zephyr1934

Assuming you are aiming for "in service" this would more likely be a "business car" rather than a "private car," but what's in a name? We done regardless. Two quirks, the rear deck should have the railings on the sides too. While the floor would have trap doors to open up to stairs like you have in the build, they would only be used while in the station. Most of the time the trap doors would be closed and the railings in place making the rear deck more of a fenced in "porch." For the second one, the windows seem just a little too short for a heavyweight car. Might be worth trying 1x2x2 trans clear panels for the windows, though you would lose the division between the paired windows in the lounge area, perhaps you could do the panels for everything ahead of the lounge and then use 1x2x3 windows in the lounge.

I would agree that (out of its native habitat) this is an unusual prototype, but it has some great curves to it and clearly a challenge to do in lego. Your windshield trick is brilliant and I would agree with... ... and go further to suggest doing so for the top of the short hood as well (it looks like it would be well modeled with 1x3 curved slopes, but you only have 5 studs to work with)... actually it looks promising for the long hood too. Boeing tried to do that too, with abysmal results.

Indeed, good call

Looking good. Oh, yeah, Eurobricks is not meant to store your photos. Almost all of the photos you see in this board are hosted elsewhere (flickr, brickshelf, imgur, etc) and included by links

Or do 99% of the work on LDD and just import to stud.io for the last 1% (missing brackets) and rendering

I thought the same thing. I believe that Amfleet II has larger windows and a single door compared to Amfleet I. So this model is correctly classified BTW, overall this is a great build, but I suspect you'll have to redo the coupler mount if you want to take any curves.

Please show some more photos of your rolling stock! Marklin actually has sets to do just this in HO. At any rate, it is a brilliant idea. The trains at my local Lego Discovery center look to be running on S-Gauge track, motors and trucks. Then Legoland uses some larger scale non-lego trucks, track and propulsion. Had there not been the invention of 3rd party wide radius curves I suspect more builders would be using O-gauge bases. My job here is done (grin). Seriously though, the thing that makes lego trucks and locos on O-gauge difficult is the fact that O gauge is something like 5 mm narrower than L-gauge. With technic axle wheels I could only get up to 3 cars before being killed by friction. I've since gotten custom roller bearings, but the narrowness of the running surface on the lego wheels is not a great match for the old-style O-gauge tube rail. So there is something to be said about sticking with stock O-gauge for the trucks.

Yes, that is a lot of money, but the rule of thumb 10 years ago was $0.50 per part for custom builds (mostly 2x4 bricks) was a good break even target for commissioned builds. So this set should come in at $1900 by that measure. Given the number of expensive parts in it, the set should probably be at least $200 higher given: large train wheels, PF, roller bearing trucks, loop of track. I bet he's taking loss on the track and the roller bearing trucks since he only has to pay production costs rather than retail costs. At any rate, If you are looking for a train like this it seems to be a good value for an all in one set (especially with the loop of track). This train design is certainly in the upper tier of MOC's I've seen on this forum. It is a niche set and there will be folks who will jump on it. I am sure there are many people on this forum who could rival this design, but those folks are not the target audience. It takes years of work to be comfortable enough with bricks (real or virtual) to be able to design a good steam locomotive (both in terms of looks and performance), and a lot of time to learn how to source bricks. If you are fortunate enough to have those skills it makes perfect sense that you would rather save your money and build something that is closer to your tastes. For those folks who are not at that skill level (or simply like to see how others solve some of these problems) and do not want to pay the premium cost of an all in one set, there are some really great steam engine instructions out there for $10-$50 and you can source your own bricks. That is a different market. Whenever I get the idea of putting together a set, I just pay attention to how much time it takes me to source parts for a build and I quickly change my mind. I've made a few 50 piece sets, I had someone ask to buy 100 copies and they expected a bulk discount, unfortunately the brick market doesn't account for that. I could find the seller with 10x of the rare part cheap, but I'd quickly exhaust the supply of cheap parts. So you actually see the cost of raw materials per build increase as your quantity goes up. It's a crazy market. In this case, one could get a PF battery box from lego for $13, but you can only get 2x. The cheapest seller on BL with more than 4 copies comes in at $18, but if you wanted to avoid international postage, since this is a US seller the cheapest (and only) available in quantity in the US is $26. All of that without the time it takes to order, the postage, etc. Now on the flip side, @SteamSewnEmpire and @Coal Fired Bricks I think you are looking at this the wrong way. You seem to be thinking, "that's a lot of money" + "I could do at least as good myself" = "he's crazy" What you might want to be thinking, "that's a lot of money" + "I could do at least as good myself" = "maybe I should look into making instructions to sell" "that's a lot of money" + "I could do at least as good myself" = "next time I build an engine for myself, get enough parts for 1-2 extra copies and I could sell those for $1000 ea." + "(but I'll hold off buying the really expensive bits until I've made a sale)" "that's a lot of money" + "I could do at least as good myself" = "maybe I should solicit commissions to build one of my designs for a customer at $500-$1000 up front"

That's some impressive work

great job!

These are a great build, the motorization is particularly fascinating, but getting that slant on the top of the sides looks like it was a real challenge. If you want to do away with the technic disk and just use the turntable base you could always do something like this

If you use a technic plate and pin to attach the pilot/trailing trucks, there should be more than a plate worth of "play" and you might not even notice the difference. If you use brick built trucks I believe if you build studs down you will get a half plate offset from studs up, so you could make up the difference in your trucks too. This build has an even number of technic holes vertically, to get a half plate offset (really a 2.5 plate offset) just add or subtract technic holes vertically. As for the half stud offset horizontally, I think many builders use technic bricks and use either a 1x1 or 1x2 with two holes for the axles that are off by 1/2 stud. But if you can come up with a solution like you have above, I'm sure a half plate offset is nothing to overcome.

That is crazy amazing work! Great job

The engine looks great, but the engineering looks even more impressive, powering anything with less than 4 studs between the wheels is very tricky. I'm curious about the same thing, could you show more detail on the frames for the wheels? Only thought I have is that your coupler assembly appears to rely strictly on the clutch power of two studs at a couple of locations. If you are pulling a light train probably not an issue (especially if you already know it works from experience, grin), but that was the first thing that struck me when I saw the design.

nice work capturing the classic feel

In general steam engines on R40 curves are tricky. If the drivers are unpowered, you probably want exactly one traction band on exactly one of the wheels. Any more than that and you will cause friction. Also, if you are using the small technic axle train wheels, typically Lego puts them on axle pins (one wheel per axle) if you put two wheels per axle be sure to remove the traction bands from these wheels. To be clear, any of the preceding is assuming the given axle is unpowered, any powered axle probably should have all of its traction bands. The EN and the Croc both have internal gearing for the non-train motor. If you are not motorizing as designed, pull the crown gear from the driving axle to cut out the gear train. With all of the ball joints, the Croc is probably not a good engine for pushing. Now on to your modified HP, it could be a couple of things. Pushing a locomotive from the tender is unstable by design, so if it can find bad track it will do its best to derail. Getting rid of the friction as per above will reduce the chance that the engine can then use the drag to derail. But you can also try to reproduce the problem at home. Build the geometry that was problematic at the show (S-curve, diverging switch, etc.) and put it in a small loop, make sure to have 2-6 straights before and after the feature if your show had the feature at the end of a long straight (a diverging switch right after a curve is a common problem for all trains, when possible put 1-2 straight segments between a curve and a switch). With your mini-layout run your train for a good long while to see if it derails at home too. If so, you know you've captured at least part of the problem and you can start looking closer to diagnose. Now there are problems you will find at shows that you will not usually get at home, the most likely one in your case is sudden changes in elevation, e.g., your rail peaking or dipping due to uneven tables. I will use an 8 long technic axle under a rail joint to simulate bad tables

Great build and an amazing presentation. Also thanks for the cutaway view showing the PF bits

Great work, it is neat to see how many different directions people are taking this set

Thanks all for the replies, so I'm at one for, one against, and one "stupid IOS." All of these seem spot on. Now that is definitely an option to escape my phone thinking it is smarter than me For the moment this comment gives me the greatest pause. I think I'll start by trying to squeeze the IR receiver in my build. Actually PFx does make that an option, and it supports IR If others have experience with BuWizz they'd like to share, I'm still interested in learning more

I'm thinking about trying out a BuWizz in my next build. The size looks great, the integrated battery looks great, and I've never heard anyone complain about the BuWizz. My biggest concern is the quality of the Bluetooth connection, I've had minor to major problems with all of the other Bluetooth systems disconnecting at shows (SBrick, PFx, and PU) My three questions are this: What happens when BuWizz loses connection- will it stop, keep going on last command, or can you toggle between the two? How quick is it for the BuWizz to reestablish connection and does it do so automatically? For example, if I put my phone to sleep, will the BuWizz be connected or reconnect quickly when I open my phone? I've used both an iPhone and a iPad for control, so it is certainly possible that part of my Bluetooth problems are related to Apple rather than the various receivers. Has anyone had poorer performance with Apple and Bluetooth hubs/receivers? ============ For context: I'm mostly happy with PF, I like the controller and the fact that for trains they essentially have a set and forget functionality. In other words, I do not need Bluetooth and actually find it a liability, I only turn to these options for the smaller size of the components or the added power they provide. BuWizz looks like it is the smallest option hands down. My comparison example, with PFx I found that it would drop Bluetooth connection but keep running, which is mostly a good thing. Except for the fact that I would not notice the lost connection. Then when I wanted to take control I'd have to wake my phone, go to the app, and then I think actively tell it to reconnect to the brick. Taking 20+ sec before I could resume control over the app. That isn't good if the train is coming up on an obstacle on the track (derailed train from another track, etc.). Since PFx supports IR I don't need Bluetooth, but since PFx takes up about as much room as PF I just need PFx for models that require more power than PF can supply. In the case of BuWizz there is no IR option, so I would need a robust Bluetooth connection. I'm fine if it sometimes drops up to once an hour on a large layout at a show and the train stops. Not okay if it drops every five minutes. For my needs the small size and integrated battery make the BuWizz really attractive, but before jumping in I figured I'd see what others have found.

Brilliant! What about turning the 1x1 round plates outward so they look like wheels, either using headlight bricks on their backs or 4595

If you don't mind a slight tilt, maybe try bands on all wheels on one side and no bands on the other side

Amazing job! If it weren't for the fact that you are using lego track I could easily mistake this for one of the trains they have running in Legoland. For your layout, do you have a semi-permanent garden railway too? If so, that would make for an interesting thread unto itself (even if you are just starting out, the evolution over time would be interesting to see)

That's some crazy detail and equally crazy that you can fit it all on a tiny chip. Nothing like a Vic20. Great work

Great detailing on the building! But with so much going on with the background details and the foliage it really pops.