I would not be so sure about that, it's your call but I I also like the idea of a new 2-8-2 mikado.
GMax and 3DSMax (And any other modeling program) screenies/renders
- Thread starter Mr.Kamikaze
- Start date
I would not be so sure about that, it's your call but I I also like the idea of a new 2-8-2 mikado.
No, no interest at all. :hehe:
I'm kidding of course. I welcome any new steam locomotives. But as others stated, it is your call.
Going by the drawing of the Southern Ms-4 Heavy Mike, the bottom of the smokebox should be at the level of the top of the cylinders.
What drawing are you using to make your Mikado? Or are you just eyeballing it?
1. Freelancing like this leads to problems, something that's been noticeable from your work, Trainman7616's work and Trainboi's work. This isn't a bad thing per se, just that its very obvious when a model is out of proportion. A better method would be to find a plan of the wheel arrangement you want to make and modify/change details as needs/wants require, rather than just eyeballing it and ending up with a model that's out of proportion. The same goes when building a model of a real life engine!
2. Russian decapods? Your comparing Oranges with Apples, stick to comparing Oranges with Lemons! If you get what I mean.
3. I would suggest that you study various 2-8-0's and other 2-10-0 designs and then compare them with 2-8-2 & 2-10-2's. Pay particular attention to the relationship of the Drivers/Firebox/trailing axle(if it has one!).
4. You are quite advanced with this model, don't bother changing its proportions now, just finish it, out of proportion and overly high-set.
Other than its high set looks your model is quite good.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
To address each of your points:
1a) Freelancing leads to what problems exactly? A model can't exactly be out of proportion if the builder intends it to be that way. It's not exactly obvious either, as several railroads used similar designs for 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s that allowed for standardization and interchangeability of parts. Eyeballing is also a viable way of creating models, as I know of several highly regarded models in this community that have been created generally by eyeballing pictures and using very loose measurements. I'm not exactly sure what "problems" you are referring to either, since nothing seems out of scale for a 2-8-2, and in my opinion it looks really really good!
1b) Your suggestion of a "better method" comes with its own issues which very much outweigh any potential "benefits" (assuming that there are any actual issues in the first place). Namely, if you base a locomotive off of another prototype, then you lose a very large degree of uniqueness that is essential when building power for a fictional railroad. Steam locomotives were more or less custom built to the specifications of the railroad that ordered them, with a few exceptions. To say that basing a locomotive off of a prototype plan is a "better" approach is completely false. That's not to say that you shouldn't use loose measurements of similar prototype locomotives to scale the whole thing (which he did) but the whole "let's change a few parts and call it a fictional" approach gets REALLY boring after a while.
1c) I'm not sure if you've actually looked at an American steam locomotive, but I'm really not sure there are any "problems" along the lines of what you've been saying that show up in Ben, Chance, or Dan's work. You failed to actually list out anything aside from your opinion that the boiler on this specific model might be a bit too high, so I'm just going to go with the assumption that you don't exactly have anything else in mind here.
2) I wouldn't say they're apples and oranges at all, in fact several railroads that shared designs between their 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s didn't change boiler height all that much. Not sure where you were going aside from that either, since if you REALLY want to get into that comparing most locomotives on a certain level could, in a similar way, be considered "apples and oranges" because of road specific details and the fact that, again, most locomotives were essentially custom built by the manufacturer.
3) And I would suggest that you pay closer attention to how high boilers on a good amount of 2-8-2 Mikados are set as well, some actual research might yield some surprising results!
4) This just comes off as an arrogant and obtuse backhanded compliment. I'm not exactly sure what you think looks out of proportion (you didn't at all bother listing anything else), and I think we've solved the "boiler is too high" allegation.
For anything else, please refer to rule number one of model railroading, namely that it's his railroad.
And just so you don't actually have to do anything here, ooh look, a high set boiler on a mikado!
Also to get this back on track, oh no a locomotive that I've almost ENTIRELY eyeballed, whatever shall we do!?
1a) Freelancing leads to what problems exactly? A model can't exactly be out of proportion if the builder intends it to be that way. It's not exactly obvious either, as several railroads used similar designs for 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s that allowed for standardization and interchangeability of parts. Eyeballing is also a viable way of creating models, as I know of several highly regarded models in this community that have been created generally by eyeballing pictures and using very loose measurements. I'm not exactly sure what "problems" you are referring to either, since nothing seems out of scale for a 2-8-2, and in my opinion it looks really really good!
1b) Your suggestion of a "better method" comes with its own issues which very much outweigh any potential "benefits" (assuming that there are any actual issues in the first place). Namely, if you base a locomotive off of another prototype, then you lose a very large degree of uniqueness that is essential when building power for a fictional railroad. Steam locomotives were more or less custom built to the specifications of the railroad that ordered them, with a few exceptions. To say that basing a locomotive off of a prototype plan is a "better" approach is completely false. That's not to say that you shouldn't use loose measurements of similar prototype locomotives to scale the whole thing (which he did) but the whole "let's change a few parts and call it a fictional" approach gets REALLY boring after a while.
1c) I'm not sure if you've actually looked at an American steam locomotive, but I'm really not sure there are any "problems" along the lines of what you've been saying that show up in Ben, Chance, or Dan's work. You failed to actually list out anything aside from your opinion that the boiler on this specific model might be a bit too high, so I'm just going to go with the assumption that you don't exactly have anything else in mind here.
2) I wouldn't say they're apples and oranges at all, in fact several railroads that shared designs between their 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s didn't change boiler height all that much. Not sure where you were going aside from that either, since if you REALLY want to get into that comparing most locomotives on a certain level could, in a similar way, be considered "apples and oranges" because of road specific details and the fact that, again, most locomotives were essentially custom built by the manufacturer.
3) And I would suggest that you pay closer attention to how high boilers on a good amount of 2-8-2 Mikados are set as well, some actual research might yield some surprising results!
4) This just comes off as an arrogant and obtuse backhanded compliment. I'm not exactly sure what you think looks out of proportion (you didn't at all bother listing anything else), and I think we've solved the "boiler is too high" allegation.
For anything else, please refer to rule number one of model railroading, namely that it's his railroad.
And just so you don't actually have to do anything here, ooh look, a high set boiler on a mikado!
Also to get this back on track, oh no a locomotive that I've almost ENTIRELY eyeballed, whatever shall we do!?
Last edited:
Where's the face?
To address each of your points:
1a) Freelancing leads to what problems exactly? A model can't exactly be out of proportion if the builder intends it to be that way. It's not exactly obvious either, as several railroads used similar designs for 2-8-2s and 4-6-2s that allowed for standardization and interchangeability of parts. Eyeballing is also a viable way of creating models, as I know of several highly regarded models in this community that have been created generally by eyeballing pictures and using very loose measurements. I'm not exactly sure what "problems" you are referring to either, since nothing seems out of scale for a 2-8-2, and in my opinion it looks really really good!
[/QUOTE]
Eyeballing is also a viable way of creating models?
Yes eyeballing works really well, especially for a engine design that a internet search might turn up an actual plan!
Given how much the USRA designs got modified over the years?
Have a look at how much difference between a "standard" USRA design and what differences a number of RR's (B&O(Running board, Smokebox front), Frisco(Cab, Running board), Wabash(wheels), NKP(Number plates, Tenders, Running boards), Southern(Air pumps), etc) modified their USRA Light 2-8-2's with!
And that's before we get into the copies (Some were built outright with differences, some got modified later).
Ben's Mikado & Pacific are simply set too high/too tall, Chance's 4-8-4 - Too tall(even he's admitted it) Trainboi1's stuff - odds and end's/niggles - other than that? I can't pick out much that seems off kilter.
The USRA Light Pacific and the Light Mikados more or less shared a boiler design
Most of the pre and post USRA designs didn't exactly follow a set design - but that's why they were pre and post USRA designs. Add in the fact that by the late 1920's most RR's had stopped building more 2-8-2's.
What? If he's got to that point in its build he might as well as finish it. And as for the boiler is too high, explain to me what precisely would be going between the boiler and the frame of the engine and why it should go there instead of on the side or front like most real life designs?
Sure, that's why I said he should finish it, it will look awkward alongside its fellow RR's equally awkward looking Pacific!
(I didn't bother commenting with the pacific, because by the time I realised it was a little to high set it had been out for a while!)
And just so you don't actually have to do anything here, ooh look, a high set boiler on a mikado!
Ooooooh! a Chicago & North Western J class Mikado. 310 examples 1913 - 1923, Non USRA, all Alco built. 62" drivers, 27" x 32" cylinders, weighed 304,500 pounds. Boiler looks like its a bit undersized compared to other designs.
Meh, who cares? it look like a mongrel anyway!
To address each of your points:
And just so you don't actually have to do anything here, ooh look, a high set boiler on a mikado!
Oh Look, an engine in the same class after a rebuild! I guess even the CNW found them to be a little odd looking with that high set boiler?
Trainz_12_fan_100
yes thats my name
In my eyes a steam engine is a steam engine, and that is a sexy lookin one Jackson
trainman7616
Western Maryland Addict
Every day its something new....
Last edited:
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Definitely is if you aren't trying to go after a particular prototype locomotive.
So you've just proved my point then. Taking an existing design and modifying it is not the right way to go, because as you so gratuitously pointed out, even the locomotives that were standardized got modified so much that they are barely recognizable as USRA engines. Also, it might be hard to envision, but the vast, VAST majority of steam locomotives were non-USRA prototypes that were completely different from USRA designs.
But his Pacific is absolutely not too tall, height-wise it matches up with SP P-10s and PRR K4s. Chance's 4-8-4 was too tall for what he wanted but as far as steam locomotives go it's not out of scale enough that it's noticeable. Also I'm going to take your "odds and end's/niggles" as you getting backed into a corner and not actually having anything for that claim.
And Ben isn't building either, now is he?
Except not really, and in fact Lima's first test of the superpower concept was creating a massive Mikado (the H10b) as a proof-of-concept for their superpower designs. Until 2-8-4s and other super power designs started being built the majority of steam locomotives being bought were still Mikados.
Because it allows for more firebox space in the overall design. Lima in their first few preliminary designs used the same method to further increase firebox space in their "super-power" H10s, however due to clearance issues on the New York Central/Boston & Albany they were not able to move forward in that direction.
Except for the fact that neither look particularly awkward. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and ignorant criticism will be rampant in the like minded, but all the same, I'd keep it to yourself.
And if anybody would like reason number 2 as to why I'm probably not releasing it, here you all go!
Last edited:
Oh Look, an engine in the same class after a rebuild! I guess even the CNW found them to be a little odd looking with that high set boiler?
Really mate, why be so rude ? , have you had too many tinnies and feeling argumentative or are yer just nursing a really bad one after celebrating too much during Australia day ? and i may say , as a fellow Aussie .......whatever happened to the fair go ?
I really don't think its constructive to bag other peoples work in the way you have especially when the model looks extremely good , i'd kill to be able to make a 3d model like that, even if its not 100% prototypical.
the old adage, ' if you haven't anything constructive to say, don't bother saying it ' comes to mind.
titanicchristo
Member
Lets bring this thread back on track...
Great work guys, some awesome looking models. I've been rather hesitant to post anything but here's an ALCO dockside switcher I started back around Thanksgiving. It's missing a few key component (the bell, air compressor, a completed valve gear, etc) but I figured I'd post a couple progress shots. Right now the entire model with the wheels is sitting at a poly count of just over 45k. If anyone has any tips or advice, just shoot me a PM.
Thanks, Joe.
(Engineer Side)
(Fireman side)
Thanks, Joe.
(Engineer Side)
(Fireman side)