 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Nick, if you look at
http://www.lugnet.com/trains/?n=3843
> 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.
(sorry about repeating the post, I didn't know how to do the link, now I do...)
> James P
| | | | | | |
