 | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Aaron Sneary wrote:
|
| |
| |
7 wide! Now that’s what I’ve been saying since I first heard of the how
wide debate. It’s about time a real train builder came around to the truth:
Trains are 7 wide and cars are 5 wide!
|
|
| |
Well, considering trains in the U.S. are about twice the width of the rails,
and overhang the ends of the ties, I’d say the actual width should be 10
wide, with automobiles being 7 wide -- wide enough for two minifigs to sit
side-by-side. But 8-wide trains seems like a good compromise, and that’s why
our club builds our trains to that scale.
|
John is absolutely correct here. You have 2 choices upon which to gauge your
scale-- the height of the minifig or the track gauge (the distance between the
rails). As John mentioned, a typical US train is about 10 feet wide, and
standard track gauge is 4’ 8.5”, or about 5 feet (half of train width). Since
the distance between the LEGO rails is 5 studs, that would put you, as again
John noted, 1 stud = 1 foot, or 10 wide. This is the true scale using LEGO
track gauge. That makes a minifig about 5 feet tall, and this would be perfect,
except for the unfortunate reality that the LEGO wheels are terribly small
at that scale, making 10 wide trains look rather funny.
So the question becomes how far do you want to deviate from the ideal
proportions (not considering the wheel size issue). 8 wide scale says that a
minifig is about 6 feet tall and the track gauge is a bit wider than standard,
but the wheels are about spot on in terms of size, and again as John said, it is
the best compromise if you are trying to build as “realistically” as you can.
I honestly wouldn’t even bother to build 7 wide (I’m sure Ben and I will have
some discussions about this at BrickFest PDX!;-) It is inferior to 8 wide, and
isn’t really much better than 6 wide. 6 Wide is minifig scale and is its own
thing which I enjoy viewing as well, especially when crafted by James Mathis,
who has the best feel for 6 wide train building I have seen.
Having said all of that, I like to hear your reasoning, Aaron, as to why you
think 7 wide is the Truth;-)
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
snip
| |
I honestly wouldn’t even bother to build 7 wide (I’m sure Ben and I will have
some discussions about this at BrickFest PDX!;-) It is inferior to 8 wide,
and isn’t really much better than 6 wide. 6 Wide is minifig scale and is
its own thing which I enjoy viewing as well, especially when crafted by James
Mathis, who has the best feel for 6 wide train building I have seen.
Having said all of that, I like to hear your reasoning, Aaron, as to why you
think 7 wide is the Truth;-)
JOHN
|
I would honestly do 8 wide if a) I had the pieces--8 wide takes up soooo many
more pieces and b) if LEGO track geometry was better!!
I mean, those curves!! Grr!! I have a 6 wide model of the GESD70ACe, which is
around 60-70 studs long and looks ridiculous on the curve! Sure there are those
that say straight-curve-straight-curve... but that’s almost as ridiculous
looking--seeing the train shimmy and shake rounding a bend!
Baah!
Rant off :)
I am so impressed with what I’ve seen of 8-wide rolling stock and locos, but on
my little layout at home, it just doesn’t warrant it.
Eh, whatrya gonna do?
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I am so impressed with what I’ve seen of 8-wide rolling stock and locos, but
on my little layout at home, it just doesn’t warrant it.
Eh, whatrya gonna do?
|
Build a bigger layout!!!
Geeze, I wish all questions were that easy to answer... ;-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I am so impressed with what I’ve seen of 8-wide rolling stock and locos, but
on my little layout at home, it just doesn’t warrant it.
Eh, whatrya gonna do?
|
Build a bigger layout!!!
Geeze, I wish all questions were that easy to answer... ;-)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
That would entail a bigger house. Bigger house means bigger mortgage. Bigger
mortgage means less money for LEGO purchases!
Geesh! You should know better JohnG! :)
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, David Koudys wrote:
| |
That would entail a bigger house. Bigger house means bigger mortgage.
Bigger mortgage means less money for LEGO purchases!
Geesh! You should know better JohnG! :)
|
Unfortunately, I know that all too well. Being unemployed for over a year now
puts a serious crimp into the LEGO purchases... :-(
JohnG, GMLTC
anyone looking to hire an experience software developer (and part-time LEGO
fanatic)??
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
(blather blather blather... as if analysing the *height of a minifig* gets you
anywhere... analyse the WIDTH, I say... then you get 12 wide as the right answer
(0) )
Scale, schmale.
I build 6 wide trains for the following reasons
- It's fun
- It's what LEGO did, for the most part
- You have to be cleverer to get stuff to work out when you work in a smaller
scale, so 6 wide builders are much cleverer than 8 wide (1)
- somebody has to do it or else there'd be no periodic religious wars here.
Build whatever width you want as long as you're happy at it.
The ONLY thing I ask is try to keep all the things on a show layout the same
width at any given time because mixing widths (for similar prototypes, I'm not
talking tom thumb vs big boy here) looks funny. (2)
Are you having fun? Yes? Then you're building the right width.
QED.
++Lar
0 - or 5 wide if you assume they're really really fat tall people with big
heads.
1 - Or 10 wide or, gasp... 14 wide... The wider, the easier. The wider, the less
talent... oh, ya, *who* is it that builds 14 wide sometimes again? Talk about
your easy build, all it takes is a lot of parts, no talent required, really.
2 - This point is sometimes lost on my home club. But we have fun anyway so, so
be it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
>
> (blather blather blather... as if analysing the *height of a minifig* gets you
> anywhere... analyse the WIDTH, I say... then you get 12 wide as the right
> answer
You're definitely on the right ... track. I can get ... on ... board ... with
that notion. Ugh, I'm terrible ;)
> - You have to be cleverer to get stuff to work out when you work in a smaller
> scale, so 6 wide builders are much cleverer than 8 wide (1)
Cleverer? I'd take exception, but I'm currently in my thinking-man pose
contemplating complex and elegantly functional wheel articulation schemes :P
Seriously, I'd contend that building larger just means that you have to be
"cleverer" about a different set of parts. That is, on a 6-wide you may have to
be clever about how you approximate the curve of the boiler. On 12-wide, your
boiler curve is easier since you have more room for discretization of the curve;
instead, now you're worrying about how to approximate pipes, tubes, lever,
rails, steps and other such small details that are generally *below* the
resolution of a 6-wide.
It's all a big Mandelbrot sequence. Items that are too small to see in 6-wide
scale are the ones that are struggled with in 12-wide scale.
Then there is the point about wheel articulations, which I'd argue *is* more
challenging as you go larger, since the curve of the track remains constant
(*sigh*). This may very well be countered with an aspect that's more
challenging in 6-wide [1] than it is in 12-wide ... I just can't think of any ;)
> 1 - Or 10 wide or, gasp... 14 wide... The wider, the easier. The wider, the
> less talent... oh, ya, *who* is it that builds 14 wide sometimes again? Talk
> about your easy build, all it takes is a lot of parts, no talent required,
> really.
Pshaw. You've derailed.
Ugh,
-s
[1] we're speaking generally here
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Snippage
| |
I honestly wouldn’t even bother to build 7 wide (I’m sure Ben and I will have
some discussions about this at BrickFest PDX!;-) It is inferior to 8 wide,
and isn’t really much better than 6 wide. 6 Wide is minifig scale and is
its own thing which I enjoy viewing as well, especially when crafted by James
Mathis, who has the best feel for 6 wide train building I have seen.
Having said all of that, I like to hear your reasoning, Aaron, as to why you
think 7 wide is the Truth;-)
JOHN
|
I have to disagree about 7 wide. Its a good compromise between 6 and 8 wide.
You can still use some 6 wide elements (centered with jumper plates) while
building a bigger beefier train.
Its also a lot of fun and a challenge. Working with odd number widths and still
centering trucks ect was a fun project.
Here’s mine:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=62437
You can see the size difference between the 6 and 7 wide in the last pic.
I have also built an 8 wide as well. (no pics yet, still waiting on parts) The
8 wide has the most detail and was the easiest to build as there are less space
constraints. And 7 and 8 wide look better for scale. Its hard to even squeeze
a single minifig in a 6 wide cab. And compared to a 6 wide truck, a 6 wide
train looks wrong. Following the scale of 1 foot = 1 stud, 8 wide is best for
scale but 7 wide is the most challenging.
(Ramble off)
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
I honestly wouldn’t even bother to build 7 wide (I’m sure Ben and I will have
some discussions about this at BrickFest PDX!;-) =
|
I’m aware your not taking it seriously but
The trains Ben builds (I’m assuming your talking Beneke) are models of smaller
trains than the ones you build. I.E. US Vs European loading gauges
Tim
| | | | | | |
