 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
