 | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...)
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
