Is 8w or 9w closer to minifigure scale?

[SteamSewnEmpire]

I appreciate that basing train scale off the track can be done rather precisely, and that 9w (or a bit more) is closer to standard NA gauge. But does this proportional change wind up driving engines and rolling stock out of scale with the minifigures? I feel like they are as much of an arbiter of how we determine proportions as is the track itself.

I know that a lot of noteworthy builders (and clubs) default to 8w these days (I've been designing in this size, too)... but is that the closer width to "proportional" for minifigure height? Or is 9w? I've suffered something of a moment of indecision before ordering parts for my engines, and need input before pulling the trigger .

Perhaps a more appropriate question is: why do so many people build in 8w and not 9w? It cannot be part count alone, because expanding most builds laterally doesn't involve dramatically more pieces (since the interior space is largely empty).

Edited January 24, 2020 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Daedalus304]

"Minifig Scale" is a nebulous thing that has an enormous variety of what you'll get as answers. Figs proportions compared to a Human's are... Well, not really easy. Generally you scale them off width (In which case they're incredibly short folks) or height (in which case they're nearly 3 feet wide). 

Either way, I'd say 8-wide (Encompassing many scales around 1:48) is not really a perfect Minifig scale to either of the above methods, but it is a scale in which figs don't look overly incorrect alongside. 

In 1/48, of course, many locos do end up at 9 wide. My 2926 ended up there and so have several engines from much more well-known builders - I believe BMR's Reading T1 is 9-wide, actually. 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

9 minutes ago, Daedalus304 said:

"Minifig Scale" is a nebulous thing that has an enormous variety of what you'll get as answers. Figs proportions compared to a Human's are... Well, not really easy. Generally you scale them off width (In which case they're incredibly short folks) or height (in which case they're nearly 3 feet wide). 

Either way, I'd say 8-wide (Encompassing many scales around 1:48) is not really a perfect Minifig scale to either of the above methods, but it is a scale in which figs don't look overly incorrect alongside. 

In 1/48, of course, many locos do end up at 9 wide. My 2926 ended up there and so have several engines from much more well-known builders - I believe BMR's Reading T1 is 9-wide, actually. 

Due to the streamlining, whichever width I go with has to apply not just to locomotives, but the accompanying passenger cars - there isn't an opportunity for me to go with a "the locomotive is just bigger" argument.

I'd have to completely rebuild both engines from the ground up, but it did occur to me that this would allow for a fair bit of additional bogie swing...

... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?"

And therein lies my hesitation.

Edited January 24, 2020 by SteamSewnEmpire

[Daedalus304]

35 minutes ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

Due to the streamlining, whichever width I go with has to apply not just to locomotives, but the accompanying passenger cars - there isn't an opportunity for me to go with a "the locomotive is just bigger" argument.

I'd have to completely rebuild both engines from the ground up, but it did occur to me that this would allow for a fair bit of additional bogie swing...

... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?"

And therein lies my hesitation.

To be fair, a 9w engine pulling 8w cars isn't too big of a difference, being only a half stud per side. If it's a case where the Locomotive for real would end up "in-scale" at 9 wide, it probably was wider than the cars IRL as well.

As to your counter - I wouldn't worry. PennLUG, and many other big Scale Modelling groups, generally now build to a scale and not a set stud width. You'll find that in the 1/48~ish modelling many, many examples of 9-wide engines running 8-wide stock.

 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

Woof. Alright, thank you for the input. I have a long and hard road ahead of me, it would seem.

I agree with you, though - 9w seems like better fit for NA steam locomotives - especially those with shrouding. The Mercury, as an example, had her entire cylinder assembly covered by the cowl - you can see from that photo just how deeply nested her drivers were.

[CaL]

Let me add, that building in an uneven width (e.g. 7 or 9 studs) seems to be more challenges according to some famous Lego train guys, e.g. Holger Matthes - take a look at his nice book:  https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/1593278195/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_de_DE=ÅMÅŽÕÑ&keywords=The+Lego+Trains+Book&qid=1579858035&sr=8-1

 

Or his VT 11.5:   https://www.holgermatthes.de/bricks/en/vt-11-5-tee.php
 

[supertruper1988]

I am a 1:48 scale builder and yes many steam locomotives end up at 9 wide. 1:48 (1:47.625 but who is counting ) scale is 15" per stud or 6" per plate. The hand grabs and door rails are hilariously out of proportion but also help tie in the 9 wide locomotive and tender vs 8 wide stock. 

[coaster]

1/38 is the scale of the tracks, so technically, "to scale" should be built to this (yes, I know most O-Gauge and similar model stuff is off-scale, but we'll ignore that for now).  This also has the added benefit of 1 stud = 1 ft, which makes the math a lot easier.  It works out to about 10w.

There are only a few of us maniacs building to this scale at the moment, but I gotta say I'm glad to have made the jump.  The trains just feel so much more substantial, and you can really get to a nice level of detail and really nail shapes and profiles.  Some club layouts are too small to accommodate this scale, but I do believe it is going to be more prevalent in the future.  And while the minifigs are definitely too short for this scale, the minidolls actually are perfect for it. 

I'm now that guy that steals from his daughter.  Eventually she'll realize Anna and Elsa are riding trains.  Whatever, I'm pretty sure she's pilfering from me, too.

[Pdaitabird]

1 hour ago, coaster said:

1/38 is the scale of the tracks, so technically, "to scale" should be built to this (yes, I know most O-Gauge and similar model stuff is off-scale, but we'll ignore that for now).  This also has the added benefit of 1 stud = 1 ft, which makes the math a lot easier.  It works out to about 10w.

I guess I'll just have to start modeling GWR broad gauge so the tracks will be in scale with smaller trains! 

[SteamSewnEmpire]

4 hours ago, coaster said:

1/38 is the scale of the tracks, so technically, "to scale" should be built to this (yes, I know most O-Gauge and similar model stuff is off-scale, but we'll ignore that for now).  This also has the added benefit of 1 stud = 1 ft, which makes the math a lot easier.  It works out to about 10w.

There are only a few of us maniacs building to this scale at the moment, but I gotta say I'm glad to have made the jump.  The trains just feel so much more substantial, and you can really get to a nice level of detail and really nail shapes and profiles.  Some club layouts are too small to accommodate this scale, but I do believe it is going to be more prevalent in the future.  And while the minifigs are definitely too short for this scale, the minidolls actually are perfect for it. 

I'm now that guy that steals from his daughter.  Eventually she'll realize Anna and Elsa are riding trains.  Whatever, I'm pretty sure she's pilfering from me, too.

I think 10w becomes too wide, because such width at that point requires you to heighten, as well, this making minifigures look kind of ridiculous standing next to the trains. Increasing the height also probably requires wheel upsizing (at least for me), thus making Schupp's XXLs too small to represent 79/80 inch drivers. This, in turn, would necessitate lengthening everything, thereby greatly expanding part count.

I'm about halfway done with rebuilding (there could be no refresh here - I went down to the running gear and started over) the Mercury, and I think - proportionately - it's going to wind up being the happiest compromise between track scale and fig scale. Plus, 9w cars will allow me to cram in more interior details - especially in sleepers.

I'm not overjoyed with having to essentially start over on both locos (and, really, every standard gauge thing I've ever built), but I now believe 9w was the correct answer. (It has also resolved my major performance issues. I believe both front and rear trucks will have 10 degrees of play left or right off centerline. A 20 degree arc should allow the Mercury to run on big curves).

Edited January 24, 2020 by SteamSewnEmpire

[TJJohn12]

19 hours ago, SteamSewnEmpire said:

... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?"

And therein lies my hesitation.

Here's a moment where looking to BMR might be a good idea. The engines @Cale features over there (at least the ones he built) run on PennLUG's layout, along with a ton of other clubs' layouts. So I wouldn't worry as much about sticking to 6 or 8 wide.

[Roadmonkeytj]

8W (roughly 1/48th scale)

Don't be hung up by the numbers any steam train built out of Lego will be 8-10 studs wide if it has proper rods and pistons.  I've been building get8w" and here's why ... It gives you more clearance for wheel decorations pl hi it gives the "hint" at correctness.  Whaile not truely to scale with the track it's a happy comprise that ae Minifig still looks good.

Saying that your side rods will bring you to 9 so technically your Merc will be closer to 10 w in brick not in scale

[Paperinik77pk]

I'd say 8-wide for the body (which means 9-wide including all details like rods, ladders...and so on). Train is larger than the track, wheels can be decently covered by fake suspensions, there's room inside for some mechanics and SNOT tricks!

[zephyr1934]

Don't forget that the Emerald Night was 9 wide at the rods. So there is evidence that 9 wide will work and clear most things. I would lean towards 9 wide loco to 8 wide cars to save on weight and costs. Many of my steam engines step from 8 wide cab to 7 wide tender to 6 wide cars. But on the other hand, a full train at 9 wide would look super sharp.

Keep in mind that you will need large radius curves (R104?) and roller bearings for all of the cars. Fortunately they exist in this day and age.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 12:08 AM, SteamSewnEmpire said:

... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?"

Well, there might be some logic to checking out the local clubs to see what their standards are. If you are going to join a club it will probably be local after all. Don't worry too much about the here and now, if they are a reasonable group they will certainly entertain converting to larger curves (especially if you offer to build them). Or worst case, on day 1 just use unballasted curves "outside" of the decorated part of the layout.

[gotoAndLego]

On 1/24/2020 at 12:08 AM, SteamSewnEmpire said:

... but then, I counter by saying "well, PennLUG and other big groups mostly do 8w! What if I one day want to join a group, and my engines are all too fat?"

And therein lies my hesitation.

Just rebuild to the scale you want to match, or make a second one at that scale.

Edited January 29, 2020 by gotoAndLego

[Brickthus]

I build to 8mm scale, 1:38, using 8+ wide for UK prototype and it would be 10+ wide for US/EU prototypes.

Minifigs are too short; using Woody's legs or a plate under each foot can raise them a bit.

Mark

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Brickthus

[lego3057]

If you add one 1x2 brick to the legs of minifigure, you got a more proportional figure around 1/40 scale. But then we are on the 9 to 11 wide models, which, by the way, are very interesting models.

Edited January 30, 2020 by lego3057

[jrathfon]

Looking at BMR and PennLUG etc. it seems most are building at 1:48 for a variety of reasons. This generally works out to 8 wide rolling stock with 8 wide NA diesels and 8 wide steam loco bodies (minus rods, handrails, cabs, etc.). 1:48 works decently for minifig height (not width), there's a reduction in parts/cost from 9 or 10 wide or 1:38/1:40, and it's easier to make 1:48/8W function on R40 layouts and switches. 1:48 doesn't look terribly out of scale compared to the tracks either. I personally picked 1:48/~8W as it allows finer detail than 6W, doesn't cripple the wallet, there's a somewhat accepted standard (so instructions/kits/examples are more available), and finally I can "kitbash" O or S scale decals and make them work for my models. I'm working on prototypical ~1950's L&N locos and stock, so AFOL vendors (BMR, etc) haven't gotten around to printing decals for my tastes yet!