| |
I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
width.
Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width do
the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 wide
seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) I
am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why doesn't
everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
-Nick
(As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
worst in all of us.<g>)
John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> Carrie-
>
> I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
>
> Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
>
> A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
<cut>
|
|
| |
No, no I meant my post as something independent of the stuff you all were
discussing, jesting, about. I just want to know the thought process behind 6
or 8 wide. I have followed several threads but it just isn't clear to me.
The only thing I can figure is people know 6 is too narrow but they just do
it that way "because." I am sure there is something I am missing.
Maybe it is because you would have to widen the #4553 train wash to fit
a larger vehicle? Maybe it is because people just prefer to build on
prefabricated wagon plates?
I would just like to understand the thoughts so I can make my own
decision given the information that others base their projects from.
-Nick
Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <38A04540.7EA9CD36@cleanweb.net>...
> Nick & John & All,
>
> I was jesting in fun, no offense to John or anything, I guess I should
> have posted to off-topic.fun or something. I think John is a great guy.
> I have to experiment a little with the 6 / 8 debate. I have a lot of
> trains, I have not done a lot of building with them as of yet.
>
> Scott S.
> ___________________________________________________________________________ • ______________
> Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
> Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
> LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
> Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
>
|
|
| |
The width of Lego track is almost exactly the same as Lionel, which is about
equal to "O", or close enough for all intents and purposes of this
discussion.
The last time I was in a train store (1 week ago) I looked at the "O" scale
and Lionel trains they had. They were the size of 8 wides. Lego trains
*should* be 8-wide. Of course, the Lego Millennium Falcon should also be
made with bricks and plates and the McDonalds Drive Though set should be
bigger than a Fotomat.
Lego had to limit the size of the trains to 6 wide for purposes of expense
control. Many people don't get into Lego trains because the sets are so
expensive. Imagine if the Metroliner was 1,200 pieces instead of 700, or
whatever it was. Even the best train they made for sale in the US would
hardly have sold - it would cost too much.
Lego trains came out in the late 60's, before minifigs. They were 6 wide.
In the early 70's, the town sets were using the 1x3x4 doors and trains
looked to be in scale fairly nicely with them. Now, town scale has been
increased. The minifig is everywhere and town doors are 1x4x5 - a decent
sized increase. But Trains never grew larger. I have seen lots of 6-wide
fire trucks around. A fire truck is not as wide as a train.
The most frequent scale I hear people throw around is one stud equals one
foot. That holds true only on a couple of minifig body measurements. Since
minifigs are not even to scale with themselves, I would never use them for
the yardstick against which all other measurements are based. Try using 1
stud = 1.25 feet, which is an 8 wide train. Build the entire town to that
scale and a train should be 8 wide. If you want to use 6 wide trains, build
with a scale of 1 stud = 1.5 feet. Mixing the two scales just makes things
look out of whack.
People say you can run either scale of train on the same layout. True, the
track doesn't change, as they both use Lego track. But the scale of the
train is different and that makes things look different.
If people want the most realistic looking layout, they need to stick to one
scale, and that scale should be based on a 1:48, 1:56, 1:anything. It
should not be based on "the measurement of a minifig XYZ" because that is
not an accurate scale.
Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
weird.
I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
Mike Poindexter
Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> width.
> Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
>
> -Nick
>
> (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> worst in all of us.<g>)
>
> John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > Carrie-
> >
> > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> >
> > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> >
> > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
>
> <cut>
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
> constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
This is the canonical "tinplate" dilemmna from old school model railroading. If
you look at Lionel O or O-27 stuff you will find the same problem, although not
with as wide a variation in scales. So DO you use things in your layout that
are a bit out of scale? How much? Is it OK to use a 1:43 die cast car in a 1:48
layout?
There is no easy answer, I don't think.
I feel the thing to do is to make things look fairly good together and not get
hung up about precise scale. My goal is to evoke appearances rather than to get
an accurate representation. It is a toy, after all.
This IS worth talking about to get all viewpoints on the table but ultimately
people need to decide what they want to do and be happy with what they do (all
kidding aside, although I do like to kid people, especially 8 widers...).
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
<<<SNIP>>>
> I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure
as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8.
But in either case would look VERY WRONG when run along side other lego trains.
> Mike Poindexter
>
>
>
> Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> > I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> > width.
> > Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> > the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> > that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> > eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> > seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> > obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> > with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> > am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> > everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> > is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> > worst in all of us.<g>)
> >
> > John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > > Carrie-
> > >
> > > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> > >
> > > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> > >
> > > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> >
|
|
| |
Mike Poindexter wrote:
> The width of Lego track is almost exactly the same as Lionel, which is about
> equal to "O", or close enough for all intents and purposes of this
> discussion.
Ouch. Comparing to Lionel;-(
> The last time I was in a train store (1 week ago) I looked at the "O" scale
> and Lionel trains they had. They were the size of 8 wides. Lego trains
> *should* be 8-wide. Of course, the Lego Millennium Falcon should also be
> made with bricks and plates and the McDonalds Drive Though set should be
> bigger than a Fotomat.
>
> Lego had to limit the size of the trains to 6 wide for purposes of expense
> control. Many people don't get into Lego trains because the sets are so
> expensive. Imagine if the Metroliner was 1,200 pieces instead of 700, or
> whatever it was. Even the best train they made for sale in the US would
> hardly have sold - it would cost too much.
Which is fine with me. I don't run any out-of-the-box stuff anyway. What
kills me is when they produce elements that *restrict* me to 6 wide
(windshields, sharp curves, etc).
> Lego trains came out in the late 60's, before minifigs. They were 6 wide.
> In the early 70's, the town sets were using the 1x3x4 doors and trains
> looked to be in scale fairly nicely with them. Now, town scale has been
> increased. The minifig is everywhere and town doors are 1x4x5 - a decent
> sized increase. But Trains never grew larger. I have seen lots of 6-wide
> fire trucks around. A fire truck is not as wide as a train.
>
> The most frequent scale I hear people throw around is one stud equals one
> foot. That holds true only on a couple of minifig body measurements.
Mike and I have discussed this issue elsewhere and I feel that by rights 1 stud
should equal 1 foot for two reasons. One, that would make a minifig 5 feet
tall (width notwithstanding;), and more importantly it would make the gauge of
the track (the distance between the rails) 5 feet (which is extremely close to
4' 8 1/2" or standard gauge). Since most train cars and locos are around 10
feet wide, that would suggest 10 studs wide would be the proper width.
BUT.....having said all of that, given the ridiculous curves with which we have
to work, and the expense of building that large, 8 wide is a good compromise
and works out wonderfully:-)
> Since
> minifigs are not even to scale with themselves, I would never use them for
> the yardstick against which all other measurements are based. Try using 1
> stud = 1.25 feet, which is an 8 wide train. Build the entire town to that
> scale and a train should be 8 wide. If you want to use 6 wide trains, build
> with a scale of 1 stud = 1.5 feet. Mixing the two scales just makes things
> look out of whack.
Agreed.
> People say you can run either scale of train on the same layout. True, the
> track doesn't change, as they both use Lego track. But the scale of the
> train is different and that makes things look different.
>
> If people want the most realistic looking layout, they need to stick to one
> scale, and that scale should be based on a 1:48, 1:56, 1:anything. It
> should not be based on "the measurement of a minifig XYZ" because that is
> not an accurate scale.
I'd say one would have the best shot at "realism" in 1:48.
> Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
> constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
> They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
> Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
> the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
> but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
> weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
> weird.
>
> I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
That's why we love'm (except Timmy;)
-John
>
>
> Mike Poindexter
>
> Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> > I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> > width.
> > Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> > the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> > that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> > eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> > seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> > obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> > with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> > am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> > everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> > is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> > worst in all of us.<g>)
> >
> > John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > > Carrie-
> > >
> > > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> > >
> > > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> > >
> > > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> >
|
|
| |
Nick Goetz wrote:
> I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> width.
> Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width do
> the tracks suggest the scale to be?
Nick-
Remember that scale and gauge (track width) are two different things. In a
particular scale, you can have different track gauges (standard and narrow for
instance). 8 wide approximates O scale because 1) minifigs are about the same
*height* (but of course much wider), and 2) 8 studs wide is the same width of a
typical 0 scale car. BUT, 0 scale track gauge is narrower than LEGO gauge
(comparing distances between the rails). As I mentioned below in another
thread, given the distance between LEGO rails, a train car should actually be
10 studs wide. This would suggest that the actual scale would be 1:38.4
meaning 1 foot would equal 38.4 feet or 1 inch would equal 38.4 inches. This,
of course, assumes we are talking about *standard gauge* (4' 8 1/2").
> Personally, I have never seen a train
> that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 wide
> seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) I
> am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why doesn't
> everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
Cost. Some not being able to admit they are wrrrrrr.......>;-D
-John
> -Nick
>
> (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> worst in all of us.<g>)
>
> John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > Carrie-
> >
> > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> >
> > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> >
> > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
>
> <cut>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Richard Earley writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
> > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > including your trains.
This will eat your bricks! Has anyone practised 'selective compression'. This
is where you build something to scale but 'selectively compress' some aspects
or items to reduce space/cost/bricks etc. In most cases this applies to train
and platform lengths which, on a scale of 8 studs=10 feet, will put the price
of grey plates through the roof! Even a scale length 70ft train car will be 56
studs long so only the few will be able to build a decent length train.
One approach is to stick with the scale for all three dimensions but to miss a
few details on the side of the car/locomtive. If done correctly, you can
maintain the feel and look of the prototype whilst compressing the length by a
factor. For example, say a passenger car has a door at each end with 7
intermediate windows, just build everything to scale but miss out a couple of
windows, This may seem obvious but the alternative approach (retaining 7
windows but making each one too narrow) will 'look wrong'.
I have battled with 6/7 studs wide on a class 08 (UK prototype) diesel shunter
(US=switcher) which has six wheels but would actually look better with four
due to the relationship between overall wheelbase, width and length. If I make
the train length fit the 3-axle wheelbase, it looks (and is) too long. 7 or 8
wide would be the answer but may not be more effective on the overall layout
if all the other 8 wide trains were fighting for bricks AND the number of cars
to each train was reduced.
Nice to hear/see more about the 'wide boys' though
Jon
If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> > scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
>
>
> I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure
> as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8.
> But in either case would look VERY WRONG when run along side other lego • trains.
>
>
> > Mike Poindexter
> >
> >
> >
> > Nick Goetz <ngoetz@iquest.net> wrote in message
> > news:FpMDtF.EGC@lugnet.com...
> > > I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> > > width.
> > > Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width • do
> > > the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> > > that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> > > eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 • wide
> > > seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> > > obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> > > with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) • I
> > > am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why • doesn't
> > > everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
> > >
> > > -Nick
> > >
> > > (As an aside, did you notice that by changing the subject heading, someone
> > > is no longer excited to be here? I guess the 6 vs. 8 debate brings out the
> > > worst in all of us.<g>)
> > >
> > > John Neal wrote in message <38A03351.D47A285A@uswest.net>...
> > > > Carrie-
> > > >
> > > > I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I • thought I'd clarify
> > > > for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a • trainiac:-)
> > > >
> > > > Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish • scale of the LEGO
> > > > trains. I mean come on, a train that is only 1 minifig wide?!! In order • to correct that
> > > > some, I build my LEGO train 8 studs wide, which gives IMNSHO a better • looking and better
> > > > proportioned train car. By doing so, the scale *roughly* comes out to be • 1:48 or "O" scale
> > > > to Model Railroaders. It's still minifig scale with a little more • breathing room;-)
> > > >
> > > > A few examples of my 8 wides can be found on the GMLUG site: • http://www.gmlug.org/j2/
> > > > Whether you build 6 or 8 wide though doesn't matter, just build{:^D
> > >
> > > <cut>
> > >
> > >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Nick Goetz writes:
> I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track
> width.
> Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width do
> the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train
> that was only as wide as the outside rails of a track. (Maybe I have bad
> eyes.) They always seem to stick out a bit on either side. To me the 8 wide
> seems to be the appropriate scale given the fixed width of the track and
> obviously the fixed width of the wheels. (This is not even mentioning that
> with 25% more width you can put more detail and accuracy into your model.) I
> am having a hard time understanding the two opposing arguments. Why doesn't
> everyone embrace the 8 wide idea? Comments? Answers?
>
> -Nick
Nick, if you look at
Trains / 3843
(type in 3843 in the search for trains, and it should pop up...sorry, I don't
know how to get it to give me the html blue link thingy!)
I hashed over the issue a bit. If you go with 5 studs being the gauge, then
the train could be anything from 10-15 wide, and be to scale.
James P
|
|
| |
> I'd say one would have the best shot at "realism" in 1:48.
Perhaps in P:48 :)
There is no functional difference between 2mm(Fine Scale, UK), S4 (note, not
P4, which has manufacturing tolerances, but S4 does not),P:87, P:48,
ScaleSeven. None, except the actual size of each model, and the fiddlyness of
them. The "normal" level of detailing in the scales varies, it is _very_
unusual for 2mm scale modelers to include inside motion, not unheard of for 4mm
modelers, and now a defacto standard on 7mm models to include the full inside
motion (save a movable radius arm for reversing)
(I personally fail to see the point with electric engines of doing so, but, hey
to each his own...)
Of course, my view is that if you are going to go to all that work, make a real
steamer, and go outside with it...
> > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> > scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
>
> That's why we love'm (except Timmy;)
Yep, if I was as short and fat as a MF, I would have a 54" waist, and be 5'4"
tall...
:)
James P
|
|
| |
> Nick, if you look at
http://www.lugnet.com/trains/?n=3843
> I hashed over the issue a bit. If you go with 5 studs being the gauge, then
> the train could be anything from 10-15 wide, and be to scale.
(sorry about repeating the post, I didn't know how to do the link, now I do...)
> James P
|
|
| |
Jonathan Reynolds <scorch@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FpMrHI.Jr4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Richard Earley writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > <<<SNIP>>>
> >
> > > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how • many
> > > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > > including your trains.
>
> This will eat your bricks! Has anyone practised 'selective compression'. • This
> is where you build something to scale but 'selectively compress' some • aspects
> or items to reduce space/cost/bricks etc. In most cases this applies to • train
> and platform lengths which, on a scale of 8 studs=10 feet, will put the • price
> of grey plates through the roof! Even a scale length 70ft train car will • be 56
> studs long so only the few will be able to build a decent length train.
As a matter of fact, Legoland uses selective compression on their large
models. They have an almost unlimited amount of bricks to use, too. they
build the lowest floor at 1:20 scale and then compress the rest of the
building to a smaller scale (roughly minifig scale)
When I end up building my town's business section, I will be using selective
compression on the Z axis. This is very important, as it allows skyscrapers
to fit in a garage.
Mike Poindexter
|
|
| |
On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FpMJo1.HDw@lugnet.com>) wrote at
18:38:12
>
> Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
> constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
> They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
> Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
> the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
> but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
> weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
> weird.
>
> I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
This is quite a good argument for six wide.
The fundamental difficulty with trying to make scale model trains in
LEGO *is* the scale problem. Because there is no scale, you simply can't
do it consistently within the LEGO world.
You *can* build trains that look right, by using TLC's idiom of
selective and dramatic compression & omission.
But to try and model a prototype *within* a LEGO world is to make so
many compromises that the exercise is futile.
So you're left with making an accurate model but taking it out of the
minifig realm, or making a representation suitable for minifigs, which
can't be scaled up to look right in the real world.
It seems to me that the six wide lot are trying to convince themselves
that they can make scale models, when the simple fact is that they can
only make toys.
I'm definitely *not* saying that there is anything wrong with this. In
fact, it's where the challenge lies. A literal interpretation is easy;
using TLC's idiom to design & build a good looking train isn't.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Howdy again,
Well, I certainly didn't mean to create quite a stir but it made for
entertaining reading. Thanks for the welcome!
For the record, my trains are 6 wide... :-D
Carrie
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
>
> Jonathan Reynolds <scorch@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:FpMrHI.Jr4@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.trains, Richard Earley writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > > <<<SNIP>>>
> > >
> > > > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how • many
> > > > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > > > including your trains.
> >
> > This will eat your bricks! Has anyone practised 'selective compression'. • This
> > is where you build something to scale but 'selectively compress' some • aspects
> > or items to reduce space/cost/bricks etc. In most cases this applies to • train
> > and platform lengths which, on a scale of 8 studs=10 feet, will put the • price
> > of grey plates through the roof! Even a scale length 70ft train car will • be 56
> > studs long so only the few will be able to build a decent length train.
>
> As a matter of fact, Legoland uses selective compression on their large
> models. They have an almost unlimited amount of bricks to use, too. they
> build the lowest floor at 1:20 scale and then compress the rest of the
> building to a smaller scale (roughly minifig scale)
>
> When I end up building my town's business section, I will be using selective
> compression on the Z axis. This is very important, as it allows skyscrapers
> to fit in a garage.
>
> Mike Poindexter
|
|
| |
IMHO you have a choice of throwing out the minifig scale and create a
nice "relatively" scale model of rolling stock (as per TLGs modelers) ((and
forget about running it on the track)) or create a nice looking model in
minifig "scale" and enjoy running trains. Either way the LEGO track radius is
absurdly small (just look at the way the passenger car ends and middle from
4559 & 4561 overhang when going around a corner) and since TLG has not seen
fit to offer flex track we're kinda stuck with what we got.
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FpMJo1.HDw@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 18:38:12
>
> >
> > Lego has kind of put us AFOLS in a pickle here, because they mix scales
> > constantly. Some things are bigger than they should be, some are smaller.
> > They both look fine individually, but put them together and they look wrong.
> > Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but they are still off. Rounding everything in
> > the real world to the nearest 15 or 18 inches would make things look weird,
> > but shrinking this arbitrarily and randomly would make things look even
> > weirder. Most train layouts I have seen try to stay away from looking
> > weird.
> >
> > I would suggest that you pick a scale, then do the math and figure how many
> > inches each stud equals. Stick to that scale for everything you build,
> > including your trains. If the minifigs don't quite look right in that
> > scale, that is fine. They don't look quite right in any scale.
>
> This is quite a good argument for six wide.
>
> The fundamental difficulty with trying to make scale model trains in
> LEGO *is* the scale problem. Because there is no scale, you simply can't
> do it consistently within the LEGO world.
I would qualify that by saying one can't if one uses set designs rather than
MOCs (or maybe that is what you mean here).
> You *can* build trains that look right, by using TLC's idiom of
> selective and dramatic compression & omission.
>
> But to try and model a prototype *within* a LEGO world is to make so
> many compromises that the exercise is futile.
I disagree, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Even when I build 8 wide, I am
not striving for perfect model prototyping. I want my trains to be run by MFs
(hmmm, I don't know about *that* abbreviation;). So, for instance, instead of
modeling a door that is correct in proportion (but not a working door) to a
given prototype, I use train doors that are too wide but can be used by
minifigs. Model Railroaders are all about external appearances-- I want my
dining car, for instance, to have seating for my minifigs and a galley with a
cook and a restroom with a toilet and sink and a roof that removes so you can
see it all (which mine does).
My 8 wides are *more* realistic than 6 wides, but are still "minifig scale" and
are functional inside as well as outside, separating them from prototype
modeling as in the Model Railroad hobby world which concentrates on the external
appearance of models.
-John
> So you're left with making an accurate model but taking it out of the
> minifig realm, or making a representation suitable for minifigs, which
> can't be scaled up to look right in the real world.
>
> It seems to me that the six wide lot are trying to convince themselves
> that they can make scale models, when the simple fact is that they can
> only make toys.
>
> I'm definitely *not* saying that there is anything wrong with this. In
> fact, it's where the challenge lies. A literal interpretation is easy;
> using TLC's idiom to design & build a good looking train isn't.
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Douglas Pegram writes:
> IMHO you have a choice of throwing out the minifig scale and create a
> nice "relatively" scale model of rolling stock (as per TLGs modelers) ((and
> forget about running it on the track)) or create a nice looking model in
> minifig "scale" and enjoy running trains. Either way the LEGO track radius is
> absurdly small (just look at the way the passenger car ends and middle from
> 4559 & 4561 overhang when going around a corner) and since TLG has not seen
> fit to offer flex track we're kinda stuck with what we got.
The track they sell has a 12.5" radius. (Radius is measured from the center
point of a circle to the point midway between the inside and outside rails)
My track has been running curves on a 22.5" radius. (If I did the math
correctly, I thought is was a 25" radius, but I may have been mistaken). I
think that it is absolutely necessary for making the longer cars (40-60 studs)
not look utterly stupid on curves and also really does make the curves for
smaller cars look a lot better.
TLC really does need to make some better options on track, because their track
line is really limited. I would like to see:
#1 - 17.5" radius curves
#2 - Motorized Points that allow track passes in 5 inches. These are similar
to the old 12V points.
#3 - Straight track pack that has 2,3 and 4 stud lenghts. That, when mixed
properly, would allow track to reach any exact length.
#4 - "Y" track splitters
#5 - 22.5" radius curves
#6 - Crossing track that is not at a 90' angle.
The larger radius curves are not too difficult to imagine, since it only
requires one new mold to be made and would have a relatively large number of
sales. The straight track pieces would require 3 new molds and would be less
likely, especially since it would be more limited in sales. Motorized points
would sell well, but would be expensive. Still, it would promote track sales
in general. "Y" splitters and the crossing track would be the least likely
items we could expect.
When it is all said and done, I would prefer to make nice, scale models with
Lego, or at least as well scaled as I can make it. I will still stick
minifigs in the trains and run them around the track. After all, why would
anyone get into trains without wanting to run them?
Mike Poindexter
|
|
| |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A0EF13.EBC9F60A@uswest.net>) wrote at
04:38:22
>
> My 8 wides are *more* realistic than 6 wides, but are still "minifig scale" and
> are functional inside as well as outside, separating them from prototype
> modeling as in the Model Railroad hobby world which concentrates on the external
> appearance of models.
This is my point, really. It may just be that I've read things
incorrectly, but it appears that many people want to do scale models
with LEGO proportions (ie. 6-wide), but it's just not possible.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Just a minor disagreement/clarification...
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Model Railroaders are all about external appearances-- I want my
> dining car, for instance, to have seating for my minifigs and a galley with a
> cook and a restroom with a toilet and sink and a roof that removes so you can
> see it all (which mine does).
This is mildly incorrect. There are a lot of old school modelers who detail
everything, INside and out. Right down to roofs that come off the buildings so
you can see the details, very very tiny lightbulbs illuminating the interiors
of coaches and sleeping cars and so forth.
(and there are some that never detail the inside of anything.
But MR is a broad hobby with a big tent. And so should we be. Squabble in good
fun, yes, but fight? No.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Just a minor disagreement/clarification...
>
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
>
> > Model Railroaders are all about external appearances-- I want my
> > dining car, for instance, to have seating for my minifigs and a galley with a
> > cook and a restroom with a toilet and sink and a roof that removes so you can
> > see it all (which mine does).
>
> This is mildly incorrect. There are a lot of old school modelers who detail
> everything, INside and out.
*Those* dudes are awesome and the exception, not the rule. I stand corrected for
my blanket characterization of MRs:-)
> Right down to roofs that come off the buildings so
> you can see the details, very very tiny lightbulbs illuminating the interiors
> of coaches and sleeping cars and so forth.
>
> (and there are some that never detail the inside of anything.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(Most)
> But MR is a broad hobby with a big tent. And so should we be. Squabble in good
> fun, yes, but fight? No.
I hope folks don't think that I am fighting. Just a fun DOO [1]. Actually, I
wouldn't force 8 wide building on anyone because it does require lots of patience
to acquire lots of specialty pieces and they don't come cheap;-) Not many are
willing to fork out $200-400 for one crummy car. I know I could part out one of
my passenger cars and sell it for that easily.
-John
[1] Difference Of Opinion. I have never heard that acro before so I am thinking I
just made it up.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tony Priestman writes:
> This is my point, really. It may just be that I've read things
> incorrectly, but it appears that many people want to do scale models
> with LEGO proportions (ie. 6-wide), but it's just not possible.
> --
> Tony Priestman
I 100% disagree. John Neal's 8 wide trains are lovely creations indeed, but
I'll put some of my 6 wide stuff up against anything I've seen yet.
I built a Milwaukee Road Diesel, you can see the nose of it here:
http://reality.sgi.com/foster_stco/legopic/nmra/gmltc37.jpg
I built it from a picture on a calendar. I don't know what the model is, I
don't know the style - I just built from the picture. Larry (Hail Larry!)
explained to me that this particular model was a "re-build" of something
something something, I don't remember all the information.
Anyway, at the NMRA show last Summer, a man came up to me and asked who built
the Milwaukee Road diesels. I said it was my design, there is also a second
one that is a copy. He said "Nice re-builds", so he could obviously tell
*what* they were supposed to be! I just said "I built it from a picture, I
have no idea what it is supposed to be..."
(FYI: The venting is a series of capital "I"s done on clear labeling tape.)
6 wide can be done - it just takes a little more skill and effort...
John1, GMLTC
(erase the '.nospam' to reply...)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Tony Priestman writes:
> > This is my point, really. It may just be that I've read things
> > incorrectly, but it appears that many people want to do scale models
> > with LEGO proportions (ie. 6-wide), but it's just not possible.
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
> I 100% disagree. John Neal's 8 wide trains are lovely creations indeed, but
> I'll put some of my 6 wide stuff up against anything I've seen yet.
Don't go getting too cocky or I'll have to start coming by Conan's and showing
you how to build stuff again...
> I built a Milwaukee Road Diesel, you can see the nose of it here:
> http://reality.sgi.com/foster_stco/legopic/nmra/gmltc37.jpg
This is one of my fave pics from Paul's bunch... because it has the Milwaulkee
Road diesel... and because it has Brian's brake van, and because it has my
sanding tower. :-)
> I built it from a picture on a calendar. I don't know what the model is, I
> don't know the style - I just built from the picture. Larry (Hail Larry!)
> explained to me that this particular model was a "re-build" of something
> something something, I don't remember all the information.
Me either, unfortunately. GP20 "paducah rebuild" perhaps?
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > I'll put some of my 6 wide stuff up against anything I've seen yet.
>
> Don't go getting too cocky or I'll have to start coming by Conan's and showing
> you how to build stuff again...
You'll get me in trouble writing things like that - people look at me
strangely when I suddenly burst out laughing here at my desk...
(donning flame suit!)
John1, GMLTC
|
|
| |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, John Gerlach (<Fpo6pw.Bp6@lugnet.com>) wrote at
15:51:32
> In lugnet.trains, Tony Priestman writes:
> > This is my point, really. It may just be that I've read things
> > incorrectly, but it appears that many people want to do scale models
> > with LEGO proportions (ie. 6-wide), but it's just not possible.
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
> I 100% disagree. John Neal's 8 wide trains are lovely creations indeed, but
> I'll put some of my 6 wide stuff up against anything I've seen yet.
You can make the body look right, but the wheels will be in the wrong
place. You can make the doors look right, but a minifig won't be able to
get through them.
I'm not being snotty here, I just can't see how you can justify the
statement that you can make a 6 wide scale model of a standard gauge
loco.
Yes, you can make it so that people recognise the prototype it's based
on, and I assert that *that* is where the skill lies.
But people keep on arguing about the scale of a minifig, and other
people correctly point out that there isn't one. And all LEGO trains
which are built for a world which includes minifigs are built to this
scale.
> I built a Milwaukee Road Diesel, you can see the nose of it here:
> http://reality.sgi.com/foster_stco/legopic/nmra/gmltc37.jpg
> I built it from a picture on a calendar. I don't know what the model is, I
> don't know the style - I just built from the picture. Larry (Hail Larry!)
> explained to me that this particular model was a "re-build" of something
> something something, I don't remember all the information.
>
> Anyway, at the NMRA show last Summer, a man came up to me and asked who built
> the Milwaukee Road diesels. I said it was my design, there is also a second
> one that is a copy. He said "Nice re-builds", so he could obviously tell
> *what* they were supposed to be!
The key words here are 'supposed to be.' ie. isn't, but looks like.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Tony Priestman writes:
> I'm not being snotty here, I just can't see how you can justify the
> statement that you can make a 6 wide scale model of a standard gauge
> loco.
But I don't think that's what John said. He merely said that his creations were
of the highest calibre. And, after I got to MSP and gave him some lessons, they
are. :-) He's not claiming they're any particular scale.
> Yes, you can make it so that people recognise the prototype it's based
> on, and I assert that *that* is where the skill lies.
And now I agree. I can make models, and John 1, 2 and 3 all can make models,
that get people to say "that's an X!" even though they don't match scale for
scale, and they don't even have window frames or doorways that are to scale
(even factoring out selective compression of the number of windows in a coach
and so forth...)
> The key words here are 'supposed to be.' ie. isn't, but looks like.
Yes, yes... but "looks like" is what I am going for. My Shinkasen (well, my and
Nik's Shinkasen) isn't To Scale... but it caused jamups in the elementary
school hallways and all the parents knew What It Was...
I'll be blunter. Everyone on this thread, are we actually disagreeing about
anything here??? I don't think so, really.
++Lar
|
|
| |
On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<Fpoosu.HrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at
22:22:06
>
> I'll be blunter. Everyone on this thread, are we actually disagreeing about
> anything here??? I don't think so, really.
Probably not.
I think either John G misread my post, or I misunderstood his
disagreement, because I ended up wanting to write the same thing again
:-)
I guess I'm just trying to get people to express their objectives a bit
more clearly when talking about their designs.
Modelling trains with LEGO is fun and a challenge, but scale modelling
it ain't, so talking about scale is just a waste of time.
There. I think that's what I meant to say :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
One other "take" on model railroading (the one that I prefer, of course) is
not to worry too much about the detail of models vs. prototype, or even
scale, as long as you can recognize "that's a boxcar, that's a hopper,
that's a Pullman, etc." I prefer to go deeper into the actual running of
the trains: consists, yard switching, schedules, hauling raw material to
the factory and picking up finished goods to haul to the freight depot to be
distributed to the townsfolk, etc.
For this, it doesn't matter if you're 6-wide, 8-wide, or 20-wide for that
matter, only what fits in your residence (without getting stepped on!).
The reason that I chose Lego to model trains with is that everything comes
apart and goes back together easier, I can build a new layout every night if
I want to, and packing things up for shipment around the world is much
easier (a critical fact to consider when you're in the military and move
every 1-2 years).
--
William A. Swanberg
CPT, SC
Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT)
swanberg@msn.com
"Tony Priestman" <Tony@you-rang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WxiQCaA6Lho4EwoJ@you-rang.demon.co.uk...
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<Fpoosu.HrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 22:22:06
>
> >
> > I'll be blunter. Everyone on this thread, are we actually disagreeing • about
> > anything here??? I don't think so, really.
>
> Probably not.
>
> I think either John G misread my post, or I misunderstood his
> disagreement, because I ended up wanting to write the same thing again
> :-)
>
> I guess I'm just trying to get people to express their objectives a bit
> more clearly when talking about their designs.
>
> Modelling trains with LEGO is fun and a challenge, but scale modelling
> it ain't, so talking about scale is just a waste of time.
>
> There. I think that's what I meant to say :-)
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote
>
> Modelling trains with LEGO is fun and a challenge, but scale modelling
> it ain't, so talking about scale is just a waste of time.
I only bring up scale because of the track gauge issue. I think trains built 8
wide compared to 6 wide "look" better. More realistic? Kinda. I just want my
trains wider than a snowmobile. I want my trains to be able to seat 2 figs
across. I think it's better, but I wouldn't say "it is better"....well, not
without good-natured kidding going on;-)
So I wouldn't say talking about scale is a waste of time, just sharing POVs:-)
-John
> There. I think that's what I meant to say :-)
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A246A4.48DF7A6E@uswest.net>) wrote at
05:03:40
>
> So I wouldn't say talking about scale is a waste of time, just sharing POVs:-)
Ok. point taken :-)
Perhaps what I mean is, there is no ultimate answer to the 'What Scale
Is Lego?' question. Perhaps it deserves a FAQ entry. Perhaps there is
one already. :-)
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
I agree with William here - there is so much more to model trains* than the
phsical realism of the models. I would love to explore automated operation,
bar-coded freight yards and more 'realistic' operation, all possible using
Lego trains of course. As others have pointed out, it is pointless trying to
build a 'scale' model out of Lego, 8 wide or whatever but I have never seen a
mainstream model railway built to 'scale' AND featuring interesting and
intensive operation. Reason is the fragility of the delicate models prevents
handling and overscale working cranes etc. are just not tolerated. This is
where Lego trains really score - Flexible design with robust construction
(even when dropped).
Jon
*(There's a lot more to life than model trains too!)
In lugnet.trains, William A. Swanberg writes:
> One other "take" on model railroading (the one that I prefer, of course) is
> not to worry too much about the detail of models vs. prototype, or even
> scale, as long as you can recognize "that's a boxcar, that's a hopper,
> that's a Pullman, etc." I prefer to go deeper into the actual running of
> the trains: consists, yard switching, schedules, hauling raw material to
> the factory and picking up finished goods to haul to the freight depot to be
> distributed to the townsfolk, etc.
>
> For this, it doesn't matter if you're 6-wide, 8-wide, or 20-wide for that
> matter, only what fits in your residence (without getting stepped on!).
>
> The reason that I chose Lego to model trains with is that everything comes
> apart and goes back together easier, I can build a new layout every night if
> I want to, and packing things up for shipment around the world is much
> easier (a critical fact to consider when you're in the military and move
> every 1-2 years).
>
>
>
> --
> William A. Swanberg
> CPT, SC
> Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT)
> swanberg@msn.com
>
>
> "Tony Priestman" <Tony@you-rang.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WxiQCaA6Lho4EwoJ@you-rang.demon.co.uk...
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<Fpoosu.HrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> > 22:22:06
> >
> > >
> > > I'll be blunter. Everyone on this thread, are we actually disagreeing • about
> > > anything here??? I don't think so, really.
> >
> > Probably not.
> >
> > I think either John G misread my post, or I misunderstood his
> > disagreement, because I ended up wanting to write the same thing again
> > :-)
> >
> > I guess I'm just trying to get people to express their objectives a bit
> > more clearly when talking about their designs.
> >
> > Modelling trains with LEGO is fun and a challenge, but scale modelling
> > it ain't, so talking about scale is just a waste of time.
> >
> > There. I think that's what I meant to say :-)
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
Jonathan Reynolds wrote:
> This is
> where Lego trains really score - Flexible design with robust construction
> (even when dropped).
Well, I'm not so sure about the robust construction even when dropped
part. I think most creations disassemble themselves when dropped on the
floor. The difference from fine-scale models is that chances are nothing
actually broke, and even if a brick or two break, chances are you can
easily replace them.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> Jonathan Reynolds wrote:
> > This is
> > where Lego trains really score - Flexible design with robust construction
> > (even when dropped).
>
> Well, I'm not so sure about the robust construction even when dropped
> part. I think most creations disassemble themselves when dropped on the
> floor. The difference from fine-scale models is that chances are nothing
> actually broke, and even if a brick or two break, chances are you can
> easily replace them.
>
> --
> Frank Filz
>
> -----------------------------
> Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
It's all relative. Five minutes to replace a few bricks versus Several months
painstaking skilled modelmaking/painting. I know which I'd rather do!
(cue 'age of instant gratification ruining classic creative toys' debate)
Jon
|
|
| |
Tony Priestman wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A246A4.48DF7A6E@uswest.net>) wrote at
> 05:03:40
>
> >
> > So I wouldn't say talking about scale is a waste of time, just sharing POVs:-)
>
> Ok. point taken :-)
>
> Perhaps what I mean is, there is no ultimate answer to the 'What Scale
> Is Lego?' question. Perhaps it deserves a FAQ entry. Perhaps there is
> one already. :-)
Ahh, if you phrase it "What scale are LEGO trains?",a question the GMLTC hears
constantly at train shows, the answer is a quick "L" scale (the GP isn't savvy
enough to handle "MF";-) What scale it approximates with respect to model
railroading is debate fodder in NGs:-)
-John
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Ahh, if you phrase it "What scale are LEGO trains?",a question the GMLTC hears
> constantly at train shows, the answer is a quick "L" scale (the GP isn't savvy
> enough to handle "MF";-) What scale it approximates with respect to model
> railroading is debate fodder in NGs:-)
>
> -John
I suppose Lego trains could be L6 for 6 wide and L8 for 8 wide. Anybody else
want to start a Lego Train Scale naming convention?
Mike
|
|
| |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:10:13 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
wrote:
> Ahh, if you phrase it "What scale are LEGO trains?",a question the GMLTC hears
> constantly at train shows, the answer is a quick "L" scale (the GP isn't savvy
> enough to handle "MF";-) What scale it approximates with respect to model
> railroading is debate fodder in NGs:-)
>
> -John
Neither are most Lego fans. I mention Minifigs to people buying Lego
at work and they give me a blank look. It's kinda sad actually. =/
|
|
| |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<Fpqzvn.MB4@lugnet.com>) wrote at
04:16:35
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > Ahh, if you phrase it "What scale are LEGO trains?",a question the GMLTC hears
> > constantly at train shows, the answer is a quick "L" scale (the GP isn't savvy
> > enough to handle "MF";-) What scale it approximates with respect to model
> > railroading is debate fodder in NGs:-)
> >
> > -John
>
> I suppose Lego trains could be L6 for 6 wide and L8 for 8 wide. Anybody else
> want to start a Lego Train Scale naming convention?
>
> Mike
How about just AR - artistically right.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
|
