 | | 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)
|
