 | | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Not really true. If you accept that the track gauge is 5 studs, then 3x5=15, which is the maxiumum proportion one should use (3x the track gauge is how wide the maximum normal load should be) For example, the SRRL #9 (2-4-4T was 7'3" wide, on (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(1:22.5 to around 1:32), according to my feeble-minded (...) 1:1 to 1:32. Not quite the smallest you can ride behind...Our current club newsletter (Vancouver Island Model Engineers) shows a O gauge engine hauling 2 people. There was a story 20 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train
|
|
(...) Touché;) The only problem with 1 stud equaling 1.25 feet is that standard track gauge in North America is 4 feet 8.5 inches, and the gauge of our track is almost 5 studs, which would translate in a gauge of about 6'!! By rights we *should* be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Absolutely. 16 wide is ridiculously wide for LEGO track gauge; it would have to be on G scale gauge. Now Frank, there is no law (yet;) that says one only must build in one scale-- I build a little in minifig (for the GMLTC layout), mostly in (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Where are you getting 4561 for under $60????
|
|
Prince George, British Columbia. -- Paul Davidson Dean Husby <nntp@akasa.bc.ca> wrote in message news:38867AAC.3AC9C1...a.bc.ca... (...) or (...) costs (...) get (...) thought (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
I checked when I was at LL CA and I am positive that they are 16 studs. LL CA uses a different kind of track than LL Windsor or Billund, I believe and so the scales of one LL train might not match up with another LL train. I personally will not go (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:388BA775.B41630...est.net... (...) build 8 (...) long. (...) track (...) being (...) John, since they are 10' wide and 8 studs, shouldn't 1 stud = 1.25 feet? That will cut down the length and (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) pieces. I bet The Purists are drooling over this shot;-) I personally am not a big fan of this type of modeling (where one needs to "create" a windshield like this). It works well on such projects as creating a 30 foot Mt Rushmore, but for (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Ahh, it appears that the different LLs are using different scales-- from 16-20 studs wide. I think I will stick to around 14 wide because I am going to use G scale wheels (and track, for that matter) and that width (13-14 studs) is about (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: 4.5V track
|
|
(...) what I've got is this: 24 pairs of straight track 24 pairs of curved track 2 switch track (1left 1 right) 1 cross track (slightly damaged) 1 level crossing plate without building and only 1 gate 4 pairs of train wheels with connectingbrick 1 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, John Neal (<388C9F76.FE132DA9@...west.net>) wrote at 18:52:50 (...) From my last trip to LLW, I seem to recall someone pointing out that the HST standing in Waverley station was 17 wide. (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 4.5V track
|
|
Is there still a market for the old 4.5V railtracks? I even have a 4,5V motorblock and some train wheels. I have some I don,t use and for the motorblock I dont have the battery case anymore. (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Yikes.. that looks like... 20-wide! No room for Selective Compression there! K.M. (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(URL) 403 - (URL) leads me to believe they are 16 stud, it looks like there are 3 4stud wide sections divided by 1x tiles, and the outside edges are 1x. Then again, the outside edges could be 2x, making them 18studs wide. (...) -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Assuming they are semmetical, the trains then are 20 studs wide. Better get that car _much_ wider there John! (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) I remember telling myself I needed to take close-up shots. Ummmm, I just found this link: (URL) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
Thanks, Russell, although they give nice views of the yard, etc, they weren't quite close enough for me to be able to count studs;-( -John (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) Try my web site: (URL) pictures legoland0089.jpg through legoland0107.jpg. These might be of help. Sorry for the quality, but it was raining on the opening day. :) Russell (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
Mike, et al- I have begun construction of a 14 wide box car [1] and am suddenly very interested in the scale of the LL trains. Does anyone know how many studs wide those babies are? I am looking for some good pics on line, but can't seem to find (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train
|
|
(...) Oh sure, but using the wagon plates is IMO just more efficient, uses less bricks and is lighter (they are heavy enough as it is;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
