<moc> NYC 4-8-2 Million Dollar Rexall Train

[LordsofMedieval]

I need the community's help with this one. My eyes are telling that the locomotive is too short by about 1 stud - specifically in the area between the end of the last driving wheel and the front of the cab. However, measurements involving every model I could find (most, unfortunately, unshrouded, though that shouldn't make a difference since the cab was not lengthened) indicate that I have things right as they are. Part of the problem would, at first glance, appear to be that the driving wheels are too small. However, the inverted standard drivers are actually exactly 69" in the scale I am working in - a perfect match for the real thing. So, in this case, especially, using the wheels as a baseline to determine proportions should be rock-solid. Yet, here I am with nagging doubts. 

So... am I just seeing ghosts? Or is the engine really a stud short?

A number of blue and white stickers would be necessary to fix the trim here and there. Also, the entire front pilot (with the blue shrouding) free-pivots, so I believe the model would have no issue negotiating most larger-radius Lego tracks. Funnily enough, I lack any photo reference for the rear off the tender, so I had to take an educated guess on that one :/. I'm not sure a picture of the back actually exists, but I spent about an hour scouring the web last night just in case. Lastly, yes, there are two gaps at the front of the engine - I don't think there's any legal solution to filling them. When I build it, I'm going to just create some custom pieces to shove in there. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by LordsofMedieval

[JopieK]

Nice one @LordsofMedieval. Well I think it is already a nice rendition, but maybe build it in real bricks and then you see how it looks in the real world.

[Frank STENGEL]

Beautiful model.

I think that what makes it look a bit short is that the end of the cowling's downward curve just behind the rear driving wheel is just a bit too shallow. What would the model look like if instead of the lower 2x4 wedge plate, one would put a 2x3 wedge plate?

[LordsofMedieval]

22 minutes ago, Frank STENGEL said:

Beautiful model.

I think that what makes it look a bit short is that the end of the cowling's downward curve just behind the rear driving wheel is just a bit too shallow. What would the model look like if instead of the lower 2x4 wedge plate, one would put a 2x3 wedge plate?

I experimented with that briefly, but the long and short is that the 2x3 wedge plate cannot be mounted without interfering with the driver/running gear. The 2x4 was a compromise :/.

*Edit* NM, I got it. I dunno. I personally think the problem somehow relates to the wheels looking so small. I don't know why they look small, but they do. And they definitely don't on the real engine.

Another weird bit about this engine is the front, which - again, to me - looks more angled in the photographs I've found than the model. But, when lined up on the best side-on references I possess, the angle I've got is within a degree or so of being correct. 

Overall, I am really satisfied with the thing, though.

Edited December 3, 2022 by LordsofMedieval

[Murdoch17]

It looks perfect to me!

[LordsofMedieval]

Here's the length thing illustrated slightly (and also embarrassing insight into how anal I am with these things):

So, on the all the photos, each red line is the same length as its counterpart: they measure the distance from the 'start' of the square portion of the cab to the end of the rear driver, then again from the end of the rear driver to however far it gets on the third driver.

As you can see, on this model (though not others :/) and the real thing, the length from the cab to the back of the rear driver is to juusssssssst past the axle of the third driver. On the model, it's on the other side - barely less than 1 stud. 

Considering that the wheels themselves are precisely to scale, I'm inclined to lengthen it one stud based on this evidence. Thoughts?

[Darkkostas25]

It looks great and yeah it`s hard to make a really proportional replica with lego bricks in L-gauge scale
Great engine, great model  

Edited December 3, 2022 by Darkkostas25

[Murdoch17]

There is no such thing a perfection, especially when translating something of malleable steel and iron to little plastic bricks. Things are always going to be a *little* off in some way or another... It's just the nature of the medium we're all using. You can either tear you hair out trying to reach the impossible, or just say "it's good enough" (and honestly, it's good enough as it is.) Even if it is a stud too short, lengthening it might break other aspects of the look or even cause whole sections to redesigned. Besides, no rivet counter is going to come up to you at a show and say it's one stud too short. (That just doesn't happen.) Instead, they will probably be impressed you were able to build it at all, considering how difficult it is to make streamlining work in LEGO!

Thus, I  say let it be.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Murdoch17

[LordsofMedieval]

7 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

There is no such thing a perfection, especially when translating something of malleable steel and iron to little plastic bricks. Things are always going to be a *little* off in some way or another... It's just the nature of the medium we're all using. You can either tear you hair out trying to reach the impossible, or just say "it's good enough" (and honestly, it's good enough as it is.) Even if it is a stud too short, lengthening it might break other aspects of the look or even cause whole sections to redesigned. Besides, no rivet counter is going to come up to you at a show and say it's one stud too short. (That just doesn't happen.) They might be impressed you were able to build it at all, considering how difficult it is to make streamlining work in LEGO!

Thus, I  say let it be.

Eh. I have nothing better to do. I have Covid; I'm in quarantine. 

Here it is lengthened. I think this is closer?

[CMF-1138]

Tremendous work modeling a complicated prototype.

Stud-counting and precision overlays aside, your latest rendition (lengthened by one stud) looks closer to me. To my eye, however, it is the height of the fairing wheel arch and the visual weight of the front end that is creating the imbalance.

I don't know if it is possible to tuck the drivers up one plate higher under the fairing (combined with going back to the original length). They do look small compared the prototype, but I think that may be because they are fully exposed. Alternatively, can the rear arch of the fairing be moved forward by one stud without interfering with the driver or running gear (maybe in combination with going back to the original 2x4 wedge plate)? That would give you another stud of fairing between the rear driver and the cab and visually stretch out the back half.

In the front, it feels to me like there is just too much fairing down by the pilot wheels. To my eye, that visual weight makes the back half seem shorter than it is. The front end of the fairing on the prototype looks almost like a raptor's beak to me. The shape isn't quite there in LEGO, at least to my eye. Perhaps the 2x3 wedge plate can be replaced with a 2x4 and the rest of the arch slid forward by one stud? It also looks to me like the front end itself could be one stud too long in front of the pilot wheel, but it is hard to tell.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

[LordsofMedieval]

30 minutes ago, CMF-1138 said:

Tremendous work modeling a complicated prototype.

Stud-counting and precision overlays aside, your latest rendition (lengthened by one stud) looks closer to me. To my eye, however, it is the height of the fairing wheel arch and the visual weight of the front end that is creating the imbalance.

I don't know if it is possible to tuck the drivers up one plate higher under the fairing (combined with going back to the original length). They do look small compared the prototype, but I think that may be because they are fully exposed. Alternatively, can the rear arch of the fairing be moved forward by one stud without interfering with the driver or running gear (maybe in combination with going back to the original 2x4 wedge plate)? That would give you another stud of fairing between the rear driver and the cab and visually stretch out the back half.

In the front, it feels to me like there is just too much fairing down by the pilot wheels. To my eye, that visual weight makes the back half seem shorter than it is. The front end of the fairing on the prototype looks almost like a raptor's beak to me. The shape isn't quite there in LEGO, at least to my eye. Perhaps the 2x3 wedge plate can be replaced with a 2x4 and the rest of the arch slid forward by one stud? It also looks to me like the front end itself could be one stud too long in front of the pilot wheel, but it is hard to tell.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

I don't think there's any way to effectively accomplish the beak, but I'll take another look at it. The problem with Lego contours is that you rapidly arrive at a point where you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. While I may be able to make a more beak-like shape for the base of the nose, it will almost certainly introduce seams, breaks and steps in the shape... which the prototype doesn't have, either. At that juncture, is it worth sacrificing smoothness for something that might be technically closer to the real thing in another way? 

As for changes with the side panels, the short answer is: no. I can't lower them without lowering the shroud to the rear of drivers and the front - both of which would compromise the function of the lead and trailing bogies. The heavyness at the front is specifically due to wanting to accomplish something like the original while still allowing the bogie to swivel (and take the paneling with it). I also really wanted to include that curving 'indent' under the cylinders where it bows inwards to meet the beak. The only way I could see to do that was with 2x3 slope pieces, but they needed space for mounting, and that meant pushing the overall beginning of the upslope rearwards. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by LordsofMedieval

[CMF-1138]

I don't disagree. I understand and respect the design decisions you have described, and I think we can all acknowledge that LEGO design necessarily involves compromises. I guess I only mean to suggest that the visual impression of the back end feeling too short when it is, in fact, built so close to scale might instead be the result of visual imbalances elsewhere in the model that have resulted from various design decisions. You, of course, get to be the final arbiter of where that balance should be for your model.

In any event, as previously mentioned, your latest rendition looks closer to me. 

[LordsofMedieval]

8 minutes ago, CMF-1138 said:

I don't disagree. I understand and respect the design decisions you have described, and I think we can all acknowledge that LEGO design necessarily involves compromises. I guess I only mean to suggest that the visual impression of the back end feeling too short when it is, in fact, built so close to scale might instead be the result of visual imbalances elsewhere in the model that have resulted from various design decisions. You, of course, get to be the final arbiter of where that balance should be for your model.

In any event, as previously mentioned, your latest rendition looks closer to me. 

Thanks mate. And I wasn't trying to be harsh in any way - just explain why I did the things the way I did. I frankly don't like compromise when it comes to these models (and am totally open to suggestion as to improvements). But with these freaking streamlined engines... heh... it seems every time I'm having to split the baby in two on multiple issues. With the beak shape in particular, it bothers me immensely that I can't somehow scallop in the lower portion like it is on the real thing. But the moment I start introducing the necessary angles, the eye is drawn to it for all the wrong reasons.