 | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | Christopher Masi <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:38B46A14.581C66...ane.edu... (...) but (...) stuff I (...) her 8 (...) brainer (...) See comment below (...) but (...) SD40-2 (...) look (...) thought (...) which (...) thought (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Another 6wide/8wide ramble was: Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Ben Fleskes
|
| | | | Your right, I'm against 8 wide and havn't built any 8 wide. Why not? Lots of reasons: 1) 8 wide demands larger scenery and buildings. If your logic for building 8 wide is because LEGO minifig trucks are 6 wide then you should make all your buildings (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble was: Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) What is wrong with larger scenery and buildings? You should check out Legoland sometime;-) Seriously, you don't have to build ginormous structures-- we are still talking MF scale here. I will now *have* to take some photos of my double stall (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | (...) I think this point is key. 8 widers seem to think of Lego trains as models, where a majority of 6 widers (there are exceptions) see them as toys. My opinion is that 6 or 8 wide in your own collection is up to you, but Lego needs to keep making (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | Ben Roller <broller@clemson.edu> wrote in message news:FqGGKz.C3G@lugnet.com... (...) attitude, (...) models, (...) needs (...) some (...) toys. (...) I say they should make what people want. If some people want 8 wide trains, then they should look (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Andreas Frank Werner
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) The problem with TLC is that they DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. The old 12V trains were too complicated for younger children and needed much care. Thus, they were replaced by the easier-to-handle 9V ones. The trend continues; modern sets consist of (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | (...) By the same token, An 8-wide tarin layout in the same area as a 6-wide layout will (from a distance) look MORE toy-like simply because the trains will have a shorter run before 'chasing their tails'. Or, put another way, if you are into (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Unless, of course, your layout is 22' long like the GMLTC's is (and growing;) (...) Not true. I rabbit sleep time;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:38B70743.BC3916...est.net... (...) layout (...) have (...) are (...) your (...) wide) (...) inter- (...) growing;) (...) I think that a more accurate measurement of size would be running feet of (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes. Here is a schematic: (URL) That is 108 large gray baseplates, or 168.75 square feet, which is (...) lol Mike, I applaud your devotion-- all I can say is....GET HELP (building;) (...) Absolutely we will have to:-) J-1 and I have been (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | Oh, did I just get psyched out. I checked you layout outline and the pointer turned into a finger, and I thought, "WOW, a map to the layout. Very nice." I clicked and got the layout outline again...d'Oh! Actually, it is nice to see the organization (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Put me down in the exception column. I do models. Just not scale models. I don't design for play value, I design for evokation of a look within the imposed palette limitations. This may be semantics but I suspect most of us, across all genres, (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<38B5C904.EF423D8@v...ager.net>) wrote at 00:12:52 (...) Not actually being in either column at the moment, I must say that my perception points to more people being in Larry's column than the toy one. At least (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Kelly
|
| | | | | | I'm in it as a toy builder!! And even though I don't think I'm switching over any time soon, John Neal's 8wides are very nice. Just tougher for me to play with!!! -john 3 (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) That's why I put a rim of tiles on my 8 wide passenger coaches' roofs, J-3! {;^D -John (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | I just purchased a few three foot high trees for my back yard. They cost about $40. I guess I will have to return them to the nursery and say "Nope! Nope! These trees are too small. I need trees that are at least 20 feet tall. A guy on the Internet (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
