| |
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, 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
|
|
| |
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, 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
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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)...
|
|
|
