Subject:
|
Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Feb 2000 21:24:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1686 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Richard Earley writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > including your trains.
This will eat your bricks! Has anyone practised 'selective compression'. This
is where you build something to scale but 'selectively compress' some aspects
or items to reduce space/cost/bricks etc. In most cases this applies to train
and platform lengths which, on a scale of 8 studs=10 feet, will put the price
of grey plates through the roof! Even a scale length 70ft train car will be 56
studs long so only the few will be able to build a decent length train.
One approach is to stick with the scale for all three dimensions but to miss a
few details on the side of the car/locomtive. If done correctly, you can
maintain the feel and look of the prototype whilst compressing the length by a
factor. For example, say a passenger car has a door at each end with 7
intermediate windows, just build everything to scale but miss out a couple of
windows, This may seem obvious but the alternative approach (retaining 7
windows but making each one too narrow) will 'look wrong'.
I have battled with 6/7 studs wide on a class 08 (UK prototype) diesel shunter
(US=switcher) which has six wheels but would actually look better with four
due to the relationship between overall wheelbase, width and length. If I make
the train length fit the 3-axle wheelbase, it looks (and is) too long. 7 or 8
wide would be the answer but may not be more effective on the overall layout
if all the other 8 wide trains were fighting for bricks AND the number of cars
to each train was reduced.
Nice to hear/see more about the 'wide boys' though
Jon
If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> > scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
>
>
> I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure
> as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8.
> But in either case would look VERY WRONG when run along side other lego • trains.
>
>
> > Mike Poindexter
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
> > news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> > > I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> > > width.
> > > Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> > > the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> > > that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> > > eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> > > seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> > > obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> > > with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> > > am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> > > everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
> > >
> > > -Nick
> > >
> > > (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> > > is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> > > worst in all of us.<g>)
> > >
> > > John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > > > Carrie-
> > > >
> > > > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > > > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> > > >
> > > > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > > > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > > > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > > > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > > > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> > > >
> > > > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > > > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
> > >
> > > <cut>
> > >
> > >
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| Jonathan Reynolds <scorch@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:FpMrHI.Jr4@lugnet.com... (...) many (...) This (...) aspects (...) train (...) price (...) be 56 (...) As a matter of fact, Legoland uses selective compression on their large models. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes: <<<SNIP>>> (...) I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8. But in either case would look VERY (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
40 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
|
|
|
|
