Subject:
|
Re: Indian EMU
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:37:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2214 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
It’s a wide, wide-gauge train but I just couldn’t bring myself to go to seven
wide even though the model REALLY needs it. I might be able to squeeze one
plate lower (need to check on a brickbuilt version) but unfortunately any
lower than that and my minifigs will fall off the sides. I might try to force
myself to widen it but it is hard for me to do.
|
Seriously-- why would that be “hard to do”? Aversion to creating wide trains is
baffling to me. This MOC could easily be built 9 wide, going by the looks of
the prototype, and it would look great at that width!
Forget about conventions, Tim. Capture the look of what you are modeling. I
always find that “function follows form”. Work out the running details later
(if even necessary).
You have a great start on this MOC. Now hit the ball out of the park:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Indian EMU
|
| (...) If your other trains are eight-wide I'd say this should be a least nine-wide, possibly ten. (...) What I enjoy is trying to capture the look of something with the extra challenge imposed by limiting myself to six-wide (and typically built on a (...) (19 years ago, 10-Oct-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Indian EMU
|
| (...) Hi Lar, Thanks for the comments. It's a wide, wide-gauge train but I just couldn't bring myself to go to seven wide even though the model REALLY needs it. I might be able to squeeze one plate lower (need to check on a brickbuilt version) but (...) (19 years ago, 10-Oct-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
