 | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:388CDC3B.3A3FC2...est.net... (...) ends up (...) proportioned. (...) leader of (...) track (...) rights we (...) If we went with strictly the track guage, then we will be destined to problems of (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, Jonathan Reynolds (<Fov6A8.HIq@lugnet.com>) wrote at 23:51:44 (...) ...And a bit wider is eight studs :-) I'm *definitely* going to try this soon. (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
