Subject:
|
Re: Another German MOC: BR 361 of DB
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:38:15 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.net&StopSpam&
|
Viewed:
|
744 times
|
| |
|
|
Reinhard \"Ben\" Beneke wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > Wie schön! Ben-
> >
> > Which makes me think: Have I ever seen a *bad* looking 8 wide? No, I
> > haven't, and I think part of the reason why is that the proportions work
> > *for* an 8 wide builder, and conversely, I think 6 wides work against a
> > builder.
>
> Right, since every train is wider than the track....
> But I think with the small radius of track 8-wides in curves (especially when
> they are a little longer) look not too good.
Oh, I'll give you that. But remember, even if prototypes *could* negotiate tight
curves like that, they would look as ungainly doing it.
> But I don't want to restart the 8-wide discussion. I have decides to build on
> in 6-wide, because Lego did so,
Yikes. Need a better reason than that! :-)
> all my stuff has ever ben 6-wide and most
> important argument:
> The train-wheels of Lego (especially 12V) are to small for 8-wides.
Actually, the wheels are a bit large (if we are talking about standard rolling
stock). I try to compare 8 wides to "O" scale (1:48), so you get:
Width: Same
Wheel size: LEGO rolling stock slightly larger. All other wheels such as drivers
which are larger are obviously inadequate in LEGO because all the wheels in LEGO
are basically the same size.
Figures: Basically the same height, but minifigs are about twice as wide:-)
> > What I mean is that building 8 wide liberates me to more
> > possibilities for detailing and such. When (however rare) I build 6
> > wide, I feel constrained and restricted. I know that some relish this
> > challenge to build within such restrictions, but for me it just seems
> > silly that, for example, my passenger train walls together are half as
> > thick as my seating area....:-/
>
> I never "play" with my trains: so it is unimportant how many minifigs can take
> seat inside my trains.
???? You are really missing out, Ben. (Dreamily) Ah yes, I'll never forget the
feeling I got after having built my first restroom in a passenger car....<sigh>
> > That is not to say that I feel *completely* liberated by 8 wide-- we as
> > train builders could use about a dozen or so specialty elements of train
> > items not easily constructed from bricks. For me, there is definitely a
> > tension between utilizing available bricks in creative fashions, and
> > wanting specialty bricks which render all of that creative effort moot.
> > Sounds like I'm advocating Town Jr, so I'll don my asbestos suit now:-)
> >
> > -John
>
> Just grinning about this point of view.... ;-)
Glad I could make you smile:-)
-John
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Another German MOC: BR 361 of DB
|
| (...) tight (...) Strangely enough, I have seen photos of boxcabs and 40 ft boxcars going around 60' radius curves. They _do_ look funny doing it though. (The pic's are of NYC harbor railways)...I'm aware that some of the logging railways claimed (...) (24 years ago, 12-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another German MOC: BR 361 of DB
|
| (...) Right, since every train is wider than the track.... But I think with the small radius of track 8-wides in curves (especially when they are a little longer) look not too good. But I don't want to restart the 8-wide discussion. I have decides (...) (24 years ago, 12-Sep-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
|
|
|
|
