Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/heresylab2/heresylab-the-heresy-train-project-printable-stl-f/description

Thought I would let everyone know about this one - I haven't pledged (yet) but thought some one would be interested...

Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

Wish this could be in Epic/AT scale.

Despite their assurance that the files work at any scale, detail at 28mm becomes unprintable at 8mm.

 Kirasu wrote:
Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

FWIW, trains are actually surprisingly narrow, on even narrower track than feels reasonable. OTOH, those curve sections are ridiculously narrow. I get game scale and all that, but, seriously, trains can't turn like cars do.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

FWIW, trains are actually surprisingly narrow, on even narrower track than feels reasonable. OTOH, those curve sections are ridiculously narrow. I get game scale and all that, but, seriously, trains can't turn like cars do.

Especially given that they don't have steering capability other than where the rails go.

This is about what I'd expect from a 40k worthy train. Almost the same width and perhaps a bit taller.

The width of modern train tracks are a legacy of horse-drawn rails, but on alien worlds colonized with STC patterns, who knows?

Maybe they'll add a flat bed that fits the GW shipping containers.

The latest comment said that you can fit a rhino on the flatbed.
The wagon cannon is suitably large - very Dora.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

FWIW, trains are actually surprisingly narrow, on even narrower track than feels reasonable. OTOH, those curve sections are ridiculously narrow. I get game scale and all that, but, seriously, trains can't turn like cars do.

Yep. Standard Gauge (used primarily in the US, Europe, China, and most of the Middle East) is only about 4 feet 8.5 inches in width. I.E. The rails are spaced 4'-8.5" apart. Thats really not very wide at all.

The width of modern train tracks are a legacy of horse-drawn rails, but on alien worlds colonized with STC patterns, who knows?

Thats a bit of a myth, in particular because railroad gauges vary over time and place. The horse-drawn rails you refer to were very localized in their width, different mining companies and wagon-makers built their wagons to different specifications, the rails were built to meet those specifications, rather than the other way around. Generally these railways were narrower than modern standard gauge, though in some cases they were wider. The early railroads which were based on some of these early horse-drawn wagon railways were gauged at 4 feet 4 inches (Penydarren Tramroad in South Wales, 1804), 4 feet 0 inches (Redruth and Chasewater Railway, Cornwall 1825), 4 feet 6 inches (Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway, Western Scotland 1826), 4 feet 6.5 inches (Dundee and Newtyle Railway, Northeast Scotland, 1831), 5 feet 6 inches (Arbroath and Forfar Railway, Scotland 1838), 6 feet 2 inches (Ulster Railway, Ireland1839), so as you can see there was no standardization there, nor any relation to the predominant modern railroad gauge of 4 feet 8.5 inches. The precursor to standard gauge came about during this time when George Stephenson developed a locomotive for use on the Killingworth Wagonway, but that was originally spaced at 4 feet 8 inches - it picked up popularity and was duplicated on the Stockton and Darlington Railway in 1825 which was officially spec'd as being 4 feet 8 inches, but was later measured at 4 feet 8.5 inches (the source of the extra half inch is a bit of a mystery), which was in turn duplicated for use on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (1830), thus becoming the first "official" standard gauge railway at 4 feet 8.5 inches. Despite this, gauges remained highly non-standardized, and the prevailing competing gauge (broad gauge at 7 feet 1/4 inch - selected by an engineer who determined it was the optimal width for rail traffic) persisted for decades until politics forced conversion to standard gauge in the late 1890s (see the history of the Gauge War for more details, though that was largely settled in the 1840s when an act of Parliament determined that Broad Gauge railways could only be built if they were connecting to existing broad gauge lines or approved by act of Parliament, while standard gauge would be used everywhere else - except Ireland which would use 5 feet 3 inches).

Globally speaking, railroad gauges were determined by who was supplying the nation with the rolling stock (assuming they were being imported from overseas), or based on local considerations (Europes railways used a lot of different gauges in the early days, often selected arbitrarily, or tending to be narrower gauge to enable tighter turns at speed in mountainous regions). In some areas they were selected precisely because they would be incompatible with their neighbors and thus prevent them from being used by their neighbors during an invasion (this was particularly the case with Spain and Russia). Even in the US there was a distinct lack of standardization until after the Civil War - the North tended towars Standard Gauge while the South used a distinct 5 foot gauge.

I also tend to agree that the train seems to narrow to me. That being said, I would also love to see it scaled for Adeptus Titanicus

Adding balconies along the sides would be fairly easy to do, and would give it the illusion of greater width.

Looks awesome as is, though.

Figures, this comes out like two days after I finally find and buy the right toy train and track to make my own scratchbuild.

 Kirasu wrote:
Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

 mjl7atlas wrote:
I also tend to agree that the train seems to narrow to me. That being said, I would also love to see it scaled for Adeptus Titanicus

That is the advantage of STL files. You can make adjustments to the size scaling it up to fit whatever sizes you want. Even if you do not have a 3d printer, you can upload to various other printer services who can print it for you as well.

I am suggesting the base connector that all the lower pieces connect to be a separate piece. It makes it easier to increase just the width, which won't distort the rest of pieces, allowing you to scale the center train part and keep the side wheels the same which will accomplish making it wider.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Same issue I have with so many other trains, its far too skinny. It should at least be same width as a land raider, not a 32mm base.

FWIW, trains are actually surprisingly narrow, on even narrower track than feels reasonable. OTOH, those curve sections are ridiculously narrow. I get game scale and all that, but, seriously, trains can't turn like cars do.

Maybe it uses the same technology as the Space Marine flyers. They shouldn't be able to either.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My question is how can they be making these with GW IP? It's one thing calling something star marine shoulder pads, but to explicitly imply it's for 40K I thought couldn't be done.

No, it's almost the exact opposite.

Making something original and saying it's for use with 40K is fine. Making something and calling it "star marine" when it's blatantly Space Marine is flirting more closely with trouble, but only if you're actually using imagery that GW legitimately owns, which as Chaoter house demonstrated, is not as long of a list as GW thought.

Davor wrote:
My question is how can they be making these with GW IP? It's one thing calling something star marine shoulder pads, but to explicitly imply it's for 40K I thought couldn't be done.

I may have missed it but other than the person who created the OP and labeled it 40K train, who isn't the project creator themself... where does it state that it is for 40K? Otherwise, it is just another grimdark, gothic stylized vehicle that could be used for 40K but could also just be used for anything really. There is nothing particularly labeled 40K about the project itself, although people reference and mention 40K models.

Modern trains are more constrained by the surrounding infrastructure than anything else. Track sizes haven't can get much from historic norms because to change them substantially now means a massive change to all rolling stock along with all tunnels, bridges, stations, electrification equipment, trackside gubbinz and everything else that runs alongside tracks.

I think the model.is about the right size for an interesting piece for a normal sized board, even though all the guns look a bit hard to serve with ammo. On the other hand you could easily do a whole board based on it being the upper surface of a mega train. The Rogue Trader book had a scenario based on that kind of premise. A battle on the upper surface of a massive transport container studded withnpoint defence turrets.

Azreal13 wrote:No, it's almost the exact opposite.

Making something original and saying it's for use with 40K is fine. Making something and calling it "star marine" when it's blatantly Space Marine is flirting more closely with trouble, but only if you're actually using imagery that GW legitimately owns, which as Chaoter house demonstrated, is not as long of a list as GW thought.

Thank you for that.

Dark Severance wrote:

Davor wrote:
My question is how can they be making these with GW IP? It's one thing calling something star marine shoulder pads, but to explicitly imply it's for 40K I thought couldn't be done.

I may have missed it but other than the person who created the OP and labeled it 40K train, who isn't the project creator themself... where does it state that it is for 40K? Otherwise, it is just another grimdark, gothic stylized vehicle that could be used for 40K but could also just be used for anything really. There is nothing particularly labeled 40K about the project itself, although people reference and mention 40K models.

Ahh the original poster said it in the title. That is why it stuck in my head. You are correct no where does it say 40K at all. I guess reading 40K title here and then the name Heresy in the company name, got me thinking GW IP. Thanks for the correction.

Looks good and I will be keeping an eye on the KickStarter, bit much for STL's in my opinion right now but once some of the goals are met I will revisit to see whether I think the value is there.

I agree with the comments that it seems a bit small, especially for 40K where everything is large to begin with but as has also been mentioned, if you are getting the STL's to print it you can just scale it up as you see fit.

I will say that if you make a modified STL, where the wheels for the train can rotate so that it can be pushed along the track I would likely back it right then and there. Playing a narrative game where the train is moving would be fun but having to pick the whole thing up with additional cars and such and move it every turn would just be a pain. (Although something I may end up doing anyhow)