To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.trainsOpen lugnet.trains in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Trains / 3845
3844  |  3846
Subject: 
Re: LL Trains (was Re:8 wide and bigger(was Re: 8 Wide)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.trains
Date: 
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 23:51:44 GMT
Viewed: 
1321 times
  
In lugnet.trains, James Powell writes:

Absolutely.  16 wide is ridiculously wide for LEGO track gauge;


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 a track gauge of 2', fairly
close to 3:1).  Most of the standard gauge stuff I peard at was aroudn 10'6"
wide, so around 10 studs on the lego track would be right for standard gauge
proportions.

Its funny just how the proportions change from narrow gauge to NA loading
gauge.  I'm not quite sure _how_ big a 7' 1/4" engine would go outside the
frames, but I suspect not all that far (Brunel's Broad Gauge, GWR UK if you • are
wondering)

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 train at the LL
scale of 1:20 (20x144=2880). Time to open up another can of worms- I used to
build 7 wide trains many years ago! The idea was to differentiate between
smaller underground 'tube' trains (6 studs wide and very low) and
standard 'surface' stock. A bit tricky with newer pre-formed train bases but
the effect was quite good.

Mixed gauge track (4.5v) has also been tried successfully albeit with weird
looking drive systems.

Jon

Ps- Based on a track gauge of 4 studs (it's actually slightly wider of course)
the proportions of UK prototypes would require a train about 7 and a half
studs wide.



Message has 1 Reply:
  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. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)

Message is in Reply To:
  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 (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)

32 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR