Toastie

Hehe, but we could also do some remote control of switch points as well. Sooo, with all that at hand I can see myself running four trains w/o autopilot (ok, ok, it is a challenge; control 8 switch points , and ... switch on and off the light of a couple of buildings. Totally agreed: Even with 4 trains running on the same stretch of track: Good luck. But other things on a layout want some attention as well. We apparently have 16 channels. That does is for me. Best wishes, Thorsten

But in theory we have already 8 channels. The "new" firmware V1.10 (TLC documentation says it was released November 28, 2009 - one and a half years ago!) has all what is needed to do that. Why was that not advertised like crazy? The firmware is documented; does any of the new PF receivers feature that? Is there a remote capable of generating the appropriate IR codes? The HiTechnic IR Link for the NXT can do that very well, but that is way over the top. Why on Earth do they make such a fuzz on expanding the address range and then - silence - nothin? I mean with 8x2 channels, I guess even train junkies should get along. Over at the Technic forum they play around with all 4x2 channels and I guess they are very happy. 8x2 channels would be sort of an overkill for them, who wants to control 16 motors at the same time from what type of power source? It is very, very weird. PF is the way to go. TLC should just add a power pickup for train junkies and there we go. Regards, Thorsten

I guess no. The problem is that the PF system has two separate in and outputs. The PF input is power delivery, lets say 9V DC (as a note, PF works with 12 DC as well). The PF output (IR receiver or LiPo) is switched PWM 9V. PF wants to control the motor via a dedicated power line (the PF cable). So you need wires go from the PF receiver output to the motor. The old 9V system delivers different voltages to the track, picked up by the wipers and directly fed into the motor. The whole track system is powered - more or less. In the PF world, there is constant power delivery to the power feed line, and the PF receiver takes care of the amount of power delivered the motor. Regards, Thorsten

Hi kyphur, no, there is no other way than surgery. The thing is that the (metal) wheels are in contact with some sort of metal wipers inside the motor housing and these are wired to the motor and the 9V terminal. Making a power pickup - that would be IT! Should be possible - but seems to be a major effort. Earth to ME models, Earth to ME models, do you read this? Regards, Thorsten

Hi RSLego, could you please give me the email address of your mom? (I'll try to convince her that you are not allowed to sell the Super Chief ) This is a piece of great value. Not only money-wise but LEGO-wise. This set has set the bars to quite high levels. As The Brickster said (my interpretation of his message): Don't sell the Super Chief. Welcome and listen carefully what The Brickster says! Best regards, Thorsten

Whoa, that's quite a statement! I guess it depends - looking at your beautiful layout (I really like the buildings!) all I see is a familiar Dutch train right in the CENTER of the whole layout. "Center" really is relative, at least since these weird physicists have turned everything upside down last century. BTW that train is nice! Regards, Thorsten

Hoeij, you are still thinking in terms of a perfect electrical world, right? The very moment you increase speed, friction forces may go everywhere (curves vs straights and what not). I am pretty sure that the amount of electrical energy you need to compensate these varying mechanical "losses" or better sinks may actually dominate. So, here is a proposal: Why don't we run a nice, conclusive experiment (all the theory is just that, anyway: Theory ... who wants to hear that? I have a chemical reaction dynamics class tomorrow and it just prevents me from going to sleep - they hate it. Theory ...) All we need is proper measurements. So lets figure out what you want to prove and design the experiment. I am ready (sort of lost the initial idea). What do you want to show? I have a 9V power pick-up motor, straight 9V motors and PF motors, receivers, LiPos, and DC (0-25V) power supplies along with the LEGO 9V train power "regulator". If we run the experiment appropriately, we can probably satisfactorily come to a conclusion with everyone being happy. All the best, Thorsten

!Wow! I am reconsidering or better take back every single comment I made about 6 vs 7 vs 8 wide in the past. I am still on the mostly 6- to 7-wide scale and thought this is it. Seeing this ... yes, 8 wide was a very good choice. An excellent model. You know what Ralph? Just keep on building trains - I guess with this type of inspiration, we can pull over a good number of people to become train heads ... once your are here, you never want to leave again ... Thanks for sharing!!! Regards, Thorsten

No Dilemma here! They are all beauties and all deserve a place in the LEGO Diesel Hall of Fame: The Super Chief engine (nine years ago!!!) was simply breath taking - I saw it and almost got a heart attack! There was serious extension of the frame plate, studless snotting in the front, and optionally a real headlight! The real-gray decorative sides for the motors - wow ... And then the GP38. Look at the hand rails! We are still 7 years in the past! The BNSF color scheme simply is beautiful ... So TLC took some time to think. There were other trains as well, even diesels, but not in this league. I bet the folks at TLCs also regularly visit this site, as well as others - and they came out with the Maersk train. Yes, from the appearance it is the most impressive. Yes I do have one. The jump ahead building-wise is not so much of a jump as the Super Chief and the GP38 were, as far as I am concerned. You know what? I love all three - and the first two are a little closer to my heart because they were more inspiring and made absolutely sure that I would never ever go back into any dark age meander. Since I could not press all three option buttons - I did not vote. Too tough! Very nice topic though TB! Best regards, Thorsten

And that is true. But, I'd like to come back to my "reasoning" posted in this thread before. All you guys are doing is living in a perfect world. Your energy is flowing into motion via perfect conversion. If that would be the case, you don't have to use any energy at all after reaching final speed. Real world means that in addition to all the calculations presented here, we have serious, if not dominating losses. Philo has shown us the electrical vs. mechanical power conversion efficiency of the motors at a certain, ideal load (he is hauling a mass basically frictionless up in his measurements). From that data set we can at least estimate the internal losses; and they are quite significant. But these would be virtually constant and not show up in any electrical power consumption vs run time comparisons. We are hauling trains, translating to a physically serious mass at constant potential energy with respect to height (we are not going up/down in this discussion, we are moving horizontally (ideally)). So, in this ideal electrical world discussed so far, once we are up to speed, we solely have to overcome internal losses AND friction losses. The faster we go, the less mechanical friction losses become. They are greatest close to not moving at all anymore (that is the reason ABS systems are installed in cars). I have recognized that in my little movie on my RCX driven trains: You have to go to RCX power level four to get the train going. Once it moves you can go down to power level two. I have no idea, but I guess friction is usually dominating in the battery life determining process (at least when hauling some 10 cars). So we may get an ideal picture of battery life asking the electrical gurus (I agree LT: Where on earth is Marc Bellis???) but where are the mechanical experts? Friction must have an impact. Otherwise people would not ask about lubrication, grinding, and what not. Once you have accelerated the space shuttles to final speed, the motors are turned off; well they fall back to earth. Friction is modest up there ... Regards, Thorsten

... and I was afraid that I am the only one - at age 49 - still sitting in a mess of bricks/plates/things and trying to keep up with all these fantastic builders ... well, I am feeling much better now! In any case, this 8-wide Maersk train will be a beauty. I can clearly see it already. All the best, Thorsten

As far as I am concerned there is absolutely nothing wrong with your measurements, Hoeij. [True, PWM is on/off modulation, so 50% of 9V in PWM means 9V turned on and off at 50% duty cycle. Whatever you measure with you meter depends on the electronics in the meter rather than what is going into the motor (that is 50% of 9V times amps at 100% minus losses due to phase shifts; nerdy, I know and it doesn't matter).] The very moment you have accelerated your train to final speed, all the additional energy you need from now on is to overcome friction forces. And not to establish this speed. Friction forces originating from your train design, from wheel vs track friction, and from aerodynamic friction, and what not. The latter before "what not" is next to nothing compared to the rest. (That is very different for aircraft, but we are talking about mass monsters - trains, going at comparably low speed.) Going LEGO slowly means that you have to overcome basically the same losses as compared to LEGO high speed. In real world, friction forces go dramatically up with speed. But LEGO trains don't ever go that fast that you will notice this (tiny) increase in frictional loss as compared to - "design flaws" created loss. Design flaws in terms of "running a plastic axle through a reasonably matching plastic hole". Or - non-matching wheel-axle width/track width. Or, even worse, poorly matched rubber bands. There is so much energy required to keep the LEGO machines up and running at constant speed - slow or fast simply doesn't matter. Hope that makes sense, give me Flak, I am not a physicist ... Regards, Thorsten

What a beauty! Very nice 12V PF transition - so smooth, TLC's long term engineers must love this! Quick question: All the wheels are powered via the connection rod or just the middle axle? And how does this beauty negotiate curves? Can't figure out from the photos. Summary: Beautiful MOC. Beautiful Theme. I love it. Regards, Thorsten

Absolutely true!!! Don't use olive oil. Olive oil is healthy - which means it is rather "easy to digest" for the body. That translates to "easy to degrade" - which is basically the same thing ... Olive oil is a highly variable and very complex mixture of chemical compounds. Most of them are available for digestion ... and thus don't like light (a good olive oil comes in a dark container), temperature, oxygen and the like. When you run your steamers, man ... I know, sounds all nerdy, but over at the Technic forum, several people had nightmares with olive oil lubricated linear actuators. Worked fine in the beginning - in the end, there was a search for a solvent to get the sticky grease out again ... So don't use it. Regards, Thorsten

... and that is the true trick. WD40 is not the best choice when you put on too much. Just spray a good amount into a container (e.g., the cap) and wait for a long time. The residual is quite different when using a tiny amount. In the latter case you are getting down to the real lubricating stuff (Molybdenum compounds) rather than a mixture of residual high boiling solvent stuff mixed with MoSx. I don't think there is consensus on the "best" lubricant; I have the feeling that "how much is used" is affecting the long-term performance and thus many diverging reports on performance are posted. Still, I'd go with silicone based lubricants. That stuff is chemically dead, including the solvents used (as neat MoSx is as well). And finally, reducing friction properly will increase the lifetime of an ABS model for sure! You are absolutely right, careful lubrication will prevent possible damage to moving/bed parts rather than adversely affecting them. Regards, Thorsten

Hi Hoeij, true, WD40 is not the best choice in the long term. ABS should not suffer from silicone based lubricants though. I'd use that (well I am using it). But in any case, after a long time the lubricant may have to be replaced, since all solvents eventually go away into the void leaving some rather sticky non volatile stuff. Remove that with a cloth and put on some new lubricant. We are talking about many months to years here. And use really really little amounts of silicone based lubricants. It does not improve at all when soaking the pieces, in contrast. The stuff goes everywhere and more importantly the residuals build up and eventually make things worse. Regards, Thorsten

Hi LT, traction problems are sure a hard thing to deal with. I am having them every single time when building an engine. So here is what I have learned so far - flex track is making life NOT easier ... If you do observe excessive wheel spinning, I agree entirely with what you said - it basically is a weight problem. But it could also be some sort of "uneven track, slopes, downgrade problem" (wheel lift off); maybe the loco design itself cannot handle that (most of my locos are too long to have the tolerance of taking serious slopes/bumps issues well). Flex track + bumps is a killer in this regard. If you just have issues in curves (and NOT on straights) than it may depend: Wheel spinning? Yes, wheel adhesion is bad so weight might help. But you may also suffer from serious friction increase - regular LEGO curves are tight. In that case any weight increase may entirely shut down you engine, because the increased adhesive forces could challenged you motive power too much. So it is basically an in-between thing: You need to balance motive power (torque), adhesions forces (weight, rubber bands), and engine design (tolerances in your powered trucks etc.) But I agree entirely with what you said: There is some use for flex track - but I guess other than originally planned up there ... Regards, Thorsten

Wait, wait, no that fast: You may want to keep some of the flextrack pieces; they are excellent for 1) 9V insulation purposes (loop backs) and 2) the pieces are also very handy to deal with little "offsets" too large to go with the regular curves/straights "bending". Other than that (replacement for regular curves that is): No. 2. Regards, Thorsten

Hi Eric, thanks for the info! I believe that this system is really a chance to make 9V last much longer (maybe for "ever"?) than originally anticipated - I thought the battle was over and we would have to live with a fixed amount of powered 9V LEGO rails ever produced in this universe ... I am seriously entertaining the idea of replacing my 9V rails in "the back" with the ME system rails and use the resurrected 9V rails for the ever changing play area. I will sure go with the long pieces. Here are my thoughts: Aluminum is a decent conductor, almost comparable to Copper. Neat Aluminum metal quickly generates a rather solid, "closed", and stable (which is nice) oxide/hydroxide layer, which is essentially non-conductive, though. We always have trouble in the lab when using the easy-to-machine Aluminum material in conjunction with the necessity of delivering some mA of electrical current to/via that part. We "scratch", grind, or polish the Aluminum surface before attaching electrical contacts. And even then you may want to check in case of conductivity problems, whether or not the Al joint is causing the trouble. So upon connecting the ME rails, do they "scratch" themselves? Is there some sort of "nose" which removes the oxide layer to some extent? Further, in the back of my layout, I could not care less about labor with the adhesive stripes - I'd just put them on. Is their purpose to increase conductivity? Is there an aging process here as well? The LEGO rails, once connected well (they also need some attention, but not that much and they do have little "noses") do hardly show conductivity loss over time, as far as I am concerned, other people may have other experiences (would love to hear about that!) I am sorry for asking all these questions, nevertheless, looking forward to any input. Once again, that system looks awesome, and you almost have me ... All the best, Thorsten

I guess we should divide this discussion into at least two sections: Modifications 1) allowed 2) not allowed. With that: 1) My favorite system the combination of PF with 9V. Having trains running on batteries is still not going well with me, for whatever reason (maybe it looks like riding on a horse, right Swoofty? I love that phrase ... ) Pick-up power from the track, run that across a bridge rectifier into some electronic intelligence (that would have been nice as well, a micro controller type thingy like the RCX/NXT but on much smaller footprint, maybe built into the empty space of the PF LiPo) and from there into motors you see fit - 9V types, RC types PF types or M, XL, mini motors ... Here, double back loops work very well, when electrified sections are isolated with a piece of flex track ... 2) My favorite system 9V when you want to run stuff on less complex layouts - and PF when you are running 8 trains at the same time on shared track sections. I guess the bottom line is: It all depends. All but the RC stuff (somebody must have had too many Aquavits up there in Billund) is nice for its own purpose. Pulling power: I agree with Sava that the PF motors are strong, but you are referring to the XL monsters, right? If so then battery drainage may become a severe issue and we should go to point 1) above ... Best wishes, Thorsten

As nuno2500 says: The Emerald is a "grown up train" after the mod. I'd like to add that the grown up train may even keep the nice PF functionality when you run the picked-up power from a permanently powered track system (12V DC) to the LEGO LiPo and from there to the PF receiver which drives a (the) motor(s) Regards, Thorsten

Hi Esben, here is what I think: F - a - n - t - a - s - t - i - c. This is ingenious. No other thoughts ... The first two versions already took my breath, particularly the retracting steps. I didn't think it could get any better. Seeing this now: I was wrong. Wow, I love that entire mechanism. Brilliant. Best regards, Thorsten

Hi Everyone, got my 10219 set yesterday, put it together. Nice, it is sincerely nice. The engine that is! But hey, we had some ideas before how to do this, right? The really nice thing is: TLC is taking on the challenge. Beautiful. I love the set, well I love the engine. Folks, what do you think about the containers along with the cars? They are outsmarting the engine, don't they? I mean the "flat" beds are almost 8-wide - the engine is - sort of - 6-wide. Man, what about the TTX cars? Those in Maersk blue and 4-wide containers - would have been some revival type of thing. No offense at all! But ... Whatever, the engine rocks :thumbup: And the truck as well :thumbup: The cars are as far as I am concerned. I am prepared ... Rock on, Thorsten

Hi Tearloch, it is not to me. All what matters to me is a "good feeling". I have "extended" all my trains, the FP7, the GP38, simply because "my" GP40 running an RCX on board needed an extended length to function at all. Furthermore, I always had the impression (I did not do one single measurement or scaling calculation!) that the original model designs may fit in length/width but not in height. They appeared too tall to me at that length. Well the 6 wide scale is one thing, the curve radius another, and my "feeling" may very well mess up any realistic designs. And finally: I love American diesels; I bet the designers of those monsters had a further thing in mind: Make their appearance right - strong that is. The sound of such a real diesel is matching the appearance very well. Have seen/heard them in Long Beach/LA, Kingman, and Denver. Man. I just build or modify my trains so that they resemble that feeling I had when 5 diesels started up to haul a more than a mile long cargo from Denver to who knows ... Regards, Thorsten

Hi TB Oh well, guess what: 8878 it is for me, modified 9V train motor, automatic recharging on powered track, separate adjustable power output ... I know, I know, has been told before, but you asked All the best, Thorsten