zephyr1934

Thanks Fugazi for keeping up with all the MOC posts, the index is very handy. Perhaps rather than indexing specifically "digital" MOCs, have two groups: "instructions available" or "digital form available" so that folks looking for detailed guidance have a handy spot to turn to. These two categories could include some of the MOCs listed elsewhere in the various physical build categories as well as those that only exist as digital. That's my 2c, but it may be too time consuming to actually implement it. Benn

Some nice builds. I saw on Flickr that you were thinking of using 1x6 tiles for the bed of the flatcar, you might also want to consider 1x2 tiles with grill, perhaps on a different color below (e.g., dark gray on brown)

Yes, I had contemplated building cylinders too. They are certainly doable, but so far I haven't, no one has asked for them. There are a lot of good options in lego already. Right now I am fond of this compact cylinder design, It is 3 plates deep, with the real work being done by a tiny bracket, Though you could easily use a technic lift arm with a couple of pins too, e.g., or

Holy cows! These locomotives are fantastic. An insane amount of detail work- hasn't anyone told you that you can not put that much detail into a lego train?

Oh, the comment about the bus wasn't a criticism, I was just answering Cirkit's wish for a lego designed double decker bus (with my tongue in cheek of course... though TLG did also produce a more recent one for a store opening exclusive). As for the rods, aw shucks, now cut that out, yer gonna make me blush. Oh, every time I look at Edward, I keep thinking there is too much red. I'd suggest two studs blue, one stud red on the boiler instead of alternating every other stud.

That is a slick looking EN! I like the rods, even in technic, it looks so much better with the connecting rod actually making it to the second driver. The smoke is the crowning touch.

Looks like a great prototype to start from. It can be very tricky to build a good looking steam engine, it can also be very tricky to build a steam engine that runs well. It is really tricky to do both. All are doable, but it takes some trial and error. My biggest suggestion would be to start building mocups of the critical mechanical systems before you get too far. That way, if you have to add 2 studs to the frame, or figure out how to make the pilot bend, or... you don't have to then go back and figure out how to redesign your boiler, or ... on top of it. And to get it to run well, there will inevitably be some redesigning to the mechanicals. So if you take it from the most critical systems first then build out, it should go a lot smoother. If you are starting with the EN as a jumping off point, you will inherit some of the problems with the EN too (see Railbricks or elsewhere in EB for articles about fixing some of these problems). From my perspective the biggest problem might be the fact that the drivers can be lifted off the rails by the pilot and trailing trucks. If you are running on a perfectly flat surface, no big deal, otherwise, I'd suggest either addressing that issue or do not use the drivers for propulsion (one nice thing about a 2-8-0, you don't have to worry about the trailing truck).

Now that you've added pictures of all of the engines to the original post, I see all sorts of great details that you added to the models (e.g., the handrails on Gordon). They did do a double decker bus... 40 years ago (grin).

While waiting for Duq to decide which way to go on the pin collision problem, a second customer just ran into the same problem. Now in my past haste, I forgot to give all the background, I had not anticipated that someone would mount the rods this way. There is no problem on the front of the rods because the pin heads are all protected by cuffs and in most cases there is no conflict on the back with the exposed pin head. I figured the connecting rod would always extend beyond the side rod. So if the backside of the pin poked out 1 mm, no big deal. As soon as the piston end of the connecting rod has to pass the side rod on a rotation... Houston, we have a problem. What should have been an innocuous tip of the pin now is sticking out there trying to catch the side rod on every revolution of the wheels. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I deliberately made the rods thinner than a technic beam, and in 95% of the situations that is an asset (e.g., now one can paint the rims of the driver wheels if you are so inclined), here though, it is not. So as discussed in earlier post above, I can make a rod that is of similar thickness to a technic half beam and add a cuff to protect the end of the pin, but there is a risk that wear marks would arise on the side rod. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly logical way to want to mount the rods. So I've had the boys in the lab recreate the problem, here's a photo, Rather than using a normal gray half pin, I chose blue to highlight the problem. In this case the pin is in the piston end of the connecting rod and the other rod in the picture is the side rod. Since the pin must cross the side rod in its orbit, it can catch. Argh! Why can't you get the lip of the pin out of there? Yesterday I came up with what I think may be a better solution, Take the construction from my first photo apart, flip the 1/2 pin over and push the stud into the piston end of the connecting rod. Then slip on the technic connector, then slip on a 2 mm thick washer (AKA a 1-1 2 mm valve gear bar as listed in my bricklink store). So the washer is on the outermost side of this construction, opposite the wheels. So now there is no lip sticking out of the back of the connecting rod (as shown in the far right) and it can pass the side rod in peace. Don't have one of these washers handy? It should work without the washer, but there will be a little extra lateral motion in the connecting rod. One could also cut down a technic axle with stud (6587) and use a 1/2 bushing to get the same effect. ---- Doh, after posting this post, looking again at the history, credit for this brilliant idea should probably go to Deadalus304

Hi Carl, Red is one of the few colors I can do, but it is also the most variable. I've made four red fabs. The first three had a good color match (the surface was matte, as expected, but similar to some lego bars). The most recent red fab came out a little too pink for my tastes. So it is hit and miss with red. Meanwhile, gray and black have been consistent color throughout all of my fabs. I don't think I have the tolerance to fabricate pins. I could certainly capture the look of 12v rods or use the even thinner valve gear style if the normal rods are too heavy for this model. As long as you aren't against modifying the occasional lego piece (grin), t fit the cams the best solution I have tested so far is to cut the head off of a towball, 2736, as done on the eccentric here.

A most fantastic build!

Yes, please do post pictures of the brick built C1, the LDD model looks great. PS, and welcome to the forum! (as you enter on a bang)

Fantastic detailing, you've packed so much in to such a small space.

Wow, what a fantastic build, with so much great detail, e.g., the track work alone with the third rail and short ties. Moving up from there everything going on on the platforms... excellent!

Ah ha! I finally found it. I knew that John Neal did a Hiawatha locomotive and while poking around for something else I found a shot of it at the top of this photo.

I was thinking similarly that the ladders were too large for the build (still a great little build BTW) Sure, some of my ladders would work, or if you wanted to keep it 100% lego, some 60478 might be in order.

If you are likely to have a lot of PF/RC trains running, using the RC channels will actually help you avoid conflicts since they are different the PF (4 channels from PF and 3 from RC). The controls are similar for RC and PF, but you will need a separate RC controller (that came with the train).

Yes, strange Americans (in general) though that location actually has some logic behind it. I almost posted this right after seeing L.A.'s post but didn't fearing it was too off topic (which it is, but since it is still generating chatter now I'll err the other way). It is Jack London Square in Oakland, CA. Those tracks are the former SP mainline and run in the street for half a mile. Due to the geography of the San Francisco bay, there are only two ways to head east from San Fran. Niles Canyon and this route that runs along the shore (the bay is about one block west of this street). The SP originally came through Niles Canyon, a few decades the WP followed. The SP shore route only became viable with the addition of a very substantial bridge over the Sacramento river. Up until 15-20 years ago Jack London was much worse. The WP main line was two blocks east of Jack London (3rd St), but for about 2 miles. Worse yet, right after the WP main left the street on the north end, it crossed over the SP at an SP controlled interlocking and then headed into the main WP yard (long ago that was the WP ferry terminal, but I digress) after the WP had been absorbed by UP but before the UP-SP merger, the UP freight trains would often sit in the middle of the street waiting to cross the SP main. They would tie up street traffic for half an hour or more. After SP was merged, the WP tracks were abandoned and torn up. The WP Oakland depot still stands on that street. The passengers boarded the California Zephyr right there in the street, you could have stepped out of the door of your cab and right in to the train.

This loco is a fantastic build, all sorts of great details abound.

Looks great! And if you ever have the time, please make a pdf of the instructions and add it to the Railbricks.com instructions library.

Yes... sort of. There are 2 high, 3 high and 5 high panels, but all of the other variants have studs across the top and many also have partial or full sides.

No, there are two major train attractions in Strasburg- the Strasburg RR and the Pennsylvania state RR museum (plus a caboose motel, a model train museum I think, etc.). Steamtown is in Scranton. Lots of great train stuff in PA (the Colorado of the east in that regard, grin). There are several surviving GG1's in various states of preservation. Yes, the GG1 and Daylight are both difficult builds, but many AFOLs have done both and some are very good. The good looking versions are all probably much more complicated than any of the three official train sets aimed at AFOLs, so unlikely that Lego would produce either (but it would be fantastic if they did). And Lego does like to revisit the same concepts over and over again. We've already seen the BNSF redone.

I was thinking either a 1x2x1 panel (4865 or 4865b) or 1x4x1 panel (30413).

Apologies to the pocket book (grin, and I know your pain). Since the EN coach really didn't tie in to the locomotive, I don't see why a MOD should either. With a little more tweaking you could continue the middle dark blue stripe across the doors. You would have to nudge the 1x1 brick with handle down one plate, and thus, potentially rework how the clips are positioned, but that shouldn't be too hard. Actually, that would weaken the strength of the door, which might be okay if you don't open them much. Otherwise, looking at it, flipping the hinges so that the clip is on the door (using a plate) and the handle is on the diaphragm you could have the strength and reposition the connection.

Nice build, and I like how you did the grills on the front.