zephyr1934

Most definitely.

Wow, how miserable to have to hold the power button the whole time. The train looks great, far better than I would expect from a clone. And to hear that the bricks are good quality, also unexpected. So it sounds like the electronics are poor. Is the motor PF or PUP compatible? What about the output from the battery box? If so, there might be some use in these parts. The poor wheels is not surprising, all clone train reviews I've seen have reported high friction. What is the nature of the wheels on the cars- technic axle, metal axle (PF and 9v wheels), or independent plastic wheels (current train wheels)? What about other parts, does it have black bogie plates? If so, that would be great since Lego is not likely to make them in black again and they are stupid expensive on BL. Does the windshield have corner cheese bricks? Are there any other interesting new parts in the set? It would be interesting if you could (temporarily?) retrofit it to see if it can be made to run by replacing the problem electrical and mechanical parts. I would definitely ditch the middle axle on the locomotive trucks (you probably have a hard time seeing it from the outside anyway). Replacing the axles on the cars and unpowered loco truck with PF wheel sets would go a long way, and with roller bearings even further. It would also be interesting if you could solve the gear problem using lego parts without using the washers. If you do such a retrofit or even just speculate, it would be interesting to hear if there is there value after replacing the wheels and electronics?

Great point, I wasn't even thinking that far ahead. They are certainly better than any other "simple" option available. Real domes had a flat center so it would have to be 8 wide to get the right cross-section (which many people build in) or a small compromise in 6 wide that would do a good job catching the essence of a dome car

I just spotted a new window piece, looks to be a 3x3x2 curved window frame that fits two standard 2x2 glass panes. You can see inside and outside examples of it in the photos of the upcoming 41449 Friends set. That could be handy for round end observation cars, etc.

Sounds like it will be a beautiful showpiece in more ways than one. Just one warning, do not count on being able to fit everything in there at once. Curves and switches take up way more space than straight track. At some point BrickTracks or TrixBrix will come out with a piece of track that does not fit your storage, etc. And of course as you build more you will find you have more and more favorite locomotives. But it totally makes sense to have enough room to store the track for a "good layout" allowing for quick set up and tear down.

That is insane! There were several in there that I had not seen before, all impressive. I don't think you need to change a thing. About the only thing I could think to add would be an index of links to the individual videos in order of appearance and rough time stamp where they start in this video, but that is strictly extra, it works great as is.

Looks good, I would probably call it a MOD rather than a MOC, but what's in a name?

Agreed

Would it be lighter to do the sides out of a series of theses bricks stacked on top of each other: ... probably would be if the sides were 6 studs tall, but they look to be 7 tall. Attempting to work a 1x2 tile in is certainly doable but the ribs would be disrupted. Oh well

Exactly that, once you are familiar with a good naming system (even if arbitrary, e.g., BBROYGBVGW) it becomes intuitive. Keeping the .5 just lowers the barrier to folks making the jump with your (all-ya-all's) great idea. Thanks for deriving and sharing it. Once the details are finalized, please let us know where the official standard is posted. You did nothing wrong and no need to apologize or duck out. That was a perfectly logical and reasonable question you asked. These forums are meant for builders of all experience levels.

I like the general idea, but there is a level of secret-language if you use N to represent N.5. It decouples the name from the meaning. With the current naming I never really spent much time thinking about the diameter of the wheels, just the stud spacing necessary for a given size (stepping up by half studs every so often). Naming the wheels accordingly to their actual diameter brings clarity and efficiency to their name. I would suggest keeping the .5, so L would become "9.5" and the more verbose version would be "9.5 plate diameter". That way the name has a direct explicit meaning and as a newbe you do not have to learn that you need to add .5 to the number. More importantly, the language that develops around the wheel names keeps the connection to the plates (again, the verbose "plate diameter"). As a community we've settled into R40...R120 and beyond for curves because it makes intuitive sense. If we just called them a "40 curve", "56 curve", etc. the context would have been lost, especially if we called them an even more abbreviated #4, #5, .... If we go with integer names for the wheels it will quickly lose the connection to the number of plates, it will be clearer as to which size is larger than another (better than XLL), but still not clear as to why. As a result, if integers represented half plate diameters in this naming scheme at some point someone will then introduce a 9.5 wheel that is actually 10 plates in diameter (or worse, some random number between 9.5 and 10.5) and completely undermine the clarity objective. So I would strongly suggest keeping the .5. The advanced builders can then talk about a 9.5 wheel. The wheel sellers (and rod makers) can then talk about a "9.5 plate diameter wheel," in their product listings and everyone is a little more knowledgeable.

An educational historical tour via your excellent MOCs

Before you ever set out to build custom trains in earnest you should get a simple city train set in whatever mode you think you will use, PF or PUP. It is really valuable to have real tracks and wheels to test clearances. You can typically get switches for relatively cheap on bricklink (or at least that was the case a year ago). In the case of your hopper cars, if the pivot point was right above the inside axle you would probably be able to take any curve, not sure if it would be stable though and it would look funny on curves (in other words, I'm not suggesting you attempt to go there). But it is nice to be able to navigate R40 switches for yards, if not your home layout then at shows. I'm starting to build trains that will not take a normal R40 curve but I make sure they can take an R40 switch and a single segment of R40 curves. The ladders are looking good, but take a peek at photos of a real hopper, I believe the ladders are not symmetric like you have them right now. I assume you will have some sort of connection at the bottom ends of the car, otherwise, the rotating coupler will almost certainly disrupt the ladder structure. And it would look more prototypical. Everything else is looking great, e.g., the brake line along the side.

And a beverage of choice for the operator to use

Wow, looks great but seeing the inside that is insane (a complement). You could achieve the same effect using door rails and headlight bricks but I'm not sure that would given you any more strength and it would only save you a little weight. If you did not mind the ribs sticking out another 1/2 plate you can go with strictly door rails and studs forward bricks, doing away with the 2x plates and tiles... but you have come this far the extra depth of the ribs would be a step backwards. For your primary question, the trucks, your coupler extensions are way longer than they need to be. You should build a prototype that is just a simple flatcar that replicates the top-down view of the car and has the trucks in the same spot. Use this to test any and all curves you might use it on including S-curves and switches. That way you can figure out the minimum length to extend the coupler out. You can also gain 1/2 stud on either end by using technic plates instead of the 2x3 with hole to hold the truck on. Also, while not prototypical, you could move the pivot point on the truck one stud closer to the center of the car, that should give you more truck rotation than you currently have. My 52 stud long passenger cars handle R40's fine with the end of the magnet extending only one stud beyond the end of the 6 wide base (well, the clearance is fine, they created a lot of resistance before I switched them to roller bearings). It looks like you have 7 wide in this build so you might need 1.5 studs beyond. But it looks like you are currently at 5.5 studs beyond the end of the car. As for the ladders, given your design the easiest solution is probably to use clips along the top ends of the car to suspend a construction that is mostly made up of bars to round out the end of the car. You might be able to get a plate or tile base in the bottom. I would also see if you could do anything with window or door frames.

Simply amazing! The bridge is brilliant, the combined transport and display case is ingenious, the different take on the Hogwarts Express is cool, and that train meet is unbelievable (I love the LONG open loop running with so many great MOCs along the way)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd say "port into stud.io to do the renders" but I still use MLCad so I should not throw glass houses

If you need everything then buying the city passenger train is probably the cheapest route for both PUP and PF. If you go that route you also get a few extra train parts (wheels and couplers) and the remote. Yep, 9v has some great features

Looking really good... but what is up with the smoke box door? Are the visor (1x1 pate with tooth) and number board (1x2 tile) just floating there in space? As for that crazy Argentine locomotive, isn't that one of the precursors to the ACE 3000 concept engine?

Exactly that

Lego is an odd company that way. A beautiful build with stupid rods, someone should do something about that (grin). But seriously though, the Lego police would never stand for a new part that is so specialized without a licensee like Disney insisting on the part. In any event, given how easy it is to mess up quartering the wheels I'm surprised they make any steam engines (or electric with side rods) at all. Probably the best fix for quartering the wheels would be to have a blank "guide hole" in the right spot on each side (blanked in the wrong spot) and show the driver wheels going on with a temporary technic axle that aligns with the guide hole.

I love those old "Legoland" bricks. More great work tugging on the nostalgia I believe the normal (non-train) wheels were "permanently" fixed on the motors. I never had one but I think Paperinik77pk said in another post that it was an easy MOD.

Excellent!

Those all look really good, I especially like the Berkshire, it really has the feel of a powerful locomotive.

Good work with the mechanics