 | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Do you mean his 8wides? I tend to agree, and it wasn't till recently that I realised it... 8wides make modeling too easy, you get more room to work in. That's fundamentally what bothers me, he's cheating. Or do you mean the fact that US proto (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<3889AFA6.279A1D8F@...ager.net>) wrote at 13:24:54 (...) The latter, I'm afraid :-) I don't think John's cheating: just playing to a different set of rules. I must confess to the attraction of 8 wide. Although (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Funny you should mention 10. I started work last night on a 14 wide box car scaled to Belvillians and using G scale wheels. I custom built the trucks out of LEGO, but will need to <gasp> glue a few pieces in order to hold the wheels in place (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, John Neal (<3889D95C.A3177C3F@...west.net>) wrote at 16:22:54 (...) windows are similar sizes, but the bigger American coach bodies make them look smaller. Which is what you said :-) I seem to recall 70' as a coach length in the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) These coaches were about 80 feet (25 m), so they were *long*. When I build 8 wide, I figure 1 stud to 1 ft, and still my coaches are only 60 studs long. I'd love to make them 80, but they wouldn't be able to handle the LEGO track curves very (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, John Neal (<388BA775.B41630A@uswest.net>) wrote at 01:15:05 (...) Actually, on thinking again, it's probably 57-60' for older stuff, and 70' for newer. I might have a go at a Mk I BR coach, just to see what it looks like :-) (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Oh sure, but using the wagon plates is IMO just more efficient, uses less bricks and is lighter (they are heavy enough as it is;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:388BA775.B41630...est.net... (...) build 8 (...) long. (...) track (...) being (...) John, since they are 10' wide and 8 studs, shouldn't 1 stud = 1.25 feet? That will cut down the length and (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Touché;) The only problem with 1 stud equaling 1.25 feet is that standard track gauge in North America is 4 feet 8.5 inches, and the gauge of our track is almost 5 studs, which would translate in a gauge of about 6'!! By rights we *should* be (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:388CDC3B.3A3FC2...est.net... (...) ends up (...) proportioned. (...) leader of (...) track (...) rights we (...) If we went with strictly the track guage, then we will be destined to problems of (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) That's what's kewl about my 14 wide-- Belville children (As adults) are just the right scale! (...) I like to think it is because of the extra amount of gravity in the Minifig world;-) (...) Well, 1:48 *is* O scale, and 8 studs wide is (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) lol Fundamentally you don't know what you're talking about;-) No, building *smaller* is easier I'm afraid. You have a lot fewer options building smaller, and thus less possibilities for creative building. [1] How many people have built (...) (25 years ago, 22-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) My point seems to have been missed here. The smaller you build, the more creativity is required, because you are more constrained. Microfig scale is very very tough and requires extreme creativity because you really really need to know your (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) lol It cuts *both* ways. As you said, micro management requires more cerebral action than building action. Building on a large scale requires cerebral action as well as creativity-on-the-build action. Both are creative processes. I was simply (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New mod to double decker passenger train —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<388A44BC.CDEF4748@...ager.net>) wrote at 00:01:00 (...) Ah. But there is a difference between 'I recognise that' and 'It is a good model of that'. Yes, you are right. It is harder to make something recognisable (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
