ProvenceTristram

While I have zero desire to see the excellent independent parts artisans go out of business, Lego needs to design some real driving rods before any future 'premium' steam offering like the Emerald Night. The continued reliance on bulky, ill-shaped Technic rods is an embarassment. It ruins pretty much every steam loco they release.

Thanks. I don't hate the result, just the process :P. When I finally got the trucks right, I was like "okay! Smooth sailing from here!" I've done diesels numerous times before, and on most occasions, that was true... just not with this one. It seemed like every stage after that was some unexpected headache (like, I've never had difficulty finding a spot to hide the IR receiver... but there's a first time for everything XD). The fault was mine, of course - I should have seen those turbocharger blisters and been like "whoa there," but I was foolish, and thought it would just come together. My mistake. I am, however, very proud of the way the turbocharger bends inwards into the flank of the locomotive. That SNOT/slope solution took a good 20 minutes to reason out, but I think it's the best possible result given the pieces at our disposal.

Thanks. I'm torn on which one I am going to build - this, the GN 2-10-2, or the GP30. :P

This. Look, the simple fact of the matter is: pretty as the Emerald Night may be, it isn't a particularly good representation of a steam locomotive. Just because it's better than the outright swill that Lego typically passes off for steam engines doesn't make it good in general - just in a relative sense. Given the price tag attached even when it was new, I took one look at the thing and started giggling. But I guess people are enamored of bright colors or something. You can design a significantly more realistic locomotive at around the same part count (preferably in 8w), and Bricklink it for the same price. That, to me, is a no-brainer.

UGH. If I had known the sheer pain involved in designing this thing, I never, EVER would have embarked upon a project of this sorts. There are just so many funky angles involved - especially with the turbo charger and the top/front of the cab (and even then, my solutions aren't by any means perfect). I'm happy with the result, but this was just nasty - way, way worse than a steam locomotive (or any diesel I have done previously). And, the thing is, I find doing steamers almost cathartic. This was HORROR from beginning to end. BLARRRRR! Oh, and obviously some significant decals and stickers would be needed to complete the paint job. Proto: Model (Bluerender): Model (LDD):

Back when they used to use pretty much anything for the job. In this case, a 1946 COE Chevy Truck.

I'll be honest: I hate this set. For me, the coolest element of Cloud City is its external shape - its interior is a mixture of harsh, dark colors, and a white wash, neither of which are (to me) particularly appealing. I would much rather have seen a smaller kit without vehicles that attempted to incorporate at least an external wall or something, than yet another "here's the inside of the Death Star!" hollowed out crush of scenes. As it stands, the effort to retain a sort-of-circular shaping is laughable, and should have been ditched entirely in favor of producing more satisfying functionality across the board.

What I meant was like vignettes - scenes within a scene. So, let's say you have a theoretical Lego beach boardwalk. The main scene would be the people walking along the boardwalk. But there might be some kids building a castle under the boardwalk... and some seagulls picking at a trash can next to the boardwalk... and then there's a guy selling ice cream... and another guy teaching someone how to fly a kite, etc., etc. As I said: I wasn't being critical of your design - I think it's fantastic. This is more a general criticism of the way Lego Ideas is run, I guess. Because if one thing has become clear about the people making the decisions at Lego Ideas, it's that they want Lego sets... not 'sets made out of Lego.' In essence: they are looking for things that feel as if they were designed in-house, and that appears to be the only types of items that they feel comfortable marketing. This is sad, because as you and I both know, there are a lot of people out there designing stuff with Lego that surpasses even they stuff they are doing within their own brand (in some cases by leaps and bounds). But they don't want to sell that stuff - they want to sell stuff that looks exactly like what they would have designed themselves if they had been told "hey, go make a Back to the Future set," "hey, go design a Big Bang Theory set." One thing you might consider is removing some element of the full steelmaking process and considering it to be an "off scene" portion of the industry. This is done a lot in model railroading in general - people just model one element of a big industry, and then imagine the rest occurring elsewhere.

`As I said - wasn't directed at you. And I really admire your club's work - it's pretty much the best stuff out there. That Erie Triplex is insane.

The headlight is 12884 - it's a flat-sided bucket mounted on two hollow core round stud plates, and then 88072. As far as the articulation - I didn't solve it. I originally built the locomotive to have the entire front chassis swivel (with the rear 0-6-0 being connected to the boiler). However, I nixed this design for a few reasons: 1) It was inherently contrary to the spirit of the most powerful rigid-framed steam locomotive of all time. 2) It would have required sacrificing about half of the piping and details on the engine. 3) I would not have been able to power the front driving wheels. 4) The max left and right swing would have been something like 5 degrees in each direction. Now, having said all that, my guess is that I could reintroduce the articulation with like 20 minutes worth of work - the bones are still there to do it (the rear cylinders, in particular, were constructed with a swing motion [in front of them] in mind). I just felt like, for my needs (a theoretical display piece) it wasn't worth the sacrifices involved. --- *Edit* I'm going to add something a little controversial here (which is not aimed at Glenn or anyone specific - it literally just came to mind): while I do design my models to run (they have all the requisite battery packs, IR receivers, motors, gearing, etc.), I feel like when I watch videos on Youtube of Lego trains doing circuits, I'm pretty underwhelmed by the entire experience - especially on curves. The shuddering (particularly of longer cars [even when they are obviously lovingly crafted and well-engineered]), the lack of ability to realistically cycle the locomotive through very gradual speed changes, and the (even at its most generous proportions) unprototypical curvature all throw me. Frankly, it is my honest opinion that Lego trains are bucking the realistic limits of the hobby, and - in many cases - going beyond them. What is gained on the roundabouts is lost on the swings once you see these fantastic models clumsily move on non-tangent sections of track. IMO (and this is truly speaking only for me), the best Lego train sets I have ever seen were elaborate static dioramas, or ones that involved limited forward-back motion that didn't tax or bring all the inherent weaknesses of the medium to the fore. Clearly, running these things in circles means a lot to a lot of people involved in this hobby, but my ultimate objective is to produce models that (while they accommodate loop running to a limited degree) are solid minifig-scale representations of the engines (accepting that the track is too broad-gauge to begin with). Anyway, not meant to be a rant, just saying - not everyone is playing this game with the same victory conditions in mind :P.

Also updated the tender. The doghouse is closer to the real-life proportions, and the flanks are now uniform (if just a plate wider on each side than 8 studs - I decided it was worth it to get that smooth finish).

After taking a good, hard look at it, I decided to significantly redo the skylining. While the result isn't quite as uniform as the original, it is far closer to the proportions of the real thing. It also allows for the boiler to widen just slightly as it progresses.

One more - just a glamour shot:

Proto: Model (LDD): Model (Bluerender):

I'm going to make some suggestions: 1) Try to miniaturize further. I know you likely feel that this is as small/basic as it can get while doing the complete facility its justice, but it's still pretty hefty for an ideas set. 2) This is the big one: trash it up. Add greenery, garbage, and the general detritus of a working existence (I'd start by dropping the yellow and making it look more antiquated/rusty, rather than sparkling new [as an example, here is the Walthers blast furnace kit, which looks straight out of the 1950s - the general age of a lot of the world's steelmaking facilities]): What gave the Old Fishing Store its appeal wasn't that everyone needed a fishing-themed business on their shelves - it was the fact that, no matter where you looked on the model, there were playful surprises; a story to be told. Simultaneously, it felt gritty and real. What I see here is a set that is very niche, very functional, and very sterile. But, with Lego Ideas, you aren't just trying to sell a concept to random, otherwise-disinterested casual browsers - it also needs to catch fire with the people actually working at Lego. And, for this sort of theme, the more "slice of life" details you can cram in - even at the expense of some functionality - the better. *Edit* And I am not criticizing the original. I think it is brilliant. I just believe - firmly - that when it comes to Ideas, you have to think less about personal taste, and more about selling a product. Because that's all Lego cares about.

I use single stud plates and tiles of differing shapes, with lbg/dbg colors mixed about 50/50. Seems to produce satisfying results.

Really liking your diesels.

Hey, this is going to sound stupid, but does anyone know the driving wheel diameter of the G5s? I can't find it anywhere... but I assume that a PRR locomotive book would probably list it as a matter of course.

Yup, it is. I always try to work those in when prototypical.

Proto: Model: I need to think a while longer about the missing air tanks under the running boards - I am not sure if will be possible to work in with functional driving rods. So far, my efforts there have failed, but I will keep picking at it.

What is holding the wind shield in place?

I did the cab yesterday while on the phone - sort of an LDD "doodle," or thought exercise. When I was finished, I realized I had done the hardest part, and decided to polish the silly thing off. At <900 pieces, and with a fully self-contained battery, motor, and IR receiver, this wouldn't be a bad 8-wide starter locomotive for someone looking to model the transition or early diesel era (with different colors, of course - but the conversion would be pretty simple). Prototype: Model: One more because I am a rank sucker for nose shots:

I'm going to have to think about that for a while. It's nothing personal - please don't take it that way. I just feel like - as an artist would with any form of art - I am not eager to put an original piece out there for public consumption.

About 10 degrees on the front and back - so not enormous. This could be upped significantly by lowering the detail. Honestly, though, I can't imagine any of my models being much more than powered shelf-sitters; I don't begrudge the people who participate in the Lego Train club scene, but it isn't for me (one of these engines would cost at least 400-500 USD to build, not counting any custom necessities [rods, wheels, painting/dying parts]. Once you start adding cars and scenery, you're talking about a hobby that can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars very quickly). When I want to (and have the space/money) to model, I tend to gravitate towards N, HO, On30, and even - perhaps one day - O scales, not only because they result in a higher degree of realism, but because the scenery can be produced at a farthing compared to that involving Lego (your standard "hill" in HO is a piece of foam covered by some ground accessories that can be purchased or built in bulk. Your standard "hill" in Lego is a few thousand pieces). This is more of a way to convert my childhood interest in Lego and Trains into something to kill time (something I have plenty of, in my present jobless/penniless state). Thanks! I have considered doing a Pennsy loco at some point. I really like the G-5s, and the Q2s.

Just one. The others would obviously be powered by the rod attachment. Is there any advantage to direct-powering multiples, and, if so, why?