| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
