SteamSewnEmpire

Proto: Model: I went with the naked stack instead of the smoke lifter - not because the lifter was any trouble - but because it effectively hides the Crosti stack... which is sort of self-defeating.

Thanks!

I really like that. I think you're doing an awesome job. Do you have more photos? I am intrigued.

In my defense, locomotives like this were at least considered by engineer and steam design critic W.A. Tuplin, who was apparently much taken with André Chapelon's SNCF 4-240A Class, considering it to be an ideal locomotive (which isn't all that strange, since a lot of people at the time believed that the French 4-8-0s equaled diesels in efficiency). No engine was ever constructed for any British line, but the locomotive was at least plotted out in diagram form. I took that line drawing and ran with it, though I deviated from the general design in my placement of cylinders (the GWR 6000 Class had a fair amount in common with Chapelon's locomotives, so it seemed logical to follow that aesthetic), and the length of the cab (I don't believe they ever would have gotten past the drawing board with a compartment that was that small). The tender is mostly stolen from my latest iteration of the 9f, but I think it looks very good here, and jives decently enough with the drawing. And before anyone says it - yes, the color palette is probably impossible, but standard blue would likely look pretty (if not quite-as) good, too, and should be doable. Also, the wheels are just stand-ins for XLLs, which sync up with the 74" drivers of the real thing fairly well. Finally, the part count is low: only 1,280 pieces for a really hefty locomotive. I'm giving serious consideration to building this one... I think it's one of my best efforts, and it was really a lot of fun (and easy) to design.

This is worse: As is this: I know they look simpler than the Mallard, but there's really no way to accomplish that terrible shovel shape in a satisfactory way using Lego. Either you favor the downward slope at the expense of the rounding, or you wind up with a flat front (or a stepped approach, which, IMO, robs the loco of all its inherent sleekness) that nails the curve, but has no forward thrust as it goes downward. I've messed with multiple approaches over and over again with those two locomotives, and am still no nearer to a happy solution (at least happy for me). The Mallard is probably the most difficult British design, but it pales in comparison to some of the NA streamliners. And yes, I'll be the first to admit that I DO fail at builds, lest anyone think everything I try is at least a modest success :P. Anyway, apologies to the OP for the slight derail.

Mallards are a mess to build in Lego. If you want to get really accurate, you have to be aware of the strangely sloped front, the curves side sheeting, etc. I would consider it a master-level prototype. Perhaps hone your skills with something a bit simpler (and smaller) to start with before tackling something this ambitious?

It's great, but out of curiosity, why DBG for the color?

While we're on the subject of custom rods, how do people measure for/order the elaborate valve gear assemblies I gave seen? Is there a guide?

Awesome.

That sounds nifty. Any photos available?

I think my problem with it is that it doesn't look toy-like enough - at least for the locomotives I am building. When I use 3d printed parts - such as @zephyr1934 's rods - they still look as if Lego could have produced them; that they were a part. These couplers are so real-world/serious scale model-inspired that I can't wrap my mind around them 'being' Lego. This is absolutely no commentary on the quality - which looks excellent - nor does it have application for anyone other than me.

O-scale knuckles mated to a 3D printed receiver? Heh. I think - and this is just for me - that's a bit much.

Very cool. Have you considered a steam tram to accompany it? They were all the rage in Europe for a while.

Light rail still runs on a track - it's more closely related to a trolley or an early gas-electric, but it's a train. Monorails actually have rubber tires that 'drive' on the concrete spans. This dramatically increases friction, and thus hugely reduces their efficiency. The concrete biways aren't tracks - they're basically a roadway folded in on its sides. What you're left with is essentially a bus, albeit one with a massively expensive, hyper-specialized supporting infrastructure. This is the reason why systems like the Seattle Monorail have been reduced to little more than novelty attractions, when they were supposed to be the first piece in an expansive system. Meanwhile, Washington State is investing billions to grow the light rail dozens of miles out into the suburbs.

Personally, I want them not to invest in monorails because they are essentially glorified buses, and have been largely superseded by light rail projects in most places. Monorails require costly infrastructure rivaling that of traditional heavy rail trains, with none of the benefits of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail efficiency. They were in every way a fad, and are going to become increasingly obscure with the passage of time. Although the Crocodile was flawed, those are the types of rail sets that Lego should prioritize - one-offs that can be appreciated by AFOL and child builders the world over. Now, if Lego wants to design monorails that don't require ultra-specialized parts, my position shifts to one of indifference. But I'm actively opposed to a dedicated-track monorail being introduced again.

He uses a totally different approach from me, I might add. I utilize actual motors, typically situated in opposition, driving a shaft down to the frame, where power is distributed to most of the drivers via a series of gears. I feel pretty strongly about all-loco power, but other people swear up and down by tender power. Honestly, I think there are probably a good 5 or 6 ways to power these things that would work just fine.

What I meant was: British steam locomotives are less complex in Lego. And this is due almost entirely to (generally) less significant boiler/firebox angling/shaping, and (always) less visible piping. Where are you struggling? I always start with wheel size and spacing, then go from there -> frame and gears -> boiler -> cab -> tender. It helps to have a lot of good photographs (especially a side-on picture) so you can line up the model from different angles as you build. You also have to be mindful to leave room not just for motors, but the supporting wires and connections. Mostly, the techniques involved here aren't very advanced. You have to use some SNOTing to get the boiler into a proper tube, and sometimes you have to get a little creative with angled bricks in the area of the firebox (Stanier's engines [like this Black 5] don't have that issue - their fireboxes are very basic in shape), but overall these models look a lot more complicated than they really are. The trick is getting them to run well - but making them look good isn't that difficult.

It's because people take the files and then make instructions to sell. You probably aren't planning to do that - I'm not accusing you of it. But there has been a bad track record on this website of shared files 'magically' becoming for-profit kits and manuals, and that has made everyone pretty gun-shy. I can walk you how to build a British steam locomotive - they're super simple compared to North American engines. I'd also be willing to design a specific engine of your choice for a fee. But as far as handing over .lxf files... it doesn't happen much. People are petrified, but not without some cause.

I seriously doubt he's going to share the design file. These things are valuable.

I know that there were Pullman sleepers on the continent... ... and that several British railroads had all-Pullman consists... ... but I haven't been able to connect the line between the two. Admittedly, I'm an American, and kind of a neophyte to this European railroads thing as a whole, so I'm just kind of limited to what I can Google. I was just wondering if anyone knew if there were Pullman sleepers - specifically in the interwar years - on any British railways?

It's undeniable that, for more casual fans of Lego trains (and I don't even mean casual fans of Lego - I would, for example, categorize Jangbricks as a member of this crowd), the Emerald Knight is the iconic train. It may be very flawed (I recoil in near-horror every time I see those driving wheels smushed so closely together [and being so small to begin with]), but it's the best TLG has done (and this probably includes the Crocodile, which seems to have serious performance issues when unmodified). I don't begrudge anyone for fawning over it - at a distance, it is downright glorious, and if you aren't a bit of a rivet counter, it's a good, solid 'train.' So, yeah, to most of us here on this subforum forum, the EK is amateurish in its design. But for the vast bulk of Lego fans - including people who make a living out of the hobby - it's spectacular. And I don't think those two camps are ever going to occupy any sort of middle ground (outside of a shared love for Lego).

Thanks for the replies, guys - fascinating stuff.

As an aside, while I was looking for inspirational photos, I stumbled onto this. Just masterful work:

Heh, great quote. I won't dump on any steam (there's never enough), but I do believe that the Brits were the best at achieving elegance in simplicity, and the U.S. chief at creating locomotives that simply looked powerful, with everyone else trailing behind, or representing some effort at compromise (Canada and Australia) between those two poles. Lewis, though, had the luxury of living in an era when he could be picky - we must find the beauty in what remains. The Sandaoling 2-8-2s are (were? :( ) just flat-out ugly, but I treasure them all the same:

Lol. It's okay, I wasn't in any way offended. EK is beautiful, I agree, but the proportions bother me. Hopefully Lego will follow on the heels of the croc and do more justice to British steam in the future.