LordsofMedieval

I spent most of yesterday designing a Norfolk & Western S1A class and wasn't fully satisfied with it. There's nothing wrong with the end product, but I decided I just didn't like the engine as much as I initially thought. Today, I'd like to do something a bit more... uh... 'sexy' with a New Haven Y4-A 0-8-0. But they had weirdly-spaced drivers, and - being the anal creature that I most certainly am - I want to model these properly. The problem is coming up with a spacing solution that achieves the half-stud gaps necessary, but is still rigid enough not to break apart under the load of technic gears grinding inside it. This is my aesthetically-acceptable-but-probably-not-robust-enough solution: ... but I think it would just break under use. And I'm not willing to glue pieces. Can anyone suggest a solution that's not dependent on 2 studs to hold the thing together? I want to make this engine work, but clearly I need to solve this problem before tackling anything else. Thanks and Merry Christmas.

Crazy. Why retire something when it's still part of the current 'run' of motors?

Really glad to see this made the front page.

Also, can you couple more than 2 PU motors to a hub? Or can you control 2 hubs simultaneously? Like, I might be able to squeeze 3 M motors into this thing, but I would need to use 2 hubs, correct?

I've never used Powered Up. With PF products becoming rarer and more expensive, I suppose that means I should start trying to incorporate PU more. With regards to the M motors specifically: how do they fare in trains applications? Are two of them 'enough' for a smaller locomotive? Or should they be avoided at all costs in favor of the large motors?

Merry Christmas everyone. I'm about to embark upon designing another locomotive, and this particular one has unusually sized wheels (and, as a result), weird spacing between them. Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with the 'laws of Lego' when it comes to precision Technic. Simply put: Are those axles at the same elevation, despite the one on the right being SNOTed? And if they aren't, would it be likely to make a functional difference? (And if it would, can you recommend any other way to achieve the 'half stud' width difference that I need?) Thanks.

Under 1,000 pieces for the whole thing.

Wow, this is awesome. It runs really nicely, too. Very impressed by the stability.

Woo hoo! Front page! Thanks guys!

I was bored, and this is silly, but I figured I would share. It is powered, and designed to run on 4w track. Most models of it feature those distinctive windows, and - assuming they must of been there at some point (and given that I kind of like them) - I went with that design.

Awesome.

I really like the ice.

This definitely belongs on the front page. Can someone alert the proper authority?

IMO it's just a bit too shallow. I get the desire to save parts, but 3-4 studs more of depth would have put it on par with most Ninjago "building front" style sets you see these days. Still, what you've done is just great.

Full disclosure: not a fan of these movies or their message... ... really. But I saw screenshots of this thing, and then the McFarlane model, and thought "hey, credit where it's due: this is a cool mech." However, the pending Lego version left me... eh... unfulfilled. Like... we couldn't even get the colors right (in Lego's defense, my guess is that they were sent an early render like this, where the lighting is kind of inconclusive. But still, that's a long way from nougat )...? I think the scheme being used on the real thing is wicked cool - like it really fits in with the bizarro color scheme that dominates... uh... Pandora (I legit had to look that up). Plus, it's not just the colors - the Lego version misses the mark completely on the rather organic lines of the vessel - theirs is more no-nonsense military-esque than Cameron's work of smooth and deadly art. Anyway, I felt like a better job could be done with a similar part count, so I decided to give it an hour's effort and see what I could accomplish: It's probably a bit chonkier than it should be, but that's the price you pay for shaping + fitting a minifig.

I don't care that they're advertising - most major companies run way more commercials than Lego. I DO think it's a weird ad taken on its own, though. Like, why isn't the vehicle constructed out of bricks? It's just a mish-mash of real-world objects.

Once again Friends sets are killing it when compared to similar City releases. Autumn's House may be the best 'home' they've ever done, and the grocery store just crushes the one that came out earlier this year. I'm not mad - I buy Friends stuff pretty frequently. But it's also kind of embarrassing that what is arguably Lego's "main" theme can't compare to this up-and-comer. It's like TLG took all of City's best talent and sent them over to Friends.

I was immediately reminded of this:

Cool. Gigantic, but cool. Would it run? And, if so, on what?

... It's been a long, long time since I've seen a Lego TV spot. And this is a strange one (especially the actual 15-second ad, which just has the kids run out of the basement to ride the float. There's literally zero context). I have nothing against Ms. Perry or the song... but were these children even born yet when it was a hit? Just kind of a weird ad, IMO.

I'm very excited about the TIE-Bomber (although I'm less-than-thrilled that the wings have apparently returned to the old plate-on-plate method of the early 2000s, as opposed to more modern designs. That feels like a massive step backwards, and will likely call for a heavy amount of modding). But I am not at all thrilled about the low number of releases slated for January. 5 sets is... bad. I really hope they aren't gearing up to suspend the license.

I'm just going to chime in and say that I'm not a huge fan of the font. Does it enrage me? No. But it's not... it's just not a very nice looking text. That's all.

I, for one, appreciate the potent irony of an artistic triumph in replicating an engineering disaster. It's like this conflict of good/Lego/creator vs Musk/Tesla/LI batteries.

Thanks mate. And I wasn't trying to be harsh in any way - just explain why I did the things the way I did. I frankly don't like compromise when it comes to these models (and am totally open to suggestion as to improvements). But with these freaking streamlined engines... heh... it seems every time I'm having to split the baby in two on multiple issues. With the beak shape in particular, it bothers me immensely that I can't somehow scallop in the lower portion like it is on the real thing. But the moment I start introducing the necessary angles, the eye is drawn to it for all the wrong reasons.

I don't think there's any way to effectively accomplish the beak, but I'll take another look at it. The problem with Lego contours is that you rapidly arrive at a point where you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. While I may be able to make a more beak-like shape for the base of the nose, it will almost certainly introduce seams, breaks and steps in the shape... which the prototype doesn't have, either. At that juncture, is it worth sacrificing smoothness for something that might be technically closer to the real thing in another way? As for changes with the side panels, the short answer is: no. I can't lower them without lowering the shroud to the rear of drivers and the front - both of which would compromise the function of the lead and trailing bogies. The heavyness at the front is specifically due to wanting to accomplish something like the original while still allowing the bogie to swivel (and take the paneling with it). I also really wanted to include that curving 'indent' under the cylinders where it bows inwards to meet the beak. The only way I could see to do that was with 2x3 slope pieces, but they needed space for mounting, and that meant pushing the overall beginning of the upslope rearwards.