rday1982

Looks a little like Cruella DeVille's Rolls Royce.

The model is really nice, even with those notches and the holes in the round bricks. But I do know exactly what you mean, and I think this is why I tend to prefer the use of curved slope tiles or slope tiles, personally. I think that there's probably not going to be a better way until Lego decide to make bricks that are specifically intended to be used to build steam locomotive boilers though, and I don't think that will happen because as far as I can tell, Lego have no real interest in catering specifically to train builders.

These may be related problems. Raising that yellow lip by the height of one plate might solve both of these. Then again, it may be due to the low-riding front pony. That bottom plate might **just** be catching on something. In either case, raising the height that plates travel above the railhead will lessen the likelihood of the wheels jumping out of alignment with the rails. However, if it **is** related to the rocking of the front lip, that section may also be somehow pushing the front pony out of alignment with the rails as it passes over the wheels during the turns. It may be wise to check that the articulation of the front pony allows for totally smooth and unhindered movement across the top of it by the top assembly, as well as looking at raising that front yellow lip. With or without problems though, it does look absolutely glorious in motion.

This is pretty damn nice. I like the brick-built lining.

I second this - it's a lovely locomotive and some real glamour shots would be a treat, if you can get it under better lighting.

The Spiderman metro train from that one set might look the part on your tracks, and that at least has internal seating.

If Lego actually wanted to make real money off trains, they could make it from relatively-limited runs of parts packs - bags of components that are useful for building trains. Windows, fronts, steam locomotive driving wheels, connecting rods, the bits to make valve gear, cab controls, parts that are good for boilers, parts that are good for lights, parts that work for making bogies, bricks that house a simple roller bearing wheel set, train wheels that you can stick a roller bearing in nice and easy, maybe even loose roller bearings, parts to build couplers, buffer beams, parts to ballast track, and let's not forget track itself. Different radius curves, different commonly-used ballasting colours, different weeds for overgrown areas. Horns, bells, whistles, antennae, pantographs, technic gears, motors, things to motorize points, different points geometries, different selections of minifigures with different connections to railways. With maybe three or four of these things requiring a few new moulds to be produced, there are still lots that could be done without additional expense beyond new packaging (and let's be honest, you don't care if it just comes in a thin, plain, shipping box of white card. You just want the parts). A selection of 30-40 pieces per month, changed every month for another list of 30-40 train parts would be a constant stream of revenue for Lego. They might not deal in a massive volume, but they would see a constant sales stream that would allow them to roughly estimate after 6-7 months how many they should expect to sell in the next 6-7 months. If they obtained a licence for TTTE parts (just 4x4 dishes with faces printed on them would be all they'd need initially), they could at least produce a test-run to see what sort of a demand exists. I bet that blind-bagged faces for steam locomotives and rolling stock would sell pretty well. Panels with locomotive numbers on them would be the next logical step, and the rest would be taken care of by the constant availability of packs of train parts with slightly different colours and slightly differing contents lists from month to month. People could and would be able to recreate Sodor in Lego this way, and Lego wouldn't need to try to justify massive investment. For that matter, I don't think that Lego need to justify massive investment in order to expand demand for Lego trains. All they need to do is focus a little more on making sure that appropriate themes contain an integration potential for a train. The City theme is easy enough to tie rail infrastructure into. Harry Potter enthusiasts at this point own up to five versions of the Hogwarts Express and can be counted on to buy the next variant to be released. As well as the next Hogsmeade station. Trains like the Disney Train are always going to have some kind of customer base, and they really missed a trick by not releasing that behemoth of a locomotive from the Lego Movie as a set. In fact, with a Lego Movie franchise existing, the company has the opportunity to create any demand that they see fit to, simply by including something that looks cool in a movie and then releasing a cheap set that connects with a more expensive set, with both sets based around that concept. What Lego would say if they were a little more honest is that it would require creativity and determination on the part of a team working for Lego to ensure that market demand be appropriately created and exploited to support investment in catering to Lego train consumers by leveraging an increased earnings potential that they just don't see as worth it based on being able to increase their earnings potential without doing this, simply by continuing with their current strategy. Simply put, because people are going to continue to buy Lego products whether or not Lego decide to cater to a specific market, Lego will opt not to do so. Thus, trains in general is an under-served segment of the Lego universe and will continue to be so (despite the potential of Lego trains to drive consumer interest with properly applied strategy). With specific regard to TTTE, I think that Lego just don't care enough about (a) younger consumers - ie, the target audience for TTTE, (b) older train-specific consumers - ie, the people who would go build TTTE MOCs for themselves and their children if creepy face dishes were printed and sold, (c) train-specific consumers, ie, the people who want to build primarily trains and train-adjacent items, (d) treating Lego trains as anything more than an ancillary possibility of the Lego building system, and (e) making Lego sets that carry license agreements but don't have the kind of rabid, obsessive, and above all, enormous fanbase of properties like Star Wars. Excuse me. I appear to have begun ranting a little. I'll get off my soapbox and depart... ... ...for now.

This is amazing! I love the use of the Jacobs' bogie! Between this and ElectricSteam's work, I'm tempted to put some time into designing my own fusion steamer.

The interior is pretty basic. I could live without it. I'll play around with that suggestion though. Anyhow, I rebuilt pretty much from scratch, and managed to cram a motor and battery box into the locomotive. The internal gearing is something I'm not very happy with. Here's a cutaway of how I built the boiler around it: And here's the internal transmission of power from the motor: I'm just not sure whether this will work as intended... does anybody see any obvious problems and/or solutions?

So an hour and forty minutes of charging gets you one hour and twenty minutes of running time (with a heavy load). Inductive charging sounds like a must for this. I wouldn't want to have to take apart a locomotive or power car after an hour of running it so that I could put another hour's worth of power in by swapping the battery. At that level of needing to mess around with the model, I'd probably take Duracell as the preferred option. With inductive charging being an option, the cost would be the deciding factor. Of course, my track and motors were the 9V system and I was used to being able to just twist the big yellow dial to make the train move, so maybe I'm just spoiled. But if I'm going to rebuild my collection at some point, it seems like I'm going to have to go to the plastic track and use PF motors. So I'm looking at from the POV of trying to keep the experience of running trains as hassle-free as possible, as well as spending as little as possible on infrastructure (yes, I know that some significant outlay will be required either way. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go about things the way that saves me the most money). I'm also likely a minority opinion holder on this topic, so you might not want to listen too closely to what I have to say anyway. Especially since your project really does seem like a very cool one, and I hope that whatever feature set you settle on, it will be successful.

How long do you charge for to get the 1hr 17 minute runtime?

Those wheels are awfully close together, and I'm not certain that you can build around the motor easily. I think you may be sacrificing the ability to produce a nice model in exchange for being able to produce a functional model in order to make it small. Which makes me wonder what the point of building an extremely compact steam locomotive is if you can't make it look good. Of course, you might be about to prove me wrong by posting a video of a finished locomotive that looks amazing. In which case, I'll gladly eat my words. But I'm skeptical that overall this facilitates anything truly desirable. As much as it's a nice piece of engineering.

Close. I'm using several normal plates as the base, with a total thickness of one, but then sticking a 4x1 on top that has studs down the sides. A cutaway, with some of the bricks hidden might help to show you how I've built this up: I think I see what you're telling me to do instead... If I use headlight bricks instead, I should save one plate. Then I can cut out the decorative panel above the curve, and build the remainder of the body half a stud stud wider on each side to match the width of the bottom (instead of the awkward transition via the brackets). That will save me two more plates, and I can easily cut out a brick from the height of the rear doors. The only remaining problem will be that this will mess up the way I've put the passenger doors in. They currently sit flush with the carriage but can be opened - this will inset them by half a stud and prevent them from opening unless I figure out how to hang them from the roofline and have them sit flush again. Thanks. You've definitely given me something to think about. Right now, I'm trying to rebuild the locomotive and tender to hold a battery pack and motor. When that's done, I will turn my attention to the carriage, and this will be helpful to refer back to. Axle-pin hybrids in the ponies under the tender and the bogies under the carriage. I know they're not the best solution, but I wanted specifically to try using my own wheelset rather than the pre-moulded ones. Also, these are significantly cheaper. What I'll probably end up doing for any brick-build is making it, regretting my choice, and eventually switching to roller bearings.

Thanks. I'll try to make sure I model and/or render things in Studio where I have an idea that might solve somebody's problem. One of the things that really saddens me is that the Lego community in general don't seem too keen on showing how things were done (and I've had the why explained and I understand. But it doesn't mean I like it).

The one at the rear would usually be a jib, and the bottom arm coming off the mast to support it is the jib boom. The one at the front would usually be a lateen, or a bow sail, and the arm extending from the bow to support it is the bowsprit. That's a very nice boat. The green is unusual, but I like it.