Exclusive Train 10194 Emerald Night (Exclusive 2009)

[Brickthus]

Apparently the set 8867 will include 64 pieces of flexible track.

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

[MightySlickPancake]

i really love 10194 but on a bit of an off note can you control the power functions using Cargo Train Deluxe remote so i dont have to buy 8879 (pf remote). thanks

cb

[Freddie]

i really love 10194 but on a bit of an off note can you control the power functions using Cargo Train Deluxe remote so i dont have to buy 8879 (pf remote). thanks

cb

Sorry mate, but the old train remote isn't compatible with the receiver used for power functions (tested). You'll have to get a new remote as well.

[Brickthus]

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

[Captain Zuloo]

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?

Like I said in a previous post, I think it will be a balance between the realism and the geometries possible with this new track. I think it will depend from person to person.

In regards to tram tracks in a street, has anyone come up with a design of building roads around curved track yet?

[legotrainfan]

On 1000steine.de people are discussing the new PF motor, which a member of them found on brickshelf. But there are also some more pics of other PF parts in that folder:

Edited March 16, 2009 by legotrainfan

[MightySlickPancake]

Sorry mate, but the old train remote isn't compatible with the receiver used for power functions (tested). You'll have to get a new remote as well.

Thanks mate i will think of some excuse on why it is better to have two . i know to cheer my self up i will look at emerald night-ah that's better thanks Freddie you have saved me alot of hastel.

cb

Edited March 16, 2009 by crabboy329

[simonwillems]

On 1000steine.de people are discussing the new PF motor .....

That motor looks identical to the one used in the current trainsets. I think it actually is the same motor, there's no point in replacing it because it is compatible with powerfunctions the way it is now. The connection bit to attach a cable is also in the old style and not the new powerfunctions-system.

The new remote looks interesting, it seems we get two turning knobs... I wonder what those two orange buttons are for though.

[Freddie]

Now here's a money saver! We can run two trains simultaneously and independently on a single controller, if one train uses the red sub-channel and the other the blue sub-channel. Excellent move on LEGO's part.

[Brickthus]

That motor looks identical to the one used in the current trainsets. I think it actually is the same motor, there's no point in replacing it because it is compatible with powerfunctions the way it is now. The connection bit to attach a cable is also in the old style and not the new powerfunctions-system.

The new remote looks interesting, it seems we get two turning knobs... I wonder what those two orange buttons are for though.

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.

Now here's a money saver! We can run two trains simultaneously and independently on a single controller, if one train uses the red sub-channel and the other the blue sub-channel. Excellent move on LEGO's part.

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

[soc399]

Now here's a money saver! We can run two trains simultaneously and independently on a single controller, if one train uses the red sub-channel and the other the blue sub-channel. Excellent move on LEGO's part.

I sure hope that's how it works, since running two trains on a single remote without switching channels would be amazing.

[Pierre_Cochereau]

Does anybody know if only one remote works with one receiver? After all, the down side of the 2006 train sets is that you can't have more than 3 trains running on one layout at the same time because there are only three channels, and if you have a fourth train, you have to use one of the channels that is used by one other of the three trains, so they will run simultaneously ... unless one of them is switched off, of course. So does anybody know if these new PF remotes use all different infrared signals, possibly different wave lenghts or something? I guess my underlying question is: How many of these can you use simultaneously without interfering each other?

[SavaTheAggie]

The way the Power Functions remotes work is that there is an orange switch in the middle, both the new train remote and the existing remote, which controls on which of four channel the remote operates. The receivers, too, have a similar switch.

Now the way it usually works, the receiver can accept two signals from the remote, one from the left control, one from the right, and powers one of two plugs on the receiver, left or right respectively.

So technically speaking, one remote channel controls one receiver, and the way it was envisioned is that you'd have one remote per train.

However, trains only really need one action - turn the wheels. The other side of the receiver really isn't necessary (you can plug the lights directly into the battery box, it's not like the lights are only on when the train is in motion).

So if you have two trains with their receivers on the exact same channel, but the motors attached to only the left or right, you could control two trains with one remote without having to switch channels.

Do this with eight trains and you could control all eight with one controller.

--Tony

[simonwillems]

On a side note, next to the technical discussion: Shop at home here in the Netherlands indicates that the Emerald Night is now available as of the 30th of april instead of, like it said before, the 15th of april.... Two more weeks of waiting for this train to pull into any station

[Holodoc]

Just watch out for anyone in the audience at a show who happens to be carrying a PF train remote!

So far I didn´t think of that. Now you brought me to an idea...

To be honest: This can lead to a major problem on exhibitions.

On a side note, next to the technical discussion: Shop at home here in the Netherlands indicates that the Emerald Night is now available as of the 30th of april instead of, like it said before, the 15th of april.... Two more weeks of waiting for this train to pull into any station

Same for Germany.

[legotrainfan]

On a side note, next to the technical discussion: Shop at home here in the Netherlands indicates that the Emerald Night is now available as of the 30th of april instead of, like it said before, the 15th of april.... Two more weeks of waiting for this train to pull into any station

It's like that for Austria as well. This must be valid for whole Europe, I suppose. I don't know what TLC is doing! First it said Emerald Knight was available on April 15th, then suddenly April 11th, then back to the 15th, and now it's the 30th! Let's see if the release date will be changed once again in the near futre.

[Teddy]

So far I didn´t think of that. Now you brought me to an idea...

To be honest: This can lead to a major problem on exhibitions.

Same for Germany.

hmm that could be a real problem.

Maybe someone (or even me ) can make a hobby project and program some bluetooth receivers. those are small and cheap enough.

E.g. 2 dollar or so per piece in industrial use. I guess we could even add some encryption to guard against other users.

One could make a piconet with 7 active devices and 255 idle ones, but one could switch to the idle ones at will.

We could use a class two with a range of 10 meters.

So how often does info needs to be send and with how much latency?

I guess in train control systems the latency for switching on a light for example or changing speed can be up to half a second.

So that would equal an eternaty in wireless-land.

The whole system could be controled via a laptop.

all additional track controls could be wired, I guess.

Or partially bluetooth as well.

Kind regards,

Teddy

Edited March 17, 2009 by Teddy

[Siegfried]

Just watch out for anyone in the audience at a show who happens to be carrying a PF train remote!

You mentioned a year or so ago...

To enable more trains to be driven on a single layout, I intend to use an interlock circuit, similar to my lighting circuit, so that two IR signals to two receivers will be required at once. This not only expands the number of channels (4x4 = 16) but also makes it more difficult for malicious audiences at shows to interfere with operation of trains if they have a remote control in their pocket!

Any update on this?

[Teddy]

You mentioned a year or so ago...

To enable more trains to be driven on a single layout, I intend to use an interlock circuit, similar to my lighting circuit, so that two IR signals to two receivers will be required at once. This not only expands the number of channels (4x4 = 16) but also makes it more difficult for malicious audiences at shows to interfere with operation of trains if they have a remote control in their pocket!

Any update on this?

hmm, that is an interesting option as well. But that would require two PF receivers per train, each on a simular or different channel.

But I'm not sure how the interlock circuit can be build from standard pf pieces. And how bulky it will be inside a train.

Kind regards,

Teddy

[Brickthus]

It's like that for Austria as well. This must be valid for whole Europe, I suppose. I don't know what TLC is doing! First it said Emerald Knight was available on April 15th, then suddenly April 11th, then back to the 15th, and now it's the 30th! Let's see if the release date will be changed once again in the near futre.

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

[MightySlickPancake]

just wondering wih the new motor can you fit another set of wheels in the middle. if so will get if not i won't because the 9v motor can be pf controled (beleve it or not)allthought lego said to not attach a 9v battery box.

if any one can anser i would be very graitful .

cb

ps i wonder if you will get a like piece?? just a thought.

Edited March 17, 2009 by crabboy329

[Brickthus]

You mentioned a year or so ago...

Any update on this?

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

[Teddy]

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.

Dear Mark,

Great schematic.

You use a couple of current mirrors to power the outputs.

I assume S1 and S2 are switches which are controlled manually? Or did I miss something?

The flickering light is a great option as well.

In your schematic you state the voltage drop is 0.2 V per saturated C-E junction.

Which shouldn't be a problem I guess.

I doubt if the battery box can even sustain 9V. Normally rechargable batteries converge to a slightly lower voltage.

I do have a small question after looking in the datasheet of Motorola of the BC327 PNP here

Appearently the voltage drop of the saturated C-E junction heavily depends on the loading of the transisitor and the base current appears to be relatively high when a large current is required.

Do you have any idea what the power dissipation is of a single schematic?

And what the power dissipation is when schematics are cascaded 2, 3 times?

For instance when the motor is running on full speed lets say unloaded, stalled and in typicall use?

I'm just wondering how often the battery box needs to be changed.

Keep up the nice work.

Kind regards,

Teddy

Edited March 17, 2009 by Teddy

[Brickthus]

Dear Mark,

Great schematic.

You use a couple of current mirrors to power the outputs.

I assume S1 and S2 are switches which are controlled manually? Or did I miss something?

The flickering light is a great option as well.

In your schematic you state the voltage drop is 0.2 V per saturated C-E junction.

Which shouldn't be a problem I guess.

I doubt if the battery box can even sustain 9V. Normally rechargable batteries converge to a slightly lower voltage.

I do have a small question after looking in the datasheet of Motorola of the BC327 PNP here

Appearently the voltage drop of the saturated C-E junction heavily depends on the loading of the transisitor and the base current appears to be relatively high when a large current is required.

Do you have any idea what the power dissipation is of a single schematic?

And what the power dissipation is when schematics are cascaded 2, 3 times?

For instance when the motor is running on full speed lets say unloaded, stalled and in typicall use?

I'm just wondering how often the battery box needs to be changed.

Keep up the nice work.

Kind regards,

Teddy

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

[jonwil]

btw, as of today (19 march), the 10194 is still listed as April 15th for Shop @ Home Australia.

I just wish they would let us pre-order it like they have in the past with other exclusives.