 | | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide) —James Powell
|
| | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | 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. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
