Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:25:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1135 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Nick Goetz writes:
> 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
Nick, if you look at
Trains / 3843
(type in 3843 in the search for trains, and it should pop up...sorry, I don't
know how to get it to give me the html blue link thingy!)
I hashed over the issue a bit. If you go with 5 studs being the gauge, then
the train could be anything from 10-15 wide, and be to scale.
James P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
