Sign in to follow this  
ProvenceTristram

[MOC] PRR 4-4-6-4 Q2 Duplex

Recommended Posts

After taking a good, hard look at it, I decided to significantly redo the skylining. While the result isn't quite as uniform as the original, it is far closer to the proportions of the real thing.

e2jsXJf.png

yZYqhcY.png

It also allows for the boiler to widen just slightly as it progresses.

Edited by ProvenceTristram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also updated the tender. The doghouse is closer to the real-life proportions, and the flanks are now uniform (if just a plate wider on each side than 8 studs - I decided it was worth it to get that smooth finish).

DphjLWR.png

Edited by ProvenceTristram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this looks pretty nice. You managed to capture some key details of this locomotive in a nicely proportioned package. It's been on my long list for some time, I just knew someone was going to get to it before I could.

As a friendly word of caution, you may need to find you need to do some reworking. The clearances for some the wheels look pretty small, particularly the pilot truck and between the first engine and second cylinders and tender trucks. Obviously the Q2 is a big locomotive with a big tender and the duplexes were rigid frame locomotives. I'm interested in seeing how you went about solving the "articulation" problem.

 

I'm also curious about what part you used for the headlight, that looks pretty nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Glenn Holland said:

I think this looks pretty nice. You managed to capture some key details of this locomotive in a nicely proportioned package. It's been on my long list for some time, I just knew someone was going to get to it before I could.

As a friendly word of caution, you may need to find you need to do some reworking. The clearances for some the wheels look pretty small, particularly the pilot truck and between the first engine and second cylinders and tender trucks. Obviously the Q2 is a big locomotive with a big tender and the duplexes were rigid frame locomotives. I'm interested in seeing how you went about solving the "articulation" problem.

 

I'm also curious about what part you used for the headlight, that looks pretty nice.

The headlight is 12884 - it's a flat-sided bucket mounted on two hollow core round stud plates, and then 88072.

As far as the articulation - I didn't solve it. I originally built the locomotive to have the entire front chassis swivel (with the rear 0-6-0 being connected to the boiler). However, I nixed this design for a few reasons:

1) It was inherently contrary to the spirit of the most powerful rigid-framed steam locomotive of all time.

2) It would have required sacrificing about half of the piping and details on the engine.

3) I would not have been able to power the front driving wheels.

4) The max left and right swing would have been something like 5 degrees in each direction.

Now, having said all that, my guess is that I could reintroduce the articulation with like 20 minutes worth of work - the bones are still there to do it (the rear cylinders, in particular, were constructed with a swing motion [in front of them] in mind). I just felt like, for my needs (a theoretical display piece) it wasn't worth the sacrifices involved. 

---

*Edit* I'm going to add something a little controversial here (which is not aimed at Glenn or anyone specific - it literally just came to mind): while I do design my models to run (they have all the requisite battery packs, IR receivers, motors, gearing, etc.), I feel like when I watch videos on Youtube of Lego trains doing circuits, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the entire experience - especially on curves. The shuddering (particularly of longer cars [even when they are obviously lovingly crafted and well-engineered]), the lack of ability to realistically cycle the locomotive through very gradual speed changes, and the (even at its most generous proportions) unprototypical curvature all throw me. Frankly, it is my honest opinion that Lego trains are bucking the realistic limits of the hobby, and - in many cases - going beyond them. What is gained on the roundabouts is lost on the swings once you see these fantastic models clumsily move on non-tangent sections of track.

IMO (and this is truly speaking only for me), the best Lego train sets I have ever seen were elaborate static dioramas, or ones that involved limited forward-back motion that didn't tax or bring all the inherent weaknesses of the medium to the fore. Clearly, running these things in circles means a lot to a lot of people involved in this hobby, but my ultimate objective is to produce models that (while they accommodate loop running to a limited degree) are solid minifig-scale representations of the engines (accepting that the track is too broad-gauge to begin with).

Anyway, not meant to be a rant, just saying - not everyone is playing this game with the same victory conditions in mind :P.  

Edited by ProvenceTristram

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand your reasoning now, thanks for clarifying. Admittedly I would probably do the same thing and keep my own model rigid frame as well, and relegate it to only be used on grand curve layouts. The real Q's were pretty restricted on Pennsy's track anyway, so in a way that would be prototypical as well!

In reference to your point about shuddering, that pertains mainly to the way the track is constructed (until we have viable replacements). You may be familiar with the idea of a "grand curve", but in a nutshell, it's a way of building a curve where several straight sections are laid together and offset on the outside by a half a stud (or something) while keeping the inside tight, creating a curve. The small outside gap in the track is what causes the wobble, but I would say most of the time it is not as bad as what you see in that video. 

We do have greater radius curves available than what we had several years ago, but the turns are still quite tight, relatively speaking. I know PennLUG would like to have custom track (perhaps 3D printed) that would be a drop-in replacement for the grand curves we have now. That would eliminate the potential for the shuddering.

The locomotive speed settings can be solved with a product like the PFx brick. It can be tuned to your locomotive and allow up to 250 (I think) speed steps instead of 7 like a normal remote, and has an option for setting inertia to a locomotive and train.

Just a basic response, point by point. No offense taken to your comment at all- this hobby is about finding what best suits your style, which is the best thing! You can tailor your efforts to get exactly what you want, while I do the same for myself, and we're still using the same bricks to do it with. If you want to build generally more static models, by all means, go for it.

Again, very nice engine. Maybe one day I'll build one that doesn't look bad in a curve. ;)

Edited by Glenn Holland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glenn Holland said:

I understand your reasoning now, thanks for clarifying. Admittedly I would probably do the same thing and keep my own model rigid frame as well, and relegate it to only be used on grand curve layouts. The real Q's were pretty restricted on Pennsy's track anyway, so in a way that would be prototypical as well!

In reference to your point about shuddering, that pertains mainly to the way the track is constructed (until we have viable replacements). You may be familiar with the idea of a "grand curve", but in a nutshell, it's a way of building a curve where several straight sections are laid together and offset on the outside by a half a stud (or something) while keeping the inside tight, creating a curve. The small outside gap in the track is what causes the wobble, but I would say most of the time it is not as bad as what you see in that video. 

We do have greater radius curves available than what we had several years ago, but the turns are still quite tight, relatively speaking. I know PennLUG would like to have custom track (perhaps 3D printed) that would be a drop-in replacement for the grand curves we have now. That would eliminate the potential for the shuddering.

The locomotive speed settings can be solved with a product like the PFx brick. It can be tuned to your locomotive and allow up to 250 (I think) speed steps instead of 7 like a normal remote, and has an option for setting inertia to a locomotive and train.

Just a basic response, point by point. No offense taken to your comment at all- this hobby is about finding what best suits your style, which is the best thing! You can tailor your efforts to get exactly what you want, while I do the same for myself, and we're still using the same bricks to do it with. If you want to build generally more static models, by all means, go for it.

Again, very nice engine. Maybe one day I'll build one that doesn't look bad in a curve. ;)

`As I said - wasn't directed at you. And I really admire your club's work - it's pretty much the best stuff out there. That Erie Triplex is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roadmonkeytj said:

Even if it sat in a yard at a show it's still a beautiful engine and I would be proud of it were mine

Thanks. I'm torn on which one I am going to build - this, the GN 2-10-2, or the GP30. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another incredible MOC, the detailing is unbelievable and some really great parts usage (looks almost as if you picked up that arched window and said to yourself, "I know what this would be good for...").

 

On 11/27/2018 at 1:49 PM, ProvenceTristram said:

*Edit* I'm going to add something a little controversial here (which is not aimed at Glenn or anyone specific - it literally just came to mind): while I do design my models to run (they have all the requisite battery packs, IR receivers, motors, gearing, etc.), I feel like when I watch videos on Youtube of Lego trains doing circuits, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the entire experience - especially on curves. The shuddering (particularly of longer cars [even when they are obviously lovingly crafted and well-engineered]), the lack of ability to realistically cycle the locomotive through very gradual speed changes, and the (even at its most generous proportions) unprototypical curvature all throw me. Frankly, it is my honest opinion that Lego trains are bucking the realistic limits of the hobby, and - in many cases - going beyond them. What is gained on the roundabouts is lost on the swings once you see these fantastic models clumsily move on non-tangent sections of track.

IMO (and this is truly speaking only for me), the best Lego train sets I have ever seen were elaborate static dioramas, or ones that involved limited forward-back motion that didn't tax or bring all the inherent weaknesses of the medium to the fore. Clearly, running these things in circles means a lot to a lot of people involved in this hobby, but my ultimate objective is to produce models that (while they accommodate loop running to a limited degree) are solid minifig-scale representations of the engines (accepting that the track is too broad-gauge to begin with).

Anyway, not meant to be a rant, just saying - not everyone is playing this game with the same victory conditions in mind :P.  

Indeed, there is a wide variety of interests in this forum and there are almost as many different "end goals" as there are active participants in this forum. So I doubt anyone would find fault at your objectives. And you are right, Lego is not the medium of choice for the highest realism, though I would argue that many of the top Lego MOC's have overtaken some of the O gauge and G gauge stuff (just the low end stuff, not the high end models).

 But getting back to your builds, here is one thought to consider. Why build in 6 or 8 wide if you want a nice looking static display? As a mostly 6 wide builder, I sometimes drool at the detail that 8 wide builders can squeeze in. If you are not aiming to run the MOC's on Lego track, you might want to consider 12 or 16 wide either for strictly display or perhaps build for running on G gauge track. Some of the builds I've seen at this size can be mistaken for commercial mode railroad cars.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, zephyr1934 said:

Yet another incredible MOC, the detailing is unbelievable and some really great parts usage (looks almost as if you picked up that arched window and said to yourself, "I know what this would be good for...").

 

Indeed, there is a wide variety of interests in this forum and there are almost as many different "end goals" as there are active participants in this forum. So I doubt anyone would find fault at your objectives. And you are right, Lego is not the medium of choice for the highest realism, though I would argue that many of the top Lego MOC's have overtaken some of the O gauge and G gauge stuff (just the low end stuff, not the high end models).

 But getting back to your builds, here is one thought to consider. Why build in 6 or 8 wide if you want a nice looking static display? As a mostly 6 wide builder, I sometimes drool at the detail that 8 wide builders can squeeze in. If you are not aiming to run the MOC's on Lego track, you might want to consider 12 or 16 wide either for strictly display or perhaps build for running on G gauge track. Some of the builds I've seen at this size can be mistaken for commercial mode railroad cars.

 

 

Because I still view the minifig as the ultimate arbiter of scale. Even then, 8w is probably a little too small, but in terms of the proportions of thr overall "Lego world" - particularly the great Creator stuff Lego churns out - it's likely the closest match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.