WA AB Class Locomotive and train - LDD

[ummester]

Hi all,

I try and undertake a large MOC each year. Last year it was a Galleon, this year I'm thinking trains.

My initial idea was to design a diesel freight train, as it seemed something I could logically add carriages to when I had the cash to buy more parts. I wanted a locomotive that was fairly unique and that I'd never seen done in LEGO, so I thought back to the big diesel engines I remembered where I grew up and, once I researched them a little, realized they were a specific design to Western Australia and only 6 were made. I didn't think I could find a locomotive much more unique so started modelling.

The build is fully power functions compatible. The model as rendered has the power functions components installed.

Here are some pics

The flickr album is here https://www.flickr.c...57650687174452/

Before I commit to buying parts, I might try my hand at a steam engine design and see which I prefer.

Some questions:

How many parts can a power functions motor pull? This model is just shy of 2,000 parts, including the shipping containers. I'm not sure how well the idea of adding carriages as I get ideas and cash will play out if I try and run it all on a track.

Is there a preferred motor and remote type by the majority of train builders? I was going to just get the passenger train when I saw it on sale and use the parts from that. Seeing as I am pretty heavily into building things entirely my way, it may be better to skip the passenger train and order older motor parts from Bricklink, or order a rechargeable kit from LEGO? What's the verdict? What is generally considered the best option for pulling a MOC with a few parts?

Edited February 9, 2015 by ummester

[MusicaRibelle]

The standard pf train motor will have no problem pulling this train. If you notice considerable slippage, you can always add a second one (there are many posts exaplaining how to reverse one of them, in case your configuration needs that).

The rechargeable battery box is nice but comes at a premium price.

If you only run the train for 15-30 minutes each time/day, the standard box is fine, i.e. batteries may last months, at least in my experience.

You can also buy pf L motors, and use gears to do your own custom motorization of loco or wagons, but that honestly requires lots more time to experiment, as you can no longer use the standad train base and now you have to fit a motor in the body in addition to the other pf coonents.

It's worth doing for steam engines, to some extent, if it's something you enjoy.

If you don't enjoy that, then even for a steam engine, don't do it: make your tender car contain all or almost all pf components and motor, and be free of doing whatever you want to the engine.

Ps, nice train ;)

[M_slug357]

Largely depends on your track and layout plan(s);

If you already have 9V (metal) track, then you'll need 9V motors& the like from bricklink.

If you stay with PF (plastic) track, then you'll want to have 2 PF train motors on your engine in order to maximize it's prowess.

Layout wise, if your track plan consists of lots of turns and s-curves, stick to shorter trains, say engine with 5-6 wagons max.

If your layout has more/long straightaways (8 straights minimum), you can enjoy longer consists of around 8-10 wagons.

Also, make sure each wagon you do make doesn't outweigh your engine...

[ummester]

I enjoy the aesthetic design process most of all MusicaRibelle and tend to do it all digitally, to save both money and space.

I have ordered one of the large black train bases, some friction band wheels, some buffer beams and bogie plates from Bricklink, as I thought they would be parts I need. I am starting to think now that both locos and carts may look batter aesthetically without using the train bases and just using turntables or technic pins for movement. Is there any particular reason bogie plates and train bases are used?

M_Slug - track wise I wouldn't get very expansive. Something like ecmo47's setup here - that fits on a single table, which a can build a one way facing detail behind, is as large as I would build towards.

Nice display, BTW, emco47.

[jtlan]

I have ordered one of the large black train bases, some friction band wheels, some buffer beams and bogie plates from Bricklink, as I thought they would be parts I need. I am starting to think now that both locos and carts may look batter aesthetically without using the train bases and just using turntables or technic pins for movement. Is there any particular reason bogie plates and train bases are used?

Bases are used for convenience -- imagine the trouble it would be for an official set (aimed at children) if you had to assemble a somewhat fragile base out of a number of smaller parts.

However, for a lot of MOCs builders will eschew the base in favor of a brick-built assembly. I'll note that in my experience rotational joints done using pins tend to behave a little better on rough track than the turntable versions. For cars like the ones you've built the difference is probably negligible though.

[zephyr1934]

Indeed, that is a unique looking locomotive. On the side of the cab is the center window supposed to be the same height as the two on either side of it? If so, perhaps use two windows sideways, e.g., as in the copula of this caboose.

Is there any particular reason bogie plates and train bases are used?

The train bases are not just for keeping the part count down, the convenience also includes decreasing the probability of a building mistake preventing the car from operating. When the base plates are about the right size and available in the right color I actually prefer them because they are strong with a hard to beat weight to strength ratio, and they make a solid base to build on to make a stronger model.

As for the bogie plates, the beveled edges help them rotate against whatever surface is above without getting caught on something.

[ummester]

The cab has a hard shape to make out of orange, zephyr

Some reference pics are here:

http://www.ardp.net/topic190.html

This is a commercial photo, so it's copyright or whatever:

I've been working on the cab to try and get it right

[Aaron]

I use normal plates and turntables on everything. You should have no problems whatsoever if you use 4 x 4 turntables.

[dr_spock]

Nice work. I think your engine's rear bogie might hit the fuel tank in the curves.

I think using train base and bogie plates allow for a stronger connection. I find 2x2 and 4x4 turntables can pop off in a crash. Useful if you have kids who enjoys crashing trains...

PF train motor call pull quite a bit.

My little AEM-AC7 engine with a single PF train motor can pull 6 passenger cars and 1 engine on level track and through curves.

[ummester]

I think your engine's rear bogie might hit the fuel tank in the curves.

It spins freely in LDD - but LDDs collision detection may be off for the motorised part. It could also be the angle of the screenshot - I don't think it's exactly side on.

After remodelling the cab, I've noticed other bits that require attention and am giving the whole loco a go over. It's annoying that I can't get the cab windows quite high enough with the roof shape - LEGO needs a 2x2 wedge plate :D Good thing is there is extra space in the cab now, so the seat can spin around.

[jtlan]

Some reference pics are here:

http://www.ardp.net/topic190.html

This is a commercial photo, so it's copyright or whatever:

<snip (photo of locomotive)>

I've been working on the cab to try and get it right

<snip (LDD render)>

??? Shouldn't the model have 3-axle bogies? Although I suppose that might be hard with a 6-wide model this short (in length). The positioning of the grills on the long-hood end seems off too (they should be farther back).

[ummester]

??? Shouldn't the model have 3-axle bogies? Although I suppose that might be hard with a 6-wide model this short (in length). The positioning of the grills on the long-hood end seems off too (they should be farther back).

I have moved the grills back. I'll put up a new version later.

Re the 3 axle bogies, yes, I think it would look a lot better. Not sure how to get that to work motorised - anyone have any ideas, have tried it before?

[jtlan]

Re the 3 axle bogies, yes, I think it would look a lot better. Not sure how to get that to work motorised - anyone have any ideas, have tried it before?

You either have to power them using an external Power Functions motors (Railbricks #6 has instructions for a 3-axle truck), or do something sneaky like this. But you may have to lengthen the locomotive slightly.

[ummester]

So I take it the left design in the below image would work jtlan? What about the right one? Will the motors hold 2 axles in place or does it have to be a single axle? How far can you push something into that little hole in the middle of the motor?

[jtlan]

So I take it the left design in the below image would work jtlan? What about the right one? Will the motors hold 2 axles in place or does it have to be a single axle? How far can you push something into that little hole in the middle of the motor?

<snip (image)>

I don't actually have a PF train motor, so I asked @CommanderWolf to help me check this one. Turns out the axle hole on the motor has no friction whatsoever, so the design on the right will just fall apart. The ball-end pins on the left won't hold the center wheels tightly enough, since they're somewhat thicker than 1/2 stud. I'd go with the left-side design, but with the center wheels held on using the method on the right; you might be able to use 7-length axles instead of 8-length. I'll warn that this design might be a bit high on friction in curves.

[LoneBrickerSG]

So I take it the left design in the below image would work jtlan? What about the right one? Will the motors hold 2 axles in place or does it have to be a single axle? How far can you push something into that little hole in the middle of the motor?

Holy crap. I can't believe I didn't think of something like this before. I've given myself a lot of headache trying to figure out how to model my favorite six-axle SD40-2 diesels, and here's this guy with some very simple trials. Thanks Ummester!

[ummester]

Thanks jtlan. 7 isn't quite wide enough, 8 is a little too wide - in LDD anyways. The ball pins look kind of ugly. So here is a new design:

I quite like the look of this - the texture suits a diesel model. The only thing I am not sure of is whether the friction less technic pin in the middle wheel will fit into the motor's middle hole? It can't in LDD - there is no provision for it in the motor element (which is the old one, BTW). I think I read a thread that said the hole can fit half of one side of a technic pin - there is less then that poking through. Unfortunately, I don't have a motor to try it, though someone who does might know if it works?

No worries LoneBricker.

I'm primarily interested in build aesthetics, though functionality is also important to me. If it comes down to it I sacrifice functionality for aesthetics - but I like to try and have both :D

[Steinkopf]

I really like the second version of the locomotive, you have captured the style of this unique looking class of locomotive really well especially with the cab. The only suggestion I would make is to change the American style Caboose, only a few Australian railways used guardsvans with a cupola on top and they differed wildly from American style stock, a more typical vehicle that would be seen on this train would be a Z Class Guardsvan, here is an example of one pictured below.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Steinkopf

[ummester]

Thanks Stienkopf - I wasn't that happy with the caboose myself. I'll work from you reference pic for a remodel, after I have the loco sorted.

[Steinkopf]

This site may be of interest to you http://wasnmodeller.blogspot.com.au it covers a wide range of WAGR narrow gauge stock, check the links on the right hand side.

[ummester]

very useful. Thanks heaps.

This will be a pain to try and model out of LEGO - but a challenge.

This should be do-able with the ladder techniques mention in the other threads

Did WA trains have carts similar to zephyr's design here?

[Steinkopf]

They had the RB class open wagons which are very similar.

http://wasnmodeller.blogspot.com.au/search/label/RB%20Open%20Wagon

[ummester]

I have the loco pretty close to the reference now. Needs fuel tanks, which will obviously be much shorter than before.

Is it better to position the battery pack towards the middle and the IR receiver to one end, or the receiver in the middle?

Edited February 11, 2015 by ummester

[detjensrobert]

For better traction, you want the batbox to be over your driving wheels (in this instance, your Train Motor), unless both bogies are powered, then you want the weight evenly distributed.

[LoneBrickerSG]

I have the loco pretty close to the reference now. Needs fuel tanks, which will obviously be much shorter than before.

Those trucks look awesome Ummester, and so does the overall locomotive. You and I have similar views on aesthetics vs functionality.