 | | Excited to finally be here... —Carrie Whitcher
|
| | | Hi all, Now I can ask train questions and get a reply, not just wait for someone else to hopefully answer it for me in a later post. Thanks LUGNET and the trains group, you provide lots of information. Time to visit! Carrie (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Excited to finally be here... —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | Carrie, Welcome to train world! Be careful of 8 wide, and you'll be fine! ;) Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Excited to finally be here... —John Neal
|
| | | | Carrie- I thought that you might think Scott's admonition rather cryptic so I thought I'd clarify for you. But first, welcome! I think it is an exciting time to be a trainiac:-) Now, about the 8 wide crack;-) some of us aren't happy with the toyish (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | I have a question about the 8 vs. 6 wide. It revolves around the track width. Given that the 8 wide is approximately related to O scale, what width do the tracks suggest the scale to be? Personally, I have never seen a train that was only as wide as (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Scott Edward Sanburn
|
| | | | | Nick & John & All, I was jesting in fun, no offense to John or anything, I guess I should have posted to off-topic.fun or something. I think John is a great guy. I have to experiment a little with the 6 / 8 debate. I have a lot of trains, I have not (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | | | No, no I meant my post as something independent of the stuff you all were discussing, jesting, about. I just want to know the thought process behind 6 or 8 wide. I have followed several threads but it just isn't clear to me. The only thing I can (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | The width of Lego track is almost exactly the same as Lionel, which is about equal to "O", or close enough for all intents and purposes of this discussion. The last time I was in a train store (1 week ago) I looked at the "O" scale and Lionel trains (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) This is the canonical "tinplate" dilemmna from old school model railroading. If you look at Lionel O or O-27 stuff you will find the same problem, although not with as wide a variation in scales. So DO you use things in your layout that are a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Richard Earley
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes: <<<SNIP>>> (...) I was thinking of setting up an amusement park train with a technic figure as the driver, and minifigs as children. It would work great in either 6 or 8. But in either case would look VERY (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | (...) This will eat your bricks! Has anyone practised 'selective compression'. This is where you build something to scale but 'selectively compress' some aspects or items to reduce space/cost/bricks etc. In most cases this applies to train and (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | 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...) —Carrie Whitcher
|
| | | | | | | | 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...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) Ouch. Comparing to Lionel;-( (...) Which is fine with me. I don't run any out-of-the-box stuff anyway. What kills me is when they produce elements that *restrict* me to 6 wide (windshields, sharp curves, etc). (...) Mike and I have discussed (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | 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...) —Douglas Pegram
|
| | | | | | | 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...) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) 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). (...) I disagree, or maybe I'm not getting your point. Even when I build 8 wide, I am not striving for perfect model (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A0EF13.EBC9F60A@...west.net>) wrote at 04:38:22 (...) 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. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: (URL) built it from a picture on (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Don't go getting too cocky or I'll have to start coming by Conan's and showing you how to build stuff again... (...) Road diesel... and because it has Brian's brake van, and because it has my sanding tower. :-) (...) Me either, unfortunately. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, John Gerlach (<Fpo6pw.Bp6@lugnet.com>) wrote at 15:51:32 (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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. (...) And now I agree. I (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<Fpoosu.HrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:22:06 (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | | | 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. (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | Tony Priestman wrote (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38A246A4.48DF7A6E@...west.net>) wrote at 05:03:40 (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<Fpqzvn.MB4@lugnet.com>) wrote at 04:16:35 (...) How about just AR - artistically right. (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Kya Morden
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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. =/ (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Just a minor disagreement/clarification... (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) *Those* dudes are awesome and the exception, not the rule. I stand corrected for my blanket characterization of MRs:-) (...) ^^^...^^^(Most) (...) I hope folks don't think that I am fighting. Just a fun DOO [1]. Actually, I wouldn't force 8 (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Nick- Remember that scale and gauge (track width) are two different things. In a particular scale, you can have different track gauges (standard and narrow for instance). 8 wide approximates O scale because 1) minifigs are about the same (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) Nick, if you look at Trains / 3843 (type in 3843 in the search for trains, and it should pop up...sorry, I don't know how to get it to give me the html blue link thingy!) I hashed over the issue a bit. If you go with 5 studs being the gauge, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 8 vs. 6 (was: Excited to Finally be here...) —James Powell
|
| | | | (...) (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)
|
| | | | |
