Train Widths

[bricked one]

What works best, and what doesn't?

[Carefree_Dude]

What works best, and what doesn't?

8 wide is amazing. lots of detail, and not too big for standard track. 7 wide is pretty nice too, and fits well with both 6 and 8 wide. If you have only a few parts that are 9 wide, that loooks alright with 8 wide.

[fred67]

What works better? They all "work," but if you're going to do steam with driving rods and so forth, it might be awkward.

I agree 8 wide can look great, though.

[Lego Otaku]

What works better? They all "work," but if you're going to do steam with driving rods and so forth, it might be awkward.

I agree 8 wide can look great, though.

Defiantly. 6 wide steam engine with working piston would be a bit challenging. 6 wide ma be fine for simple diesel or electric engine but defiantly not for nice looking model.

Go for 7 or 8 wide if you got the parts, time, and patience.

[Captain Green Hair]

I think the sizes should be combined to get some differences on the track and get the models to fit a better with the larger 6 wide cars and such.

Until now I have made 2 steam engines in 8 wide and a tram in 7 wide as can be seen here.

[roamingstop]

One of the previous railbricks magazines talked about this in depth, especially with respect to the scales: track width vs engine width vs length. The general feeling seems to be:

If you have lots of standard Lego models and trackside buildings you will need to keep the models 6 wide - with the false scale that it requires. This also means shorter trains.

If you are happy MOC'ing / MOD'ing your trackside buildings then the 7 / 8 wide scale will look best, but you will also need to increase the length of the carriages to keep the right proportions. This means custom train bases etc.

Going to 9 / 10 wide is really a bit extreme and only ideal if you want to use normal Lego track as a way to model a narrow gauge system, but then it will not match with most other models.

I walk alongside a railway siding regularly on my way to work, and have been keeping an eye on the carriage widths (freight) versus the wheel base. 6 wide is too small to be realistic.

Take for example a tanker car using the 4x4x6 corner panels. This would make an 8 wide tanker. In reality the structural base of these tankers sits directly above the wheels, which is equivalent to a 6 wide base in lego. All other rolling stock (e.g. flatbeds, wagons etc) have their bases overhanging the wheels, and would (visually) represent an 8 wide. So the 10016 model tanker was one of the few accurate lego train designs...

However once you start, you wont be able to stop. Coopers 7 widecarriages show what would be needed...

[Ralph_S]

I'm not a train builder, normally, but I did build a train a while ago and struggled with this question.

Cars in my world are 5/6 studs wide, trucks are generally 7 studs wide (including the mudguards and tyres) and trains ought to be slightly wider than trucks, which makes 8-wide just about perfect. However, I'm a bit surprised that nobody so far has mentioned what I see is the biggest problem with 8-wide trains. It has nothing to do with trackside buildings or what is easier. It has to do with curves.

If you build an 8-wide train, you'll end up with fairly long carriages. Mine are about 50 studs long. This creates problems on standard curves, because the radius of curvature of the standard curves is much too small compared to the length of the carriages. An 8-wide training running can look terrible. If you want the train to look decent in a curve you need shorter carriages, in which case it makes sense for them to be narrower as well, which makes 6 studs wide more attractive. (The alternative is to use flexible curves to create larger radius curves.)

My train was only supposed to sit still on a viaduct that forms the backdrop of my city display, so curves weren't an issue. That is why I did choose to go for 8-wide. If I would want to run it on a track, however, I would have had to make it narrower.

Cheers,

Ralph

[hoeij]

For anything larger than 6 wide you'll need to be an excellent MOC builder, because you'll have to MOC pretty much everything.

The trains should also become a bit longer too, so the total weight (and $ cost) will be higher than that of a 6-wide train. To make it look good, you'll need a significantly larger layout that has room for long stretches of straight track. You need to have room for that.

But the main issue is time: You need a lot of time to design and build your trains and everything that goes with it (if you enjoy MOC'ing everything, then that could be considered a plus). Of course, if you do manage to build one of those spectacular trains or buildings that we regularly see posted here, you'll have a great sense of accomplishment.

Edited September 30, 2010 by hoeij

[fred67]

If you build an 8-wide train, you'll end up with fairly long carriages. Mine are about 50 studs long. This creates problems on standard curves, because the radius of curvature of the standard curves is much too small compared to the length of the carriages. An 8-wide training running can look terrible.

Excellent point, Ralph.

I tend to take questions literally, and he asked what "works" better, not what "looks" better... they all essentially work the same (as long as the space between cars allows the wider widths to take curves).

But you are absolutely right... I think the 8 wides look stunning, but the LEGO curve radius is laughably small, and the flex track looks like garbage (IMO). Even 6 wides on the LEGO curves often look stupid, but it's one of those concessions you make as a railfan when LEGO is your chosen medium.

I've posted this link a number of times, but I think anyone who really wants to make "realistic" layout should take a look. It's how to make LEGO flex track using O-Gauge rail. You can make arbitrary curves... of course this means you need a very large area to work with. However, the track is metal, and as such can be used for 9V... and there's no reason you HAVE to bend it - so not only is it good for newer PF trains, it's great for 9V trains, and it's true for both whether you need more straight track or want larger radius curves.... and imagine actually using BROWN for the ties! Why the heck doesn't LEGO use brown?

Edited September 30, 2010 by fred67

[Sir E Fullner]

I say that 6-wide is the easiest to do, but I know another width that works: 5-wide. Click on the link to my MOCpage below and you can see one of mine.

[Ashi Valkoinen]

I have to say 8 wide after building 3 FLIRT-s and one Siemens Taurus in 8 wide. :D

[Brickthus]

My trains are 8+ wide, built with an objective of 8mm:1ft scale.

If I were building US or continental trains, they might be 10+ wide because the gauge is bigger than in the UK e.g. boxcar 10'5" wide.

A few challenges should be considered with larger trains:

- need 2 train motors for most trains because they are heavier.

- need to widen curves, either alternating curves with straights or using flexitrack at wider radius. Standard curves are like 40ft radius in 8mm scale.

- Availability of large enough train wheels. Emerald Night's wheels are 3'9" in 8mm scale. I have cut some wheels to make larger thin wheels for trains with the right holes for crank pins and rods, as a better solution than using 40-tooth cogs.

- whether you would like it to be more of a model railway than a train set (perhaps adding track ballast, signals, scale scenery etc...)

If you're prepared to face those issues then I'd welcome more people building bigger trains!

Mark

[Andy Glascott]

Basically, I build 6 wide, but.... This is a slightly out of date pic of my take on a 4-6-2 LMS loco, the Duchess of Sutherland. The boiler is 5 wide, the frame is 6 wide, the cab 7 wide, and at the pistons it's 8 wide. So is this a 6 wide, 7 wide or 8 wide model? In my view it's 6 wide, but others may differ....

The reason I go for 6 wide is to allow my 12v trains to pass each other on tracks running next to each other, which is one reason the wider Duchess was converted to 9v after the pic was taken and my layout developed.

[MetroiD]

Well, the basic problem here is, naturally, the 'weird' (to say the least) scale of the standard LEGO minifigs. I guess that with the introduction of modular houses lately, 8-wide trains have finally started to "fit in", but then there's another problem - as Ralph and hoeij already noted, 8-wide trains are: a) expensive; b) tough to get right considering how 'big' they look on standard curves. Thankfully, the latter is alleviated a bit by the introduction of the new PF rails.

Truth be old, 8-wide trains are really marvellous and personally, if I start building a steam locomotive as I've planned, it will definitely be in 8-wide. Currently though, I'm still struggling with a tram design which is in 6-wide and is giving me a terrible headache. The tram is very narrow itself, so 6-wide seemed like the natural choice, but that's come back to haunt me now - so in all honesty, choosing 6-wide as the scale to build your MOC in is not always the best option either! Which is why I'm considering switching to 7-wide at the moment with that MOC...

Anyway, I don't think there's a straight answer to the question. There've been tons of beautiful train MOCs in all kinds of widths, which obviously means anything is possible - in all scales ;)

[Cooper]

Personally, I'm a huge fan of 7 wide. They look more realistic and still go through the standard LEGO curves without looking totally ungainly.

Mind you if you build articulated steam engines in LEGO, then I think people are just amazed that they can make the corner at all, and anything else that follows looks normal by comparison even if it does overhang the curve a bit.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Cooper

[bricked one]

Thanks for the comments guys, I think 8 wide would be the way to go, but I don't know about the turns. Maybe I can make the trains shorter by, 10-15 studs?

So, I think my scale is going to be:

6-7 wide - cars and vans

7-8 wide - trucks and semis

8-9 wide -trains