Tyrok_ As a teacher who uses computer assisted instructives all the time, may I make suggestions (and only suggestions)? First off, thank you for taking the ime to do this project. Making this available to students who do not live near a steam locomotive or museum is quintessential. Second, may I suggest you consider making the parts removable or layered, so student have the ability to construct or de-construct the locomotive in the process. Third, making an empty boiler which a\the student fills with water, then builds a fire int he firebox, gives the student a sense of operation and participation. A descriptive telling the child what to do and what to expect as a result, enhances the program many, many, times over. A steam gauge window which rises as the boiler heats, and perhaps a pop-off valve would be amazingly cool. Lastly, and here I mean only to compliment, not to knock your undertaking, building a similar [u]modern[u] steam locomotive, say a NYC Hudson, as a comparative locomotive, would be a terrific addition. I understand the complexities of computer modeling, but as someone in the teaching biz, I can tell you what works and what works well. Giving the users some control of the manipulation is essential for holding their attention long enough to learn something.

BTW, once you have it running, in any form, I'd be glad to test run it with my sixth graders!

Dave,
A water-filled arch is what it looks like to me. I realize that some of the details have not yet been added to the illustration, so I assume that the walls of the water-filled arch would have been stayed together. But what about the wall of the backhead above the point where it joins the water-filled arch? It appears to be a single wall. I wonder whether that was actually a single wall, or if the illustration incomplete in that area. I am guessing that the entire backhead was actually double walls.

I am intrigued by your suggestion that the water-filled arch be removed from the illustration. My understanding is that tyrok1 wanted to make an historically accurate computer model. What if you were engaged in physically sectioning a locomotive with the unconventional water-filled arch? Would you remove it in order to represent a conventional firebox of that era?

No, actually it is in fact a double wall, and that part is complete (sans the staybolts). There's three inches of water between those sheets as well (roughly - from memory I think the sheet metal thickness was different on the top and thinned that gap by 1/16"). It's just the camera angle that makes it look like that - if I remember correctly, the inside surfaces of the top and bottom sections are in the same plane.

I'll have to render up a full side-on shot - I think it would answer a lot of questions about this.

Right now, I have on the docket a NYC Mohawk and a Lima-built DT&I Berkshire. I keep a small private library of original blueprints, and these two (among others) are both in my collection. Actually, I started on the Mohawk already, but put it on hold until I finished this old American and a non-cross-sectionable Consolidation (with animated interactive valve gear) I've been working on.

If you have a good source for original blueprints on a Hudson, though, I'd love to build one! I've looked for them before, but never found originals (or suitable copies that I could legally make derivative works from). It'd be really great if there were some with the streamlining on it (one of the few streamlining jobs I actually like), but those would have probably been on a separate "revision" print, so I'd need both sets to model it accurately. If you know where to find some, I would really like to build one!

There were line mechanical drawings of a Hudson and an I1sa Decapod on line for awhile. Would those work?

[quote="Ron TravisI am intrigued by your suggestion that the water-filled arch be removed from the illustration. My understanding is that tyrok1 wanted to make an historically accurate computer model. What if you were engaged in physically sectioning a locomotive with the unconventional water-filled arch? Would you remove it in order to represent a conventional firebox of that era?[/quote]

I wouldn't be sectioning one. First, there don't seem to be any left - failed experiment. They were fit with standard fireboxes and used in service until scrapped. My assumption here (and it may be wrong) is to visually demonstrate a generic simple steam locomotive, not an unusual technological dead end. Not sure about the dry backhead - on my monitor it isn't clearly visible. I think we need to consider the capability of accuracy in digital representations and monitor technology somewhere here too, but I'm not an expert in such things. The demonstration shown is imnpressive as a work in progress.

dave

Only if they were truly public domain. Otherwise, I'd probably need originals, exact copies, or drawings published before 1978 with no copyright notices. There are copyrighted drawings of the NYC Hudson out there - that much I do know. But I figure, if I'm going to be making these models available, then for both my own protection as well as the people who use them, I'd better be darn sure nobody's going to get sued for copyright infringement.

I look at it this way: Indirectly causing a museum to be sued out of existence is most definitely not worth having one particular engine, for historical significance reasons or otherwise. Especially when there have to be original drawings out there somewhere.

So, in a nutshell, that's what I would need.

And, needless to say, I'm a teeny bit anal. :)

If someone produces copyrighted, original drawings of historical parts, and someone else copies them for any purpose, that would be copyright infringement. However, I assume that if one were to make actual parts from those drawings (if the drawings were obtained without violating the copyright), that would not be copyright infringement, even if one sold the parts commercially. Making 3D computer models from the drawings would seem to be the same thing as making physical parts. But I am not sure what constitutes copyright violation in such matters.

Yeah, I'm a little fuzzy on it too. There's also the argument that you can't copyright facts, only the presentation of them, and that 3D models are completely different (and not derivative) way of presenting the measurement "facts" of the original. But I'm not a lawyer, and I really want to make sure that everybody using these is safe from any kind of accusation.

I dunno, maybe I'm just a bit too anal. Maybe I need to hire a lawyer and ask them this question. Maybe the whole point's moot because anyone publishing blueprints is enough of a railfan that they wouldn't care and would actually want me to use them, so long as I'm bringing back a lost engine in virtual form. But I figure at this point it's better to be safe than sorry until I know for sure.

I'm sure I'll find something I can use eventually. I just haven't found where to search to find where to look yet. :)

Partially true, and an interesting idea to refit it. On the one hand, you've got the historical accuracy of having it the way it is. On the other hand, it would look a lot more "normal" with a normal firebox. But, on that same hand, you could also say that having Janey couplers and brakes would be more "normal" for the engine when it retired, so if it was in fact cross-sectioned in modern times, that's not the only change that would be there.

So, here's a thought, and this probably wouldn't be too hard to do: build two versions. Keep continuing with the older version I've got until it's finished, then do another version for what it was most likely like when it was retired. It would accomplish both goals that way, and you could choose which one you'd want to use. Sound reasonable?

Once again, missing a bunch of parts and not complete, but here's a view that shows some of the backhead. So, now you can see a little better how the firebox is set up.

all the naysaying and rivet-counting aside
that is one damn fine looking model
and one interesting locomotive design
I can't wait to see this when it is done...
I don't know much about this process, but could this be turned into an interactive website component, 3d movable model with layers you can turn on and off, labels of components, etc?

Either way, you are doing fine work and I commend you for it.

will you put water and rendered steam/smoke in the finish model?

Yes, it could be turned into an interactive website component. Aside from animating (which over the last few years has become an increasingly small part of my job) I also do website programming, some of it integrating 3D rendered elements, so it could certainly be done.

And, yes, it's all pretty much watertight, so it will have fire/smoke/water/steam simulated on it later. It's going to be glacially slow to calculate though, so it's probably going to have to be the last step after I'm done building everything else. But it should work really well once everything's set up.

Thanks for the encouragement! It really is making this a lot more fun to work on knowing that other people find it as interesting as I do. :)

tyrok1,
Thanks for posting that additional view. I can see the double wall on the backhead. Just to be clear, my questions about the construction of the prototype are not intended to criticize your modeling work. I enthusiastically support what you are doing, and I believe that this kind of modeling could become an integral part of the preservation process. I have been doing a little of the same kind of work as experimentation in SolidWorks.

I am curious about the process that you are using as I understand than it does not involve cad modeling. Is it something similar though, where you are actually building the parts according to their physical dimensions? I assume that it is because you mentioned the need for engineering drawings. How did you obtain the dimensions and part details for the locomotive you have shown here? I seem to recall that you mentioned getting the drawing from the Railroad Gazette, but surely they did not provide all of the detail dimensions, did they?

With regard to the prototype, here it has been referred to as a failed experiment. Is there clear documentation regarding the fate of this water-filled arch concept? Was it just a one-of-a-kind experiment, or was it produced and further developed to some extent?

Back in that early period, there were a lot of unique ideas being tried out with varying degrees of success. It is quite a contrast to the level of standardization that came with the maturing of the industry. Everybody recognizes the common railroad spike, but in the pre-1900 era, there must have been dozens of different designs in use, let alone the ones that were too radical to be applied.