 | | | | | |
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
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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/
| | | | | | |
