SteamSewnEmpire

No, because I just destroyed it with my latest British locomotive. I can't even look at the P2 anymore XD.

Original: Lego: This was really difficult.

Fantastic.

Yeah, I think they were going about it the wrong way. New-built steam locomotives cost about 5-6 million without labor (the construction is typically majority-volunteer). Skilled craftsmen are often willing to donate valuable time to such a project because the want to see a long-scrapped engine live again. With the 5AT, you have a design that - while it looks awesome - nobody is nostalgic for. So you'd have to not only raise funding for the engine itself, but to hire people to assemble it. Honestly, the best way to experiment with modern steam is to take a project such as the T1 - that people want to see; dream of seeing - and then utilize technology to make small changes to vastly improve performance (which is precisely what the T1 trust is doing). Even then, though, a lot of people aren't going to be interested. I'm vaguely intrigued by the duplexes, but would much rather see a NYC J3A, or a Milwaukee Road F-7 Hudson. Sadly, despite having way more financial resources than Britain, the U.S. is downright terrible at fundraising for these projects. Oh well - at least we preserved our battleships. I cannot believe Britain didn't save a single dreadnought. It's a disgrace.

I just snag photos of interesting looking locomotives when I see them on the web - I have hundreds of pictures. I'm actually working on another British engine right now.

I wasn't really planning on building it at all - I was just bored, and swiped a weird looking engine out of my grab-bag to fidget with for a few hours :P. And, as far as I know, no, there is no nose cone that is more bullet shaped than that in that particular size.

Original: Model:

This is great. I was there before it was underwater in the hurricane (I have never understood why - with plenty of warning - they chose to let their rolling stock sustain millions in damages, rather than just MOVE them). Do San Diego next!

2929 still exists in large part because she was a survivor. Sadly, Steamtown ruined her. She looked like this under U.S. "care" in the 1970s: And this today: Canada needs to demand her return before the elements destroy her entirely.

This is really, really cool. Would love to build one myself.

Here's the million dollar question: would it be better to go one flanged and one flangeless driver (which will allow for closer spacing), or two flanged drivers? I modeled versions with both, but incorporating two flanged drivers widens her stance a bit much for my eyes. The other nice thing about this loco is that it's only 1600 parts.

It is that part. However, at least when it comes to black, you can use this stuff to achieve almost perfect results.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the stack could lift out of the shrouding, similar to with ATSF and the stack extensions. Later in the engines' lives, when they were relegated to branchline freight work, I'm pretty sure CP maintenance staff pulled that part of the streamlining off and ditched the lifter because it was one less headache. *Edit* It's not that difficult to do: Here's the loco actually in freight service... like seeing a Hudson pull boxcars:

Locomotive: MOC:

*Edit* Actually, after playing with the Century for a couple of hours, I believe it needs to stay 8w. If I go 9w, it starts to throw the boiler out of proportion; if I make the boiler larger, it winds up making the wheels look small. I don't like not being able to make it 9w, but I think - given the limitations of the specialized parts involved - that's the only option.

After 10 hours of work, here is the new 9w version. The trucks now have a full 10 degrees (20 total) of swing left and right; I was able to reincorporate the lost headlight; the cab interior is completely new; the tender is completely new. It's about 200 pieces larger than the original - likely due to the necessity of utilizing jumper plates down the entire length, not once, but twice (the internals of boiler essentially go from 6w, to 9w, to 4w, if you can picture that). I think it's probably even a little more solid than the original (which was no slouch in this department). I just hope the stupid powered-up large motors have long enough cables to reach the tender. Tomorrow I will attack the Century, which (I hope) will be slightly less complex (the boiler, at least, should be able to remain the same shape and size, and I won't have to completely new-build a tender - just modify this one). But I'm betting that there are tons of unforeseen pitfalls, and I'll be at it for a whole day again.

I think 10w becomes too wide, because such width at that point requires you to heighten, as well, this making minifigures look kind of ridiculous standing next to the trains. Increasing the height also probably requires wheel upsizing (at least for me), thus making Schupp's XXLs too small to represent 79/80 inch drivers. This, in turn, would necessitate lengthening everything, thereby greatly expanding part count. I'm about halfway done with rebuilding (there could be no refresh here - I went down to the running gear and started over) the Mercury, and I think - proportionately - it's going to wind up being the happiest compromise between track scale and fig scale. Plus, 9w cars will allow me to cram in more interior details - especially in sleepers. I'm not overjoyed with having to essentially start over on both locos (and, really, every standard gauge thing I've ever built), but I now believe 9w was the correct answer. (It has also resolved my major performance issues. I believe both front and rear trucks will have 10 degrees of play left or right off centerline. A 20 degree arc should allow the Mercury to run on big curves).

Woof. Alright, thank you for the input. I have a long and hard road ahead of me, it would seem. I agree with you, though - 9w seems like better fit for NA steam locomotives - especially those with shrouding. The Mercury, as an example, had her entire cylinder assembly covered by the cowl - you can see from that photo just how deeply nested her drivers were.

Due to the streamlining, whichever width I go with has to apply not just to locomotives, but the accompanying passenger cars - there isn't an opportunity for me to go with a "the locomotive is just bigger" argument. I'd have to completely rebuild both engines from the ground up, but it did occur to me that this would allow for a fair bit of additional bogie swing... ... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?" And therein lies my hesitation.

I appreciate that basing train scale off the track can be done rather precisely, and that 9w (or a bit more) is closer to standard NA gauge. But does this proportional change wind up driving engines and rolling stock out of scale with the minifigures? I feel like they are as much of an arbiter of how we determine proportions as is the track itself. I know that a lot of noteworthy builders (and clubs) default to 8w these days (I've been designing in this size, too)... but is that the closer width to "proportional" for minifigure height? Or is 9w? I've suffered something of a moment of indecision before ordering parts for my engines, and need input before pulling the trigger . Perhaps a more appropriate question is: why do so many people build in 8w and not 9w? It cannot be part count alone, because expanding most builds laterally doesn't involve dramatically more pieces (since the interior space is largely empty).

Oh, no, sorry - I meant the PennLUG people who are responsible for a number of those designs. Everything they build is top notch... but I also have some friends who had pretty bad experiences with the group. Not going to say more.

Not an enthusiastic fan of those guys, but you cannot deny their talent.

Won't hit the track. Works even better if you're willing to modify the 2736s to make them shorter.

This is just me, but I don't go in for "retro" Lego. This is of zero interest to me.

Looks fantastic.