 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
