 | | 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)
|
