CMF-1138

Nice job with a challenging shape. I am not familiar with the prototype, but pulling up images online, your model is easily recognizable. Brick-built striping is challenging!

OK, so here is my reworked GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall (aka the Hogwarts Express). Additional details here in the separate thread. --- You are very kind! I like your D.345, as well!

So I would say there is a non-zero chance that I have become more than a little obsessed with this project, but I'm pretty chuffed with the result and the design journey that this has taken me on. I think Version 3 is now ready for prime time. Here is a summary of the significant changes from my initial post (Version 2): Decided to go with vehicle mudguards for the splashers, allowing the running board to be lowered by one plate. Angled the cylinders outward, resulting in a more prototypical angle for the steam pipes. Reshaped and narrowed the firebox so it was less prominent and did not obscure the front of the cab. Shortened length of the firebox by one stud, improving proportions and bringing the cab forward over the rear drivers. Lengthened the smoke box by one stud. Reworked the inner structure to simplify build and improve stability. Redesigned the tender. At this point, I have the locomotive about 80% built in red (mainly reusing parts from my original build). I made a few minor modifications going from digital to real bricks, but the whole thing feels pretty stable once it is built up. Using cheese slopes for the boiler, it can be fully brick-built and I think it stands on its own without decals. It would, however, benefit from a small black decal above the rear driver to continue the running board back to the cab, as well as a dark red micro-stripe along the length of the running board. Additional views behind spoiler tag below: The boiler could built using curved slopes (as shown in red below), but would require dark red decals, which might be difficult to color match. Alternatively, black decals could be used on the sides and front of the smoke box, but this could look really shabby if not applied perfectly. I also have some concern about color variation if I were to go this route because dark red 1x4 curved slopes were last used in a 2014 set. In a red color scheme, parts exist to carry the rounded shape of the boiler all the way forward if I use a red decal to define the back of the smoke box on each side, which should be easier to color match than dark red. Again, it would also benefit from a black decal to continue the running board back to the cab and a red micro-stripe along the length of running board. (Note that for these renderings, I ignored Studio’s collision warnings to simulate the red decal on the boiler.) Although I prefer the curved boiler shape, I think that dark red is probably more consistent with the prototype, and the cheese slopes aren’t bad. In addition, I prefer not having to rely on decals if possible. I am inclined to try building it in both colors and both boiler variations and then deciding once I can see it in real bricks. One of the advantages of 4-wide, I suppose, is that this approach is less likely to be cost-prohibitive. Compared to the GWR drawings, everything from the running board up is still sitting about one plate too high. (Note that I have modeled a 4,000 gallon tender rather than the 3,500 gallon tender shown in the drawing, so ignore the height difference there.) The boiler and cab could be lowered by a plate fairly easily, and the resulting profile is remarkably close to the drawings, but I think this would only draw additional attention to the fact that the running board is still too high. To my eye, it just looks more balanced with the extra plate of elevation above the running board to visually offset the extra height required by the wheel flanges. Source for overlay drawing: The Great Western Archive And finally, one last rendering to give you a sense of scale. As always, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments, critiques, or suggestions. --- Thank you!

Thanks! I agree -- the middle one with the two cheese slopes is my preference among those three (although the revision I am currently working on takes a slightly different approach). Indeed! There are so many talented builders here that it can be a little intimidating, but sharing these designs and getting feedback has really helped me open up my mind in terms of what is possible and how I am approaching design challenges. And you are right on the EN -- ironically, the cheese slope splashers were one of the first things I swapped out! Thanks for kind comments! I know that 4-wide is not everyone's cup of tea, especially if it is only going to be a display model. I will say that it takes up a lot less room than my 7-wide. I am finding this project to be a remarkably fun challenge.

Thanks! I went back and mocked up your two suggestions for the splashers, and let me say that they both look better than my original design (see below). I think I was getting hung up on centering them over the wheels, it can be done with some design alterations. And using the 1x2 cheese slope to make the connection never occurred to me. (Pardon the jarring colors. I often work in odd colors when redesigning something.) I made some significant revisions to my design over the weekend and am pretty happy with where it's at now. I want to give it some time to stew before looking at it again to see if there is anything else that stands out. Stay tuned...

I think it looks really good, and I like seeing a different approach. I'm certainly no expert on the prototypes, but I tend to agree that the curved slopes (which I am already quite envious of as a "flat-sider" myself) result in a more pronounced curve than most of the photos that I have looked at. Your angled flat sides more closely approximate the slope, to my eye. The tradeoff is the gaps, but they aren't unsightly.

I have no words. Modifying the plates and tiles that make up the running boards so they fit down over the flanges, on the other hand... In all seriousness, I think the 4002016 Emerald Night build fits the driver flanges up inside of 2x3 tiles for its wheel arches (which are built at 3-wide). I couldn't get it to work in LDD or Studio, but I haven't tried it with actual bricks. In any event, that would still require going 5-wide with the running boards, which looks OK in the abstract, but doesn't seem to fit the narrow look of the prototype.

Thank you, all, for the kind comments! I wholeheartedly agree. The arches look incomplete and distract from the rest of the model. They are definitely a challenge at this scale for a few reasons. The front drivers (3 studs wide) are mounted in a standard technic brick, so centering a 3-wide arch becomes difficult. Given the spacing between the drivers, there are only 7 studs of space for two arches. Finally, as built, there is nothing beneath the running board to provide support. But challenges are meant to be overcome, right? Some design ideas behind the spoiler tag below: At this point, I think I tend to favor the last two over my original design. I think the fourth one (black running boards, ingots for arches, and the name board) is my favorite, but I am a little concerned that the black makes the already high running boards seem even higher. Anyway, thanks for helping me think through this. I'd be happy to hear any other thoughts or suggestions. Thanks, @Hod Carrier! I guess I could add flangeless regular size train wheels to the parts wishlist. I think you're probably right that the shape of the cheese slopes might make it too angular, particularly when built into a 3-wide arch.

Here is my take on the GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall (aka the Hogwarts Express). Following @zephyr1934's suggestion, here is a link to the separate thread with additional images and discussion. EDIT: As discussed in the separate thread, I am thinking through a redesign of the wheel arches. I will update the photo here when I settle in on a solution.

EDIT: Since this has become something of a "work in progress" thread, I have gone back and streamlined some of my posts by hiding additional views behind spoiler tags. Feel free to dig in if you would like to see my design process. --- Here is my 4-wide rendition of the GWR 4900 Class 5972 Olton Hall (which I hear was also featured in a very popular series of motion pictures). Like my Santa Fe Super Chief, this project was initially inspired by LEGO’s 4002016 50 Years on Track set. I made my initial design about 1.5 years ago, ordered parts, and built it. I was pretty happy with my little display model and thought it was a decent enough rendition of the Hogwarts Express. Version 1.0 can be viewed in the spoiler tag below: I recently opened the LDD file again and thought, “maybe I can tweak a few things.” One thing led to another, and suddenly I found myself trying to cram as much detail into it as I could. Let me say up front that the revised version is absolutely a shelf queen. I have not built the new version in real bricks. It should be stable for display, but probably wouldn’t hold up to much handling. It should roll on straight track, but it cannot negotiate curves. But it should be buildable. It uses only legal building techniques, everything is securely fastened, and it uses only existing parts in existing colors. In working on this redesign, I wanted to challenge myself to capture as many of the key characteristics of the prototype as I could. Among these are the sloped/tapered boiler, the uneven spacing of the drive wheels, and the overall shape and proportions. Technically, it is 5-wide at the cylinders, and probably 5.25-5.5 wide at the rods. Additional views of Version 2.0 behind spoiler tag below: There are a few areas that I’m not entirely satisfied with. Chief among these are the height of the running boards and the wheel arches. I couldn’t come up with a good way to get the running board beneath the wheel flanges without going to at least 5-wide. So it is sitting a little high. And the wheel arches are what they are, given the wheel spacing. (If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them -- the most creative I could get was to use the 33708 hot dog/sausage piece.) I could always punt and go with decals to provide the illusion of shape, but I wanted to do the best I could with a brick-built solution. The smokebox is a little blocky, but the “right” part (37352 Slope, Curved 1x2x1) that would match the rest of the boiler does not exist in black yet. Finally, there are some light gaps in the undercarriage resulting from the SNOT work, but I'm okay with those. Shortcomings aside, I'm pretty happy with what I was able to capture overall. As always, thanks for reading, and I welcome any comments, critiques, or suggestions.

I don't think you should be discouraged from trying it out, or at least experimenting with it. No one says you have to proportionally upscale everything -- you get to make your own rules. If you are space-limited, then maybe 8-wide isn't the best choice. But if you want 8-wide for the increased detail, maybe it is viable if you selectively shorten your rolling stock. Or try 7-wide. Or stick with 6-wide and lengthen your rolling stock so it is more prototypical. Remember that most LEGO trains are not full-on "scale models" to start with! I do suggest making a quick mock-up with whatever bricks you have on hand to get a sense of scale and to see how different size rolling stock looks and works with your layout. And by "quick mock-up," I really mean just slapping some plates together and adding some bogies to make a flatbed of sorts. I have remodeled my passenger carriages twice so far -- first in a longer 6-wide and then in 7-wide -- and both times I made significant changes after building the quick mock-ups. My carriages are far shorter than what would be "to scale" for most prototypes. But they are longer than the original LEGO ones and they suit my purposes.

I recently remade the carriages for my Emerald Night in 7-wide, which was doable, but definitely required a fair amount of redesign work. I would imagine that upscaling to 8-wide would be even more of an undertaking. The cover to Holger Matthes' "The LEGO Trains Book" (which is a wonderful reference, by the way) provides a nice illustration of the proportional increase in scale when going from 6- to 7- to 8-wide.

Wow! What a remarkable level of detail, and such an amazing layout in the video! I really like your solution of omitting the middle axle wheels to allow it to run on R40 curves since they are hidden behind the trucks.

Thank you, @Hod Carrier and @zephyr1934, for the kind comments!

One more thing to consider is the gear ratio. The Emerald Night was originally spec'd for the Power Functions XL motor (8882), which runs at a lower RPM and puts out more torque than any of the other three LEGO motors you might consider (Power Functions Large, Powered Up Large, Powered Up XL). So it might require some tinkering to see what works best for you (in terms of what you find to be an acceptable speed and amount of pulling power). For reference, the stock Emerald Night has a 1:1.667 gear ratio. Somewhere along the way, I came across a recommendation to swap out the first two 16-tooth gears in the gear-train for a 20-tooth and 12-tooth, yielding a 1:2.779 gear ratio. This results in faster speed, but reduced torque. With the XL motor, I found this to be a satisfactory compromise when pulling four extended 6-wide carriages. If I can dig up the link, I will add it here, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. EDIT: Here is the link describing that mod. In this thread from a couple years back, @Roadmonkeytj is running a modified Emerald Night with a Powered Functions Large motor and a gear-train with a 1:1.25 gear ratio. I am considering making some revisions to my Emerald Night that would require use of the Powered Up Large motor. On my initial testing, I found the Large motor to be underpowered with my gear-train mods that were intended for the XL motor. It ran somewhat better once I went back to the stock gear setup (1:1.667), but I will probably end up at 1:1. I have not had a chance to test it extensively. For comparison, the 10277 Crocodile uses a straight 1:1 gear ratio with a Powered Up Large motor and the same size driver wheels. Can anyone who is running a Large motor (PF or PU) with an Emerald Night comment on whether you made any gear changes?

As others have said, this is simply amazing. The rods and valve gear assemblies are fascinating to watch. So much detail. Really well done!

Thank you, @deraven, @LEGO Train 12 Volts, @Toastie, and @LEGOTrainBuilderSG for the kind comments! @deraven -- for me, 50 Years on Track is one of those sets that I would love to have, but that I could not buy for myself. When I first learned of it, I loved the concept, but only found the Metroliner and the Emerald Night personally appealing (in retrospect, that was a little odd, given that the 4002016 Emerald Night is probably the least successful of the six in capturing the essence of its prototype set, at least to my eye). But it did inspire me to take a crack at designing some 4-wides that appealed to my interests, and that has been a fun little adventure. @Toastie -- you are far too kind! You, of course, do not need my permission to take this idea and run with it, but I say "build away, full steam ahead!" I would love to see what you can come up with. For me, 4-wide is a lot of fun. Yes, it can be challenging, especially given the limitations of the LEGO building pallet (I'm still trying to figure out a "good" steam boiler at that scale). But in some ways that also makes it easier, because there are only so many parts that can fit in a given space! More importantly, I find that it is far more approachable. I marvel at the 6- 7- and 8-wide builds (and even larger) that are posted here on a regular basis, and I build at that larger scale, as well. But it can be intimidating to look at one of those amazing behemoths and think, "where do I even start with that?" With 4-wide, I find it is manageable to just sit down with LDD and start moving bricks around to see what I can come up with. All the more so if you are okay with a display model that need not navigate curves (although I should add that I originally designed my model with rotating bogies and it could be easily converted). There is certainly a lower barrier to entry in terms of parts cost if you choose to actually go ahead and build in real bricks.

Really well done! Such a diverse collection, and each with its own character. I really like the images with the full consists of coaches.

Thanks, all. It was a fun little build. The nose, in particular, was a fun way to challenge myself to explore SNOT techniques and to develop my understanding of how certain pieces fit together. One of the reasons I opted to build this in 4-wide was that I like the way the striping carries through an A-B-A consist, and I knew it was highly unlikely I would ever get around to BrickLinking the parts to build multiple engines in 6-wide or larger. Plus, this is a little easier to display on a shelf.

Hello, Train Forum! This MOC was inspired by LEGO's iconic Santa Fe Super Chief set (10020) and the more recent 50 Years on Track (4002016). For those who may be unfamiliar, 4002016 was the 2016 employee gift and included 4-wide builds of six classic LEGO trains. I liked the idea of these small builds, but didn't fancy the high price of the limited-edition set on the resale market, so I initially set about reverse-engineering the 4-wide versions of the Metroliner and the Emerald Night from photos of the set. What kept nagging me, though, was that the 10020 Super Chief was conspicuously absent from the lineup. I have never owned this set, and I probably never will, but I think it is amazing. So here is my attempt at a 4-wide display version in the style of 4002016: This A-B-A consist is roughly 62 studs long (the display base is 68 studs). I considered both 10020 and the “real” Super Chief to be my prototypes, which means that my model is not completely true to either, but I hope that it is at least recognizable. I’d be happy to hear any comments, critiques, or suggestions. Thanks for looking.

I probably should have been more specific that I am being ambiguous. I am by no means a car expert. I am going for the look and feel of an early (1900-1920?) buggy roadster, as opposed to a specific car or model year, although I chose to use the 1916/1917 Model T Runabout as my main reference. Something along the lines of this car (not my photo). Anyway, this has been a very useful exercise for me in terms of refining the design.

With thanks again to @caiman0637 for the suggestion, I reworked the front and rear fenders using the 6005 1x3x2 arch. I had to broaden the rear fenders more than I would have liked in order to find a support point that didn't cause tire clearance issues, but I'm pretty happy with the overall fender shape using this approach. Additional views behind spoiler tag: Although I like the shape of the fenders, I feel that the model gets weighed down by the excessive thickness of the brick arches and the running boards. So I decided to take a crack a revising it in the opposite direction, using the rear mudguard piece from the original model. Additional views behind spoiler tag: This revision just "looks" better, at least to my eye. It also allows the doors to open, as they are no longer blocked in by the wheel arches. Because the mudguards require less space than the brick-built arches, I next decided to try shortening the front hood, which I think is more consistent with the 1916 Model T that I am using for inspiration. I think I like this final one the most, although pulling the front wheel arches back does block the doors again. Additional views behind spoiler tag: This last one has the right overall feel to me, in terms of capturing the general look and feel of the prototype, even though the shape of the wheel arches may not be accurate. Happy to hear any additional thoughts or suggestions that others might have. Thanks for reading!

Thanks, again, for the suggestions. I'm going to let it percolate for a bit and then take another look at it. I have some concerns about the rear tire clearance because I had to pull the axle forward 1/2-stud to build in support for the hinge bricks supporting the rear fenders.

Thanks -- the front fender is growing on me. I think 49097 and 98282 are probably both too narrow, relative to 28326, which is basically one stud wide. I did a quick rework with 6005 on the rear, as well, and I think it may be more balanced than I was expecting. I'll have to take another look at it in terms of stability. Thanks for the feedback -- happy to hear any additional thoughts. Here is a side-by-side with (from left to right), the original, the reworked front fender, and the reworked front and rear fenders:

Thanks! I agree that the front fenders are a little blocky. 6005 is definitely a more elegant shape, although using it adds a bit of weight to car (front fender plus one plate of support under the running boards. It also looks a bit out of balance with the thinner rear fender, at least to my eye. I could try reworking the rear fender using 6005, as well, but part of the design "look" of the prototype is the thin fenders. What do you think?