Comment by np_tedious 6 years ago Meaning twice as big as an ordinary train? 3 comments np_tedious Reply Waterluvian 6 years ago Exactly. I think it's a hilarious concept that deserves to exist somewhere. jrochkind1 6 years ago Forces me to start thinking about what "model" means in "model train"... Would a 1-scale train be a "model"? Wohlf 6 years ago It's a purely semantic argument, but I think if it can perform the function of the original, it's no longer a model.
Waterluvian 6 years ago Exactly. I think it's a hilarious concept that deserves to exist somewhere. jrochkind1 6 years ago Forces me to start thinking about what "model" means in "model train"... Would a 1-scale train be a "model"? Wohlf 6 years ago It's a purely semantic argument, but I think if it can perform the function of the original, it's no longer a model.
jrochkind1 6 years ago Forces me to start thinking about what "model" means in "model train"... Would a 1-scale train be a "model"? Wohlf 6 years ago It's a purely semantic argument, but I think if it can perform the function of the original, it's no longer a model.
Wohlf 6 years ago It's a purely semantic argument, but I think if it can perform the function of the original, it's no longer a model.
Exactly. I think it's a hilarious concept that deserves to exist somewhere.
Forces me to start thinking about what "model" means in "model train"... Would a 1-scale train be a "model"?
It's a purely semantic argument, but I think if it can perform the function of the original, it's no longer a model.