Hod Carrier

Wowser!! Now that's a thing of great beauty and just goes to show what is possible in 4-wide scale. Great proportions and detailing resulting in a very convincing build. I can see what you mean about the height of the running board. GWR locos always tended to have quite low running boards compared with other British designs. In profile your loco looks more like an LMS Class 5, but I'm not sure how you're going to come up with a solution without going wider. As to the splashers, I did also wonder about cheese slopes as @zephyr1934 suggested, but I'm not sure that they wouldn't be too angular and equally visually jarring. I guess the only way to find out is to mock it up and run another render and see if it looks better to you. But speaking for myself, I think the current design looks OK and could end up being the least worst solution.

Well we're going to be diving into the vaults a bit for this thread, but it might be fun to revisit some old friends. First up is the Dutch DD-VIRM (discussion here*). This was my first MOC as an AFOL and a good way to ease my way in to the hobby. This model has had a couple of minor alterations since first debuted, particularly around the cab and the shape of the roof, which I have not yet got around to photographing. * Apologies that images of the design process are no longer visible in the original thread. The second is the Dutch SLT (discussion here) which I found to be a more taxing build because of the shape of the front end and the snotting required to make the doors. However, those difficulties just made the result more satisfying. With a couple of commuter trains under my belt I decided to build something a little faster in the shape of the TGV Thalys (discussion here). This is still 4 cars short of it's full length and is something that keeps coming back to my mind to update and complete. As you can see, I did go a bit mental with this design and pulled together a line-up of virtual TGVs in various shapes and colours. And then there was this whopper, a full-length model of the Ansaldo-Breda V250 Albatros in FYRA livery (discussion here) which got a special mention from the judges in the first OcTRAINber contest. And then there was this wee beastie; a powered 4-wide TRAXX loco using PF elements (discussion here). As yet still just a virtual design, but I did put together a design for some 4-wide scale track (discussion here) that could be used for display. It's perhaps a little heavy on parts usage, but it uses fairly common parts and the colours could be varied to suit taste and wallet. I do sometimes think about going back and revisiting at least some of these builds and improving them and maybe building a few more. At the time I can remember finding it quite a natural scale to build in and, although it does limit the amount of detail you can include, such small builds can still be incredibly satisfying. Plus there's the advantage of being able to park any considerations or concerns about the practicality of the designs as they are almost always just going to be for display. There are a few more photos on my Flickr page if anyone is keen to see more. Really looking forward to seeing everyone else's 4-wide builds.

Heavens!! Don't be worrying about that, Davide. The thought hadn't even crossed my mind. Besides, it's the obvious solution to making structures at this scale, as anything brick-built would be vastly over-scale. I thought about that too because the train bogies ought to be underneath the train body and not sticking out at the sides, but I agree that it might be tricky to achieve both with the track and the bogies. My solution to get around this visual problem was to try and make the bogies as narrow as possible so that it was within 4 studs width. This was the solution I came up with for the 4-wide FYRA high-speed train, which I have also used on my older 4-wide trains.

When you say "custom rods" among AFOL train builders it generally refers to some unofficial means of tying the drivers together on a steam loco, but I've taken the idea and run in a slightly different direction. I thought that we could all benefit from a bit of a laugh as it been feeling like things have been a bit tense here recently. I'm calling it the Joke-omotive. The idea simply was to try and hot-rod a loco, so I came up with this freelance design based on a road-switcher layout. I've cut and slammed the loco about as far as I reasonably can while still allowing enough space for bogies and motors. The original intention was to create a "rat rod" but the parts were not really available in the right colours to go the whole way with that, so I went instead for this dark red and black scheme. The render has a train motor but clearly there's nowhere for any power or control, so I'm guessing that I'll need a car to provide this function. Or maybe I'll do away with the motors altogether and use a powered car instead. As I think you can tell, I haven't decided exactly what design to go for so I'm presenting some options for feedback. Firstly the enormous Batmobile-alike fins are not really the sort of thing that you see in the hot-rod scene, but the rear of the loco seemed a bit barren without something there. The other option is the front end. I'm calling the design on the left the "Catfish" and the design on the right the "Bullnose", and I like each equally for different reasons. I suppose I could build both and have them as interchangeable parts, but I'd like to know which design others prefer. Please help me decide which version to build. "Catfish" or "Bullnose"? Fins or no fins?

In response to the feedback received I've given the design a bit of an update. It looks a bit like the Fat Controller has fallen in with the Chicago mob. The loco has been lengthened two studs to permit the engine to be enlarged from V12 to V16 and the style of the bodywork has been changed with the fins dropped. The front end is a little more aggressive but the biggest change is the enlarged cab and the car-like rear end. I did take on-board the comments regarding wheel sizes, but I couldn't really make it work. The problem with a hot-rodded loco is that the wheels by necessity have to be underneath the bodywork and capable of articulation whereas on a car the wheels are outside the bodywork, which makes things a lot easier. I did explore larger wheels at the rear and even smaller wheels at the front, but whichever option I went for resulted in the loco as a whole getting taller in order to ensure adequate clearance for the bogies to articulate. In the end I have opted to keep things level in order to preserve the "slammed" look.

Brilliant!! Just brilliant!! Not only a single build, but the basis for an entire fleet complete with rolling stock and electrification masts too. What's not to love? I have a real soft spot for 4-wide scale builds, as that's how I started participating in this hobby. All you need now is some scale track to pose your models on.

It's great to see some wonderful 4-wide scale builds gracing these pages again. Absolutely!! I agree with you 100%. I found that the challenge of 4-wide scale made for a very satisfying build if you can pull off a good likeness, as you have. Sometimes a close-up can be unforgiving at this scale, but there's nothing for you to be embarrassed about with this design. Very many congratulations!!

@1974 I was about to say much the same thing but you beat me to it. I appreciate your view, but it's a bit bleak. I'm really not so sure that the picture is as black as you paint it. I do agree that some of the train-specific parts have been changed and not necessarily for the better (wheels, couplers, etc) and the loss of the rechargeable battery is a pain, but with regard to the rest it is quite possible to build your own alternatives. On the PU point, I think that you're missing a couple of big tricks. The first is that you no longer have to allow additional space inside a build for a controller, which makes packaging a lot easier. The other is that PU allows for a number of things that PF cannot do as it permits near-Mindstorms level of functionality. Quite simply, if you're only using the standard PU remote or the app equivalent you're really only scratching at the surface of what the system offers. @Toastie explained it better than me in this thread. Here's what he said on the matter of speed regulation.

There is a reason why that set sold well, and that’s because of its connection to a very popular franchise and its place in a line-up of sets within that franchise. If anything, I feel that this is how LEGO trains will continue to go forward. As has been said already, LEGO are not a train maker and as such there is no need for them to be stocking ranges of track, rolling stock or accessories. Where trains continue to prosper it will be as a feature of other franchises or popular themes. I just don’t think that the same level of popularity can be expected for a City train or similar.

Well, this has been a highly edifying discussion. It's a shame that someone's thread got hijacked for it, though. I will just say that the posting record of this forum does show that IP theft and blatant plagiarism are taken seriously here, and people have been called out for it in the past. But there is a whole world of difference between blatant copying and two builders coming up with similar answers to the same design and build problems, which is what looks like has happened here. Where multiple builders have taken on the same prototype it is almost inevitable that the resulting designs will share a lot of the same features. Looking at the photos of the real loco under discussion in this thread I'm not sure how else you could reproduce the shape of the casing except in the way both builders have. If anything, the real loco looks like it's been built out of LEGO and is a very good example of a design that suits the building medium. But none of this adds up to blatant copying. I'm sure it wouldn't take very long to find other LEGO Q1 0-6-0s to compare to the one recently showcased here by @SteamSewnEmpire and to point out all the ways in which the respective builders have used the same techniques, but that doesn't mean that any particular builder copied any other's preceding design and certainly should not be construed as an accusation of plagiarism. @SteamSewnEmpire Just a few points, if I may. There's no reason why another builder should have to credit you if they have not taken any inspiration or techniques from your design. That the two models appear similar is not a smoking gun, and I can't help but wonder how many other similar builds existed prior to your own and whether or not any of them deserve credit from you if you also took any inspiration from them. Also, "first" does not necessarily equal "best", nor does the fact that someone else makes different design choices make their design inferior. But most of all, please don't just fire off both barrels and then have a tantrum when folk disagree with you. If you feel that your design has been ripped off then we are not unsympathetic provided that you can show some compelling evidence, but bear in mind that we are not bound to agree with you. On the digital designing discussion I will just say that I agree with @SteamSewnEmpire, but only up to a point. I build both in real bricks and in digital ones and all my real world builds were designed in LDD or Stud.io first, and I will just say that it irks me when folk denigrate a digital design as somehow "not proper". Whether the bricks are real or virtual, I am still using the same techniques and bound by the same limitations (in fact, both LDD and Stud.io impose restrictions on some connections that do not exist with real bricks, so I would argue that it is not the no-holds-barred free-for-all that some people make it out to be). All of my digital designs are designed with strength and stability in mind so that I can build them for real if the fancy so takes me. However, I do also know that sometimes things that look fine on a screen will not work as expected in real life, such as chassis/bogie articulation, and I have had to make changes to builds as a result of this. But as I learn what works and what doesn't, these lessons get built back into my virtual builds. As such, I do feel that when someone tries to run-down a digital build or suggest that the designer has not taken account of how it will go together in real life they are just taking a cheap shot that may just be entirely unwarranted. As much as a render may not show the structures inside a virtual build to convince a viewer of it's viability, so also the photograph of the outside of a MOC. A nicely posed photograph of a stationary loco or piece of rolling stock does not show that some large part is not hanging on for grim life by just a stud or two and in danger of coming adrift after a couple of spirited laps. Happily this is not an issue that comes up on this forum too often as the community ethos here is very strong and the members largely encouraging and inclusive, but just sometimes I feel like there is a slight undertone which makes me feel twitchy. Lastly, I would just like to say to @AbleChristopher that sharing designs here does not usually start a firestorm. Please don't be discouraged by what has happened today in this thread and continue to share with us whatever you wish. In the interests of fairness, I would also like to say the same to @SteamSewnEmpire because he has contributed up to this point and I would hope will be welcome to continue to do so if he wants to. We may not all agree on everything but I don't see that it has to be a problem provided that it can be done with respect.

Yes I've seen the sort of thing you're referring to, but I was unsure how this would apply to large diesel prime-movers. In the end I kept the engine block fairly standard but just added a vertical pipe at the end in place of a silencer. There is space for a pair of turbo "snails" at the front of the block which will be made of a loop of pneumatic hose holding a small wheel hub, which connect to the T-pieces either side of the alternator. Thank you. As hot-rodding started in the States I think that the V8 was the most easily available and easily modified engine, so it did prove very popular. Thank you too. I based the engine block loosely on the Alco 244 V12 because it had that old-school look that modern blocks lack, and because I could easily find some good photo resources for it. I'm not sure how big engines of this type grew, but I do know that even here in the UK there were quite a few V16's in use on the railways. Not sure about taking up the bigger wheels at the back. I was thinking more of a hot-rod than a dragster, but I guess that avenue is also ripe for exploration. Thank you. (Yes, I think I do too. )

Maybe it's wrong to be looking for motivations, either with TLG or the clone makers, as it could just be a consequence of the manufacturing process. It's a rare company that can start the production of something new without first stopping the production of something old, and with TLG's increasing inventory of parts in an expanding palette of colours it is unreasonable to think that they could continue production of parts where there is little demand for them elsewhere other than in their official offerings. To me this is the crux of the matter. All of these companies exist to put parts into boxes, or "sets" as we call them. If there is a set that requires a certain part then it will be manufactured in sufficient quantity to fill the required number of boxes, but if there is no box into which a certain part goes then it will be discontinued. That one company will produce some part and not another is primarily a function of what boxes they are trying to fill at any given time. Of course TLG produces parts over and above it's requirement for parts to go into sets, but these will generally be the kind of generic parts that you find on Pick-A-Brick walls and not small runs of parts which have only minimal appeal in the wider LEGO marketplace. As for the "round tower" approach, well why not give me 100 interlocking parts that together build a perfect LNER A4 Pacific? The attraction of the LEGO hobby is not that you will end up producing perfect replicas of whatever it is that you're trying to build but that it is a puzzle that needs to be solved. There's a phrase that I've used in the past to explain the design process, which is that it is a quest to find the least worst solution to a building problem. It may not necessarily be the best looking solution but it strikes the best balance between looks, stability and parts usage. If I wanted perfect representation of prototypes I wouldn't be in this hobby.

@SteamSewnEmpire Ha ha!! Yes, the design on the left is a wee bit 1989 Batmobile. It's not really the look I was going for, though. As I mentioned above, huge fins like this tend not to be part of hot-rod style because hot-rodders tend to want to smooth off all details and keep things nice and flush to the bodywork. @High_Admiral I know that it's not uncommon for diesel locos to have exhaust fires on start-up due to oil collecting in the exhaust and getting blown through. My initial thought was to have a huge plume of black smoke, but maybe flames would be just right.

Yes of course. However, my post was with regard to the situation now rather than giving the background to how we got here. What you say does nicely illustrate the point, though. TLG has no interest in catering to the wishes of the AFOL train community because it represents such a low volume and any return would not justify the cost. However, what they have done is at least given tacit approval to the 3rd party suppliers by not going after them for their IP on the basis that it still benefits them due to the other revenue that we are generating for them. It's possible but it could simply be coincidence. I don't believe that TLG were thinking solely of the parts market when they produced the Emerald Night, as that has proved popular in it's own right and opened the door to other popular non-train themed train sets (e.g. Disney train and Hogwarts Castle) which is, after all, TLG's core business.

I suppose that this discussion was due for another outing, as it's been a while since we last had it. I guess it's a good time to take stock of the situation. LEGO has always been a big part of my leisure interests but I have never particularly been taken with any of the official offerings. Even as a child I had both LEGO and a OO gauge trainset, but I had no interest whatsoever in LEGO trains because they just looked so primitive. Official sets of the past looked to my eyes no better than badly pixellated versions of badly drawn ideas of how a child might draw a train. My interest in LEGO trains, and my membership here, really has only come about in the last few years when I realised just what you can achieve using LEGO as a building medium, even when you have fists of ham and fingers of butter and very little practical dexterity for something like conventional railway modelling, as I do. I've said many times before that, for me, the joy of LEGO is that you can build whatever you want provided that you have enough imagination to realise it from the palette of parts and colours that we're offered. It takes time and effort to build up the skills needed to pull off a very satisfying build, but that is an investment of time and energy that is well-spent. The more you tinker the more techniques you learn and, therefore, the better equipped you become to bring your visualisation into reality. In a lot of ways, the restrictions that the medium imposes on parts and how they can be connected creates a bigger challenge that leads to a bigger pay-off when something works. As a consequence, I'm really not bothered what happens with regard to official LEGO train sets as they are unlikely to be of interest to me. As much as I can appreciate the release of the Crocodile and the quality of the finished model I have not bought one because it is just not of any interest to me. What I do understand is the impact that TLG's lackadaisical attitude to trains has on the trickle-down of parts into the market. Also we have the impact of changes to parts design and construction, such as the coach/wagon train wheels. I'm no business expert, but it strikes me that continuing to produce expensive parts for a very small niche market is not necessarily good business practice. If making parts more cheaply means that TLG can ensure keen pricing for their official releases then I suppose that is what we should expect, and in that regard I do not see how TLG are any different to any other manufacturer. Also, and to bring the Crocodile back into the discussion, sets have to be built to a price in order that the final product is not so ludicrously expensive that it will be shunned and just sit on shelves until sufficiently discounted for them to be bought for splitting for parts. This also has the effect of limiting ultimately how satisfying the set is to the market segment at which it is targeted. I have no idea about such matters, but it might be interesting to compare the part count of the official Crocodile set and some of the after-market MODs of the set and to speculate on what difference this might have on the retail price if such a MOD were offered instead. All of which ultimately brings us on to the 3rd party suppliers. Although we have created a demand for items like wheels in different sizes, coupling rods, track and power and control options, that demand has not fallen onto TLG, and in that regard we as an AFOL community are complicit in this. I can only echo what others have said about the size of the market for such items ("a niche within a niche" was a phrase I recall being used), and in that respect there is precious little reason why TLG should bother to roll up it's sleeves and cater to this demand. As a consequence they can happily sit back and let that tiny crumb from the toy market pie to fall to other companies and businesses upon whom the demand falls. In many respects, TLG benefit from this as much as we do because we can act like their unofficial shop window while still buying up large quantities of their bread and butter in the shape of bricks, plates, tiles and whatnot for our builds. Speaking only for myself I shall continue as I always have by imagining, designing and building what I like in the way I like it. TLG's rowing back on the trains theme is a shame, as is their withdrawal of some very useful components, but for those things there are the 3rd party suppliers. I know that the purity of a LEGO build is something of a personal concern for some people, and I do feel worried for them if they feel that they can no longer build as they would like according to their own feelings. Everyone will have to decide for themselves how they go forward and, while I can understand why some people might feel exasperated or frustrated at TLG's support for this theme, I tend to find myself unmoved by these questions.

I’m not going to argue any more about what you did or didn’t say. The words are there for people to read and decide for themselves. I’m glad you’ve clarified this because up to this point it didn’t read that way. Instead it looked like you were strongly disapproving of the BTA judges decision and of the choices made by Ewout in designing and building his W1 model. To answer your question, I will just say again that you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you like, just I am entitled to hold an opinion and everyone else to hold one too. However, in this specific instance it doesn’t matter what those opinions are because there are only two opinions that matter; the opinion of Ewout in deciding how to build his model, and the opinion of the BTA judges in deciding to award it a top prize. Whatever you and I happen to think, it has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the contest. And this brings me to my point. What is it that you hope to achieve out of this thread? Are you hoping to influence the BTA judges into changing things for next year or is this just an opinion poll? If you’re hoping to influence the judges then you need to engage with them. If it’s just an opinion poll then fair enough, but leave poor Ewout out of it because it’s not fair on him. If you must. I just think you could have done it in a more diplomatic way which would have opened the discussion up into a wider debate rather than focussing on one specific model which only invites criticism of that designer. I don’t know how Ewout feels, or even if he’s aware of this discussion, but I know how I would feel if I was in his place.

You pointed the finger at these specific parts as examples of third party (in other words non-LEGO) parts. I quite understand that the identity of parts are not always immediately apparent, and I admit that it took a while before I could identify the track stacking pins, but I felt it important to put the record straight and show that these are indeed genuine LEGO parts. Fair enough. That's a matter for your own interpretation, and clearly there was a fair bit of leeway in the judges interpretation also. But in regard to the judging of the contest, it is the judges interpretation that matters the most. I think I understand what it is that you object to, and it has nothing to do with the decisions made by Ewout regarding the design and build of his W1. What you seem to be objecting to is the way that the contest was judged and the interpretation of the rules. That being so, I don't think the way to do it is to come onto a public forum to critique the winning entry by what you believe the judging criteria should have been, because it's not very fair on Ewout. If you feel strongly enough about it to bring it to the attention of the judges, I urge you to contact them directly and make your views known so that they can be considered for next year's contest. The e-mail address given on the website is bricktrainawards@gmail.com which I assume is monitored throughout the year. You had the link in your opening post. It takes you to Ewout's Flickr page which you can navigate to find an unlined render of the W1 prior to building.

I’ve done some digging for you. The wedge plates are the 6x3 variety (PN:54383/54384). If I’ve correctly identified the grey part over the second axle, these are track stacking pins (PN:bb0219), and the builder explains in the Flickr page you linked in your opening post that the bars depicting the handrails are modified antenna parts. That just leaves the supposedly glued lamp that I’m not able to discern. Given the gravity of the accusations, I think it would have been prudent to have checked these details first.

I think you're entitled to hold your opinion, but ultimately it's not down to us to decide what is or is not acceptable within the rules of the contest. They clearly have judged it to be within the rules and does not exceed what they consider to be more than just "some third party elements". That it may cross the line in your own eyes is, unfortunately, neither here nor there. I would expect that the judges are on the look-out for abuse of this rule and, although they did not specify why, a number of entries for this year's contest were disqualified. In spite of your objections, there's rather a lot of LEGO engineering going on with Ewout's W1 in order to capture the shape of the original. It does use "some third party elements", but then so do some of my own builds. I have always printed my own stickers and have even cut or painted some parts in order to replicate parts that I cannot obtain any other way. I have recently started using third party wheels and rods and have supplemented my own stickers with O gauge waterslide transfers for numbering, lining and insignia. However, the third party or modified parts, or stickers, do not by themselves constitute any of my models and would, if removed, form only a very small pile of largely unattributable items. The remaining genuine LEGO parts would still constitute a recognisable (if incomplete) model.

I've only been able to find one image of a Q1 loco diagram online, and the measurements are quite indistinct. However, it looks like there's only 6 inches difference in the wheelbase from middle to front and middle to rear axles. If anything your second iteration with the pulled back front axle looks less right to me than the first version, so I'd be inclined to go back to that. It's a great design and instantly recognisable, but I would just put the smokebox back to black rather than grey. Also, is there another way to design the front bufferbeam? It looks a little low and bit too far forward compared to the scale model in the side view images. Loving the peaked hats as buffers too.

Alternatively you could simply solder a PP3 battery connector onto the opposite end of the PF power lead, being careful to correctly observe polarity as described above. This was the technique used for the now seemingly defunct MiniZip cable. The required space for the PP3 battery with connector and cable running over the top has a footprint of 4x7 studs and a height of 7 plates.

Now that it appears that the remaining PF elements have been retired I guess that I shall have to now consider getting with the new tech and adopting PU. Unfortunately this means that I haven't really been paying attention to the discussions so far. Also I just like to build and drive trains and am no engineer, so I'm afraid that a lot of the discussion about Powered Up is way beyond my comprehension. So forgive me if these questions seem a little simplistic or if they've already been answered elsewhere. 1) Did we ever get to the bottom about whether or not Powered Up could handle a twin-motor set-up without having to dismantle or modify any parts? 2) Has anyone else tried using the new Technic motors (e.g. 88013) for loco propulsion? How do these compare with the outgoing PF motors in terms of power and speed (I already know how they compare for price )?

Are these batteries safe for novice use? In other words, do they have the necessary protections against mishap built-in?

Spot on. One other thing I do is not to specify the colour of parts that will remain hidden inside the build. It makes it easier to use up unused parts you might have left over and to take advantage of buying parts at lower prices.

Amen to that. One tip that I've learned is to keep one eye on Bricklink during the design process. Not all parts are available in all colours and some parts that show as being available turn out to be rare and, therefore, expensive. You can also check to see whether or not the parts you need are available in your territory or at least nearby. With this information you can make better choices about the parts you can use and tailor your design accordingly, avoiding the use of non-existent, unavailable or excessively expensive parts. Ordering parts from other EU states shouldn't be a big problem, although they can sometimes take longer to arrive. Just adjust the Store Filters to take out any vendors outside of the EU area where postage and other fees may inflate the cost. If you're building in Stud.io, take some time to do some good quality renders of your design to get a better idea how it will look when completed. I always build my MOCs digitally first and I find that rendering them gives a much better impression and I can make a better decision about whether or not I'm happy with the design or if it still requires tweaking. If you've any unusual design elements that you are unsure will work in real life, try prototyping the technique with some table-scraps to see how it works and make any changes before committing. It can pay not to rush to Bricklink with credit card in your trembling hands until you're absolutely 100% happy with how it looks, but you will have to accept that you are almost always going to have to come back for more parts because some aspect didn't work out quite as you'd hoped. When it comes to uploading your design to Bricklink I would recommend that you cross-check the parts list Bricklink has generated against the parts list in your Stud.io file. I have found that sometimes they don't match as Bricklink has been known to miss things off. If you use it, it can also sometimes be worth running the "Auto-Select" function a few times because sometimes it compiles the parts differently which can sometimes affect the total cost.