Subject:
|
Re: Nominations for a trainset poll
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 19:47:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4293 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
(SNIP)
• A standalone loco set to be followed later by a maximum of TWO suitable
rolling stock sets (these can be build-able as different variations as per
the Santa Fe coaches).
• A complete train set consisting of no more than FOUR vehicles.
As we are speaking hypothetically you can assume that Lego produce a wheel
suitable for steam locomotives (2) along the lines of the
BBB wheels. Although you are not being asked
to actually design the sets you should assume that they would be 6 wide to
the standard Lego style so that may influence your decision.
As well as
suggesting your favourites try to think of things that would make good sets
with widespread appeal. What famous trains from other countries do you know
of? Links to images of the real thing would be good too.
Once people have made their suggestions I’ll make a couple of polls.
Tim
|
Since the designers at TLC have so much more time than we do, and since I
managed to build an LMS Garratt (2-6-0+0-6-2), I’m sure they can do a
Big-Boy, assuming the current trend of North America being the biggest
trains market. And yes, it does have to go round four curves together!!!
|
Speaking from personal experience -
my 8-wide
“Challenger” - a Big Boy would be extremely difficult to do without some
major simplifications. My Challenger can handle 4 curved tracks in a row,
(but still has problems with switch track...) adding two more sets of drive
wheels could simply make the locomotive too long to articulate that well.
And to try and build it 6-wide? No thanks - I used every spare stud of space
I could find to get mine to work!
My personal choice would be the “Orient Express”. Although Lego would
probably have to pay a hefty licensing fee to model it...
JohnG, GMLTC
|
I’m not saying it has to be 6-wide :-)
For the AFOL market, Tim’s suggestion of UCS trains might work. An engine as
large as a Challenger or Big-Boy is already too big for the popular market, so
why not do it properly to the scale of the track? I estimate that a proper 8mm
scale vehicle would cost twice as much as a 6-wide (including using 2 motors for
every 1 in 6-wide), but if it were a UCS model, designed to be a great challenge
to AFOLs, that might not be a problem.
If a UCS model were made, I wouldn’t advocate the restriction of 4 curves in a
row either. I only use 2 in a row in sidings where small engines go. The main
lines have 2 straights between each curve and the yard tracks 1 straight between
each curve. After all, the minimum curve radius for many engines is 3-4 chains
(66-88ft), and I’m sure the Big-Boy is at the top end of this scale. I’d like
to see 80-stud and 120-stud curve radii made, and express switches to avoid the
problems you mention.
Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Nominations for a trainset poll
|
| (...) Speaking from personal experience - (URL) my 8-wide "Challenger"> a Big Boy would be extremely difficult to do without some major simplifications. My Challenger can handle 4 curved tracks in a row, (but still has problems with switch track...) (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
