Subject:
|
Re: train width
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:40:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2473 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: train width
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jan-04, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
