MOC Widths

[Hrw-Amen]

I try to build everything railway related 7 wide. I think it does look a lot better than 6 which for me looks way to skinny and tall. Having said that whilst I set out for a 7 wide build certain things, like rods on the steam trains, sometimes grab rails or buffer beams on diesels stretch to 8 wide even if the main body is rerally 7. So I could say I guess 7.5 on average. I have tried to build whole things 8 wide, mainly to save on parts and excessive jumper use, but I found 8 wide just looked a little too wide in the main, where as 7 looked pretty much spot on.

[Ashi Valkoinen]

Here in MLVK (Hungarian LEGO-Railway Community) we made our votes for 8W building. In general we attend exhibitons organised by Model Railway groups (the traditional railway modeling, like H0 or TT) and we are building real life related trains.

Why 8W?

The gauge of the LEGO train track (38 mm) and the distance between the wheels (34 mm) are not the same. This different allows the LEGO boogies to run swift on the curved tracks, too. An avarage train in Hungary has its width between 2800 and 3000 mm-s. That means the trains' width is about the double of the normal gauge (1435 mm). Using 8W means 64 mm-es, which is almost the double of the distance between the wheels on one axle (34 mm). Using 38 mm as standard would mean 9W trains, which are quite hard or impossible to build because of the curves.

We call this building scale 8WN, as 8-Wide Normal. We also use 8WS (8-Wide Shortened) for the trains are shorter compared to the real one (for example, one window missing because of length problems).

We also use 8WT (8-Wide Trams). In this case the LEGO-models are proportional to the gauge (38 mm). Being proportional to the wheel distance (34 mm) mean building 7W trams, but after some building issues we decided to keep trams 8W, however, they are not proportional to our trains anymore.

8WN and 8WS trains are scaled to real trains between 1:41-1:44, depending on the real width of the train. In 8W you can build a lot of things in, you can motorise functions easier, you can hide the boogies with tiles, you can build much more details in. Disadvantage is the large amount of bricks needed (the ratio 8/6 in three dimensions mean 2.37× more bricks needed), the building difficulties because of the tight curves and powering longer trains, which could be easely up to 3-4 kilogramms.

[Aaron]

Here in MLVK (Hungarian LEGO-Railway Community) we made our votes for 8W building. In general we attend exhibitons organised by Model Railway groups (the traditional railway modeling, like H0 or TT) and we are building real life related trains.

Why 8W?

The gauge of the LEGO train track (38 mm) and the distance between the wheels (34 mm) are not the same. This different allows the LEGO boogies to run swift on the curved tracks, too. An avarage train in Hungary has its width between 2800 and 3000 mm-s. That means the trains' width is about the double of the normal gauge (1435 mm). Using 8W means 64 mm-es, which is almost the double of the distance between the wheels on one axle (34 mm). Using 38 mm as standard would mean 9W trains, which are quite hard or impossible to build because of the curves.

We call this building scale 8WN, as 8-Wide Normal. We also use 8WS (8-Wide Shortened) for the trains are shorter compared to the real one (for example, one window missing because of length problems).

We also use 8WT (8-Wide Trams). In this case the LEGO-models are proportional to the gauge (38 mm). Being proportional to the wheel distance (34 mm) mean building 7W trams, but after some building issues we decided to keep trams 8W, however, they are not proportional to our trains anymore.

8WN and 8WS trains are scaled to real trains between 1:41-1:44, depending on the real width of the train. In 8W you can build a lot of things in, you can motorise functions easier, you can hide the boogies with tiles, you can build much more details in. Disadvantage is the large amount of bricks needed (the ratio 8/6 in three dimensions mean 2.37× more bricks needed), the building difficulties because of the tight curves and powering longer trains, which could be easely up to 3-4 kilogramms.

Widths beyond 8 studs are not only very possible, but the correct scale for some train cars. An 8 wide LEGO train would be the equivalent of 2438.4 millimeters (or 8 feet), since the standard LEGO scale is 1 stud = 304.8 millimeters, or 1 foot. The gauge of LEGO track is just a hair under 5 studs, which is virtually equal to standard gauge. On top of that, the 3 stud wide LEGO train wheels are perfectly scaled to the wheels of most train cars, and I have reason to believe that all of this was intentional. 8-9 wide is perfectly scaled for most European trains, whereas 10 wide is perfectly scaled for most American trains. Anything less than 1 stud = 304.8 millimeters (1 foot) is a compromise, and not truly scaled.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Aaron

[greenmtvince]

considering the 3 stud wide LEGO train wheels are perfectly scaled to the wheels of most train cars anyway. 8-9 wide is perfectly scaled for most European trains, whereas 10 wide is perfectly scaled for most American trains. Anything less is a compromise.

I would offer that it may be a compromise any way you go.

The 3 studs presumes you measure to the edge of the flanges. If you measure to the edge of the tread as most railroads do (or some reference line on the tread,) at 2 studs, 8-wide is spot on for 33" diameter wheels or just slightly small for 36" diameter wheels.

10 wide does get the track gauge spot on.

The other trade-off to consider is how tall are your minifigs vs how wide. At 8-wide, a minifig is about 6' tall. At 10-wide a minifig is only 4'10." When you consider widths and the average person is a 1.5 feet wide at the shoulders, Minifigs are still broad regardless of the scale.

And while 6 wide might not be scaled to any stock LEGO components, you can certainly fit more train into a smaller space, which for many is more fun than a scale model.

[Aaron]

I would offer that it may be a compromise any way you go.

The 3 studs presumes you measure to the edge of the flanges. If you measure to the edge of the tread as most railroads do (or some reference line on the tread,) at 2 studs, 8-wide is spot on for 33" diameter wheels or just slightly small for 36" diameter wheels.

Flanges hardly make for any visual difference, considering the amount of wheel exposure is altered very, very slightly, keeping in mind that most of the wheel is still above the head of the track. To most observers, a 3 stud diameter wheel will be a 3 stud diameter wheel regardless of how high it sits on the track. If I carefully look at one of my coaches, and then carefully look at a real one, the wheel massing is virtually indistinguishable from one another. As far as minifigures are concerned, I have not found a reason to use them as a point of reference, since their height is arbitrary.

Anything narrower than 1:38 is justified by practical and cost-related reasoning, completely unrelated to scaling. 6 wide is the preferred size for TLG's models because of its ease of function, and because larger, costlier models would likely be unprofitable. As far as MOCs go, there is no reason they should be limited to any size, so long as the trains function with the track as intended. I only wish it were in my power to dispel the myth that 10-wide is untouchable and unfeasible, but unfortunately I feel that 8-wide maximum has forevermore become the status quo, due to misjudged reasoning. Any way you look at it, L-gauge is intended to be 1:38 scale, and I am satisfied with what I have created so far reflecting that concept, even if it's something that's not commonly accepted.

[Ashi Valkoinen]

LEGO train track gauge is not 5 studs, but 4.85 studs. Whatever, with our 8W trains we are proportional to the distance between the flange of the wheels, which is 3 mm less than that 4.85 studs.

I only wish it were in my power to dispel the myth that 10-wide is untouchable and unfeasible, but unfortunately I feel that 8-wide maximum has forevermore become the status quo, due to misjudged reasoning. Any way you look at it, L-gauge is intended to be 1:38 scale, and I am satisfied with what I have created so far reflecting that concept, even if it's something that's not commonly accepted.

10W is not untouchable, but you can't build some train in 10W because of its length, it simply can't go on switches or curves. But for shorter locomotives and passanger cars it's the best choice to put all the details on! Anybody can build in 10W on his/her own, but if you are building in a team, where it's important to be proportional to each other, and others would like to build trains unpossible in 10W (for example, 26 metres long open freight waggon Rgs or RailJet Amfpz car), 8W is a better choice.

[Aaron]

LEGO train track gauge is not 5 studs, but 4.85 studs. Whatever, with our 8W trains we are proportional to the distance between the flange of the wheels, which is 3 mm less than that 4.85 studs.

I don't think anyone said that it was 5 studs. It's 1:38 scale, in which standard gauge would be the equivalent of 4.7083 studs. If you look at the gauge measurement diagram I posted, it shows the correct way to measure gauge. LEGO track is pretty much spot-on.

10W is not untouchable, but you can't build some train in 10W because of its length, it simply can't go on switches or curves. But for shorter locomotives and passanger cars it's the best choice to put all the details on! Anybody can build in 10W on his/her own, but if you are building in a team, where it's important to be proportional to each other, and others would like to build trains unpossible in 10W (for example, 26 metres long open freight waggon Rgs or RailJet Amfpz car), 8W is a better choice.

My 80 stud long cars can handle curves and switches without any issues. What size a group decides to build in is completely up to that group, though to ultimately say that one scale is better or worse than another based on what a group decides is flawed logic.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Aaron

[Ashi Valkoinen]

My 80 stud long cars can handle curves and switches without any issues.

LEGO point include the yellow lever for the switch - do your waggons pass them without being stucked by the lever? :)

though to ultimately say that one scale is better or worse than another based on what a group decides is flawed logic.

Nobody said that one scale is ultimately good or bad. For some purposes 8W is better (good compromise for more details and saving on bricks), for some 6W (childrens' toy, easier energy.supply) or 10W (much more detail, realistic scale).

[Aaron]

LEGO point include the yellow lever for the switch - do your waggons pass them without being stucked by the lever? :)

It depends on the arrangement of the underbody detail. It can be moved or rearranged if necessary, but in most cases the levers pass completely underneath the train cars. The cars also have attachment points for underbody skirting, but it's avoided if the train has to do switching. Otherwise, the cars themseleves have no problems. On my layout, I simply remove the switching track handles, and I don't have to change anything. The switching track can still be used with ease this way.

Nobody said that one scale is ultimately good or bad. For some purposes 8W is better (good compromise for more details and saving on bricks), for some 6W (childrens' toy, easier energy.supply) or 10W (much more detail, realistic scale).

That's the same way I see it. I just choose to do 10 wide coaches because I've always wanted my own (real) passenger cars and it's the closest thing I can get. They started out as 8-wides, 56 studs long, but after toiling for hundreds of hours, I managed to develop the techniques to make 10-wides, 80+ studs long work.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Aaron

[coghilla]

Queensland, Australia runs a narrow gauge track throughout the state. (The interstate line in the south is standard gauge). So 8 wide would work here. Although the 10 wide car above is fantastic at scale.

[ScotNick]

I prefer 7 wide. As several times mentioned here 6 wide looks too tall, and 8 wide sometimes too wide. But that also depends on the engine you are building. Probably I would build an American engine 8 wide and an English engine 7 wide because of the loading gauge difference in real life. Also a 7 wide engine could pull 6 wide and 8 wide coaches.

[AgentRick]

I try too keep engines and cars at 6-wide, but I've been reaching out towards 7-wide engines in a few mocs I'm working on. I'll probably stick to 7wide engines and 6wide carriages in the future.

[michaelozzie]

All my Trains are in 8 wide and it is spot on in my mind, for level of detail achievable and looking to scale with 6 wide trucks and

cars in the Lego city. 6 wide just looks too small to me now, even 7 wide. I have tried some 9 and 10 wide versions but it becomes a

bit too heavy and costly in parts even though it looks better.

[mikezang]

I found all discussion are about width and length, but how about height? I want to know is thee any better height for 6w, 7w and 8w train?

I think this is better as below, what do you think?

6w with 18 plates,

7w with 21 plates,

8w with 24 plates space between baseplate and roof slope

[EuroTrains]

I do 10 wide exclusively for at least the past 5 years. Somebody pointed out the 1 stud == 1 foot relationship with the tracks a while ago and I have been a fan of this scale ever since. The minifigs are about 6 feet tall at this scale (albeit wide little fellas).

I love the realism of this scale. The only real problem is the track curve radius.

[Hrw-Amen]

At the end of the day, as long as you and your club are happy, does it matter if we build 6,7,8,9 or even 10? We just need to have fun doing it!

[Rustie86]

I'm a fan of 6-wide. Since it's always been the scale that TLG's official sets are designed to, I stick with it for unity in size and for its relative low cost, both in bricks and cash. I'm hoping to build a layout, or at least a collection of MOCs, that permit me to operate like a real railroad; this requires quite the investment in locos, rolling stock, etc. so I'll take quantity over quality. The 6-wide standard seems the best for that goal.

[Trainmaster247]

I know this is an older topic but I am a fan of one stud it takes quite a few more pieces and you can still get good results-

[Murdoch17]

My rule of thumb is that I use 8 wide for bigger US post-1930 steam engines (2-10-4, 2-8-4, 4-8-4) and 6 wide for pre-1930 smaller steamers (4-4-0, 2-6-0, 2-8-2, 4-8-0). All my diesels, and most train cars are 6 wide as well. Some of my UK trains are 7 wide, but none are 8 wide.

I also use two studs (that's three studs away from the actual rail) on either side of straight track clear of stuff and 13 bricks high in the center to allow trains to get through, like on tunnels and bridges. However, I only do one studs from the track (two from the rail) for stations, so that pedestrians have a reasonable distance from platform to train.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Murdoch17

[THERIZE]

6 wide FTW!! I never bothered to try another scale. I'm pretty bad at making rolling stock so I like to make my own locomotives coupled up to TLG wagons. its cheap, easy to build and the challenge of hiding PF can also be fun! I once tried to rebuild my ALCO PA in 8 wide but it looked terrible! tried 7 wide for my Bayerische Gt 2×4/4 but it looked way out of scale! will stick to 6W forever! until I will understand 7 wide!

[eurotrash]

I prefer the size and challenges that building in 7-wide brings. At that scale the locos and the carriages look substantial enough and fit in with my other Lego MOCs.

[xboxtravis7992]

A lot of recent Lego trains, although built on a 6 stud frame, have enough overhangs they look more like 7 stud or even 8 stud. Both the Night and the Maersk did this to an extent.

[A Gallifreyan Cat]

In order to stay in scale with the track, wouldn't you need to do about 1 stud per foot? That ends up with 10 wide. However, I build only in 6 wide (it's all i can afford). The disadvantage to this is that you can not put power functions in lots of american diesels.

[dr_spock]

In order to stay in scale with the track, wouldn't you need to do about 1 stud per foot? That ends up with 10 wide. However, I build only in 6 wide (it's all i can afford). The disadvantage to this is that you can not put power functions in lots of american diesels.

It can depend on what track gauge you are modeling. There are various gauges around the world like standard, meter, Italian meter, Russian, Indian, Irish, Scot, Cape, etc.

[THERIZE]

It can depend on what track gauge you are modeling. There are various gauges around the world like standard, meter, Italian meter, Russian, Indian, Irish, Scot, Cape, etc.

but the LEGO track is obviously ment for standard gauge I once tried building a klein-lindner locomotive for LEGO gauge in the sence of making a large scale NG railway. it looked awefull!