Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:21:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1152 times
|
| |
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3A33E042.D55AD17F@uswest.net...
>
>
> Frank Buiting wrote:
> >
> > For me, when LEGO would ask I would prefer to keep it 6 wide. Why? Al my
> > current rolling stock is 6 wide to match the 'look and feel' of the • official
> > sets I own and keep on the track next to my MOCs. I tried some 8 wide
> > engines but it feels too big when matched with the town layout I • currently
> > have (many 80s town sets).
> > If I would build ALL my town and train sets from scratch it would • probably
> > matter little to me, however between the MOCs there are some TLC • designed
> > sets I want to keep and I'm afraid those will not blend in well with 8 • wide
> > trains.
>
> I think that you can't have it both ways. MOCs IMO will always look • bigger
> (and better) than TLC offerings, mainly because we are not limited by some
> imaginary price point TLC set designers are. So having the 2 side by side • will
> always not be a good blend.
Take a look at my trainstation:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=1359
to see my style of building and see what I mean.
I have seen many MOCs I liked very much and looked better than TLC's
offerings but still would blend in very good with official sets. A good
example is Ben's April Fool's joke trains.
> As far as trains matching "look and feel" I will
> say this: modern trains are just plain bigger than steamers or early • diesels
> were. Even proto locomotives all don't "look and feel" the same....
Okay, I need to add a note here. I'm not building prototypical trains. Not
everyone tries to model their trains after real life counterparts. I take a
look at several 'real' trains and pick the features I like and make my own
train.
> > It would not influence my opion. 6 and 8 wides both benefit of better • track
> > geometrics and DCC.
> > Correct me if I am wrong, for 8 wide trains, the currect track (width) • is
> > okay? I remember someone saying that trains are wider than the track and
> > building 8 wide on the current track simulates this?
>
> Yes. I mainly included the new track geometry scenario because some • object to
> 8 wides because they look silly going around tight curves. This would
> eliminate this complaint...
Yeah, I thought that would be the reason you included that question. A big 6
wide locomotive (like the one in the 7777 book page 40) also looks silly in
tight curves...
> > > Or would you just be happy that TLC was producing more
> > > trains again-- 6 wide, 8 wide--whatever?
> >
> > I'm confident TLC will continue the train line :-)
> > I will be happy if they keep producing parts and let each of us decide • what
> > width he/she wants build.
>
> Well, there in lies the problem to me. If TLC keeps producing 6 wide • trains,
> then all of the specialty parts such as this element:
> http://lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/parts/ref/images/2917.gif will be 6 wide • specific
> and unusable for 8 widers. Perhaps split specialty parts is the answer?
Yes agreed, split parts would be better.
-Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
| (...) I think that you can't have it both ways. MOCs IMO will always look bigger (and better) than TLC offerings, mainly because we are not limited by some imaginary price point TLC set designers are. So having the 2 side by side will always not be (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
