ShrikeArghast

And one more change... I expanded the cab by one stud, crowding the boiler forwards just a bit. I think this is closer to the prototype:

Quick question: is there a way to represent the biggest BB drivers in LDD when creating a MOC? I would like to make my Royal Hudson functional so that - in the future - I can order parts and actually construct it. However, I want to me able to get things like driver spacing, axle location, and valve gear all squared away before I ever start placing orders. So... how do people who build locomotives designed around these wheels approach this problem?

I went and rebuilt practically the entire thing - the boiler has been completely retooled internally and shortened by one stud (which was a LOT of work); the trailing truck was reconstructed from the wheels up (I shortened it, too), the axle locations and underframe were prepped for BB wheels and Zephyr's rods, respectively. I may revisit the exterior of the tender in a little bit, but overall it's feeling ready to build, to me.

I like the body a lot, but it kind of has the effect of dwarfing the trucks.

Lovely solution, thank you. Is hole placement for the rod axles identical, too?

1) I have no idea why I did this. I have no connection to New Zealand - I've never been there, probably will never go, and am unlikely to ever build this model. Honestly, the bulbous tender caught my eye, plus the locomotive looks a fair amount like the ones from Final Fantasy VII (or even a miniature GS-6)... and I'm an enormous, unshakable Anglophile, though I don't know that even counts, as NZ hasn't been a part of the Empire for a long time. Anyway... 2) Yes, the running gear isn't functional (yet), though I might be able to figure it out, or (more likely) resolve it with some Big Ben parts, given that the driver spacing is standard. Of course, as I said, I'm unlikely to ever construct it. But I digress. Video: Prototype: Model: Honestly, I just love narrow gauge.

Here's what I came up with. It's not perfect, but nothing using that truck was going to be. There is a receiver as well as a battery pack (the latter is easily accessible; you can see the top of the receiver just forward of the headlight) crammed in there as well. Now, if I could just work out the mystery of how to assemble valve gear without being able to see drivers in LDD, I'd be all set.

Great proportions - nailed it!

I think it more closely resembles a Fairbanks Morse unit, frankly. http://imgur.com/jZLBObc

Just created one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143513928@N06/albums Boy is Flickr un-intuitive! No wonder Yahoo is going under. That is what it is :). I may try fiddling with it again tonight and see if I can incorporate a PF truck. You wouldn't happen to have any photos of one modified to include a third axle/wheel set, would you?

If I were to incorporate power functions, what would be the best way to go? Battery pack in the tender with motor under the smoke box? Battery + motor both in the tender? Or is 9v still popular enough to justify just powering a single tender truck (even if I have to go with a 4 wheel version, though it would not be prototypical)? I have a pretty much pristine 9v train set boxed at my parents' house, so I do possess the power pack and some tracks, but I understand Lego is doing everything possible to discourage that route these days. Are most clubs/pro builders defaulting to battery now?

Thanks. As for building it, I think I'd like to construct a narrow gauge loco first, since they're my bread-and-butter. The other consideration is sheer price. My most recent 3' engine is just under 600 pieces total - a very nice part economy. The Royal Hudson, on the other hand, is over 1,300 pieces. That, in my experience, is a $250 Bricklink project without breaking a sweat - probably closer to $350 when you include BB wheels and power/battery pack options. Here's a size comparison: Obviously, the Hudson is a beast. I really wish there was a way to simulate the dimensions of the largest BB wheels in LDD. That way I could develop a functional running gear, and have a complete parts list should I decide (and acquire the funds) to move forward in building this loco. Also, unstreamlined version, but still epic: - Anyone who hasn't seen this movie should make an effort to do so. It actually moved me to tears in-theater, it was so superbly done:

Why do people get so riled up over the official Lego trainsets? Honestly... they're just not that good. In fact, I'd label the majority of their efforts as outright lazy. That's not true for all Lego - some of the stuff they've been doing with Star Wars in the last few years is simply brilliant - but with trains its an inconsistent effort at best, slapdash at worst. And that will be especially true if the Christmas train is just a recolored Lone Ranger loco.

Just a small update: decided to design an onion stack as a swap-out option for the loco, since so many logging railroads converted their engines to burn wood. If/when I ever build this, I'll order parts for both, as I kind of prefer the simple elegance of the straight stack.

This is the first locomotive I've designed that is purely a MOC - though I took inspiration from a number of sources, it isn't based on any one steam engine. The background for this unit would be something along the lines of: In 1939 Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México is considering upgrading power for Mexico City-based narrow gauge commuter lines. After perusing the market, the railroad decides that a saddle-tank locomotive would suit their needs best, and the government reaches out to Lima for contract negotiations, with the latter promptly producing a prototype loosely based on their 1920s-era Boston & Albany commuter engines. However, with only the single unit in hand, Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México promptly backs out, wagering that with the ramping up of the war in Europe, their limited financial resources would be better devoted to upgrading their fleet of aging freight steamers. The prototype being no longer of any use, Lima promptly auctions it off at a bargain price to a Pacific Northwestern logging firm, whose crews quickly come to despise the cantankerous beast over its large driving wheels. The region, famous for its lofty mountains (and accompanying cranky goats), soon provides an appropriate moniker for the under-performing (yet still classy) steamer, when a drunken engineer ties the skull of one of the beasts to the front frame. From then on, the Old Goat continued to elicit many a thunderous explicative from her crews, but at least they had a name with which to associate their wrath. Proto photos (inspirational): Model: The model actually features functioning running gear, which is a first for me, although I'm not sure how well it would perform, given the long wheelbase of the drivers.

Same. I still lament over the titanic failures of some truly superb Star Wars MOCs on Ideas, and those must enjoy far more broad-based support than a single engine. As I said in another topic, I find Lego Ideas to be something of a scam - it's a thinly-veiled marketing tool for Lego, and not much else. Ultimately, so many projects that have reached the 10,000 vote have been denied for reasons as silly as 'we don't think this would sell,' or 'we didn't want to bother trying to get the licensing' [seriously, how difficult would it be to get the BBC to sign off on a Sherlock model? Harder than getting Universal to agree to Back to the Future? Yeah, right]) that the entire process has become suspect. I still support projects, but there's no reason for me to submit my own. Why climb a mountain that keeps extending invisible arms to hurl trekkers off, into the abyss?

Yup, that looks like the Pacific Northwest. Well, everywhere except where I live... in a rain shadow. Have you considered upgrading to non-Lego custom drivers and rods? The body of the model itself is superb (love the nose; love the cab; you nailed the colors), but the wheels kind of rob the whole thing of some of its majesty. I'd love to see your take on a GS-6 Warbaby - IMO the better looking of the GS designs.

I like it, but, at the same time, for this particular loco, because of its already diminutive size, I feel like this is really where the 6-stud width starts to show its profound weakness. I get the distinct sensation I am looking at a narrow gauge switcher sitting on broad-gauge track.

Or share the LDD. That would be how I would approach it, I guess.

I like it. I think the cross bucks themselves are a bit small (and not sticker friendly), but proportionally, this is great.

I threw this together on a whim tonight, though I think it turned out pretty decently. Unlike most locomotives I model, this was not based on a specific, real-world prototype, but rather a Bachmann on30 conversion for their mallet (although I am sure there is [or was] and engine identical to this somewhere at some point). As is typical, I did not bother modeling running gear - a custom solution would be necessary, likely involving some smaller Big Ben wheels. In theory, despite the long wheelframe, this locomotive should be able to negotiate some exceedingly tight curves - only the forward set of drivers is mounted directly to the frame; everything else is on a wide-swiveling bogie. Video (not a true copy, but the Niles Canyon Railway's 2-6-6-2 is a fairly close approximation, albeit standard gauge): Prototype: Model:

I completely overlooked this. Your work of art did not receive enough praise - the trucks and body are nothing short of brilliant!

I decided that I had finally achieved with this loco an engine worthy of a freight train. All of the following, with the exception of the passenger car (which is recolored) are new builds as of tonight: Boxcar: Tank car: Timber-framed skeleton car: Passenger car: Caboose (very fond of this one): Full train set: Obviously, the boxcar doors are non-functional, but I had to make a call on whether I preferred action over aesthetics, and I selected the latter without much stress. Boxcars are SO boring in Lego, generally speaking, so any kind of texture that could be gained by making the framing as bold as possible was really important. The tank car is also a little small, but I seemed to have a choice between small, way too big, or going insane with SNOTting, and I didn't think the last option was worth my time. Also, the cupola on the caboose is a bit too tall, but that's as short as it can be while still retaining windows.

Functional. Others could probably do better. I'll go back and take a look at the 'A' problem. One such item would be 2495 in LDD, but I'm too tired to incorporate it at the moment.

Further improvements. Not only does this look good, I am actually starting to think it would work: