 | | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
(...) wide (...) are (...) I checked out the smaller (UK) prototype train models at LL Windsor - they are 18 studs wide and were a job to count whilst the trains were on the move. This translates to 144mm wide - about right for an 8'6" to 9' wide (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
John (and others, except James Powell who no doubt knows this already) You toss around "G Scale" a lot but unlike most other gauges, G isn't really just one scale. LGB is narrow gauge and thus is to a bigger scale (22:5 to 1??) than some of the (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
