ProvenceTristram

I modernized the heck out of it, to bring it in line with the preserved 3450.

I'm not sure what else I could do with the sides. Because it's an older car, the sides aren't fluted (like they might be with a theoretical 1940s streamliner) - they're riveted. And there really isn't a good way to mimic that in Lego. Ultimately, I think it's just going to have to have stickers.

I figured I should start doing cars. Since heavyweight trainsets by Pullman were (almost) interchangeable between roads, all that should be required to switch from railroad to railroad is a livery change. Just four more to go (baggage, sleeper, obs/lounge and diner). Proto: Model: The roof lifts off and there is an interior (although given that it's a coach, it's kind of boring - like 25ish seats and a bathroom at one end).

Unlikely. I'm unemployed and destitute. I am in large part doing these to try to distract myself from crippling depression.

These are the slightly-less-well-known younger sister to the world famous 4449 - and an engine I'd love to one day see run again (the lone survivor is at the St. Louis Transportation Museum). The build itself was less difficult than I thought it would be, though widening/narrowing of the boiler was annoying, and I was exhausted by the time I got to the tender, so that took longer than it should have. Big Ben XL or Shupp XL are probably a bit too small to represent 72" drivers, but I feel like Shupp's XXL are closer to the 80" mark... so XL it is. Proto: Model:

Thanks. I'll look into it. The firebox may be in the way, however. *Edit* Fixed. The firebox was in the way, but - mercifully - the fix wasn't that involved. I also extended the front pilot to better match the prototype. There should be nothing to preclude it running. It has the motor, the gearing (powering 3/4 axles), and space for all the wiring. I even left conduits running the length of the boiler that would allow for future LED wires if someone wanted to light the thing.

1) Nice ad hominem. I don't give a wet fig about your opinions of me, and I stand by my take: it's a weak product. 2) Moreover, you cannot play both sides of the same coin - either the Emerald Night is beautiful, and a strong effort by Lego, or it's a "mass produced children's toy," in which case you are conceding the point on whether its aesthetically acceptable given its high dollar command and ridiculous after-market price. 3) Lego Creator sets are, by the way, marketed almost exclusively towards adults. Their city sets are of a very high quality... but we're just supposed to accept mediocrity because it's a train?

I had no connection-to or affinity-for this locomotive until I started designing it this morning - it is, rather, yet another case of "wow, this is so weird looking that I need to build it." These 3-cylinder engines were designed for drag transfer freights in the Chicago area, and were among the most powerful 0-8-0s ever assembled. I think the "beefy" quality of the prototype came across in the model. Un-fun fact - the tender on this thing was more difficult than the engine :/. Proto: Model:

Give me 2-rail O, or give me death.

Thanks!

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway didn't boast the world's most powerful 4-6-4s... or, arguably, the most comely. But they were, IMO, the most balanced in design, with a kind of compressed appearance (shared by the road's 4-6-2's) that left them looking sleek, rather than big and burly (this was likely in large part due to the fact that they were originally equipped with 75-inch driving wheels, but later upgraded to 79" - thus leaving them with a somewhat 'wearing shoes too large for their feet' appearance). I went back and forth on whether or not to build this loco last night, and I am glad that I decided to, because I think it turned out wonderfully. As with my previous engines sporting drivers around 80ish inches, this engine features stand-ins intended to replaced by Shupp's. Proto: Model:

Not in LDD, but I can make them fit IRL. I understand your overall point; there's always the possibility I may at some later date regret not doing 9w, myself :P.

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.

You mean broader? That truck was meant for an 8w. Honestly, I think you're looking at a problem of physics, after a certain point, when it comes to 7w - by chopping off that extra stud, you are losing the opportunity to expand detailing on the trucks. Yes, you can get creative with technic pieces and force a resolution, but you basically eliminate the possibility of all mounts similar to the one I posted - there just isn't room; it cannot be done in a manner that provides the most flexibility. This is part of the reason why I urge everyone - including British modellers - to accept an 8w standard across the board. 7w isn't just hanstringing your creativity - it is making the issue of track gauge-to-stud-width (something that is by no means resolved in 8w, but at least manageable), almost absurd. At 7w, standard gauge comes out looking like 6 and a half feet. That's not a problem anyone who is worried about the details on bogies should casually overlook.

Yup, this is one of my favorite railroad videos for that very reason.

Yeah, it's great until you find out that 5 men were killed during the R&D process.

This is definitely as close as anyone is ever going to come.

I went with the second one because it was weird. And the file: http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=00085392392247092549 Honestly, I think you should stop worrying about width (within reason). Lego models are about compromise, and detail should always win out over precision scaling.

The flex tool is bizarre - sometimes it does some astonishing things that you didn't think were possible... other times (most of the time :/) it refuses to do the most simplistic of fits regardless of what you try. Unrelated, but I completely redid the steam and sand domes - I wan't satisfied with how blocky they were. Although this introduces some small gaps in the top of the boiler, I feel like the tradeoff is worth it for shapes that are far closer to the prototype:

I'll take a look at the problem tonight, if I can remember.

As soon as I saw this crazy looking thing, I knew I had to build it. IRL, the locomotive itself was a spectacular failure, being active for less than a decade, and spending almost half its service life in the shops. However, it was the largest engine ever fielded by the Canadian Pacific, and - really - how could you not love something that looks like its torn straight from the pages of a steampunk comic? Proto: Bluerender: LDD:

Can you perhaps share a few screenshots of a real life prototype?

Just wanted to show that it is an engine that is very easily convertible into the lower-hood option, as well as different color schemes (with necessary decals absent, of course). CP: UP:

I feel like a driving rod isn't something you can really fake - it's a specialized part that just needs to be what it is. The thing is, though, were they to design, say, a three or two-couple driving rod mold, that could be reused on all Lego-designed steam locomotives going forward for the next 20 years or more; it would definitely have multi-set use. I think the fact that they haven't done a proper rod since the early 80s is really pretty chintzy - especially when they go ultra cheap with cop-outs like this: Even as, like, a 5 year old, I would have immediately recognized that something enormous and necessary was absent from that picture.