 | | 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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
(...) *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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
(...) 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...)
|
|
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)
|
