zephyr1934

Great work, so is the track starting a curve here, and if so, is it just crossing the river or doing a 90° bend?

I love the idea of open-loop layouts, and this one is great. And the Angel of the North is a brilliant addition. So you are thinking the terminal station would be shared with your main operating loop at shows? Any thoughts on lengthening the single track section?

Thank you for this venue for folks to share and show off their great work, particularly in this time when the fan conventions have all been canceled. Also thank you for keep it open to MOCs that have been around. As someone with kids and a demanding job I've never been able to participate in OcTRAINber. Please do have a gallery of the winners (national and international), as well as honorable mentions or some of the notable runner ups.

Looking great! So where's the articulation on this? Do the wheels under the tank/coal bunker swing out? It would be interesting to see a picture of it in an R40 curve

The first measure and really the only important measure is, "are you happy with it?" This model looks like it is prime for small revisions after it is build as you stumble on "the right part". Probably the best way to develop building skills is in editing your models. Many people do this by upgrading their existing models as inspiration strikes, either virtual or real models. Still, it doesn't hurt to ask for tips. Anyway, I think it looks pretty good. The windshield on the prototype looks REALLY difficult to do much better than you've already done. However, for the cab roof, one of these two parts might work,

Actually I think that photo turned out great. Your build is fantastic too!

Well, minifig pupa could be found in 1975 Anyway, the Thatcher Perkins could be a great potential since it is an iconic set too... so if they went with a pre 1900 US locomotive that could make sense. But if they were looking for mass appeal of the specific locomotive, I would think Golden Spike first, the General second.

I would agree with this quote as a starting point. If you like the pure lego 9v system (perhaps with a few modified switches) better than PF and can afford it then why not? If you are drooling over the potential of the emerging 9v offerings, hold off until the market is actually offering what you want and perhaps a few people have tested it out. Here's a list of Pros and Cons of the stock 9v off the top of my head Pros of 9v: You only need a "truck" for actual propulsion, so it is a lot easier to hide your motorization. So 4 wide hoods and small locomotives are A LOT easier No need to futz with batteries, bluetooth or IR Can turn trains on/off just by switching the switches on the layout Cons of unmodified 9v: Can only have two motors per circuit Strictly R40 curves and a single switch geometry Resistance at rail joints means you need multiple power drops for a large layout Have to run all of the wires (not a problem for a fairly static display, big hassle for a weekend display) Need to occasionally clean the track (but nothing like HO track) Hard to engineer a steam engine that is actually propelled through its drivers (but you can still make good looking 9v steam) can't do turning loops Now one more thing to consider, if you use PU power at full retail price, then each single motor costs you $50+$13 = $63 to power (motor + battery box) while the per motor cost for a dual motor is $50/2 + $13 = $38. In that context, a used 9v motor for $50 (perhaps with the occasional replacement from parts of a PF motor) is not insane.

Wow, yeah, kinda looks that way. And it doesn't help that they split off one of the driver wheels. There's no way to do it right for either version. For the rods I'll probably wind up with a "simple" version that just uses a 3 hole 9 long with a fake pin in the middle (a cosmetic improvement over Lego's rendition) and a "complicated" version with an actual connecting rod from the jack shaft that will have to wait until after I have the set in hand to be designed.

Or that reflects the internal price limitations or possibly the 1x4x1 panels were not available in brown at the time the design was finalized Thanks! It looks like the model not only has the inner-most drivers cut off, but also missing space for the counterweight on the connecting rod for the jackshaft... ugh!

I like your technical terminology because that is exactly what I was thinking to call it. I believe the "most accurate" solution would be to tie in the remaining driver under the cab, but that won't work with the current design. I bet within a few weeks folks will come up with a major rebuild that moves the motor to one of the hoods and completely redoes the frame so that there are only two sets of driving wheels. Anyway, getting back to the wheel thingy, I believe the technic disk should be centered vertically with the driver wheels, but from the pictures it looks like in this model it is too high, by either a full brick 2/3's of a brick. I suspect the disk is too large compared to the real feature and if it is moved down to the correct location and it will look more like a wheel. Anticipating this model, I have a new rod design in my current fab. It is essentially a 3 hole 9 long rod but the middle hole is fabricated to have a fake technic pin head to make it look like it is also connected to the disk even though it isn't. So it is actually a 2 hole rod. I could not tell for sure if the technic disk was laterally centered between the wheels or offset by 1/2 to 1 stud. If the latter, my prototypes will need to be modified. In any event, within a few weeks of release I should have rods for the simple fix. I'll probably have them in both gray and black.

Don't forget the Disney train- had four flanged drivers and is an American steam locomotive. With the Superchief and BNSF licensed real US railroads, with the Maersk they licensed a long standing relationship (and reduced the "US"ness of the set and included a popular rare color), with EN... I always thought that was just some steam engine they dreamed up, come on, LRTS has nothing to do with LNER Shhh!!! Only a train Brilliant idea

Those look AMAZING!

Make any train in sand red and it will sell like crazy

Lego is positioned as a "premium brand", e.g., if you call customer service about a broken part, even an expensive broken part, they will usually sent out a replacement no questions asked. They are definitely aiming for the high profit margins. You look at the price per brick in a set and then look at the price per brick on line at PAB and then at BL if you find the right brick (e.g., a red 1x6) you will probably see the same margins. And as customers we do get a certain level of value for it. You know that the parts will fit together without question... and do so in an infinite number of different ways. (well, except for those 1x bricks, plates and tiles that are prone to cracking... or the inconsistent color) Anyway, there was good reason why Lego wanted to buy BL. Even if they never change the prices on BL, it is an insane amount of information on customers and aftermarket values. The simple fact that FxBricks, SBricks, etc. can make enough money to stay in business even though they are developing and producing plug and play Lego compatible electronic components in the 100's to 1000's instead of 100k to 10M already answers that question

From what little you've shown the locomotives and cars look amazing! I would agree that if you could get the motors in the loco or tender that would be great, but I certainly understand that the heavy train might prevent that. Have you considered roller bearings for the passenger cars? If you are using technic axle trucks for the cars that would certainly create a LOT of friction. Anyway, when you have time, please do post more photos of both the locos and the cars.

= garden railway? (grin) + working rotary snow plow

Great review. I completely see what you mean about the gaps for a display model. I like the 1x4 panel solution that both you and Dirk came up with for operation. And I appreciate your comments about the gap in terms of someone building the model for display. In this case the simplest display solution would be to fill them in with a brown 1x5x4 assembly that slides out for operation. All in all that seems like a big gap in many ways for Lego to have left, oh well.

Great review, thanks for sharing. I also like the simple and efficient MOD

First, a new thought on the engine now that we have a lot more details. With all of those technic axles, we might be entering an era where we will need either roller bearings for technic axles or driver wheels for metal train axles (both of which have been demonstrated, but neither en masse) I was originally in favor of them including plastic track and building ties on it (and from a train fan having more track is always a good thing) but the building experience of completely brick built tracks is definitely a plus for their target audience (and the aesthetic look with no track connection overhanging the ends) Like others I was thinking the same thing- a great choice if done well, as well as any iconic US streamliner (many already mentioned in the thread) If it sells well enough, there MIGHT be a market for the train heads buying 5x copies of a car set (especially a 3 in 1) in the off years... but with the standard lego wheels that would be asking for trouble given how much friction they have. A lot of people would complain that their 10 car train will not even start or that the magnets are pulling apart in the curves. In any event, I bet we'll see a ton of instructions/sets for compatible cars on the aftermarket. Wish they had done it in dark green so that it would also be popular as a parts pack to non-train fans. In one of the interviews Jamie said something like, "and a clever builder should have no problem figuring out how to convert this to PF." Hopefully that means there's enough room in the cab to also fit the IR receiver in as well as the PF plug on top of the battery box, and maybe even an obvious spot to poke the sensor dome out of the top. (not for the expert builders who could hack that together no sweat, rather for the "just getting in to trains" builders) In the side view I could have sworn that it looks like the noses are actually pitched downward, as if the mounting point was one plate high. We will see. Anyway, in terms of weight on the drivers, putting the motor in the cab makes a lot more sense in this design.

Your continued research is much appreciated

I was looking through the 2020 line of Lego sets at Brickset and stumbled upon a new train book that appears to be officially sanctioned. The description on Amazon says, "Step by step, fully-illustrated building instructions for seven LEGO train models including a coal gondola, milk tanker, open hopper, depressed flatcar, passenger coach, powered box car, and diesel locomotive. Design alternatives suggest ways to customize the train cars, improve an existing LEGO train collection, or even pair the models in this book with an official LEGO train set." and lists a Sept 22nd release date

Amazing complement to your extreme layout. And then all the macro detailing you are bringing, e.g., the cable car (looks like it could have been LGB) Still though, you need to squeeze in another 26 m of track... ... to get to a quarter km Though in a pinch it looks like you've blown past that mark already...

You could try google and limit your search to lugnet.com, very handy for sites with poor search functions End of the SECOND golden age... 7777 (grin... or maybe sigh a someone who never owned any 12v)

Yes, I highly doubt there will be any truly new train sets in HP or city, but I was just musing how they might handle changing the wheel sets. When 60198 comes back in stock I bet it will have the new wheels... and a small chance that it might have a new number.