Subject:
|
Re: New mod to double decker passenger train
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:29:43 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net/NoSpam/
|
Viewed:
|
1588 times
|
| |
![Post a public reply to this message](/news/icon-reply.gif) | |
Mike Poindexter wrote:
> John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:388CDC3B.3A3FC2AC@uswest.net...
> >
> >
> > Mike Poindexter wrote:
> >
> > > John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > These coaches were about 80 feet (25 m), so they were *long*. When I build 8
> > > > wide, I figure 1 stud to 1 ft, and still my coaches are only 60 studs long.
> > > > I'd love to make them 80, but they wouldn't be able to handle the LEGO track
> > > > curves very well. I build them upon 2 in line wagon plates, which ends up
> > > being
> > > > a nice size.
> > >
> > > John, since they are 10' wide and 8 studs, shouldn't 1 stud = 1.25 feet?
> > > That will cut down the length and actually make it much better proportioned.
> > > I am using 1.25'=1 stud for my 8 wides. It seems strange that the leader of
> > > the 8 wide revolution can't even do the math right. :-)
> >
> > 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 modeling 10 wide, but even 10 is getting too huge (vs 14;)
>
> If we went with strictly the track guage, then we will be destined to
> problems of tipping over much worse than actual trains, since they have a
> low center of mass and our trains do not. There is no work around for this
> outside adding weights to the bottoms of our cars, which make the motor
> problem even worse. No way a Lego motor will haul 20 plus large cars with
> weights up an incline or through an S curve.
>
> >
> > So 1:1 gives our track gauge almost 5', which is close to 4'8.5". And since a
> > minifig is about 5 studs tall, a 5 foot tall population isn't out of the
> > question. Things don't work out quite evenly, but 8 seems to be a good
> > compromise over 10.
> >
> > -John
>
> If we went by minifig scales, we are going to have a problem, since they are
> not in scale with anything. I think the Technic figs are fairly well scaled
> and proportioned. Unfortunately, they are entirely too large for our
> trains.
That's what's kewl about my 14 wide-- Belville children (As adults) are just
the right scale!
> If each stud worked out to 1.25 feet, then the minifig would be 6'3", which
> is not too bad, since they are almost all men. Unfortunately, they would
> also be 2'6" wide at the hips. Too many Pizzas to go, I guess.
I like to think it is because of the extra amount of gravity in the Minifig
world;-)
> I think that works out to 48:1 scale. The 1 stud = 1 foot is a scale of
> about 38:1.
>
> As for scale, I would stick with 48:1, which puts one stud at 15 inches. 6
> wide for trucks would translate to 7.5 feet wide, which is pretty close. At
> one stud equaling 1 foot, then the train should be 10 wide and trucks 8
> wide. With my scale of 1.25 ft/stud, trains should be 8 wide (very close),
> trucks 6 wide (pretty close) without compromising the scale at all, just a
> little rounding error. And minifigs are just tall and fat, much like a
> large portion of the American population.
Well, 1:48 *is* O scale, and 8 studs wide is virtually the width of O scale
cars and locos. Obviously our figs look very wide compared to O scale figs,
but, this *is* LEGO after all;-) The only knock I have is that, compared to O
scale wheels, LEGO wheels are bigger. And compared to O scale gauge, LEGO
gauge is wider. So nothing is perfect- except 8wides;-)
-John
>
>
> Mike Poindexter
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
![](/news/x.gif) | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
26 Messages in This Thread: ![New mod to double decker passenger train -James Mathis (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Warren (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/268.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Larry Pieniazek (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (24-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (24-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (24-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Mike Poindexter (24-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (24-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Mike Poindexter (25-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![You are here](/news/here.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Larry Pieniazek (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Tony Priestman (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -James Mathis (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -John Neal (22-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -James Mathis (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Reinhard "Ben" Beneke (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: New mod to double decker passenger train -Aaron Bergman (23-Jan-00 to lugnet.trains)](/news/x.gif)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|