|
|
 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FpMJo1.HDw@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:38:12 (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| Jonathan Reynolds <scorch@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:FpMrHI.Jr4@lugnet.com... (...) many (...) This (...) aspects (...) train (...) price (...) be 56 (...) As a matter of fact, Legoland uses selective compression on their large models. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) (URL)I hashed over the issue a bit. If you go with 5 studs being the gauge, then (...) (sorry about repeating the post, I didn't know how to do the link, now I do...) (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: Centipede Train
|
| (...) A Lugnet search for insectoid train shows up one of Ben's posts as the 2nd item (after this post it may show up as the 3rd item, since the post I'm responding to shows up as the first). But the real reason for this post: I have been keeping a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
|
