Brickthus

No video of the crane yet. I plan to upgrade it (I was waiting for yellow parts and have not had time since I received them. That will make the crane complete (with less black and maybe a few more greeblies as it's a scale model of a Cowans Sheldon 76T crane). Maybe a video after that. Meanwhile I have A Sun, GBC and parts of a roller coaster on my YouTube Channel. The worm gearbox could be extended to use up to 32M axles, though it would probably bend a bit! gears for output functions could drive nearly 30 functions or more combinations of fewer functions if several cogs for each function were positioned in adjacent slots along a few axles. It is more of a practical drive gearbox than a gearbox that attempts to emulate one in a real machine. I hadn't considered what the actual scale of the truck is. I remember I used to do chassises about 28-wide with 82mm wheels (like 1:13 scale), so 14-wide is about 1:26? A bit smaller than the 1:20 Miniland scale? The 5th wheel locks by the lever moving up over top dead centre, preventing trailer drag load from opening the latch. CP5670> Which transmission rings did you mean? The gearbox parts with flanges that fit over axle extenders? Mark

As Freddie said above, don't forget to connect the two motors with a wire. Having them pull or push each other would make them fail prematurely, either by overloading or by changing the forces on them every time you go over the plastic track. Connecting the motors also brings the advantage of redundant pickups, for better continuous slow running, especially over points. I always connect the two motors together on 2-motor locos. My Pendolino train 1, 2 has 2 motors at the front and 2 at the back, all connected. The 2 at the back reduce drag in the curves and are deliberately selected to be slightly slower under no load than the two at the front, so that the back motors don't push the front ones and cause a derailment. Mark

An excellent piece of modelling I'm glad you have the preseverance to finish a model of this size. My Technic / Model Team vehicles usually stop with the chassis. I think the key to using water with pneumatics is to avoid straining the valve seals with water pressure. In my experiments years ago I found that a non-return valve would not stand water because of the pressure (I connected the water tank to the inlet nozzle, a pump on the middle hozzle and a hose on the outlet nozzle). Lasse D has avoided this by supplying air pressure to the tank from the 6 pumps and having only static pressure of water on the switch valve seals. I expect the switch valve will leak after a while but it depends how much pressure is built up and whether the valve can be re-greased to maintain the seal. I would not recommend operation of a pump under water as an alternative. Use with air depends on how good the seal is. Re-greasing may restore performance as long as peak pressure (and hence bending of the parts of the switch valve) has not exceeded the elastic limit of the parts. I have some older pneumatic switch valves where the tabs holding the side panel onto the main body have worn, reducing the seal effectiveness. Which grease is used to seal the valves? Might it once have been lithium grease (now banned as carcinogenic)? If so, Teflon grease is now used as an alternative for bikes, so I wonder if that's the one to use. Mark

If economies of scale have anything to do with it, I should have a discount from TLG on my 900,000 bricks! The prices of individual bricks in PaB online are astronomical for bulk buyers. I think each brick should be 50% off if you buy 100 of one type at a time. The price is the only reason I haven't bought any bricks this way. If US prices have been lower due to the weak dollar (which has been kept weak deliberately for some time), then it's about time UK prices were more competitive now that the pound is so much weaker. It was $2.00 or E1.40 but is now $1.50 or E1.00. And, while I'm at it, every piece should be available in black in PaB online, especially every basic piece and every utility piece (e.g. plate modified 1x1 with clip is missing some types in black). Mark

I'm amazed it took till Page 15 of this topic for someone to advocate the return of Model Team, especially a version of it with more Technic and Power Functions. Such a theme would give AFOLs with both technical and aesthetic flair the challenge they are seeking. The Taj Mahal may satisfy the aesthetic builders and the Power Functions Bulldozer may satisfy the technical builders but we need to combine the two successfully. Such combination is the hallmark of only the best model builders. I accept that prices will start at about £100 but this is for the AFOL market, so we could have rarer colours involved as well (sand green, medium blue, orange, purple - not all in the same set!). In the AFOL market the absence of any large customised pieces would be best. We need versatility. Ideally every set in the new range would have instructions for 3 models, all of them decent enough to exhibit. On meeting the criteria of 3 decent models and a desirable parts list I would buy 3 sets anyway! I suggest that the simplest any of these sets should be is a bit like this truck: The aesthetics need sprucing up to Model Team standards but it has 4-wheel steering, motorised drive, functional 5th wheel and centre axle lift. How about a classic sports car in British Racing Green with functional engine, steering and suspension, with steering and drive remotely controlled by Power Functions? Sets should be "one thing that does this, this and this" (e.g. 5580 Rig with extra functions), not "this and that and the other" (e.g. jeep with boat on trailer) At the top end there are a few people who make 1:13 scale trucks that are scale models with full functionality. I'd say you have some ready made set designs there. The top end could go up to £350 with 5000 parts like the Millennium Falcon because these are UCS Model Team sets. The Taj Mahal may have more pieces but it's more repetitive so less enjoyable. I would expect a UCS Model Team set to require no more than 4 of any sub-assembly. The chassis must be rigid, not made of purely studless beams. The catalogue turnover of such sets would naturally be slower than average because it takes longer to design models with more pieces. I suggest one new set per year with each set lasting 3-5 years in the catalogue, depending on popularity. Mark

I like the gearbox. It fits well in the space inside the trailer and the fibre optic parts give good indication of the function selected. Another way of doing this is like the multi-function gearbox I made for my crane. I didn't have room for a turntable to select the gears, so I used a worm drive to select between the gear functions, which are two hook cables, jib lift and turntable. Crane Gears Worm Gear Selection If you stop the selection in the right place you can use two functions at once, so I ordered the functions so that I could use the most useful combinations. I totally dig your aim to combine Technic functions and Model Team models. This truck was my first attempt about 12 years ago: Truck Folder It has 4-wheel steering, motor drive from 71427 or 43362 gearmotor, differential, locking 5th wheel for a trailer (it accepts a set-8872-style trailer pin) and automatic centre-lift axle that will descend when a trailer puts its weight on the 5th wheel. The cab is a sleeper with opening doors but I didn't do the internal details at the time. Some of the Technic parts are not as well hidden as in your truck and I confess I have neglected to build further along these lines (apart from trains with Technic functions). I kept it as a stake in the ground in this genre! I really think combined Technic / Model Team sets would be a more satisfying build than either theme on its own. Models should look good (with solid sides) and it work real. Mark

My first MOC was probably a wall or a house, from Basic set 10, Christmas 1975, aged 2. My favourite vehicle in my youngest years was the 6-wheeled lorry from Ideas Book 222. I couldn't make much more at the time. I remember taking MOCs to show at junior school. Imagine in about 1980 building a TIE fighter and Snow Speeder with just space ship 924, two green 24x32 plates (TIE fighter wings) and some basic bricks. It attracted derision from kids whose parents could afford the proper Star Wars models, but special stars from teachers. My favourite MOC aged 8 was an 0-8-0 steam engine built with 8 40-tooth cogs from sets 851 and 856. It did a reasonable speed from a 107 motor. Aged 9 I built a crane from 8 82mm wheels and some 10x20 baseplates, still unable to afford an 8860 to which a peer had added a second set of rear wheels. A spares order for the wheels and plates included some 4x4 turntables - my first ideas about 4-wheel drive, using the turntable holes and bevel gears! My MOCs really took off once I started buying my own LEGO aged 13. In losing parental finance for the hobby I gained determination and focus in my purchases. Better Technic trucks were a regular theme - sharper steering, suspension etc... I built a 4-whel drive car with two 8856 helicopter rotor parts. The wheels fell off, which is why the parts were later redesigned for the VX4 supercar. I started seeing the bigger picture after finishing at Uni. A LEGO robot was my final year project for my electronics degree. Once I started work I had real engineering to add to LEGO modelling. This Pneumatic Robot from 1996 is one of my best completed MOCs, certainly in Technic. It was also in 1996 that I decided real trains were a bit wider than 6 studs in the track scale. I took the decision to build to 8mm:1ft scale and since then building and exhibiting trains has been great fun. This Model has to be the one that was judged best in the opinion of the model railway community, since it won a prize at a model railway show as "The best modern image (diesel) exhibit". The assistant editor of Model Rail thought ours was the "best non-standard layout" at the Warley NEC show in December 2003 and Rail Express published pictures of my diesels, saying we were "holding up the modern image end", given that most diesels on other layouts were green or blue from the 1950s-1970s. At present I have to wonder what is the limit on the size of a MOC because I'm rebuilding the railway layout in modules totalling 16ft x 12ft and a maximum of at least 100 plates high. I recently connected up 20 layout modules together. Is each module a MOC or do we have to wait for the whole layout to be finished before it becomes a MOC? It all depends what we call a "MOC". Is it only something, complete in itself, that the builder feels is sufficiently good to be shown to others, after it is honed to perfection? In which case the "first MOC" could be really good. Otherwise it is unlikely that anyone's first MOC looks as good as a set (set mods excluded), unless they are a trained artist, engineer, or both beforehand! Mark

Nice! I know what you mean about not getting round to building a Nativity scene. Living near a primary school, we have a LEGO window display, so people at my church suggest it to me from time to time! I couldn't decide whether to build a shack for the stable or a more authentic middle-eastern inn, where rooms would be arranged off a balcony surrounding the stable part. Seeing Francis' comment about the lamb, perhaps the lamb would be put off its food by the baby smell! Sometimes the romance gets in the way of the reality. I remember one description of the nativity as Jesus "being born in a poo-ey stable"! Mark

I used the large yellow gear in a video too. I wish there were larger technic gears nowadays, as well as larger thin wheels of other types (such as a 40mm pulley with the same profile as the 24mm pulley and an extra ring of holes) Mark

I agree about the size - much better 8-wide Nice to see a truck aimed at modelling a real one Shame it's £50, but proper models do cost a lot on LDD! Mark

What are the requirements for the girth and the extended and contracted lengths of the cylinders? Mark

I agree, but with the reservation that models should not be compromised by commercial constraints (OK, I accept that's not realistic!). The poll should have the opportunity of a "no" vote if it is to represent the strength of support within the section of the community that has an opinion strong enough to express a preference. Otherwise it is no more than a petition. I prefer the original Model Team sets, such as 5580 and 5590, to the newer ones. I think it follows the trend in some other themes (notably 12V trains) where sets brought out in further years are never quite as good as the initial sets that began the theme (compare 7745 with 7740). In particular I didn't like the replacement for 5590 having too few wheels on its trailer. What I would prefer even more than a straight return of Model Team would be a full cross between Model Team and Technic. This could result in decent 1:13 scale trucks, which would be as good a challenge as a UCS Millennium Falcon or Taj Mahal. Mark

Wrack and Gunnar, I respect your opinion. I was too flippant and inaccurate in my earlier comment. I looked up Maori culture and found that they have four tiers of deities, of which the top tier has is a single, multi-faceted, deity, hence the different aspects of Toa powers. I accept that Bionicle references to Maori culture are sufficiently vague and that it is not Eastern Mysticism. Therefore you are right that Bionicle is not dangerous magic. However, there exists some adult magic, thankfully not connected to Bionicle in any way, that is dangerous and should be avoided. Even its practitioners would agree that it is dangerous. Any further thoughts in that direction do not belong on this forum, so let's not go there. Don't worry, I'm not upset. As I say above, I accept that any reference of Bionicle to real cultures is vague and is not eastern mysticism. I accept that the basis is, as you say, more on technological and physical aspects. In mentioning Harry Potter I intended a link only in the sense that both have some basis (with variable directness and vagueness) on a system involving magic in a fantasy world. There is no other connection. In that sense the "fantasy special powers" link is similar with Star Wars and other Sci-Fi licenses. What I intended to say previously was that kids should have their fantasy but should understand the difference between fantasy and reality. It is possible for anyone, no matter how old, to get too far into any Sci-Fi theme, fantasy or myth, even beyond wishing they had some of the special powers. In a poll, the most popular special power people wished for was to fly - it would certainly avoid having to drive! Some people live in a fantasy world to the extent that it impedes their ability to function in the real world - that can become dangerous, especially if the fantasy involves harm to people. Thankfully, that is way beyond the scope of any LEGO theme. It makes me wonder about the relative merits in LEGO modelling between creating a fantasy world, where precision is entirely up to the modeller (seems a nice relaxing hobby!), and attempting to create a model of the real world, where precision depends more on the preferences of the group or the intended viewers for aspects such as period and scale (too may opinions on modelling details). In my case, the time I have spent building a realistic LEGO model railway to scale, with many Technic functions, may explain my preference for thinking "realistically" - everything has to be measured. I need to chill out for a while and enjoy something so fantastic that it has no link to the real world! (cue chorus of "hear hear"). On the basis of the discussion we've had, I'm not so bothered about the Bionicle storyline. I think, whilst both are fantasy themes, the link between Bionicle and Maori culture is more vague than the link between Harry Potter and real magic. Thank you all for challenging me. My main beef with Bionicle (in the real, commercial world) is the number of moulds that it steals from Technic, leaving Technic needing many more small, versatile parts that I end up having to make myself, such as these parts. Mark

I'm in two minds about Bionicle. Pro: some of its parts are useful additions to the Technic range of parts, such as the rack that turns two 8-tooth cogs together. Con: Bionicle steals far more than its fair share of new moulds every year, moulds that should be spent on more useful small Technic pieces that are missing from the range, forcing me to modify Technic parts to make mechanisms work in small spaces. More short thin beams are especially required. Pro: Bionicle has kept Technic alive because Technic on its own is not so profitable. The number of 7-year old boys buying Bionicle is far greater than the number of teens and adults buying the large Technic sets. Bionicle and Technic parts were still made together by TLG in Denmark when standard bricks were first outsourced, so Bionicle has supported Technic parts production volume by making it viable. (Technic and Bionicle parts are some of the most complex to mould, so they were last to be outsourced). Other themes than Bionicle have produced great Technic parts, such as Hailfire Droid wheels from Star Wars and the new wheels with annular 48-tooth gear rings from Power Miners, so the benefit to Technic parts is not exclusively from Bionicle. Con: I have to wade through the Bionicle discussions in this forum to get to the Technic, which I find more interesting. (This is not really Bionicle's fault, more a request for admins to reallocate forums!) I suppose Technic would be swamped by either Model Team or Mindstorms if it merged with one of those instead. The best result would be to merge it with a compatible theme of a similar volume of posts, to make a 50:50 forum rather than the current 90% Bionicle 10% Technic. (The same is true for Trains vs. Town but that's another story). Con: I don't care for the Bionicle storyline but that's understandable because I'm a lot older than 7! I don't blame TLG for having a believable storyline if it helps to sell more product, because more sales help to support my hobby in other ways. I would prefer that the storyline wasn't based on magic or eastern mysticism, but it's hardly likely to lead kids astray at that age, and is no worse than Harry Potter, so I'm prepared to let the kids have their "magic" till they're old enough to understand the differences between childhood stories and the more serious (sometimes dangerous) adult versions of these things. It just grates because it doesn't fit with the original ethos of TLG as a company. I think overall I don't like Bionicle but I don't have to like it to appreciate that Technic needed it in order to survive. Mark

I was more curious as to how many 12V motors there are in the layout. It's more 12V than I have seen in one place before. It takes me back to many hours of wishful thinking in front of the 12V train catalogue! When I began exhibiting at model railway shows I had 10 12V motors of which 1 failed. I had 9 trains, so I could not make any more trains as the motors were obsolete . That's why I converted my conventional trains to 9V. However, I kept the 12V train stuff for making a London Underground layout in the future (I have a draft plan and have prototyped an LU train carriage). The conductor rails are more appropriate for an electric train with extra rails. This is the track plan of the fourth, and last, 12V layout that I exhibited (in April 2001): 12V Layout The straights at the top went through a small station ath the front from the public's point of view. The yard has a run-round loop (2 points) with crossovers (6 points) to the 2 main lines. The other 2 points are for sidings and there is one level crossing next to the point at the top of the parallel diagonal sidings. I ran a gantry crane over those sidings. 10 points and 1 level crossing was as far as I got. I never managed to get any signals because it was not till 1996 that I had enough money to buy them and by then the reserve stocks had run out. As for 9V, after converting in 2001 I quickly grew both the fleet of trains and the size of the layout. I learnt the lesson on obsolescence - always have at least as much train equipment as you will need for the life of the layout. I now have 59 9V train motors as well as 21 pairs of points, 4 train sets, 2 level crossings, 6 extra packs of curves and 89 extra packs of straights. Some of the 9V motors are kept spare to sustain the fleet in the obsolescence market. Most of the large engines have 2 motors. About 37 are in use, with a few used for testing concepts and plans for several more locos that will use at least ten of the remainder. Some of the trains need up to 4 motors - the Pendolino does already and the Hogwarts Express is heading that way. The layout is a 16ftx12ft double track looped eight with fiddle yard, which I hope will look as good as layouts of other scales. This is the first 1/6 of the layout. Of course 12V motors are twice as powerful as 9V ones - 8W rather than 3W. In 1996 I used this arrangement to get the power from a 12V train motor onto a Technic axle and built a roving robot with one motor geared to each of 4 wheels. The robot would easily climb a pillow at over 45 degrees. I used a 9V pole reverser to switch the power from a 12V 6 Amp computer supply to the four motors and it melted the switch That tought me to use LEGO switches only for low power applications. I use proper toggle switches to switch the track power from a dual 30V 3A power supply to the main lines of my railway layouts. The same arrangement is good for 12V and 9V. I always turn the voltage to zero before switching too. Nice to see 12V alive and well. Mark

There's a story from modules to cost... I began with modules in my previous layout, first exhibited in 2002, but just for the Station, which uses 3x7 48x48 plates. One of my engines won a prize at a model railway show but I knew the layout wasn't of the same standard as the scenery of other layouts for other types of trains. I then planned to see whether a proper scenic model railway could be constructed from LEGO parts, and a new layout was born. For the new layout I wanted to put in proper slopes with trains over other trains (a double track "looped-eight" with a fiddle yard), whilst increasing realism in the scale model, so tracks on stilts wasn't an option. Therefore I decided to make scenic modules. The first trial one was one I made for the corner of my Small Layout in 2004 (see bottom right). This splits into 3 sections for transport. (The small layout was originally designed to fit in the back of an estate car, so we could do 1-day shows, rather than having to hire a van for the large layout). My experience of assembling the station of the large layout at model railway exhibitions suggests that a modular layout could be assembled as fast as a layout where bundles of track sections are laid out on tables. It certainly works for modellers of other types of railways. I hope it works for LEGO railways, as I'll have just 8 hours to assemble the layout at a big show once the layout is finished! As for cost, you'll need lots of 2x4, 2x3, 2x2, 2x2 corner, 1x2, 1x4, 1x6, 1x8 and 2x8 black bricks. I first designed the module structure scheme to use the mix of parts in a Statue of Liberty kit, whilst overlapping all the bricks in layers for strength, and providing arch structures to support the trackbeds so as not to make the modules too heavy or too consuming of bricks. Early modules Folder 1, Folder 2. I bought 11 SoLs in the knowledge that Sand Green is not a common colour but is the colour of grass that grows near a railway or motorway - not the healthiest colour. Lusher green is found further away from the transport network. I then decided to build the majority of module structure in black because it is the only colour that doesn't bleach significantly in sunlight, which is unfortunately prevalent at model railway shows. Folder 3 In black I initially bought 15000 2x4s, 6000 2x3s and plenty of the other sizes in bulk. I bought hundreds of bags of old grey and old dark grey plates a few years ago (sets 10048 and 10049) for the grey part of the trackbed, as well as 18 Tiger Mosaics for the ballast and more bulk bags of grey plates since then. On reducing the Sand Green to primarily a layer of grass on top of black modules, I went for more Yodas, which have more of the plates, as well as picking up some in Pick-a-Brick. Parts procurement has been a time-consuming occupation, given the obsolescence market in old greys, Sand Green and 9V train parts! Altogether there will probably be about 300,000 parts in the whole layout, maybe £10,000 of LEGO, of which £3000 is the 9V train motors and tracks. That said, the project has already been going for 3 years and is still a few years from completion, so the brick cost per hour spent on the project is probably about £3-£5. The device is a Thermite Welding device. The Thermite reaction, most commonly composed of Iron oxide and aluminium powder, welds together two sections of rail. The construction worker set up the apparatus over a gap in the rail, lights the fuse and legs it! The reaction then deposits molten iron into a mould fitted around the rail gap. Any surplus iron can then be ground away. The trans-orange chainsaw piece represents the fire that emanates from the top of the pot when the fuse has burned up. Hope you find the development pictures inspiring, Mark 8+ wide! The 9F is actually 10-wide - a bit too wide! I intend to improve engines by making them nearer to scale width, with tapered bodies, in the future. For instance a Class 50 should be 9'3" wide along the middle section, so 9.25M it is! Mark

You'd be surprised how big trains really are. British trains are almost 13ft high from the rail, but most people don't get to stand next to a train at rail height. On top of the height of the carriage door there's another 3' for the platform height above the rails, plus the step up into the carriage and the roof structure. From ground level, trains dwarf the tallest men. Not many people look down at the track whilst waiting for a train. It falls to engineers to notice the height! Some steam engines have wheels larger than the height of a man. No-one has yet made any LEGO-compatible wheels that big to scale (~48mm), so 40-tooth cogs and Model Team wheels have to do. It's one reason why I haven't yet done an express steam engine. The width and depth of minifigs are both too large for this scale! It is well known that minifigs are too fat, but that is by necessity of having to be able to stand still on studs and hence having large feet. They must also be large enough for kids to hold and move their limbs without too many breakages. Since the original target age range was 5-12 years, minifigs might be short in order to be children, such that children populate their own worlds with people similar to themselves. A standard minifig with a hard hat (like the track workers) is 42mm high, which equates to 5'3" in 8mm:1ft scale. That is the average height of a 13-year-old boy. Only 5% of 11-year-olds will have reached 5'3". There are many fully-grown men of similar height. To make the height more average (5'6" for a woman and 5'11" for a man), add 1 plate for a woman at 5'7.8" and 2 plates for a man at 6'0.6". (Of course there's no such thing as an average man or woman, before anyone feels the need to remind me!). Different nationalities also have different average heights. A rucksack or cape round the neck of a minifig adds a couple of inches to the scale height. I had also considered putting a small belt round the leg studs before putting the body on the legs. That would add height at the waist because it is the legs that are proportionally the shortest part of a minifig. A taller leg piece would be ideal, especially as a shorter one exists already. I respect my minifigs so I haven't glued plates to their feet. "Minifig scale" is not an exact scale but covers a range of scales from 1:30 to 1:60. 8mm:1ft is 1:38.1. The scale of 8mm:1ft comes from the track gauge, approximated from 37.8mm L-gauge to 1435.1mm (4'8.5") British track gauge (the exact gauge for 1:38.1 would be 37.67mm, giving an error of 0.354%, well within the measurement error tolerance). It is therefore more accurate than 'OO' trains! Given the coarseness of LEGO brick dimensions, I try to get the smaller dimensions of models within 6" (0.5M) to scale and the large ones (train vehicle width and length) to the nearest foot. So the short answer is "No"! At least with all standard minifigs being 5'3", none of them insults another about their height! Mark

After some intensive building over the last 2 weeks I have completed 20 modules of a new 8mm scale British railway layout to a reasonable standard. The layout features track slopes of up to 1 in 30, varying by 0.5 plate/12 stud length. All the points and the double crossover are pneumatically controlled from behind the backscene wall on the left of the picture below. Each point took about 3-4 hours to build a baseplate, ballast it, add a mechanism, get the support heights right and add all the control panel connections in a way that makes maintenance easy. Modules measure up to 48x48 studs and have removable air connections . Using mostly rigid 3.2mm tubes to minimise the balloon effect, the points farthest from the control panel need 5-6 pumps of the pump cylinder to operate. I’ve put in a few of the scenic features I prototyped earlier, like point heater cubicles and conduits. The ballast colours vary according to how fast trains will be going and where they would stop. There’s more foliage and track furniture to add, but that can wait till I’ve built more modules and finalised signal positions. I’ve tried not to make the layout too busy but rather to aim for the look of a real British railway. More detailed description of features Brickshelf Folder (39 pictures) Please let me know if anything about the layout inspires you. Mark ============================================================ Mark J E Bellis 8mm scale LEGO Trains

Have you had look at my '66'? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1725941 http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1725939 I used red 1x4x3 train windows mounted on top of four 1x2 plate hinges. The sloping part below the hinges is supported by a 1x2 3-side-prong hinge plate with a 1x2 2-end-prong hinge plate fixed to the cab floor inside. The tops of the windows are not hinged - they just fix to the plates above them. This provides about the right amount of slope, rather than using sloped bricks. Here's a pic of a 4mm scale model to compare: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN Mark

The 9V backward compatibility in the extension leads was something we AFOLs pushed hard for in the feedback we gave about PF components. Many AFOLs have invested heavily in 9V so it was essential that the new system be compatible with the old devices. We also pushed for the ability for the PF polarity switch to have its polarity swapped independently of its lever position, to mitigate the loss of 360 degree rotation from the switch, compared to the 9V switch. It resulted in the tiny switch on the end of the PF switch. It means that if the switch is used to control motors for rail point control, the direction can be set as desired by the operator. If you want to power PF items from a power source, plug the 9V-compatible end of a PF extension lead into a 9V train controller. Then stack the other end of that lead and a PF IR receiver plug on the output plug of an empty PF battery box. Set the battery box switch correctly and it will transfer the power from the C1 and C2 pins of the extension lead onto the 9V and 0V pins of the IR receiver in the right polarity. You'll know when it works because the light will come on on the PF IR receiver. It is possible to do this power fix with a PF polarity switch instead, if you have one and you want to put the fix in a smaller space than a battery box. Mark

I have motorized and ballasted the new rail crossover, as I posted on Lugnet.trains I also enabled the crossover to be set so that trains on both tracks will take the straight track in both directions. I am controlling the crossover with pneumatics in such a way that both ends of a diagonal track are switched together. Therefore the crossover requires only 2 pneumatic switches in order to be operated as it would be from a UK signal box. Only 8 plates below the track pieces are required in order to keep the mechanism out of sight and out of the way of large scale trains. The highest ballast is 1 stud height (1.6mm) above the rails. In my Brickshelf Folder I have included more pictures and instructions of how to make your crossover like this. PLMKWYT, Mark ============================================================ Mark J E Bellis 8mm scale LEGO Trains

If you use a circuit like this, the Infra-red range problem will be a thing of the past: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2957467 It also allows PF IR signals to be repeated inside tunnels! The circuit is in two halves, the receiver circuit on the left and the output circuit on the right. The receiver circuit has a receiving range of at least 2 metres and its output is to a PF plug. Connect as many output circuits to the PF plug as you need, to cover the area of your layout. Since the output circuit uses fresh power from the supply rails, you can add many output circuits to one receiver circuit. The re-transmit range is about the same as the standard PF IR parts, so place output circuits every 4 or 5 metres, to account for the bright lights and electromagnetic noise at exhibitions. The reason why the official parts have a better receiving range is that they have the advantage of an automatic gain control built into the receiver chip, where my circuit is just a simple transistor amplifier. Mark

Nice! I went two ways from the wagons in that series of sets. The first way was to make a 2-axle version of the tanker, without changing the body size, using the same wheel turning technique underneath as these tube wagons: Tube Wagons The second way was to build some bogie hoppers whose doors work on a similar basis to the 10017 ones, but making scale models of Railtrack Hoppers These hoppers can each carry and discharge 1400 1x1 round plates of ballast. The workers don't use a spade because they have to stand well clear when so much ballast is discharged! I plan to add the diesel engine, which powers the doors on the real wagons, to one of the rake of five wagons that I built. Mark

The lead mod required to power a PF IR receiver from a 9V source is the bottom left one in this diagram. A good way to do it is to use single 12V plugs on the cut wires, so you can swap the connections at will. Mark

This post on lugnet.technic http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=54493 provides a link to the extended code for BricXCC with NBC and NXC, to allow the full range of PF IR commands to be sent from an NXT via the HiTechnic IR link sensor. The lugnet post explains what commands to use for which applications. I suppose you have already downloaded the NXT-G blocks from the HiTechnic website http://www.hitechnic.com/ . If not, go to Downloads and get the PF and Train IR Link Sensor blocks. I have created a Brickshelf folder http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=297938 of electronic circuits to use with Power Functions parts, from simple PF lead mods http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/mbellis/...d_mod_ccts1.jpg that allow an IR receiver to be powered from a 9V battery box to LED drivers and more complex stuff, such as a circuit to set train lights to the correct direction of travel (whatever the PWM speed setting) and keep them on when the train stops (assuming you have installed a PF IR receiver in a train, using a battery box as the power source). There are also circuits to interface PF parts to the NXT (using electrical connections rather than Infra Red). I have successfully created NXT-G and NXC programs to put out a PF command waveform on pin 5 of an NXT sensor port. The trouble is that an NXT-G program has a minimum command delay time of 25ms and an NXC program has a minimum delay of 1ms, both too long to send a bit of the message (I need to go down to 157ms according to the TLG PF IR protocol document). This is why I have opted to use the HiTechnic IR link sensor rather than continue with my own hardware for the NXT-sends-PF-IR-messages application. I had envisaged making a 38kHz circuit to do the IR carrier wave but this is now not necessary. Mark