SteamSewnEmpire

The problem, as I understand it, is that the molds break after a while, and it's no longer possible to produce certain parts without incurring great expense. I have some - some - hope that at some point in the next decade or so, 3D printing will reach a stage where the final product on "quality" prints are equal to those of Lego parts. We're fairly close to that now, but not quite there. Then, I'd like to think that Lego themselves could do small runs of official pieces which - while more expensive than your average Lego part - are at least reasonable enough that it doesn't cost, say, 150 bucks to wheel-out a new locomotive. That is, of course, if they even care to. But, yeah, I cannot build steam locomotives at a reasonable price unless the drivers on the real thing were between about 59-61" - that, for my scale, is the sweet spot for the stock Lego driving wheels. Anything outside of that - any passenger locomotives, most narrow gauge locomotives, and any industrial locomotives - and I incur exorbitant overhead just to get the ball rolling.

It's lacking a certain minifigure.

Thanks!

This is actually the mid-sized of the three wooden caboose classes that the railroad rostered - the big one was quite large. I went with the three-windowed variant because it looked neater.

Thanks! I wonder if that's in LDD. My guess is not...

Well there you go. I think, with that, you have as strong a chance as any other train. Honestly, I think this is a really slick project, and would be happy to own one.

I think the only way a train is making it through is if it has some kind of a power feature. Now, that power doesn't have to be in the loco - one of the cars could have it. But Lego seems to be downright adamant that their train releases not be hand-driven. That's the only criticism I have for your (excellent) work. Also, as far as the "it's not Stephenson's rocket" comment is concerned - honestly, when you're talking about the first locomotives, they all pretty much looked the same. You could tell me that the OP's loco was from America or France or whatever, and I'd believe you. I don't think, in this instance, the nationality is necessarily a sticking point as far as Lego is concerned (though it may be more difficult to accrue votes to get to 10k). By the way, @Brick Jongleur, what did you use to make the bumpers on the cars/loco?

I know that the top of the dome is 43898, but what's the bottom wheel-like piece? Thanks. *Edit* obviously, all credit to the original designer for their excellent loco.

Some of the things I mentioned in the OP I can make do with. I don't, for example, love the fact that we cannot make truly circular boilers, but I simultaneously get that it's the nature of the beast. Other things, such as Lego's unwillingness to release pieces that could be used effectively as driving rods (but might have utility in technic or elsewhere beyond that capacity) are borderline infuriating. Another one is the couplers issue. How about, the next time they release, say, a semi truck, they use magnetic couplers to connect the cab to the trailer? There's at least one truck like that every year. Even doing it for just 2 years would resolve our couplers shortage. It would be a small effort to do, and yet it would have massive benefits for those of us who model trains. The problem is that - taken as a whole - I feel like they come up really, really short. And only a few, small changes - really, just a fragment of effort on Lego's part - would alter that situation. My original post is a list of gripes. I never - ever - expect all, or most, or even half of those complaints to be answered satisfactorily. But seeing Lego address even a couple would just be a massive QOL improvement.

Thanks. Here it is in grey: I think I like it better this way. I chose to keep the walkways black, since it would require only 2 sticker-per to make them blend with the boiler (rather than 3-per if they were grey or white). I'll have to add more piping on the locomotive and a few other details that the DM&IR put on here and there. One thing that I don't want to do is remove the booster. I know that DM&IR definitely never had it, but it's such a neat feature on this engine (I like the idea of simply having an extra part moving on the tender; any additional motion is always welcome with steam engines). The purist in me wants to strip it out, but the railfan in me wants to keep it because it's cool. And I'm kind of leaning towards the latter.

It's a forum. I'm talking. I didn't threaten anyone; I didn't attack anyone personally. I complained about the practices of a company. As long as I am acting within the constraints of the rules here, you do you, and I'll do me.

I've used this method myself and can confirm his results. Provided you give it time to cure, you basically cannot tell the difference between a dyed and a normal Lego brick.

Dye. And I'm not talking about RIT - I mean like automotive upholstery dye. It works really, really well on Lego.

Excellently done. Love the telegraph lines. Funny story about Prussia/Imperial Germany and trains - I was actually permanently banned from the Railcams Youtube channel (you can, like, type in all of them) for having the handle 'OttovonBismarck' for a while. I never spoke; never made comments. Just discovered one day that I'd been purged. Because... I guess anything German must = bad? Sigh. People are so small-minded.

I'm not sure I one-hundred percent buy this excuse, though. Because they're constantly making one-off pieces (not just hair, but, like, accessories and such) for the minifigures rollouts. The other thing is, I don't know that they're really trying that hard, or marketing Lego trains in a way that might work for children. And what I mean by this is: a better way to approach selling railroad stuff might be to just sell 'an engine' or 'a car,' and then sell kits for track and motors, etc. separately, rather than the current approach of $110-$160 train sets, which are a massive single-ticket outlay for a child's toy. If parents could buy, like, a coach, or a boxcar, or a caboose for a kid in a month at $25-30 a pop, it probably would be a lot easier to get people to buy in. The Thomas the Tank Engine toys took this approach, and seemed to be successful for a really long run there. I just think Lego's tactic of 'you need everything in one set' stifles the potential market for trains before it can ever get going.

I love designing models - in addition to trains, I dabble in castle and pirates now and again. But with the passage of time, the more let down I feel by Lego with regards to trains - particularly as more and more (IMO in many cases completely stupid, such as the Big Bang Theory and Flintstones sets [though YMMV]) Ideas adoptions roll across the finish line. And that frustration is gradually metastasizing into despair and anger. The first Lego train set debuted, I want to say, in 1966? And yet, in that span of time - over half a century - we have received: A grand total of two - TWO! - sets of steam driving wheels (the current iteration, and those from this set). No specific part or even satisfying substitute for 1910s-1960s US/European steam locomotive stacks (like, a piece to be this simply does not exist). No driving rods (except those married permanently to 7760, as mentioned above). Third party and homemade rods rule the roost if you want something mechanically reliable and aesthetically pleasing. No wide radius curved track. Lego just punts on this market entirely, despite the fact that aftermarket track sellers routinely run out of stock. A completely insufficient supply of magnetic couplers. The part exists, and, in its scarcity, it is insanely expensive. One cow-catcher, suitable only for 1860s-1880s-era prototypes, despite the fact that locomotives built into the 60s continued to mount catchers (of much-reduced size/profile). No decent way to model small-diameter grab rails. MOCers have to literally break Lego pieces to get these. Very poor tools to produce boiler shapes. Yes, we absolutely improvise, but these shapes are not truly circular, and - while I totally applaud the methods that the pioneers on this forum and elsewhere established - let's be honest here: we're doing the best we can with very little. Enormously user-unfriendly battery options. Most of us have to conduct surgery (in varying degrees of difficulty) to get at our PF/PU battery packs. We live in a golden age of rechargeable EVERYTHING, and Lego has released (correct me if I am wrong) a single plug-in battery pack, which was in incredibly limited supply, and quickly phased out (so it is now ultra expensive and very difficult to find). And then, regarding the parts that we do have, nits still remains to be picked: The profiles of all flanges are comical. I get that this is a toy, but they don't have to be 1 and a half plates in depth. That's silly, and it just complicates everything. The forced incorporation of powered trucks of one size for people who want to run on electric track. This is the primary reason I have zero interest in the effort to bring back 9v - because you have to shove that obnoxious bogie into every trainset. Restrictive power cord lengths/the unnecessary bulk of the connecting wires themselves. Constantly shifting priorities when it comes to power sources, with no clear upgrade or improvement in performance/features. They got people to invest hundreds - even thousands - of dollars in electric track, just to pull the rug out from under the entire market; modelers gradually figured out PF, only for Lego to release PU, a product that is arguably less robust and flexible. Lego track is, just in general, dumb. To be honest, given the scale of minifigures (and yes, I know that this is a slippery slope) and the fact that most of the world's railroad tracks are between 3-foot and 4 ft 8 1⁄2 inches, Lego's track probably should have been 5w, and not 6w. It's too late now, of course, but it's dumb that their own preferred model scale of 6w has the same width as the track. One utterly unsatisfactory lighting option. I could probably name more. I get it - Lego is about improvisation and working with what you have. But I cannot think of a single theme that is suffering from this degree of inadequacy on so many different levels. And all it does is hurt the hobby; make it more difficult and costly to access. Almost every time I design a Lego locomotive, I'm looking at a good 150-200 dollar investment up front in custom wheels, rods, power options, and - most insultingly - couplers. We are absolutely buried as AFOL train modelers by the sheer breadth of Lego's parts paucity, yet, meanwhile, every few years they release a newly-molded floating boat hull, or a new set of aircraft wings... as if - forget adults - children don't like trains anymore (they like ships, but not trains? How many children routinely see ships? You cannot tell me that the number exceeds that of those who are obliged to stop and watch a train. I knew teenagers living in Illinois who had never even seen the sea, much less a larger watercraft than a Mississippi barge). I'm sorry. I'm not mad at anyone on this forum, and I speak for nobody but myself. But if someone at Lego is reading this: you're doing a bad job when it comes to trains. And no, the derailment-prone, obscure-prototype alligator (which managed to introduce nothing new when it comes to parts that we so desperately need) really isn't a good first step. Show me something fresh; actually invest in this theme, if only slightly (is it too much to ask for driving rods on the locomotive wheels? You put the friggin' holes in the things for rods and then half the time just leave them empty! C'MON, MAN!) - it's only been close to sixty years.

Thanks man. If you need any assistance with yours, just let me know.

Oh, I saw that and thought it was light grey. Must just be the lighting. Or my eyes suck. Probably the latter.

Do you (or anyone) have an opinion on whether LBG or DBG is more representative of that grey? I am on the fence: I mean, I *think* DBG is closer?

Thank you. I am at least considering building it IRL, and have given some consideration to actually doing it in DM&IR colors. I have an email out with the DM&IR historical society asking if these engines were ever painted in the road's attractive grey scheme. Some modelers have gone ahead and done it that way...: ... and I think it looks really, really, really sharp like that. However, if it never actually wore that scheme, I'll stick with mostly black.

This is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most complicated thing I have ever built in Lego. At first glance, it doesn't look like anything particularly noteworthy... except that the boiler is a full-rotation SNOT (studs up, sides, and bottom); the boiler is 5 wide on top and bottom, yet must still make room for three L PF motors, and transition to an 8-wide cab that is also angled forwards. The cab itself is almost entirely built with studs on the sides, in the process managing to squeeze in all the windows and the inlaid steps up to the door. I made every effort to get the details right to match this locomotive as-built (note: the lone survivor of the class [and it is a miracle that any of these odd birds is still in existence - you can singularly credit that to them lasting in service until 1963 on the DM&IR], #304 [#604 when working in Minnesota and Wisconsin] was significantly altered when she was transferred by U.S. Steel to the midwest following the dieselization of the Union RR in 1949. The booster was removed, and a lot of the in-boiler tubing was pulled to the exterior [via elimination of the jacketing] to ease maintenance headaches. Frankly, I prefer the contrast between the rather clean top half and extremely cluttered area between the boiler and the frame, so that's why I went with the earlier incarnation [ironically enough, it seems as if DM&IR also regretted the changes. With the booster removed, they wound up adding weight to the engine to attempt to compensate]). So what makes this engine unique? The 0-10-2 isn't a decapod that's been flipped backwards. Rather, it is a very modern 2-10-2 with its lead bogie eliminated by the (probably bewildered) draftsmen at Baldwin. Union (and parent U.S. Steel) went with this design because the locomotives were intended for transfer service and short, slow lugging duties, none of which required a forward truck. The most important consideration, however, was that the railroad had no desire to enlarge their existing turn tables (the majority of the rest of the Union's roster was composed of consolidations; tables had remained small). Thus, the easiest and most practical solution was simply to nix the truck and go slow. And, of course, she's just a brute - possibly the most beastly (if, obviously, not largest) locomotive to ever trundle the rails. The word "abomination" comes to mind (what with the high-mounted, puny headlight, stunted tender [with its rear truck pushed as far forwards as possible], and enormous air reservoirs mounted on the hips), except that I think there's something strangely comely about the whole package. I hope to visit the real thing the next time I drive back east. Anyway, here are the photos, first with the modernized loco: 'Clean' classic:

That sounds like a good idea.

Of the truck? I'll just send you a link to the lxf.

The only thing that irks me about the model - and it's a truly minor nit - is that the diorama it's built on isn't Lego; it a track piece that's been ballasted and decorated like a real model railroad. IMO, while this doesn't detract from the engine itself, it is kind of lame. If you're going to feature more than track, any scenery should be done in bricks. This isn't enough to disqualify - the locomotive is outstanding, no matter how you choose to photograph it - but I think it should be included in the rules moving forward.

I can take a guess based on motor placement. Thanks.