on channel 1, useful if you get a fault of two trains on parallel sidings in a fiddle yard moving together towards the same point! I heard that someone disrupted TLG's first display of Power Functions. This is when I first thought of a way to reduce disruption. Cascading receivers also removes the 4-channel limit! Mark

I notice the USA still has 15th April as the release date So many sets are released there first. I wonder if US shops would sue for failure to meet a promised release date? To be fair in this theme, the US is the largest trains market. However, it really ought to be Britain first (for once) because the engine is based on Flying Scotsman, a Gresley A3 Pacific. I'd be happy for the home country to be first if it were a different engine. Mark

The motor has a round hole in the middle that is different from the one on previous motors. Is that for supporting middle (idler) wheels, or just for a wheel fascia? Does it go right through or are pegs sufficient to hold the middle wheels? For idler wheels, it is not necessary to use wheels with belts - small BBB wheels would work too. The red buttons are STOP buttons, in case of train derailment. Don't forget that the PF train will keep running even if it leaves the track! The orange wheel knobs provide bidirectional speed control. The tiny switches and orange slider have the same functions as on a normal PF remote handset. You could do that but the idea is that one channel will do the train motor and the other can do a feature on the train, such as lights or a motorized function. You can run four trains with one remote, eight (four on red, four on blue) if you have automatic lights connected to the motor without using a separate channel. The PF train remote will send IR codes that latch into the PF IR receivers (this can be done already with an NXT and an IR Link sensor). You can actually run up to 128 trains from a single remote if you cascade PF IR receivers to power each other (with modified PF leads and a few diodes). The first IR receiver on each train, set to channel 1, has four possible outputs: Red+, Red-, Blue+ and Blue-. This turns on one of four groups of IR receivers set to channel 2. The channel 2 receivers are the same, but only one of four trains is now addressed because the other channel 2 receivers are not powered. Each channel 2 receiver has the same four outputs, one on each train being connected to a receiver set to channel 3. The channel 3 receivers each have four outputs too, one output on each train being connected to a further receiver set to channel 4. Two trains (one red, one blue) are controlled by each combination of red and blue + or - on channels 1, 2, and 3, making 128 trains controlled bidirectionally, two at a time. Just watch out for anyone in the audience at a show who happens to be carrying a PF train remote! Mark

I thought the steering angle of the Combine Harvester 8274 was insufficient at about 30 degrees. Real combines should be able to turn sharply at the end of a field, so they can harvest the next row of crops. I improved the angle to more than 45 degrees with a few parts: 8274 Improved Steering I could have gone further but it would have meant changing the frames etc... What do you think? Mark

I think black with red buffer beams is the original real colour scheme (around 1950). Yellow warning ends and other liveries came later. Mark

It looks like the latest flexi-track picture shows check rails on the track pieces. These might be OK for tram tracks through a town street, but are they acceptable for use on a main railway line? What you you think? Mark

I have thought for a while about a LEGO self-propelled aircraft. I would use the blue panels from the Technic Mars Rover set for flapping wings - they're light and flexible. I would make some sort of crankshaft to flap the wings and I might have 2 sets of wings that flap together and apart, forcing air out at the back, at a downward angle. I have seen a polystyrene toy that uses this technique for a flying bird. I would use a 9V PP3 battery box for lightness, a modded Power Functions lead, a PF motor and a PF IR receiver. Mark

8867 - 64 Track Pieces Picture The image shows even less of a gap between the two halves than was shown in the previous photo. As well as the hole on the inside of the curve being too small to fit a peg through, it looks like the hole on the outside of the curve will not be big enough either. This means for ballasting there are two options: 1. For modders: Persist with a mod, probably using a hole punch to make a hole wide enough for a peg to support the ballast parts, punching holes in the redundant middle parts on the outside of the curve as well as on the inside, then using the ballast scheme I suggested earlier: 2. For non-modders: Obtain enough black and bley (or dark bley) flat 1x4 hinges, separate the two halves of each and reassemble them with one grey half attached to one black half. Attach one half to the two available studs. The other half may hinge if required, as long as the hinge points towards the inside of the curve. I demonstrated the hinge method on the crossover (two near the top of the picture): If the hinges are obtainable, that's an easier way to do it. At the moment they are only available in red from PaB online . It's a bit laborious to swap parts for 2000 hinges if you have 1000 flexible track pieces in your layout, but less so than modding 1000 pieces of track with up to 4 hole punches each! Klaus-Dieter> If you have 2 parallel tracks to go round a curve, these pieces will either make a curve with 56M radius to go round the 40M radius curve, or two flexible pieces at each end of a quarter circle curve would provide half straights to use a 40M curve with a reduced gap between tracks. A combination of these techniques could make a 48M curve to go round the 40M curve, leaving a 4M gap between the sleeper ends. Then you could really call the space between tracks the "6-foot" because it would be 6M gap between the rails, just like the real railway. You would have to watch out for the clearances between rail vehicles though - some of them overhang either in the middle or at the ends and could clash on a curve. I tend to prefer wide curves on the main line of my layout, up to 104M radius, with 72M radius in the yard. The flexi-tracks could make these smooth, to replace ordinary curves and the straights between them. The pieces would also make yard tracks take up less space, making the layout more realistic and allowing more sidings in a smaller space. Mark

I saw some questions on the Flickr site about ballasting the track. This is not a problem if you're prepared to mod the inner curved bits to make enough space for a peg: Ballast Scheme The mod would be invisible once the track is ballasted. I am considering whether an old-style hole punch, like the one used for punching belt holes, would be the best tool for the job, rather than using a drill or routing bit. I expect the edge of the curved bits to be the full plate depth of 3.2mm. For this scheme, a hole wide enough for the widest bit of a Technic 1.5M peg is required, just over 5mm in total. The mod might not be required on the outside of the curve because the hole between the curved bits expands with curvature. Mark

Why should all you guys in Europe miss out on the Track News? Mark

Perhaps the sort of vehicles you have for scrap would typically be on a Lowmac wagon, depending on the railway era you're modelling. I would expect more general scrap to be in either a Tube wagon or a higher-sided one, especially for a serious quantity of scrap metal. Some larger items used to be carried on bogie bolster wagons, which had stanchions at the sides to spread the load and stop it falling off the wagon. This Log wagon is a bit like that. Scrap is rarer on modern British railways, post-privatisation, except when there is a train load of it. Mark

My comment about truck configuration was not about the cab, but rather about an 8x4 truck with crane and 5th wheel (no enclosure of its own to carry a load that the crane might lift). In the UK, trucks with a 5th wheel come mostly in 5 types: 4x2, 6x2 centre lift, 6x2 centre steer, 6x2 with tag axle and 6x4. 6x4s are mostly on scrap metal duty - not so common. Fuel tankers tend to have 6x2 with centre lift, using smaller wheels on the centre axle. Today I was surprised to see a truck with the same configuration as 8258: 8x4 with crane and 5th wheel. It had a standard 6-wheel trailer attached and was carrying a Portakabin. The real truck had no gap between the 2nd steerable axle and the 3rd, driving, axle, missing out the length of the panel in 8258. The crane was tucked up behind the cab, like in 8436. The 4th axle was a tag axle and was in the raised position as the truck departed, having unloaded its cargo. The front trailer wheels also raised. The rear 3 axles were covered by a single fairing each side, made of that silvery metal walkway stuff. I share your wish about the crane - it needs to be able to lift a Lego Portakabin of the same scale! A good use for the outriggers too. I agree about keeping pneumatics and not letting LAs replace them, but we should consider the applications. Pneumatics are best for end-to-end applications with just 2 states. crane 8421 is a good example: cranes don't often lift things without the jib being fully raised (a Kirow rail crane lifting track panels is an exception, but that is operating in restricted space). Pneumatics are great for rail points control and are not subject to the same electrical system obsolescence and messing about with connector interfaces. That's why I chose them to do most of the points on my railway. This required obtaining a good supply of hoses and rigid tubing, more than TLG would normally supply. Pneumatics can be made to do 3 states and cascade those states, but it's complex: 3-state Pneumatics . The best use of 3-state pneumatics is for wheeled-digger steering where you want it to be able to go straight. The achievement of proper straightness of the steering is an incremental thing - it gets there eventually, depending on load, source pressure etc... . Just as it's easier to turn the steering wheel of a car when the vehicle is moving (ignoring power steering). LAs effectively replace hydraulics, where theoretically-infinite mid-stop positions are required. In the Front End Loader application (8459 vs. 8265), LAs are better because of the variable position capability. In this case there is room for a PF motor to drive them, even if it has to be bought separately (there'd better be instructions for adding PF if the set is to be worth buying!!!) There aren't many real vehicles with pneumatics! Hydraulics transmit more power in uncompressible fluid and provide the mid-stop capability needed by almost all vehicle applications. That's why it's no surprise that LAs are more popular than pneumatics in the Technic range. One place where pneumatics score highly is in their ability to work against each other, or the load, and find the best point without complaining. One such application is a steam engine. Another is air suspension, especially on a bus that lowers its doorway to the kerb. Another great application is on an aircraft engine. An aircraft engine has to have a hydraulic pump for the aircraft systems (flaps, elevators, ailerons etc...) but on the engine pneumatics are just as easy because there is a ready supply of compressed air. It is used extensively for cooling, and for pressurising cavities to keep oil in the right places. If it were not for pneumatics there would be no pressurised air for the passengers to breathe! Pneumatics are great in safety situations where it is best to avoid a fire (since hydraulic fluid is more flammable than petrol e.g. dripping it on a hot exhaust manifold). I think most train doors are pneumatic. Truck brakes use air to hold the brakes off. Of course we don't want a fire anywhere near our Lego bricks! Sadly most of these pneumatic applications are unlikely to appear in a Technic set because the whole vehicle would be so big as to be above the highest price point of the range! A happy exception is JCB outriggers, where pneumatics sit between hand-cranked gears and LAs in terms of cost for the function. Some real pneumatic applications need short, fat cylinders that have not been produced by TLG, such as a 4x4 cylinder 20mm long with 12mm extension. I don't expect another excavator with pneumatics now that we have LAs. Same goes for many applications. Perhaps LAs were too expensive for TLG to develop in the 80s. If we had had them then, perhaps we would never have had the benefit of pneumatics! I think motor technology has been an enabler for them too, though the same can benefit a pneumatic compressor. PF motors are better than the older types - they answer the long-term gripe we had about more powerful motors. LAs are designed to fit with PF, with one of the two types of bracket having been designed just for a medium PF motor. I hope and expect that PF will have a long life. That means LAs are here to stay. PF pneumatic parts are possible but they would be more bespoke than the PF parts we have so far, not so good for cost-effectiveness. Why make an electric pneumatic valve when you can drive an existing valve with a motor and crank for less cost? LAs will also score in any rotating application, by virtue of PF IR Remote control and their simpler interface to the motor. What we really need to revive interest in pneumatics is a decent robot kit. How about this one as one of three models in the instructions? I built all the electronic logic gates in pneumatics , so such a set could teach kids about logic systems! One thing pneumatics can do more easily than LAs with PF is a multiple function robot that automatically executes a sequence of moves. Yes, I've made an automatic machine with PF, but in order to use any function more than once each way in the programmed step sequence, an NXT is easier and Pneumatics are a lot cheaper than an NXT! Mark

8063 Tractor and Trailer: Absolutely right about it being a copy of the green tractor. There is no indication of a motor in the set, but that could change. Looks like the black z20 gear wheel (between the tractor and trailer wheels in the picture) is the hand actuator for the LA. It'll probably be able to be motorized with an 8293 kit but doesn't look like it's driven from a PTO. The only reasons for this set to have a PTO are: > 8284 tractor has one already and this is a copy. > The instructions show how to make other implements from the trailer parts. > The engine could be replaced with a PF motor, with a gearbox providing a neutral gear to disconnect the wheels, so that the trailer can be tipped with the wheels stationary. > All LEGO tractors of sufficient size must have a PTO. Set 851 had a PTO and the implements were great fun. The harrow was my favourite because of its speed! I count 6 functions in this set: Steering Engine Differential Trailer attachment Trailer Tip Trailer levelling (suspension with no springs) Could do a gearbox and/or motor to make 7-8 - needs work on functions per pound, but PF parts rarely improve that (e.g. loader, cherry picker) because the battery box is a cost and space overhead for the first PF function added. The 8275 bulldozer managed so well because it motorized 4 functions. 8258 Truck: I agree, the pics show steering potential for the second axle - same pins through the wheels in the classic "left over bit of 5.5M axle" fashion. I see Blakbird's point about it being a cross with 8436 and another set, but I think it's an extended 8436, still with crane and 5th wheel on the back, with the added outriggers from 8421. Are there real lorries like this? It might have been better to make an enclosure with a few red panels, to give the crane somewhere to put something. Otherwise you need another copy of the set to make a trailer and then the crane won't reach to the back. I would prefer a Brick Truck with a crane at the back of the truck and a trailer having the same enclosure size. That way the crane can reach to the front of the truck and to the back of the trailer and the trailer is detachable for small loads or awkward building site entrances. That's the configuration some lorry drivers prefer in real life. It looks like the outriggers are motorized, with the crane having mostly manual functions, except for the hook string. I count 9 functions: 2x steering crane turn, 2 lifts, extension, hook outriggers motor From the pics, better play value for money than 8063. A probable buy. 8263 Snow Plough: Looks like 12x light bley 6-lobe sprockets - just a new colour, not a new piece. A bit noisier than 10-lobe sprockets, and less easy to push along, but necessary for the flatness of the tracks on the real thing. 3 LAs on the front. I can see that the lower one is offset and the words nearly cover where the other one is. Looks suspiciously like there's a function-switching gearbox, perhaps changed by the red bit alongside the cab. Maybe a piece at the engine end is the winding handle (cog). Lots of work at 26-turns full travel per LA! I think the articulation is just in front of the cab. I suspect 2-wheel drive. A real front end loader might have 2 engines, one for each set of wheels (graders do that). It's ripe for an 8293 motor kit. Probably not included because it would push up the price by £25. Looks a good set - a probable buy for me. I agree - a good line-up as long as all four sets deliver play value. It should keep the 8293 kits flying off the shelves! Mark

I've posted instructions for how to motorize 8960 Thunder Driller with an 8293 Power Functions motor set and just 5 extra parts: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=365894 To keep the number of extra parts low, I didn't add an IR receiver. There is scope for strengthening the mechanism inside against high torque on the wheels (the cogs jump because the body isn't too strong), but that would also have used extra parts. The idea was that kids might have the few extra parts for motorizing their Thunder Driller. I'm onto building gearboxes and other fun items with the wheels now. Enjoy! Mark

I agree that you can never have too many: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=237939 Plenty of scope for expansion. As well as the circuit and 360-roll, I have a loop-the-loop in prototype. On YouTube too: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mbellisbrickmocs I've done a railway tunnel mouth and various hoops too. Mark

My crane gearbox uses a single cog moving along an axle. The worm gear moves a shoe that pushes the cog in each direction. I found that a 20-tooth cog slides easily enough without modification and engages with 12-tooth and 16-tooth cogs in convenient positions. Seems similar in principle but, as you say, the difference may be more obvious once it's built! Outputs from such a gearbox, that disengages the unused functions, need latches for each function that carries weight. On my crane all three string functions are latched with worm drives. The turntable function is deliberately not latched so that, with the crane jib resting on its match wagon, the match wagon can go round the curves, turning the turntable as required, without the crane derailing. I just have to remember to engage another gear before moving the train! Now that we have PF XL motors I'd like to see moving trucks in larger scales! I once tried a 12x12 crane made from 3 8880 super cars but the drive and steering was difficult to co-ordinate along the length of the chassis and the 3-metre crane job was too heavy for pneumatics to lift An XL motor will do up to 1.7 Amps at 9 Volts - 15.3 Watts each or 5 times the previous Technic gearmotors. I think a motor on each wheel would be required to avoid twisting all the axles in the transmission! I haven't yet seen an 8x8 with 8 XL motors. Of course one PF IR receiver can only drive 2 XL motors, so it would need four set to the same channel, and multiple battery boxes. By the time that's done, there is noting to be gained in power to weight ratio, so 4x4 is a practical limit unless the power source can violate the current protection philosophy. I think Technic figure scale is about 1:20. So far I only built a Naboo Star Fighter in that scale. Mark

Given the recent introduction of the double crossover, it is logical that Power Functions trains would use the same track system as the current RC train. This would make them compatible with the track from RC and 9V trains, which is best for AFOLs. The switch to plastic track made the development of new track pieces easier and cheaper. The double crossover is one example of this ( ballasted here). There may be more different pieces in the future. Remember that any new LEGO piece as complex as a track piece has to have a good business case. The release of leaked pictures has to be kept in for long enough so that a competitor would not have time to create a rival product before the launch date. A strategic leak may occur at a later date in order to whet our appetites. With the assumption of an autumn release date it is, as others have said, too early for a leak yet. Rest assured that AFOLs involved in the Power Functions and Trains programmes are working to ensure the best backward compatibility with RC trains and 9V trains, such that maximum use may be made of these products. For instance, any battery box may power a 9V train motor on plastic track. The PF extension wire has a 9V plug on one end, to drive 9V devices. There are two parts to the new Power Functions trains: good train sets and good Power Functions technology. Both of these have to be right for the product line to succeed. You will be able to judge whether the trains are good when pictures are released. The technology will have few surprises - the official messages have already stated that there will be a rechargeable battery box and infra-red remote control. I'm surprised more people haven't made their own PF trains already: all you need is a 4x14 battery box, a PF pole reverser, a 9V train motor, a PF IR receiver and IR handset and a few PF extension leads. The pole reverser sets the power from the battery box the right way round to turn on the IR receiver. The IR receiver is mounted in the train roof and drives the motor. The train would go full speed with an ordinary handset but an NXT with IR link sensor can send the codes for intermediate speeds. It is likely that something similar to the RC train handset will also be able to set intermediate speeds. Train lighting has taken a step forward with Power Functions. The new PF light bricks have been designed to fit well with PF trains. The split LEDs enable their use for headlights in 6-wide or 8-wide trains (not restricted to a particular width as 12V prisms were), as well as using one LED at each end of the loco if the body is short enough. I made a circuit to set the lights automatically to the direction of travel and keep them on when the train stops. This makes good use of the on-board battery power. These PF Loco pictures show the circuit inside. The loco has 2 9V train motors, 2 light bricks, one IR receiver, the light direction and latching circuit and a battery box (not shown). Mark