What kind of train MOCs?

[Ashi Valkoinen]

I was looking for the MISC topic but I couldn't find it so finally I started a new topic to discuss some train MOC topics I'm interested in.

First of all, width of train. Do you prefer 6, 7 or 8 wide trains?

I think 8 wide is the best, 7 perhaps, but never 6. For example, the usual gauge is 1435 mm, in LEGO, 4 stud 5 stud. If you browse wikipedia or other pages about trains, you can find that most of trains have at least 2700 mm width!

Second one, working pantographs (pantograph can be raised and lowered with remote controll)

I think we have all seen this pantograph by Sérgio. Have you ever been thinking about real working pantographs? Perhaps we should make a contest about this, with the following rules:

-pantograph must be compatable with 6, 7 or 8 wide trains.

-pantograph have to look like as real pantographs

-engines, motors could be built in the loco. (you dont have to build a loco, pantograph with a part of roof is enough!)

That's all for today, I'm waiting for answers and discussion.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Ashi Valkoinen

[Ralph_S]

I'm not much of a train builder myself. That does mean I had pretty much the same question you had when I did decide to build one. What width am I going to give it? I was going to build a Diesel train though, so I'll skip your pantograph question

To me six wide seems pretty narrow and I think trains ought to be wider than the track (excl. the sleepers). I also take minifig scale to be pretty close to 1/45. Consequently I chose to build my train 8 studs wide and the carriages ended up being 59 studs long. However, the only reason why I felt I could get away with it is that I never had the intention of running my train on a layout. You see, here's the thing: an 8-wide train with 59 stud long carriages running on standard LEGO track will look utterly ridiculous going through curves, because the radius of the curves you can make with standard LEGO rails is far too small in comparison to the length of the carriages. You can try to alternate curve pieces with straight tracks, but that doesn't exactly give you a nice smooth curve overall.

If you want to run your train on a layout you'll have to fiddle around with the proportions and the overall size. The carriages have to be a lot shorter to take the turns properly and the only way of doing that whilst keeping the whole thing more-or-less in proportion is to make the whole thing narrower. Even then, LEGO trains often look a bit compressed.

So, the answer to your question depends on what you want your train to do. If you, like I did, want it to look realistic and you don't want to run it on a layout, 8 studs is probably the best option. If you want it to run on a layout, you'll have to compromise and will need to go for a narrower train.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Ashi Valkoinen]

Hi Ralph,

thank you for posting. You are right about the length of carriages and LEGO train track curves, but probably you can run these trains on layout's made from straight tracks and flexible tracks. But many train builders have 9V system, and PF (or RC) must wait a while.

(Otherwise, my Stadler FLIRT is compressed a bit, because of the curves.)

[Sérgio]

Measures that depends on the purpose, for example if you want to see a train layout in the floor should not be too long or wide as it can tap into the buildings to bow

In my building always like to find a solution between the realistic and the diatonic scale of usual sets

As I have tried to see many parts of LDD as the width would be 7 here is an example in a replica of a DMU http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=321535

is a good measure but construction is more advanced.

I will continue to do 6wide can play with other sets.

On the pantograph think if you have the widest part of the 6wide also will be well on another scale

unfortunately only made one pair in CP2600, but I think it is a good challenge;)

[Selander]

I think this subject has been / and will be / discussed an endless number of times, and there will never be

a clear summary upon what's best, 6- 7- or 8-wide etc. All depends on your own preferences and your "theme"

or idea with your creations as a whole. However if you are building a "one off" creation which is always displayed

on it's own you can forget the rest of my post.

First I like to compare with Ralph S:s very good post about wheel size and relative size for vehicles, cars are smaller

than trucks etc, (see thread in town forum) and transfer those thoughts into this train topic.

-Trucks and trains IRL are nearly the same width. Concequence: If you have a collection of 6-wide trucks - you

should build 6-wide trains, provided you're looking for some matching realism in your lego city or layout.

Or 7-wide trucks => 7-wide trains etc......

Apart from personal opinions I concider a few other things important:

-The wider trains you build - the longer should it be, to achieve a realistic look. Concequence: the wider you build,

you add more weight, you add more costs and add more lenght. Very long creations can as Ralph pointed out above,

look ridiculous (or at least out of realism) when taking curves.

-Inheritence: lego original trains are 6-wide, so if you like to run originals together with your MOC:s, that fact should be

concidered. Part of the inheritance are 6-wide train base plates, as well as 6-wide train windows, buffers etc etc.

As a strictly personal conclusion of the above, I choose to make my trains (and trucks) 6-wide. It allows me to make,

smaller, sleaker, more proportional designs at a lower cost and weight, and I do like to run my MOC:s with Lego originals,

through curves etc on layouts which can be built in a normal room.

Now changing subject completely to pantographs, did you mean working pantographs in the sence that they should

pick up current from an "airborn wire" - like IRL ? It's certainly an intersting idea but I foresee a lot of problems:

I assume we are talking 9V systems now, as they are the only modern system with some capability of transfering current ! (?)

Battery operated systems should not be an option in that sence.

You need a plus and minus pole to let a current flow. IRL pantograph are in metal and touches the plus pole (airborn wire)

so that current flows through the engine and is grounded in the rails. To achieve something similar, metal pantographs must

be built and connected to one pole of the 9V motor, while the ground would be one or both metal rails.

Not only do you have to design a working airborne wire (which I would concider a great challenge) but also you have to

modify the existing lego motor.

A said it is certainly an intersting idea, but I wouldn't be intersted in getting such omplex system work.

Concequence and proposal: Build a "fake" airborne wire and let you plastic (lego) pantograph touch them....

Also you can run all types of system on that, both 9V system, PF-trains and/or...whatever you like.

perhaps I completely misunderstood your idea ? If so just forget the above

[Rijkvv]

Something you should keep in mind about train width is the space for your layout. As mentioned in the previous posts, it can look horrible to get an 8-wide engine trough a standard LEGO track curve. There are tricks for wider looking curves (for example a curve piece, than a straight, than a curve etc) and it looks more realistic, but it's only possible if you have enough space. That's the reason why I only use 6-wides. I design 7-wides, but I can't use them in the near future.

Maybe this presentation made by Ben Beneke is useful.

@Selander: I think he means a pantograph that can be raised and lowered with an electric motor.

[Matt Dawson]

Firstly, the gauge of lego track is 5 studs. not 4 (though there are 4 studes inbetween the rails).

6 wide trains are the general width of the main loco/stock bodies (excluding external detail such as handrails). 7 wide are the intermediary between heavier but more size realistic 8 wide but the 'toy-like' 6 wide. 6 wide is the most easiest to work with due to standard lego train parts.

What really needs to happen in Lego produce a second, wider radius. Even some kids can see the obvious flaw in the sharpness of standard lego track...

[Ralph_S]

Interesting topic so far. A few comments:

AFAIK trains tend to be slightly wider than most trucks (roughly 2.7m vs 2.4m), which is why my 7-wide trucks and 8-wide train go together. If you start moving towards smaller scales the difference becomes so small you might as well use 6-wide trucks and 6-wide trains together.

LEGO have produced the 'flexible' train track , which as Ashi Valkoinen mentions allows larger radius curves. If I wanted my train to run on a track, buying a load of those would be the only serious option. It doesn't work with 12V or 9V though, so it would have to be powered with Power Functions (or perhaps an old 4.5V motor).

If you want to use 9V or 12V you're stuck with the smaller radius curves and consequently 8-wide will look awkward in a curve.

I suppose 7-wide is a compromise, but it obviously complicates the build quite a bit. It can be done, of course and I build a lot of odd-wide stuff myself and have gotten very much used to it, but I wouldn't necessarily want to do it for a train.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Ashi Valkoinen]

@Selander: I think he means a pantograph that can be raised and lowered with an electric motor.

Yes, I did mean this option, not overhead-cable powered trains. (It's discussed in 9V-PF crossover topic ;) )

Firstly, the gauge of lego track is 5 studs. not 4 (though there are 4 studes inbetween the rails).

You're right. But in this case 8 stud width is far more realistic for normal gauged railways then 6 or 7.

What really needs to happen in Lego produce a second, wider radius. Even some kids can see the obvious flaw in the sharpness of standard lego track...

Yes, curved track with larger radius and perhps a "high speed switch" with the same radius of the new curved track.

If you want to use 9V or 12V you're stuck with the smaller radius curves and consequently 8-wide will look awkward in a curve.

8-wide trains are not so compatable with rail-powered system, but new PF or RC is good for this.

To anybody:

This topic was created to tell your opinion. It's not for creating a summary which train width is the best. It's just for ideas and talking. And I'm waiting for motorized pantographs, too. :)

[Legoist]

First of all, width of train. Do you prefer 6, 7 or 8 wide trains?

Currently I prefer 6-wide trains. I don't care for realism that much, to be honest. I just like 6-wide because it's the tradition of official set and I want to make MOCs that are compatible with it. Beside the gauge-to-width ratio (which I have no desire to take as a target, considering that I find the ratio in Lego aesthetically more pleasant... that the one of real trains!), I don't think that the width of train is as important for realism as the width-to-length ratio is; mere width/size certainly gives you more room for details, but "realism" just takes a different meaning once you set your scale. It might actually be a greater challenge to work on a smaller scale, but I don't want to argue: it's a bit like debating if the painting style of Canaletto (super-detailed to the point of looking almost like a photograph) is more worth artistically than the one of Picasso (blunt and approximated).

However, I am intrigued by the option of 7-wide. I think it's a soft departure from the standard and as such perhaps the two might still go together nicely enough, as do 4-wide and 5-wide cars. I might try to build trains in 7-wide in the future and see how it goes!

Second one, working pantographs.

...

Have you ever been thinking about real working pantographs?

No, this is the first time that I read someone suggesting powering them. It would be pretty cool.

As for the aerial electric wire, it's way too difficult to make the motor take power from it, but if done just for the look (perhaps using simple wool treads) it would be a very nice addition.

[Selander]

@Selander: I think he means a pantograph that can be raised and lowered with an electric motor.

Aha, I didn't catch that. So that makes the working pantograph question completely different

compared to my initial understanding of the topic

[Ashi Valkoinen]

compared to my initial understanding of the topic

OFF// No, that's my bad english's fault. //ON

[peterab]

First of all, width of train. Do you prefer 6, 7 or 8 wide trains?

Second one, working pantographs.

I prefer 7 wide, because I find it easier to fit more details in, and therefore get a more accurate looking engine. I find 8 wide too big, both compared to the six wide LEGO trucks and the track radius. The most difficult disadvantages of 7 wide trains is getting bogies connected and baseplates for large carriages.

I'm not sure I'd even know how to begin a working pantograph, I'd love to see someone else attempt it though.

[blueandwhite]

This is really a question of form over function (or vice versa). It's a difficult choice to make and obviously depends on what you're building the train for. Unfortunately, 8-wide trains look quite awkward taking the extremely tight corners of the standard 9V system. 6-wide trains tend to look too small but they look more natural when in motion. The flex system is a great concept, however I think it's going to take a long time for most AFOLs to move over to (or even accept) the Power Function system.

Personally I prefer 8-wide trains, but I think that it takes a good deal of engineering to make them look good in motion. Displays with a lot of curves are better served by 6-wide trains (IMO).

[Ralph_S]

Yes, I did mean this option, not overhead-cable powered trains. (It's discussed in 9V-PF crossover topic ;) )

To anybody:

This topic was created to tell your opinion. It's not for creating a summary which train width is the best. It's just for ideas and talking. And I'm waiting for motorized pantographs, too. :)

Your bad luck for people being thoughtful. Rather than saying I like n-wide, a lot of people seem to realise that the width depends on what you want your train to do and fit with .

Cheers,

Ralph

[BMW]

Regarding Catenary...

Some years ago I also desired working catenary in Lego. After trying a few options, the system I settled on was to adapt a couple Maerklin HO gauge catenary elements. You can see a picture of it on Page 31 of Railbricks Issue #4: http://railbricks.com/media/railbricks_4.pdf . Yes, it is not pure Lego... but it is fast and reliable.

- The Maerklin HO scale overhead wire sections just happen to work out to an even number of studs (so no cutting). And attaches well to standard 3mm hose using short bits cut from rubber pneumatic tubing.

- The Maerklin HO scale pantograph fits nicely on a 4x4 plate. It is a tad undersized for Lego... but less width means the catenary support posts can be closer to the track. A wider O scale pantograph would be just as easy to install (but you would need to go with another manufacter).

- Note that by adding overhead you now have an isolated second line so that you can run two trains independently on the same track.

- BMW

[Selander]

Regarding Catenary...

Some years ago I also desired working catenary in Lego. After trying a few options, the system I settled on was to adapt a couple Maerklin HO gauge catenary elements. You can see a picture of it on Page 31 of Railbricks Issue #4: http://railbricks.com/media/railbricks_4.pdf . Yes, it is not pure Lego... but it is fast and reliable.

- BMW

Fascinating post BMW....also I learnt a new word - "catenary".

I've read that railbrick magazine, but iI cannot recall having noticed the above.

thanks !!