Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 18:38:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1327 times
|
| |
|
|
The width of Lego track is almost exactly the same as Lionel, which is about
equal to "O", or close enough for all intents and purposes of this
discussion.
The last time I was in a train store (1 week ago) I looked at the "O" scale
and Lionel trains they had. They were the size of 8 wides. Lego trains
*should* be 8-wide. Of course, the Lego Millennium Falcon should also be
made with bricks and plates and the McDonalds Drive Though set should be
bigger than a Fotomat.
Lego had to limit the size of the trains to 6 wide for purposes of expense
control. Many people don't get into Lego trains because the sets are so
expensive. Imagine if the Metroliner was 1,200 pieces instead of 700, or
whatever it was. Even the best train they made for sale in the US would
hardly have sold - it would cost too much.
Lego trains came out in the late 60's, before minifigs. They were 6 wide.
In the early 70's, the town sets were using the 1x3x4 doors and trains
looked to be in scale fairly nicely with them. Now, town scale has been
increased. The minifig is everywhere and town doors are 1x4x5 - a decent
sized increase. But Trains never grew larger. I have seen lots of 6-wide
fire trucks around. A fire truck is not as wide as a train.
The most frequent scale I hear people throw around is one stud equals one
foot. That holds true only on a couple of minifig body measurements. Since
minifigs are not even to scale with themselves, I would never use them for
the yardstick against which all other measurements are based. Try using 1
stud = 1.25 feet, which is an 8 wide train. Build the entire town to that
scale and a train should be 8 wide. If you want to use 6 wide trains, build
with a scale of 1 stud = 1.5 feet. Mixing the two scales just makes things
look out of whack.
People say you can run either scale of train on the same layout. True, the
track doesn't change, as they both use Lego track. But the scale of the
train is different and that makes things look different.
If people want the most realistic looking layout, they need to stick to one
scale, and that scale should be based on a 1:48, 1:56, 1:anything. It
should not be based on "the measurement of a minifig XYZ" because that is
not an accurate scale.
Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
weird.
I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
Mike Poindexter
Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> width.
> Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
>
> -Nick
>
> (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> worst in all of us.<g>)
>
> John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > Carrie-
> >
> > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> >
> > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> >
> > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
>
> <cut>
>
>
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) This is the canonical "tinplate" dilemmna from old school model railroading. If you look at Lionel O or O-27 stuff you will find the same problem, although not with as wide a variation in scales. So DO you use things in your layout that are a (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes: <<<SNIP>>> (...) I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8. But in either case would look VERY (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) Ouch. Comparing to Lionel;-( (...) Which is fine with me. I don't run any out-of-the-box stuff anyway. What kills me is when they produce elements that *restrict* me to 6 wide (windshields, sharp curves, etc). (...) Mike and I have discussed (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FpMJo1.HDw@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:38:12 (...) This is quite a good argument for six wide. The fundamental difficulty with trying to make scale model trains in LEGO *is* the scale problem. Because there is no (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track width. Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width do the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train that was only as wide as (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
40 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
