zephyr1934

That looks a million times better without the wedge plates

All of these small, third party track manufacturers exist because of the huge gaping hole left by Lego's extremely limited track geometry. These track builders have done a great service to us all, allowing longer, more realistically proportioned rollingstock. I have seen some neat new things come from all of these manufacturers. The more of these innovators we have out there the better it is for all of us. Presumably all of the track manufacturers are fans first and entrepreneurs second. I doubt any of them are getting rich doing this and I suspect few of them have quit their day jobs (if you are simply putting the effort in to make money you would probably make more money for your time working at McDonald's). As such, in the name of friendly competition it would be great if all players respected one anothers innovation at least for a while, but there are no rules. Instead we have unfriendly competition that is bad for all involved- Trix undercut 4D, 4D can't afford to continue like this and so they are releasing their designs for free which in turn undercuts Trix. In that environment why should anyone attempt to innovate? But again, there are no rules. If Trix is going to pounce on every good idea that someone else comes up with, they should do so by making it better, e.g., don't just give us R104 switches, also give us R120 and R88. Then also give us the ability to have a double diverging mainline. While I love the idea of R104 switches, my outside main is R120 so I have limited use for R104 switches. Don't just give us R40 curved switches, give us R88/104/120 curved switches, that would free up a good 30 inches off of my layout if I could put the crossovers on the wide radius curves. Since their track is 3D printed Trix and 4D can offer an amazing system of different geometries without worrying if they can sell 100's to 1000's of copies. They can serve the niche markets where injection molding will never be viable. Even if they only sell a few copies of a rare design, each one of those copies that they sell will likely bring with it sales of many of their common designs. Returning to 4D, I still have my hope that they can stay in the market by finding others to do the actual printing and distribution of their existing designs.

The locomotive getting caught in a sag like that is different than the middle driver axle lifting another driver axle off the track. That problem is due to the pilot and trailing trucks not having enough clearance above. Lego locomotives with three "trucks" are not great on rolling terrain unless specifically designed for it. To address that you need to think of the clearance above and the points of articulation within. For the clearance above, as you build you need to carve out space above the pilot and trailing trucks and then test your design on the most extreme track you plan to run on. For the articulation, that can become a nasty mechanical engineering problem. While I do not have specific guidance there, this build has vertical angle rotation around the rear driver axle: Works fine and this locomotive is pushed by the tender (similar dynamics as you encounter backing up). I designed this much play because my club has notoriously uneven tables due to members standing on them to assemble skyscrapers. Now looking at your track setup, PF is not great with grades. It looks like you are climbing at least one plate per track segment, maybe more. That is extreme (I've heard that the max recommended is one plate per track segment). One can do steeper than that, but you will have to engineer it knowing that you are fighting the limits. Now if your goal is maximum power, remember that big wheels are for speed and little wheels are for power. Finally, a tip on photographing black steam engines- try to get the lighting behind you, i.e., coming from the same direction as you are taking the picture from. In some of your shots the lighting is on the far side of the build, putting the features you are trying to show are in the shadows, where it is very hard to see the details of the black parts.

That is probably overkill, any sort of track where you would need that clearance would likely derail your train anyway. A blind driver between two normal drivers will already have a gap above the rails. Even if there was an occasional rail joint that was high enough to push the center axle up and lift one of the flanged drivers off the track it would only be a very short distance (under 4 studs) and the momentum of your train will keep it moving over that gap. Anyway, if you do go that route, just remember do NOT pin the middle axle to the rods, otherwise, as noted in the earlier reply, the rods will keep the middle axle from lifting as designed. As for pure lego rods, as long as you do not mind the added width, you can build up some okay looking rods with technic connectors. But they will tend to pull apart over time so either gearing the driving wheels together or a drop of glue on the joints of the built up rod helps.

Ah, okay, it had not occurred to me to broadcast the IR out of the bottom of the locomotive. Not good for a general application where the IR receivers are typically on top of other locomotives or whatnot but if the IR receivers are aligned to have good sight lines that is a different story

While a great idea, it could also be expensive- with one cord per sensor and only two sockets per hub, you would need two hubs on the locomotive. The need to carry two battery boxes also eliminates some locomotive designs, but others will still work fine with that configuration.

What a brilliant solution... <flinch> modifying a 30+ yr old part Here's a thought for you, if you are going custom wheels, why not go all the way to full custom wheel sets? You could use a pair of 1x2 technic bricks, and the same axles and roller bearings that folks are using for the low friction axles today. Thereby simultaneously eliminating the need for (and sparing the life of, grin) relatively rare parts and overcoming the biggest limitation of those parts- high friction. Of course you would then need to incorporate a fake axle head in your design. In fact roller bearing steam driving wheels would be of benefit to PF/PUP builds too, but that's a different thread. Returning to topic, your wheels look great!

That is an amazing build. I still love the duplo gondolas, the sideways train motor is utterly brilliant. The detailing on the cars is fantastic, and unbelievable on the little steamer.

First my thoughts on your model, you did a good job capturing the impossible angles of the nose. That is a feat in itself. Looking at your realization, I would think adding 2-3 plates in height to the rest of the body might make the nose look better proportioned to the rest of the loco, but then it might also make the loco feel a bit short. If you are not trying for a perfect recreation, you could go either way. I personally do not like the wedge plate in gray next to the windshield. I would try to match it to whatever color is right behind the cab, but that would require doing away with the stripe along the body or coming up with a different way to work the windshield. Second, my thoughts on replicating prototypes vs. models vs. pure fantasy is all a matter of personal taste. If you run on R40 curves unless you build narrow gauge or early steam you will probably have to make some compromises on perfectly replicating most prototypes. 32 studs is about the limit you can go in length before you start getting into operational challenges (one can go longer and stay on R40, but the challenges increase and the trains look silly when in a curve , e.g., this). So even for a perfectionist, that limitation can set you free. The modeling companies also have come up with some nice ways to smooth over similar problems that we face with stubby cars. Heck, seeking to replicate a toy train can be a fun pursuit in itself (Classic Toy Trains). There are some high end models that are very good. If you are modeling an obscure prototype for which there are not many pictures of the original you might be forced to resort to models for reference. For me at least, if I look at enough photos of the prototype I can spot where model designers took liberties and smooth over those flaws. Of course even if it was made in a model that does not meet it was ever realized in real life. I always like seeing the occasional model of a dome car in a livery of a railroad that never had domes, or an SP GS4 in maroon sold as a N&W J, or a GG1 in GN colors standing in for a Little Joe, etc... Once you've spent the money on a mold the model companies want to get the widest use of it after all.

Tom, Like the others, I am sorry to hear of the move, the labor of love that you poured into this work is clear in all the hard work you have put into your designs. Don't throw the entire towel in. Reserve your rights in terms of re-sale of your hard work. You should keep some control of your creation. As I understand it, Shupp got no profit on his shapeways wheels but now gets a small profit when BTD prints and sells them. Even if it is a small percentage to let someone else do the printing and distributing, you deserve some income from your hard work (you are the song writer). And if/when you do set the designs free in the world, keep a little "shareware" note in them, when someone prints their own part based on your design many will see the value and make a contribution.

The amount of curves you manage to squeeze in to six wide using (almost) only rectangular bricks is incredible.

The further detailing is looking great too For a home layout or a "it always goes together this way" mobile layout that works and adds more bang, but for a "we always put the layout together in different ways" layout keeping the track to 32 studs wide makes set up and tear down easier. (I say since my club is the latter group). You could even save bricks on the straights going this route if you use dark gray baseplates to get the last row of studs... but then the curves become a nightmare. [none if this is critical of your design, just thoughts of a trade off for someone inspired by your ballast design] The whole point of this thread being the devil in the details.

That is an amazing build, the curves coming together in so many different angles, all of the details, this is over the top!

Perhaps it would be safe to even say overdue, congratulations!

Looking good

Amazing work, I never thought it could get better than 7777!

Another amazing build, fantastic work as always. If it weren't in this forum I would not believe that it was made out of Lego. The car is a fantastic touch too.

What about the old reliable minifig hand in the back side of a headlight brick?

Those last three words are important. If you have bands on both sides and your motor is already at its limits, then the different radii of the rails on a curve could stall the motor if you have bands on both sides. With bands on just one side that radius wins.

Excellent!

Oh wow, that steam engine was way ahead of its time, fascinating works

Your work capturing what could have been got me thinking about the actual blue era sets. I think the closest the blue era ever came to your designs would be the combination of 727 and 164

Looking good!

Congrats on making the EB front page! I think three train MOC's have now hit the front page in the past month.

Amazing work, top notch if not over the top So that's where all of the grill bricks went (grin)