| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
| |
Well I finally completed a coach set I have been dreaming about building for
years.
|
Hi Steve,
I just agree the positive feedback posted in this thread. These coaches look
great and, more important than anything else, you seems having fun to build
them. (I particularly like the color scheme (aka livery) :-))
One point I am still curious is the “compressionism”.
Many rolling stocks MOCs (not only 8wide but also 6wide) are compressed. I
understand the aim is to make the trains to fit perfectly with the curved tracks
but it has some consequences, for instance an oversized undercarriage gap : the
trucks (boggies) looks to big, the base too high. This point can be seen on this
picture : http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/SEBarile/coaches/DRG/p1010623.jpg
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do the
LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Didier
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile wrote:
| |
Well I finally completed a coach set I have been dreaming about building for
years.
|
Hi Steve,
I just agree the positive feedback posted in this thread. These coaches look
great and, more important than anything else, you seems having fun to build
them. (I particularly like the color scheme (aka livery) :-))
One point I am still curious is the “compressionism”.
Many rolling stocks MOCs (not only 8wide but also 6wide) are compressed. I
understand the aim is to make the trains to fit perfectly with the curved
tracks but it has some consequences, for instance an oversized undercarriage
gap : the trucks (boggies) looks to big, the base too high. This point can be
seen on this picture :
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/SEBarile/coaches/DRG/p1010623.jpg
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
Anyway, thanks for sharing.
Didier
|
I think it depends on what you are trying to acheive. In this example Steve has
used compression pretty well, its not as a compressed as a Lego designed train
but he has managed to chop a considerable amount out without it looking ‘wrong’
(including two sets of wheels!) However I know what you mean when you say that
compression put things out of proportion, the length is reduced but the gap
under the coach is still the same height. Looking at the photo of the
HO model
you can see that the body sits lower on its bogies/trucks than it is possible in
Lego. The underframe detail is pretty sparse on these coaches, however perhaps
what there is needs to emphasised rather than compressed in this case. Its a
question of getting the balance right. The nature of Lego, especially the tight
radius of the tracks means that if you don’t compress it can end up looking a
bit silly. Legopapi’s beautiful scale
Silberling coaches
illustrate this perfectly. One solution to this is the one Mark Bellis uses,
all his curves are made up with a straight between each curve. (he builds stuff
pretty big too)! With Lego, the maxim ‘If it looks right it is right’ is
especially true. However much you try to build to scale, its still Lego and
things are going to be out of proportion, its a question of fooling the eye so
that it ‘looks right’
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I see it as just about mandatory to do anything
useable, and still have bricks left over. Replicating every window, every seat,
every rivet is just not possible, so leave some out, as long as the feeling is
evoked you’ve succeeded.
For instance in my diner I have only 3
tables, seating for 6... not very prototypical but it’s still a diner and evokes
the feel of the Super Chief diner.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I see it as just about mandatory to do
anything useable, and still have bricks left over. Replicating every window,
every seat, every rivet is just not possible, so leave some out, as long as
the feeling is evoked you’ve succeeded.
For instance in my diner I have only 3
tables, seating for 6... not very prototypical but it’s still a diner and
evokes the feel of the Super Chief diner.
|
Just a thought, brought on by you mentioning leaving windows out.
Some European HO manufacturers compress the length of long coaches in HO. They
do this by having the basic scale of 1:87 but having the length modelled to
1:100. this means that there are (for example) the correct amount of windows but
they are all narrower. Personally I wouldn’t buy them, however my question is:
is it better to compress length by having less windows or the correct number of
narrower ones?
Tim
Yes, I am bored at work today!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
Just a thought, brought on by you mentioning leaving windows out.
Some European HO manufacturers compress the length of long coaches in HO.
They do this by having the basic scale of 1:87 but having the length modelled
to 1:100. this means that there are (for example) the correct amount of
windows but they are all narrower. Personally I wouldn’t buy them, however my
question is: is it better to compress length by having less windows or the
correct number of narrower ones?
|
Less windows, in my view. Typically, most modelers feel compression works better
by having less of a repeating element instead of making the element smaller (you
could do some searching of back issues of model railroad magazines for articles
on this).
I think that’s even MORE true with LEGO where the minimum feature size means
making something smaller means losing detail. If anything I would make a subpart
BIGGER to get more detail in. (referring back to my ATSF rake, the trucks on it
are, I think, overscale, so that I could get two coils and a transverse spring
in)
Good topic!
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I see it as just about mandatory to do
anything useable, and still have bricks left over. Replicating every window,
every seat, every rivet is just not possible, so leave some out, as long as
the feeling is evoked you’ve succeeded.
For instance in my diner I have only 3
tables, seating for 6... not very prototypical but it’s still a diner and
evokes the feel of the Super Chief diner.
|
Agreed.
Part of the skill (and fun) in building anything real in Lego is to leave in
what is essential to the character and leave out what you can get away with to
ensure functionality.
So, the skill required is beyond simply making something to scale.and arguably a
wider ranging skill than traditional model-making..
I’m certainly a ‘leave this window out but make the others look right’ bloke.
Jon Reynolds
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Personally, I try and avoid it like the plague. I consider building 6 wide
trains an (unnecessary) exercise in width compression. Of all the types of
compression, this particular one makes a train look wonky IMO. There is just no
getting around the fact that the train width should be about twice the width
of the track gauge (normally in the US at least). Having them be virtually the
same width is makes them appear too toyish, which is okay if that is the look
one is after. That is not what I’m after.
So I will find schematics of what I want to build and adhere to them as
closely as is possible. Because the fact is that no matter how closely I can
get to the exact proportions of a prototype, it will still look relatively
unrealistic because it is built from LEGO, not scale materials. That is
what I love-- it looks “real” and “unreal” all at the same time. This effect
has been perfected in the minilands, and the joy is in the suspension of
believe.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I see it as just about mandatory to do
anything useable, and still have bricks left over.
|
Please. Are you implying that you wouldn’t have literally 100,000s of bricks
“left over”? Or are you speaking for anyone else? :-)
| |
Replicating every window,
every seat, every rivet is just not possible, so leave some out, as long as
the feeling is evoked you’ve succeeded.
For instance in my diner I have only 3
tables, seating for 6... not very prototypical but it’s still a diner and
evokes the feel of the Super Chief diner.
|
THESE evoke
the feeling of passenger cars as well, so what is the point? Are you about
“evoking feelings” or trying to copy something as closely as possible? When I
copy something, I try and replicate everything that is possible, not try and
figure out how much I can leave out and still capture the essence of something.
Because then you end up with an eggliner.
YMMV,
JOHN
|
|
| |
| |
THESE
evoke the feeling of passenger cars as well, so what is the point? Are you
about “evoking feelings” or trying to copy something as closely as possible?
When I copy something, I try and replicate everything that is possible, not
try and figure out how much I can leave out and still capture the essence of
something. Because then you end up with an eggliner.
YMMV,
JOHN
|
Now they ARE cool!
Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
I like mine sunny side up;-)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
THESE
evoke the feeling of passenger cars as well, so what is the point? Are you
about “evoking feelings” or trying to copy something as closely as possible?
When I copy something, I try and replicate everything that is possible, not
try and figure out how much I can leave out and still capture the essence of
something. Because then you end up with an eggliner.
YMMV,
JOHN
|
LMAO! Those are cute!
I HATE it when I walk in late on an interesting thread and everthing I want to
say has been said already :-(
(I hope I don’t offend anyone by posting these links, but IMO, these are
examples where selective compression has gone, well, a bit off.)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=74791
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=48488
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Personally, I try and avoid it like the plague. I consider building 6 wide
trains an (unnecessary) exercise in width compression. Of all the types of
compression, this particular one makes a train look wonky IMO. There is just
no getting around the fact that the train width should be about twice the
width of the track gauge (normally in the US at least). Having them be
virtually the same width is makes them appear too toyish, which is okay if
that is the look one is after. That is not what I’m after.
So I will find schematics of what I want to build and adhere to them as
closely as is possible. Because the fact is that no matter how closely I
can get to the exact proportions of a prototype, it will still look
relatively unrealistic because it is built from LEGO, not scale materials.
That is what I love-- it looks “real” and “unreal” all at the same time.
This effect has been perfected in the minilands, and the joy is in the
suspension of believe.
JOHN
|
It’s the age old debate b/w 6 and 8 (or other) wide.
For me, there are three overwhelming factors for my love of 6 wide and
‘selective compression’--
1. since the minifig isn’t to the same scale as a person in all dimensions,
making a locomotive and rolling stock ‘to exact scale’ of real life then throws
its scale to the minifig out of whack in some dimension.
2. The track selection of ‘L’ gauge--I had HO and N when I was younger. Heck,
from the ‘HO track laying manual’, the radius of HO curves shouldn’t be as
‘tight’ as the current LEGO curve radius, and HO is a much smaller scale.
Seeing large 8-10 wide LEGO rolling stock going around LEGO curves looks
absolutely ridiculous. Sure some do the straight/curve/straight to get around
that, but then you get the rocking motion which looks even more absurd.
3. As Larry stated, 6 wide frees up pieces. I have lots o’ pieces in my
collection, but I don’t want my locomotive to have more pieces in it than the
ISD.
I made the GM SD70ACe as close as I could to the original--
It’s the biggest 6 wide loco I’ve ever built and is pretty much ‘to scale’ to
the real thing, and it looks stupid going around corners, and will take out any
scenery/building that happens to be near the curve. I basically just have it
sitting on my layout for ‘display purposes’. I would absolutely hate to see the
thing in 8 wide--you couldn’t build any scenery for like 15 studs on each side
of a curve.
Anyway, bottom line for me is I’ll stick to 6 wide. It’s an all-around better
way of using LEGO. IF someone wants ‘all the detail’, then get into a different
gauge.
Dave K
|
|
| |
Didier Enjary wrote:
> One point I am still curious is the "compressionism".
>
> Many rolling stocks MOCs (not only 8wide but also 6wide) are compressed. I
> understand the aim is to make the trains to fit perfectly with the curved
> tracks but it has some consequences, for instance an oversized
> undercarriage gap : the trucks (boggies) looks to big, the base too high.
> This point can be seen on this picture :
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/SEBarile/coaches/DRG/p1010623.jpg
>
> and compressionism just don't respect the scale... I'm curious about how
> do the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
With engines I always try to build to scale as far as possible, with coaches
this usually isn't possible due to length vs curve radius and a few other
practical limitations. Around 50-60 studs would be the max for length of
any rail vehicle. Otherwise you'll get something like this :
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1135688
The cars look great, but are impossible to run in a miniland layout.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I made the GM SD70ACe as close as I could to the original--
|
Hey! That looks remarkably similar to Josh Baakko’s 8-wide version!
http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/2726
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
| |
THESE
evoke the feeling of passenger cars as well, so what is the point? Are you
about “evoking feelings” or trying to copy something as closely as possible?
When I copy something, I try and replicate everything that is possible,
not try and figure out how much I can leave out and still capture the
essence of something. Because then you end up with an eggliner.
YMMV,
JOHN
|
Now they ARE cool
|
Eggliners are a good joke...
But to me, they do NOT capture the essence of a train car. There is a place you
have to know where to stop compressing and they went TOO far. That is why in my
ATSF project, I made the cars LONGER than Lego chose to.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
> With engines I always try to build to scale as far as possible, with coaches
> this usually isn't possible due to length vs curve radius and a few other
> practical limitations. Around 50-60 studs would be the max for length of
> any rail vehicle. Otherwise you'll get something like this :
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1135688
> The cars look great, but are impossible to run in a miniland layout.
I think it all boils down to what PURPOSE you want your train MOC to have.
Whether you want it to be just a beautiful display piece, to run on a layout, or
hey, even a mixture of the two. A good example of the former would be this model
(IMO) and/or Shaun Sullivan's Hudson (see the .trains sidebar) and a good
example of the latter would be Lar's ATSF, or any James Mathis stuff, or
official TLC stuff too.
Legoswami
|
|
| |
To All,
Interesting discussion. Anyhow,
> (I hope I don't offend anyone by posting these links, but IMO, these are
> examples where selective compression has gone, well, a bit off.)
>
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=48488>
>
> Legoswami
Just to clarify on a few things - this is Stefan Garcia's creation, and IIRC, he
was trying to get a DTI engine with all of his available orange, and this was
the result. Stefan has done some remarkable work such as his Zephyr:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=594116
(I don't know off-hand of a better picture gallery / creation page)
While Stefan has a rather large collection for a young man of his years, he does
not compare with say, Larry P, or me, or others who are in the hundreds of
thousands / millions of parts range and have been buying LEGO items for close to
30 years.
As for compression, I don't know, I have seen some really remarkable building of
both 6 and 8 wide, Steve Ringe does both great, among many others. I try to
entertain any size, since I always felt that LEGO is not a scale that can be
realistic. I tell people at the various shows I am at, we try to make them look
as real as possible, but in truth, if LEGO trains were close to real scale, they
would be what 14 wide, 70-80 studs long, etc.
Scott S.
--
Scott E. Sanburn
President - Michiana-LUG / LTC - http://www.michiana-lug.org
Personal Pages: http://www.scottesanburn.org
LEGO Pages: http://www.scottesanburn.org/legoindex.html
Online Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/ssanburn/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> To All,
>
> Interesting discussion. Anyhow,
>
> > (I hope I don't offend anyone by posting these links, but IMO, these are
> > examples where selective compression has gone, well, a bit off.)
> >
> > <http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=48488>
> >
> > Legoswami
>
> Just to clarify on a few things - this is Stefan Garcia's creation, and IIRC, he
> was trying to get a DTI engine with all of his available orange, and this was
> the result. Stefan has done some remarkable work such as his Zephyr:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=594116
>
> (I don't know off-hand of a better picture gallery / creation page)
>
> While Stefan has a rather large collection for a young man of his years, he does
> not compare with say, Larry P, or me, or others who are in the hundreds of
> thousands / millions of parts range and have been buying LEGO items for close to
> 30 years.
LOL, I know its Stefan's, I talk to him online. (I hope he doesn't hold my
posting that link against me o_o) But I was unaware of the story behind the
diesel, thanks for it. I am also aware that he has a big collection, the lucky
devil.
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
>
> > With engines I always try to build to scale as far as possible, with coaches
> > this usually isn't possible due to length vs curve radius and a few other
> > practical limitations. Around 50-60 studs would be the max for length of
> > any rail vehicle. Otherwise you'll get something like this :
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1135688
> > The cars look great, but are impossible to run in a miniland layout.
>
> I think it all boils down to what PURPOSE you want your train MOC to have.
> Whether you want it to be just a beautiful display piece, to run on a layout, or
> hey, even a mixture of the two. A good example of the former would be this model
> (IMO) and/or Shaun Sullivan's Hudson (see the .trains sidebar)
Agreed, those models aren't built primarily for their running qualities.
> and a good
> example of the latter would be Lar's ATSF
Except that I found out (second hand, I wasn't there, I was in S'pore) that it's
not as good a runner as I had hoped. Needs tuning on a big layout... Sigh. I
agree about INTENT though!
> or any James Mathis stuff,
Some of JM's earlier virtual only stuff needed tuning when people tried to build
it real world too.
> or official TLC stuff too.
Except when it doesn't run well. Sigh.
None of that should be taken as disagreement with your basic point, which is,
WHAT are you building for?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > hey, even a mixture of the two. A good example of the former would be this model
> > (IMO) and/or Shaun Sullivan's Hudson (see the .trains sidebar)
>
> Agreed, those models aren't built primarily for their running qualities.
>
> > and a good
> > example of the latter would be Lar's ATSF
>
> Except that I found out (second hand, I wasn't there, I was in S'pore) that it's
> not as good a runner as I had hoped. Needs tuning on a big layout... Sigh. I
> agree about INTENT though!
>
> > or any James Mathis stuff,
>
> Some of JM's earlier virtual only stuff needed tuning when people tried to build
> it real world too.
>
> > or official TLC stuff too.
>
> Except when it doesn't run well. Sigh.
Seems to me you have a lot of problem(s) running LOL!
;-)
Legoswami
Highly subtle one, 50/50 chance you'll get it, IMO.
|
|
| |
Samarth Moray wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
>
> > With engines I always try to build to scale as far as possible, with
> > coaches this usually isn't possible due to length vs curve radius and a
> > few other practical limitations. Around 50-60 studs would be the max for
> > length of any rail vehicle. Otherwise you'll get something like this :
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1135688
> > The cars look great, but are impossible to run in a miniland layout.
> I think it all boils down to what PURPOSE you want your train MOC to have.
> Whether you want it to be just a beautiful display piece, to run on a
> layout, or hey, even a mixture of the two. A good example of the former
> would be this model (IMO) and/or Shaun Sullivan's Hudson (see the .trains
> sidebar) and a good example of the latter would be Lar's ATSF, or any
> James Mathis stuff, or official TLC stuff too.
I usually want it to do both...
My Gls box cars & all my engines are pretty much uncompressed. If I look at
http://festum.de/1000steine/myimages/album339/containerbahnhof_luigi_02?full=1 ,
by Ludger Havighorst, I also see true-to-scale trains which run fine. It's
just a matter of picking out a model which lends itself to modelling in
LEGO.
Selective compression is quite hard to do right in LEGO, and I agree with
Larry about the best way (ie leaving windows out instead of shrinking
them), although we might differ on the maximum amount.
It's one of the things I also mentioned in my article for RailMagazine (also
posted in English in the ILTCO library) : you need to be able to hit the
'feel' of the model, never mind the number of rivets. And that's an art,
not a science, that much I've learned.
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
and compressionism just don’t respect the scale... I’m curious about how do
the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
|
Personally, I try and avoid it like the plague. I consider building 6 wide
trains an (unnecessary) exercise in width compression. Of all the types of
compression, this particular one makes a train look wonky IMO. There is just
no getting around the fact that the train width should be about twice the
width of the track gauge (normally in the US at least). Having them be
virtually the same width is makes them appear too toyish, which is okay if
that is the look one is after. That is not what I’m after.
So I will find schematics of what I want to build and adhere to them as
closely as is possible. Because the fact is that no matter how closely I
can get to the exact proportions of a prototype, it will still look
relatively unrealistic because it is built from LEGO, not scale materials.
That is what I love-- it looks “real” and “unreal” all at the same time.
This effect has been perfected in the minilands, and the joy is in the
suspension of believe.
JOHN
|
While I tend to agree with you, and I build to ‘scale’, I actually think that
producing a compressed but right looking model is harder. While you avoid some
of the problems of building to scale (need for more brick, problems with
corners, etc) you give yourself an artistic challenge in a way that I find
difficult to deal with. This is why I admire the models of those that can so
much, they are doing something I can’t do.
tim
(Don’t take this as critism of your stuff, I admire that as well!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote:
| |
While I tend to agree with you, and I build to ‘scale’, I actually think that
producing a compressed but right looking model is harder. While you avoid
some of the problems of building to scale (need for more brick, problems with
corners, etc) you give yourself an artistic challenge in a way that I find
difficult to deal with. This is why I admire the models of those that can so
much, they are doing something I can’t do.
|
I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James Mathis
creation, the word that comes to my mind is “cute”. LEGO train sets are “cute”.
In particular, I remember loving the cuteness of the
Club Car when it first came out. In fact, I
loved the cuteness of the whole 9 volt line back in ‘91. But now, cuteness
isn’t an objective of mine when I build.
| |
tim
(Don’t take this as critism of your stuff, I admire that as well!)
|
lol none taken. I realize that many people still love the cuteness of 6 wide
trains and fear the big, bad 8 wides;-) To each his own.
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is “cute”.
|
Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
“ridiculous”. If and when LEGO ever makes decent radii, I might switch. But till
then, no. I build my models to operate. (that they sometimes have issues is a
different matter, I’m not too proud...)
| |
lol none taken. I realize that many people still love the cuteness of 6 wide
trains and fear the big, bad 8 wides;-) To each his own.
|
Oh, get over yourself. Mobody fears you. Or your models. :-)
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is “cute”.
|
Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
“ridiculous”. If and when LEGO ever makes decent radii, I might switch. But
till then, no. I build my models to operate. (that they sometimes have issues
is a different matter, I’m not too proud...)
|
Too bad YOU don’t care enough to take up the challenge presented by those
articulations ;-)
| |
| |
lol none taken. I realize that many people still love the cuteness of 6
wide trains and fear the big, bad 8 wides;-) To each his own.
|
Oh, get over yourself. Mobody fears you. Or your models. :-)
|
I’m sure he’s talking about 8-wides in general. Like, I dunno, not just his....
Also, while we’re at it, you misspelled ‘nobody’ ;-P
I think my next .admin.suggestions post should be regarding the addition of a
butt-smack button.
:-P
Legoswami
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
| |
I think my next .admin.suggestions post should be regarding the addition of a
butt-smack button.
|
Trying for the record for fasted suggestion to “rejected” on LUGNET?(1) Go for
it! Everybody’s got to try to be good at something I guess.
XFUT off-topic.fun
1 - “smilies” is already on the rejected list, I think...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Samarth Moray wrote:
| |
I think my next .admin.suggestions post should be regarding the addition of a
butt-smack button.
|
If you were a tricky fellow, you could use it already.
Jason Spears | House of Bricks | BrickCentral | MichLUG | CLB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is “cute”.
|
Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
“ridiculous”.
|
That’s interesting. I’ve never had the wonky weave problem. Perhaps it is
because we go curve-straight-curve-straight (never 2 curves together).
| |
If and when LEGO ever makes decent radii, I might switch.
|
Yeah, and bats will fly out of my butt!
| |
But
till then, no. I build my models to operate. (that they sometimes have issues
is a different matter, I’m not too proud...)
|
<shrug> We build to run as well. And you will see how well in Cincy.
| |
| |
lol none taken. I realize that many people still love the cuteness of 6
wide trains and fear the big, bad 8 wides;-) To each his own.
|
Oh, get over yourself. Mobody fears you. Or your models. :-)
|
Me??? You’ve been hanging out over in CSF too much. FEAR ME AND MY LEGION OF
3VIL BAD GUYS! WATCH MY BLECHA STOMP ON THIS PUNY CHOO-CHOO!
(smacktalksmacktalk) <zzzzz>
What I meant was all of the hysteria that building 8 wides will consume entire
LEGO collections (& perhaps a child or two along the way). Your crack was the
kicker!
JOHN
|
|
| |
<Throws bucket of cold water on the whole 6-wide vs. 8-wide posturing...>
Build what you like. If it runs, great! If not, either live with it, or
rebuild it.
My take is as long as the ‘trainheads’ recognize what I’m trying to build, I’ve
done a good job.
Compression is an art - trying to distill the essence of what makes a model
unique. For example: How many clubs have a home-made “Thomas” model on their
layouts? (Lots!) And how many of those are identical? (None!) But, every kid
that looks at it recognizes it as “Thomas”.
There’s no right and wrong way to build something, that’s the beauty of building
Lego trains.
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
<Throws bucket of cold water on the whole 6-wide vs. 8-wide posturing...>
Build what you like. If it runs, great! If not, either live with it, or
rebuild it.
My take is as long as the ‘trainheads’ recognize what I’m trying to build,
I’ve done a good job.
Compression is an art - trying to distill the essence of what makes a model
unique. For example: How many clubs have a home-made “Thomas” model on
their layouts? (Lots!) And how many of those are identical? (None!) But,
every kid that looks at it recognizes it as “Thomas”.
There’s no right and wrong way to build something, that’s the beauty of
building Lego trains.
|
I beg to differ. My minifigs recently came out in protest against the increased
noise levels and pollution of trialling a proposed 8-wide design. I didn’t have
enough green 1x2 tiles with ‘100’ print to contest the issue so will be sticking
to 6-wide for the forseeable future.
Jason R
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
Build what you like. If it runs, great! If not, either live with it, or
rebuild it.
|
You’re right. No fun, but right.
So get J2 to shut up, he’s the main instigator of the “bigger is better”
thing... you’d think he’s compensating for something. (although Spencer and his
7 wide automobiles certainly don’t help matters)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
So get J2 to shut up, he’s the main instigator of the “bigger is better”
thing... you’d think he’s compensating for something. (although Spencer and
his 7 wide automobiles certainly don’t help matters)
|
You send the rope, duct tape, and concrete and we’ll find someone large named
Chuck, Giudo, or Chuckles.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
Build what you like. If it runs, great! If not, either live with it, or
rebuild it.
|
You’re right. No fun, but right.
So get J2 to shut up,
|
Hey, why don’t you shut your piehole? A simple question was asked by Didier
to the community asking what people thought of compressionism, and I responded.
If you don’t like my response, then keep it to yourself.
| |
he’s the main instigator of the “bigger is better”
thing... you’d think he’s compensating for something. (although Spencer and
his 7 wide automobiles certainly don’t help matters)
|
Ahem. “Family forum”, no?
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Sadly, not possible. I’d be willing to bet he talks in his sleep.
We still wonder where Ross got his building abilities. Maybe his mother?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Jason J. Railton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
<Throws bucket of cold water on the whole 6-wide vs. 8-wide
posturing...>
Build what you like. If it runs, great! If not, either live with it, or
rebuild it.
My take is as long as the ‘trainheads’ recognize what I’m trying to build,
I’ve done a good job.
Compression is an art - trying to distill the essence of what makes a model
unique. For example: How many clubs have a home-made “Thomas” model on
their layouts? (Lots!) And how many of those are identical? (None!) But,
every kid that looks at it recognizes it as “Thomas”.
There’s no right and wrong way to build something, that’s the beauty of
building Lego trains.
|
I beg to differ. My minifigs recently came out in protest against the
increased noise levels and pollution of trialling a proposed 8-wide design.
I didn’t have enough green 1x2 tiles with ‘100’ print to contest the issue so
will be sticking to 6-wide for the forseeable future.
Jason R
|
At least you’ve tried it Jason. A lot of the critics of wider trains haven’t
had a decent go at it. It takes tenacity to make it work. I’ve been at it for
9 years now!
If Lar is waiting for wider radius curves before trying it, let’s see his
petition to TLC for those curves! Is it 120 studs radius you’ll need Lar? :-)
I’m happy that proponents of different train sizes each have different aims. It
allows us to each succeed without any detrement to one another. Remember that
this news group is for promoting Lego trains!
I quite accept that four curves together is too tight for bigger wagons. I’ve
done the three-penny bit curves for ages and they work well enough. They’ve not
caused me any derailments and they actually add interest at model railway shows,
particularly showing how the bogies are articulated.
I stick to the “no two curves together” rule, except in sidings where only small
vehicles will go. The same was true in brewery yards years ago, as illustrated
by a book I have, with a notice at the entrance to the yard saying “Only 0-4-0
engines beyond here”. Most main-line diesel engines are built to go round
curves of not less than 3.5 chains (77ft), with the GM-built Class 66 (JT42CWR)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=742620 having a minimum radius
of 80m, which is 262ft or 11.9 chains! In 8mm:1ft scale, Lego curves are 40ft
radius, and I space them out to 80ft or 120ft, but 262ft (6 straights or more
between each curve) is beyond the limits of space in a house!
Reaching the right compromise on clearances, curvature, articulation and the
like is part of the fun. It brings more engineering into the hobby. If there
was no technical challenge, I’d find something else that had one.
I’ll just let the trains speak for themselves. They’re good enough for me to
win prizes in the model railway community and be invited back to shows.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=62749
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
| |
I’m curious about how do the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
Didier
|
I felt uncomfortable with compressionism (for my own MOCs) and I prefered not
compress, choosing between staying stuck in 6-wide or not running my trains on
difficult layout (uneven, curved,...). This thread (and Steve’s beautiful
colored compressed coaches) change my mind and I hope it will increase my
creativity in the future.
Thank you for your answers.
Didier
|
|
| |
John wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
> > > Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is "cute".
> >
> > Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
> > curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
> > "ridiculous".
>
>
> That's interesting. I've never had the wonky weave problem. Perhaps it is
> because we go curve-straight-curve-straight (never 2 curves together).
Ugh, I can't stand it. We just had a layout that used c-s-c-s-c-s-c to
avoid a track overlap, and I felt like puking as the trains went bobbing
through it. I can only imagine how those poor minifigs felt.
As for the 8-wide debate, we all know where I stand, build them big and
damn the shubbery! But, I have been compressing my stuff lengthwise.
When I figured out how long I would have to go to make a super cheif
coach uncompresses I nearly coughed up a lung. Oh yeah, this weekend I
discovered that you can "damn the shubbery" but you cannot really damn
the 7-foot tall building with a 10-wide platform entrance. Prying the
last car back out was fun.
> > If and when LEGO ever makes decent radii, I might switch.
>
>
> Yeah, and bats will fly out of my butt!
LEGO bats? You _could_ do it with LEGO bats.
|
|
| |
A very close friend has been recently teaching me a lot about not trying to
change others. It's hard for me and as I try grow in this particular direction I
have become more sensitive to it and I see it in most everyone. :)
I think that we should all pick our goals and strive for them to the best of our
ability. And conversely embrace others that don't particularly have the same
goals, there are always lessons to be learned from each other. Often the best
ones come from thinking about a problem from a different angle. This is evident
in the plethora of fantastic MOCs out there. And there is no shortage in any of
the styles; 2 thru 14 wide, etc...
For me I enjoy the challenge of 6 wide selective compression. I think Larry said
something like, "Try to invoke the feeling of the train." That is pretty much my
approach. As for running well, that is a must for me(1). Train operation is
first on my list, which given the current track selection offers a fun
opportunity for some clever engineering.
SteveB
(1) I brought a German inspired steam engine and tri-axle coaches to LEGO World
in 03 and was honored to run it on Ben's area. To my embarrassment it started to
run poorly and I have been quite embarrassed ever since! I SWEAR IT RAN GREAT
BEFORE I LEFT THE US, DAMN BAGGAGE HANDLERS!!! :)
In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Didier Enjary wrote:
>
> > I'm curious about how do the LEGO train community feel with compressionism ?
> >
> > Didier
>
> I felt uncomfortable with compressionism (for my own MOCs) and I prefered not
> compress, choosing between staying stuck in 6-wide or not running my trains
> on difficult layout (uneven, curved,...). This thread (and Steve's beautiful
> colored compressed coaches) change my mind and I hope it will increase my
> creativity in the future.
>
> Thank you for your answers.
>
> Didier
|
|
| |
Christopher Masi wrote:
> Oh yeah, this weekend I
> discovered that you can "damn the shubbery" but you cannot really damn
> the 7-foot tall building with a 10-wide platform entrance. Prying the
> last car back out was fun.
Better that way than having several clubmembers coming to you asking what
that stupid big engine did to their trackside structures.
(I was the only 8-wide builder at the time and built my engines big, heavy
and as overpowered as possible :D )
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal wrote:
| |
I know what you mean. When I see a fine compressed train, as in a James
Mathis creation, the word that comes to my mind is “cute”.
|
Funny, when I see a fine looking (when on static display) 8 wide model on a
curve, even a curve/straight/curve curve, the word that comes to mind is
“ridiculous”.
|
That’s interesting. I’ve never had the wonky weave problem. Perhaps it is
because we go curve-straight-curve-straight (never 2 curves together).
|
Sorry, that’s what I meant, apologies if that wasn’t clear.
Steve’s right though, you need to stop hassling people about their desires (and
they need to stop hassling you about yours)...
|
|
|
