LEGO #21344 - Orient Express

[something_fabulous]

17 hours ago, ElGreco said:

@something_fabulous may I ask what are the differences between v1.2 and 1.3 of your MOC?

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-165803/StijnD/21344-orient-express-motorization-powered-up/#details
 

@Train of Thought Creations I was just reading the comments section of your MOC here:

https://brickset.com/article/102806/motorising-the-orient-express#google_vignette
 

about clicking noise and burning smell. I also saw the fix, but may I ask what was the issue and if it is reliably fixed now?

 

Thank you both!

 

It's just instruction fixes and even further parts usage optimization after I build 1.2 myself and realised I had more usefull parts leftover. I tried to reuse as many as I could to make the modification as accessible as possible for everyone.
There are 2 people who have posted it running with my setup for anyone curious btw. 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by something_fabulous

[ElGreco]

Hello Team,

May I ask if somebody has tried both motorization methods mentioned above by @Train of Thought Creations and @something_fabulous and was able to identify which method made the OE run smoother (whatever this means) and less hot (for batteries and motor)?

 

Also, do you believe that we should put 4 o-rings on the drivers/wheels or just two. If I am not mistaken, it is mentioned in the first video above that the builder avoided the use of o-rings in all 4 wheels but preferred only 2 just in case the other two were creating more friction instead of traction to the rest of the train.

Any ideas on this?

[Train of Thought Creations]

9 hours ago, ElGreco said:

Hello Team,

May I ask if somebody has tried both motorization methods mentioned above by @Train of Thought Creations and @something_fabulous and was able to identify which method made the OE run smoother (whatever this means) and less hot (for batteries and motor)?

 

Also, do you believe that we should put 4 o-rings on the drivers/wheels or just two. If I am not mistaken, it is mentioned in the first video above that the builder avoided the use of o-rings in all 4 wheels but preferred only 2 just in case the other two were creating more friction instead of traction to the rest of the train.

Any ideas on this?

For the O-rings, I have done exactly that with my emerald night and it runs much more smoothly, but my Sapphire Star runs fine with 4. I'd say if you already have 4 bands, give both options a try and see which setup works best on your layout. I find that different terrains can change the number and placement of O-rings that I'll put on my models. Trial and error is my method for that, since it changes in a case by case basis.

I cannot answer your first question (I also realize I'm not the target audience for it, as I have yet to run both designs), since you'd have to run both designs with the same type and charge of battery to get a proper answer for battery life.
As for heat, I don't know how you'd measure that other than by putting some sort of thermometer in the loco. When mine is functioning properly, I have yet to have any issues with overheating.

I looked at the instructions for @something_fabulous's design, and the gears appear to have the same geometry with the 1/4 plate offset that my first design had, but I have not heard of any failures with their design, and they seemed to have used it for a long time, so I do not know if that is a failure point on that design. It is braced differently than mine, so maybe it holds together better . At the end of the day though, @something_fabulous would have to weigh in on that, as they've mentioned that they've used that mechanism for a long time before in other locos.

All in all, for me, running trains is a lot of trail and error. I'd say if you already have the parts on hand, try both designs, and see if one suits your needs better! You'll get a more complete understanding of the performance of each design by having it in hand than any paragraph on a forum could give you.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Train of Thought Creations

[something_fabulous]

@ElGreco  Between the 2 setups the difference in friction should be neglicable, because of that this will be the same for battery consumption and heat. So whichever you go for has more to do with preferece on how its build. As for the O-rings they wouldnt give much more friction either, they could however improve traction if your wheels keep slipping.

@Train of Thought Creations Having the gears like this is a really common practice that usually doesn't really fail, so I'm not sure why yours did.
The only explanation I could give is either (accidental) not properly assembled parts or older worn out gears.

Edited December 19, 2023 by something_fabulous

[Train of Thought Creations]

34 minutes ago, something_fabulous said:

@ElGreco  Between the 2 setups the difference in friction should be neglicable, because of that this will be the same for battery consumption and heat. So whichever you go for has more to do with preferece on how its build. As for the O-rings they wouldnt give much more friction either, they could however improve traction if your wheels keep slipping.

@Train of Thought Creations Having the gears like this is a really common practice that usually doesn't really fail, so I'm not sure why yours did.
The only explanation I could give is either (accidental) not properly assembled parts or older worn out gears.

Both of those explanations for the slipping are the conclusion I drew as well.

Mine isn't as "locked down" in the gearbox area the way yours is, since the axle from the motor is only connected on one side in mine, so the parts pulling away (hence, not properly assembled anymore) even a bit causes my design to bind. You lock yours on both sides, so that's probably why yours is stable - it can't be pushed up slightly from one un-anchored side.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that, as it helps me, (and I'm certain others too,) in understanding why such failures can happen. Since we both came to the same conclusion, I believe that our hypothesis is strong at the moment.

[High_Admiral]

Since we are sharing modifications to the set, might as well share mine. I decided to do something a bit different. Challenge was to design my own loco for the OE while attempting to keep as many of the features/parts from the original that I could, as well as create something Lego could have put together in a set.

Started off with a modified Emerald Night chassis so I could get the thing easily motorized, and kinda meshed the two sets together a bit on the locomotive as well as throwing in a bit of Peppercorn A1 with the running boards and deflectors. Pilot truck was reverse engineered from a post earlier in this thread so credit to the original designer(something_fabulous I think) for that. Tender was extended to be able to fit a PF battery box and IR receiver. Inside the loco, I've stuffed a PF L motor around the first driver. Still need to modify the backhead in order to get the PF cable through, but all the detail items from the original set were retained in this new loco. Tender's wheelbase is just at that limit of where a rigid wheelbase will negotiate corners at 12 studs between wheel pieces (or 14 between axles), but it should hopefully work. Overall, I think I met my goal with this loco, but I am eager to hear what you all think!
 

Edited December 20, 2023 by High_Admiral

[lego3057]

Looks good. I would probably motorize that with 2 train motors under the tender. 

Edited December 20, 2023 by lego3057

[Man with a hat]

Thanks @Train of Thought Creations and @something_fabulous for the motorisation instructions. 

I am currently building the train and it really feels like it was meant to be motorised. I will motorise it, but I will have to wait for some budget to free up first. And the L-motor is currently out of stock anyway.

[XG BC]

On 12/20/2023 at 9:15 AM, High_Admiral said:

Since we are sharing modifications to the set, might as well share mine. I decided to do something a bit different. Challenge was to design my own loco for the OE while attempting to keep as many of the features/parts from the original that I could, as well as create something Lego could have put together in a set.

Started off with a modified Emerald Night chassis so I could get the thing easily motorized, and kinda meshed the two sets together a bit on the locomotive as well as throwing in a bit of Peppercorn A1 with the running boards and deflectors. Pilot truck was reverse engineered from a post earlier in this thread so credit to the original designer(something_fabulous I think) for that. Tender was extended to be able to fit a PF battery box and IR receiver. Inside the loco, I've stuffed a PF L motor around the first driver. Still need to modify the backhead in order to get the PF cable through, but all the detail items from the original set were retained in this new loco. Tender's wheelbase is just at that limit of where a rigid wheelbase will negotiate corners at 12 studs between wheel pieces (or 14 between axles), but it should hopefully work. Overall, I think I met my goal with this loco, but I am eager to hear what you all think!
 

this is it! thats what should be in the set.

[Hod Carrier]

So who was on Santa’s “nice list” and will be spending Boxing Day putting together their own shiny new OE?

[DJMace]

Santa was nice to me! Really looking forward to building this.

[Lyichir]

I got my dad the Orient Express for Christmas and started building it with him yesterday—so far we've built the track and one carriage. He and I are both quite impressed so far.

We did have the reported issue of the metallic stickers having opaque flame yellowish orange printing instead of the metallic gold (which I'd assume on the "correct" stickers is supposed to be a less opaque yellow ink that lets the metallic finish shine through). But since that only affects exterior stickers, it's easy enough to leave those off and build the rest of the set while waiting for the correct stickers to come in via customer service.

It'll probably be a couple days before we can get back to building since I'm dogsitting for a family member today and tomorrow, but we're looking forward to the rest of the build.

[LibraryBill]

On 12/25/2023 at 10:10 AM, Hod Carrier said:

So who was on Santa’s “nice list” and will be spending Boxing Day putting together their own shiny new OE?

Thanks to Santa and my wonderful wife I now own this set. I’ll wait till I have some space and time to build it (I’m still working on my Winter Village). Feeling hopeful I ordered the L motor back in November, which arrived a couple of weeks ago, and today I ordered the “Belgian Detective” from www.minifigs.me. 

Edited December 28, 2023 by LibraryBill

[bricknerd]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but there might be a flaw in the design of the locomotive's crossheads (= the parts that connect the piston rods to the connecting rods): the 1L bar they are using as axle (the one with the ball at one end) is mounted in a crosshole on one side and in a hollow round 1x1 plate on the other side, with friction in both (see page 278 of the manual, building step #435).

As a result, there's just no way for those two parts to rotate as freely against each other as they should . Sort of a built-in friction by design?!

In addition, the hollow round 1x1 plate is too thin as a spacer, as it doesn't match the 1.25 thickness of the side rod.

Replacing the hollow round 1x1 plate by a Technic 1/2 bush solves both issues and leads to a considerably reduced over all drag.

Edited December 28, 2023 by bricknerd

[lego3057]

2 hours ago, bricknerd said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but there might be a flaw in the design of the locomotive's crossheads (= the parts that connect the piston rods to the connecting rods): By using a 1L bar as axle (the one with the ball at one end) and mounting it in a crosshole onto the piston rod and in a hollow round 1x1 plate onto the connecting rod, there's just no way for the two rods to rotate as freely against each other as they should (see page 278 of the manual, building step #435). Sort of a built-in friction by design?!

Replacing the hollow round 1x1 plate by a Technic 1/2 bush solves the problem and leads to a considerably reduced over all drag.

Why not try  43093 replacing the 1L bar and the 1x1 plate?

[bricknerd]

43093 has friction ridges, too ;-)

You mean 3749? That might work, but there is no way to add a spacer between the connecting rod and the 6536 connector => the connecting rod might slide inward on the pin, with its other end rubbing against the side rod.

The best solution would be to replace the 1L bar with ball by a 2L axle with stop or with stud on one end (a bit like 24316 or 6587), but that doesn't exist yet...

Edited December 28, 2023 by bricknerd

[Johnny1360]

Overall very happy with this set, as with most LEGO sets these days, I feel it was a bit over priced. My biggest gripe is that, when moving in reverse the tender derails, coming out of a curve, unless moving at a very slow speed. Strangely if you put a little weight in it, say batteries, the problem is resolved. Definitely a set I will have great fun with, modding and adding rolling stock. Wouldn't surprise me to see LEGO release a Locomotive that can be used as an alternate, within the next couple of years.

[RichardGoring]

1 hour ago, Johnny1360 said:

... Wouldn't surprise me to see LEGO release a Locomotive that can be used as an alternate, within the next couple of years.

That would be awesome to see. The Crocodile doesn't fit the aesthetic for me, but a properly designed locomotive that is intended to be motorized would be great. Also, more trains is just better anyway.

[Ondra]

Im sorry to say, but this set is perfect tragedy.

Price devastating IP, that also demolish solid locomotive design, set is full of mishaps like wrong names of cities, which is so wrong for set for 300 euro. This is L gauge but actually never intended to be driven with motor or with magnetic couplers.

If I had to choose beetween Concorde and this same piece/weight range concorde is no brainer. Which is for me really sad, considering I love Orient Express trains and this looks decent actually.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

56 minutes ago, Ondra said:

never intended to be driven

Correct,
It's an adult set, meant to collect dust on a shell somewhere in a living till missis finds it has been there to long and dumps it in the toybox of the children of in the waiste plastic dumpster.

58 minutes ago, Ondra said:

wrong names of cities

Addendum
For dyslectic adults.

[Kalahari134]

16 hours ago, Ondra said:

but actually never intended to be driven with motor

How do you account for the battery-sized void in the tender then? Plenty of posters have successfully motorised the set. 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

On 12/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, bricknerd said:

no way for those two parts to rotate as freely

As mentioned before, it's not ment to be driven but only to collect dust.

[Shiva]

5 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

As mentioned before, it's not ment to be driven but only to collect dust.

Well, LEGO did not get it to their own high specs for motorised. MOC'ers have got it working. And it seems it was not hard to get motorised.

LEGO's standard for motorisation might be very high?

Yeah, LEGO did goof up with the citynames.

[RedBrick1]

8 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

As mentioned before, it's not ment to be driven but only to collect dust.

Then why have I seen multiple motorization options and countless videos of this set steaming around layouts? 

[Hod Carrier]

All sets merely provide a starting point for folk to take different directions, whether static display or motorisation. The hollow tender is not necessarily a smoking gun, though. It’s a jolly convenient size/shape for sure, but you wouldn’t expect LEGO to fill the void up for no purpose.