Subject:
|
Re: Cargo Sprinter cab window alternate
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Aug 2000 03:31:25 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
CMASI@stopspammersCMASI.CHEM.TULANE.EDU
|
Viewed:
|
752 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi writes:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Larry. I kinda like the 6-wide window better. I wonder if
> > > > an eight wide car with the six wide window and the 1x3x1 red slopes
> > > > would look even better? With a six wide car I like the six wide window.
> > >
> > > Chris, 8 wide may be a bit much. The proto and Markin photos make it clear • (to
> > > me anyway) that the cab width and chassis/frame width are within a very few
> > > inches of the container width if not actually exactly the same (which is my
> > > guess). Hence unless you're stumping for 8 wide containers, a 6 wide cab is
> > > the right width. IMHO.
> > >
> > > ++Lar
> >
> > I didn't look at the Markin photos, so I thought that the Cargo Sprinter
> > was the same size as a regular train. But since you say that these are
> > small trains then OK.
> >
> > As to stumping 8-wide...I think I am a convert. My two latest creations
> > are 8-wides.
>
> Arguably if your SD is 8 wide, a Cargo Sprinter to the same "scale" (I know, I
> know, there is no scale) should be 6 wide because containers are narrower than
> standard rail cars.
>
> However a 4 wide Cargo Sprinter would look pretty weird.
>
> Bog.
>
> I think no matter what, we are messed up somewhere if we try to get closer to
> scale. I am sorry I even asked about 5 wide containers! I may just stick to 4
> wide because its a defacto standard (MTW probably will never be doing 8 wide
> models, MTW models are pricey enough as it is...).
>
> My doublestack can't easily take 5 or 6 wide containers since it is a 6 wide
> well car and the well beams take up one stud each side. I would have to
> massively reengineer.
>
> Also, and worse, a doublestack of 6 wide containers that were appropriately
> high would surely tip over at any kind of speed on our curve radius. Even my
> current design is a bit tippy when run full throttle. That's partly due to how
> the articulation works and partly due to the high container height for a
> relatively low tare weight leading to a high center of gravity.
>
> ++Lar
Man, a four wide cargo sprinter would look VERY strange. Everything you
have said makes a lot of sense. Five wide containers would look nice on
a six wide car, they are certainly possible, but they are not practical.
I would also guess that you are right about the center of gravity too.
My old 6 wide caboose would tip over at power settings that the rest of
the cars could handle easily.
Chris
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Cargo Sprinter cab window alternate
|
| (...) No, if the cab is 6 wide, and the trailing trucks are 4 wide (the same width as the containers) it doesn't look too weird, it looks like someone was minimizing the train to be the smallest/lightest it could be (which is what I have done)...No (...) (24 years ago, 30-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cargo Sprinter cab window alternate
|
| (...) (to (...) Arguably if your SD is 8 wide, a Cargo Sprinter to the same "scale" (I know, I know, there is no scale) should be 6 wide because containers are narrower than standard rail cars. However a 4 wide Cargo Sprinter would look pretty (...) (24 years ago, 30-Aug-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
