Are LEGO Trains Classed as "Real" Model Trains?

[gambort]

I'm going to throw some controversy here: I think that most LEGO layouts are not 'model rail', but I think that LEGO can and sometimes is be used for 'model rail'.

To be more precise I think that an important aspect of 'model rail' is the 'model' side. It's not just the trains that represent reality, it's the landscaping, geometry, buildings, vehicles and other accessories. To have a true 'model railway' you need to have a good go at most of these elements. The same attention paid to the trains must be paid to the cars, the trees, the roads etc. Most LEGO layouts don't go this far.

But a very few do :) I'll not exaggerate the controversy by linking to those I believe meet the criteria.

Tim

[WesternOutlaw]

Interesting point you make Tim - encompassing the complete "model rail".

[gambort]

To me it's an important distinction. Even a lower-quality model rail display is generally more 'realistic' than a higher-quality LEGO one.

Whether or not you care about this is a different matter. But I reckon most model rail hobbyists do.

Tim

[peterab]

I wrote a reply to this yesterday but in my post convention daze I forgot to submit it

The gist of it was I think LEGO trains can be model railways depending on the intent of the builder.

At Brickvention over the last weekend we had two layouts that IMHO should be classed as model railways. One was based around the Puffing Billy railway, the other was Tim (gambort) and Mike's layout based on rural Victoria in about the 70's.

I think the distinction between toy and model is made easy by how successfully a real prototype is reflected. There are limitations to the LEGO medium, but over time the AFOL community is getting better and better at it. I partially agree with Tim's argument that the scenery and buildings add a lot, but I don't think that stops a single engine or train from being models, just that only one element has been modeled.

[Shupp]

I'm going to throw some controversy here: I think that most LEGO layouts are not 'model rail', but I think that LEGO can and sometimes is be used for 'model rail'.

To be more precise I think that an important aspect of 'model rail' is the 'model' side. It's not just the trains that represent reality, it's the landscaping, geometry, buildings, vehicles and other accessories. To have a true 'model railway' you need to have a good go at most of these elements. The same attention paid to the trains must be paid to the cars, the trees, the roads etc. Most LEGO layouts don't go this far.

But a very few do :) I'll not exaggerate the controversy by linking to those I believe meet the criteria.

Tim

This may be true, but a $3000 brass O gauge model steam locomotive is a model steam locomotive whether it's on a layout or not. I think a good Lego model locomotive is the same. That said, I agree the end goal is a complete model railway system, but I don't find it surprising that there aren't many out there. Our hobby is, in terms of really going for maximum realism, quite young, and LEGO, itself, makes very few realistic model rail components. In my opinion, nothing LEGO makes is at the crazy standard of realism I tend to strive for. The result is that individuals and clubs have to make everything themselves from scratch. Ask any other scale modeller how long that takes.

[gambort]

This may be true, but a $3000 brass O gauge model steam locomotive is a model steam locomotive whether it's on a layout or not. I think a good Lego model locomotive is the same.

Yes but how often is a LEGO train of the same standard? There are plenty which are better and more accurate (IMO) than many HO kits, but the lower quality kits are often used only in the context of a layout.

Obviously we're never going to be able to get to the detail level of, say, a good O gauge layout. But in principle the same standards as N should be doable.

Tim

[Shupp]

Well, to be fair, I can only really speak for PennLUG. We have many long-term plans for our layout, but they're all very expensive and take time. Ballasted tracks and built roads took a full year and no small investment of cash. Our end goal is definitely to have every aspect of our layout be as accurate as possible, but we're also happy to compromise in the short term on things we haven't quite gotten to yet just to have a layout to run on. For most of us, we only get to run at shows, after all, so using a few stock buildings and vehicles naturally follows.

The other issue is that the skill barrier for entry into really detailed LEGO modelling is in some ways higher, because you can't buy any of it in kit form. Not everyone wants to spend a year just getting their track in order, which I understand. I do hope as more people come up with detailed equipment, buildings scenery, etc. that it will be copied and improved upon by others, but I guess we'll just have to see about that.

[Space2310]

I'm not sure whether it has been said before, but the main reason why I think that model railroaders would object that LEGO trains are model trains is the track gauge. For trains to be true to scale, they would have to be about 10 studs wide, but usually they are somewhere between 6 and 8 studs. It was never really a matter when talking to the public at train shows, I guess most people won't even notice, but at some occassions I was asked what gauge the LEGO track is, or what scale it is - by model railroaders. And then you unwillingly have to admit that there are actually two different scales, one for the track and one for the trains.

Honestly I don't care whether someone wants to call his LEGO trains model trains or not, but if you want to discuss this with a model railroader you will need to find some excuses why your trains aren't true to scale, which probably leads us back to track geometry.

[craigstrains]

In our experience "real" modellers are human beings and have a sense of humour too! We have never won best in show, or indeed any award. Maybe we should ask for highest distance travelled by the trains over the show weekend, or most spectacular derailment (our record is a nine coach Metroliner hitting the floor from 3 feet 6 inches high!), but the one we would probably get is most coffee and tea drunk.

So whether Lego trains are classed as real model trains, who cares, have some fun!

[Toastie]

In our experience "real" modellers are human beings and have a sense of humour too! We have never won best in show, or indeed any award. Maybe we should ask for highest distance travelled by the trains over the show weekend, or most spectacular derailment (our record is a nine coach Metroliner hitting the floor from 3 feet 6 inches high!), but the one we would probably get is most coffee and tea drunk.

So whether Lego trains are classed as real model trains, who cares, have some fun!

Hi craigstrains,

now that's an idea! (the most spectacular derailment) PLUS: You simply reassemble the crashed train and go on for the next try ...

How about another competition: Take your engine of choice and convert that into a - uhmm - a lawn mover, within 2 minutes. I bet you'll win your first award ...

Rock on,

Thorsten

[Ralph_S]

I'm going to throw some controversy here: I think that most LEGO layouts are not 'model rail', but I think that LEGO can and sometimes is be used for 'model rail'.

To be more precise I think that an important aspect of 'model rail' is the 'model' side. It's not just the trains that represent reality, it's the landscaping, geometry, buildings, vehicles and other accessories. To have a true 'model railway' you need to have a good go at most of these elements. The same attention paid to the trains must be paid to the cars, the trees, the roads etc. Most LEGO layouts don't go this far.

But a very few do :) I'll not exaggerate the controversy by linking to those I believe meet the criteria.

Tim

I think I agree with you here. It's all too common to see people spending a lot of attention to the trains, but still use cars from sets, for instance. LEGO has done a great job with many of their city vehicles in the last years, certainly compared to the rubbish they produced in the late 'nineties, but I wouldn't qualify most of them as proper models. I'm not much of a train builder (although I do think that the two that I have built as an AFOL qualify as models in their own right), but I am very fussy about cars. Seeing one of those four wide cars with fenders sticking out and knobbly tyres sticking out of those on a layout is a massive turn-off from my perspective. It all needs to be good and there aren't many people who do that.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Shupp]

Well again, I can only honestly speak for what I and the others I work with try to do. If it's found deficient by the wider LEGO community there's not much else I can say. Whether they're good models or not I suppose I will continue to build them.

[gambort]

Well again, I can only honestly speak for what I and the others I work with try to do. If it's found deficient by the wider LEGO community there's not much else I can say. Whether they're good models or not I suppose I will continue to build them.

You can interpret answers how you like, but I was responding to the original question: Are LEGO trains classed aw "real" model trains?

Which has nothing to do with how good or bad LEGO models are, but what they should be considered to be. It takes a lot more time and a lot more work to achieve a realistic standard in LEGO since every element needs to be made from scratch. In my opinion that extra time is required for me to consider a LEGO layout a model train layout. YMMV.

Tim

[Shupp]

Well, you said "LEGO models" yourself just there. FWIW I agree with you about a layout really only being a good model railroad when it is cohesive, properly detailed and custom built. I posted as much above that I don't consider anything LEGO makes in any of their lines to be realistic enough to make the grade. I see the elimination of all the stock elements as an end-goal, though. I am happy to have a layout that hasn't quite gotten there yet, and will probably continue to engage in the grand conceit of applying the word "model" to it, or at least to sections of it.

Most Lego train layouts are collaborations between multiple builders and often entire clubs. I don't want to be the one to start judging the quality and accuracy of everything people build for a club layout. I'm happy to have participation from the largest number of people. We all learn from each other and improve that way. My first efforts at 'serious' building were terrible, but I know I've improved some, and that's largely thanks to being encouraged by fellow club members and having the experience of showing off and operating the equipment I've built. I still have a long way to go, and I hope I'll never stop learning things from others. The end goal, as I said before, is to do exactly what you say, but if we turn away everyone who fails to meet the highest possible standard, our clubs would be pretty un-fun. If I was told I wasn't making models early on and wasn't likely to be doing so any time soon at the rate I was going, I'd have walked away from my club, for sure, and I'd have missed out on a lot of learning opportunities. Also, if we never ran or displayed anything until such a time as true model-ness was achieved, that also would take away a lot of the fun.

I guess what I'm getting at is that most people who start making custom LEGO trains, cars, whatever, based on real prototypes, talk about building models. That's what I like to do, so I want to encourage that, even if not everything I see impresses me all the time. To me the crux of model making is attempting to capture the features of a real prototype, and that matters more to the definition than whether the result is really accurate. You can say a locomotive, car, or whole layout is not a good model, but if the attempt was made to make a model, then it's a model. The temporary (for me, at least) inclusion of stock elements is as much an issue of resolution as anything else. On the large scale of a train layout, a car or whatever is like a single pixel out of place. It means the model is of a lesser quality than it might be, not that the whole thing ceases to be a model.

[gambort]

'Model', 'LEGO model' and '"real" model train' are three different classes of things. The question is not "are LEGO models classed as models" or "are LEGO models "real" model trains to their creators" but "are LEGO trains classed as "real" model trains". This implies a (somewhat) consensual position by the "real" model railroading community.

You can call things whatever you please. As can I. But I'm pretty sure my view is probably closer to that of most model railroaders than yours is. Although I may very well be wrong.

Tim

[fred67]

IMHO the prime objective of the Lego MRR society should be to DEMAND the re-introduction of the 9V system! The importance of this cant really be stressed enough...

I kind of agree, but not completely; IMO, as far as model railroading goes, ideally, they should have stuck with electric rail in conjunction with RADIO control (not IR, at least not as implemented). Some enthusiasts have already done this "pseudo DCC" without the cost of DCC (using PF but with charging from the rail). The people who prefer the newer PF motors would be happy, the people who don't like the waste and clunkiness of batteries would be happy, the people who like to be able to independently control trains (and other things on a train - lights, cranes, doors, etc) would be happy.

IR with plastic rail could work, but the controller/receivers are not accurate enough, and the receivers are really clunky to try to fit into a model (as if the battery box wasn't bad enough), and even when you can fit it all in you often end up with wires all over.

We have to face it that the train system is meant for kids, and while I will insist it's a "real" model train system because AFOLs make it work; it's despite TLG, not because of them.

If "L-Gauge" continues on in the future as a "real" model train system, I think it'll be more because of companies like ME Models. I'm not holding my breath, but if they manage to produce a commercial quality motor - or commercial quality pickups to use with metal rail and PF batteries, it'll clinch L-Gauge's place as a "real" model railroad.

[Shupp]

That could very well be. I suppose I ought not to have posted at all, because I think our own opinion of what we do is the most important. It sounded like your first post was likewise giving your personal opinion of whether LEGO trains would qualify, rather than the consensus of other modellers, which is what I was responding to. I apologize if I misread it.

[gambort]

That could very well be. I suppose I ought not to have posted at all, because I think our own opinion of what we do is the most important. It sounded like your first post was likewise giving your personal opinion of whether LEGO trains would qualify, rather than the consensus of other modellers, which is what I was responding to. I apologize if I misread it.

Our opinion counts, but doesn't answer the original question IMO. And to be add a little more detail to my original response I do consider plenty of LEGO train MOCs to be "real" model rail.

My response is a bit of both:

On the one hand I think it does summarise what is required to have LEGO trains considered as more "serious" or "real". If you flick through the pages of a model rail magazine you rarely see layouts that don't have a lot of attention put into the off-the-rail bits. Certainly that, and non-orthogonality, are the main differences I notice from most LEGO layouts.

On the other hand it is also my perspective on what I want out of a LEGO layout. I want a LEGO layout that looks like a "real" model rail layout made from bricks. But I've never been keen on saying what others should or shouldn't do.

Tim

Edited January 25, 2012 by gambort

[WesternOutlaw]

Guys - I appreciate the mature discussion of differing opinions related to the question at hand. It shows that we can express our opinions in a respectful and intellectual manner.

I own a few model trains - both G and HO. There is a huge difference in "Model Trains" and LEGO Trains. While LEGO and/or the LEGO community call their trains "Model Trains", I can see both points to this argument. If one were to ask the question of a model railroader (the traditional non-LEGO model railroader), they might express an opinion very much like that of Gambort/Tim.

Non-LEGO model trains or at least those implied in the original question as "Real" Model Trains are built-to-scale with a tremendous effort placed to re-create every detail. You all know the challenges of doing this in LEGO. While we are all aware of incredibly gifted LEGO Train builders, the same level of detail is almost impossible to re-create in LEGO. This is why I can understand the argument of the few that might say that LEGO Trains are not "Real Model" trains. This is not to discount the amazing creations from the LEGO Train community in any way.

From the perspective and a general definition of a model; sure, LEGO Trains are model trains.

From a slightly different perspective, would you want an actual "to-scale" LEGO model train? It would most likely require a great amount of specialized pieces to create an exact replica of a real-life train. With even the smallest of LEGO elements (tile, plate, or other piece), it would be almost impossible requiring a much larger scale than traditional minifigure or L-scale. Minifigures bring up another thought. I don't want a LEGO Train that I can't place a minifig within. L-scale makes LEGO trains what they are. There's something about the scale itself that adds to the charm of LEGO Trains. "Real Models" or not, I'm sure we all feel a special way because they are built from LEGO.

[hoeij]

All model trains are toys. They do not move passengers across the country. They don't haul thousands of tons of cargo. Their aim is to entertain us. (expensive cars are toys too. A cheap car is equally useful, so the extra cost of an expensive car can only be categorized as toy spending).

Respect comes from doing something that people know takes a lot of skill and time.

Train modelers know that building good scenery requires lots of skill and time. Some of them might not be familiar with LEGO, or have only seen LEGO's aimed at children, so they might not know that there are LEGO displays that also require skill and time.

But I think that most people are at least somewhat familiar with LEGO, especially those under 50, and those people quickly understand that building Sava's steam train (shown in a picture earlier in this thread) requires a tremendous amount of skill, time, and determination.

[brickie]

Similar debates go on with the arty-farty types who argue the importance of rembrandt compared to Piscaso.

Years later there is no agreement.

When I had ho trains, I didn't do much modelling. i just bought the engine or carriage and placed them on a track. It is a bit like someone buying a yellow cargo Lego train and placing it on a table. Either way, there is not much skill. BUT, there is the pleasure factor that that individual gets from running the train and having fun.

Toys are toys; whether they are a $200 lego train or a $700 ho engine complete with all the bells and whistles.

Those of us who get pleasure and satisfaction from building a train from scratch out of lego are modellers just as much as the ho bloke who cuts, pastes and paints an engine. Both are replicas of a real thing. The one really great thing about modelling with lego is that you can move into the realm of fantasy.

I have seen some very ordinary displays from ho and n people who claim to be true model train enthusiasts. When you analyse their layout, each 'piece' has come from a shop; all they have done is lay it on a table. Some even buy a layout base complete; just add track and trees. I can make the same criticism of some Lego fans. But both groups are having fun and sharing their hobby with others.

I see no difference between the majority of ho and n people who exhibit items out of a box and Lego people who do the same; both are showing off their toys.

I also see a comparison between the ho bloke who cuts and paints foam to build mountains and the lego bloke who builds hills and valleys using Duplo and lego before covering with green plates and trees.

The majority of ho rolling stock that you see at shows is straight out of the box. The outside of the engines and carriages are all moulded plastic in intricate detail. The displayer had no way of changing his toy; the same as a lego fan who displays an Emerald night straight from the box.

Both are great creations and both bring enjoyment to the owner.

The level of detail in all scales is dependent upon the thickness of your wallet.

I guess that the success of a model train show depends upon the reaction from the audience as to how they perceive your display.

This is similar to a display of realistic and modern art in a gallery; the beauty is all in the eye of the beholder.

[AndyC]

On the one hand I think it does summarise what is required to have LEGO trains considered as more "serious" or "real". If you flick through the pages of a model rail magazine you rarely see layouts that don't have a lot of attention put into the off-the-rail bits. Certainly that, and non-orthogonality, are the main differences I notice from most LEGO layouts.

I suspect you're right on this one, but by contrast wheras "real" model train displays often have enormous amounts of attention in the off-the-rail bits, they are quite often displaying off the shelf engines and rolling stock, wheras good Lego layouts are much more focused on custom built trains. Ultimately, unless you are fortunate to have endless amounts of time and money there are probably going to be compromises somewhere along the way. The compromises are just falling in different places, especially since large scale scenery construction in pure Lego is considerably more expensive.

[owl]

Just to widen the discussion

Is a lego model village not a real model village? I think it would be very difficult to argue that a lego model village not a real model village.

The same logic could apply to trains. There is no doubt in my mind that a lego train is absolutely a real model train. This is true taking the literal definition of the word "model", but it is clearly true in practice.

If we look at why some would disagree, we need to see why they have come to that opinion. Does somehow admitting that a lego model train is a "real" model train deminishing their own hobby? Do they think an association with Lego would change how people viewed their own hobby? Perhaps they would see it more as a "toy", as Lego is also, and have a perceived (incorrectly)embarassment with that?

How many times have my peers and friends initially dismissed lego as a childrens toy, only to spend hours literally playing with them!

If model trains are toys then so be it. Whats the problem?

[Colin_Redner]

-Colin

-edit- I have deleted this post because I have offended some people.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Colin_Redner

[owl]

I agree with the above post, but that still doesnt mean that L-trains are not real model trains. It means that both are real formats of model trains.

Just because there are few AFOLs with extensive layous means absolutely nothing. If we had more disposal income I am sure lots of L-train fans would expand their layouts.

Its clear that both are real model train systems, and clear that a minority of non-lego train hobbyists are paranoid that if lego is let into their "14 years or over" club it will give others ammunition to attack their hobby.

Lego is a toy for children and adults. Pre-built plastic trains are also a toy for children and adults (no matter what the box or enthusiasts/ rail magazines may tell you).

It is a strange position and attitude to take, we should all be out and proud AFOLs