Subject:
|
Re: The Future of Trains // Wishlist
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Oct 2007 07:02:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
14259 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Benn Coifman wrote:
> On the track:
> If 9v is dead, I don't see why it is critical to be backward compatible with
> the metalized track. I would think it might be nicer to go back to the multi-
> piece track of the 12v system (perhaps with a conversion piece to interface
> with the 9v and IR train track)
Why can't it be both? Imagine, if you will, a track system that's designed
based around the 12v components, but with the ends of the rails being shaped to
couple with the 9v/RC track instead.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Future of Trains // Wishlist
|
| (...) I've got a number of 4.5v/12v sleeper that have lost their clips (the little vertical pieces that click into the track), so Im' not wild about going back to that kind of track. If the design could be fixed, so the part that holds onto the (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Future of Trains // Wishlist
|
| (...) Just off the top of my head, I have the following thoughts on a prospective new train system. Benn On the batteries: -I am concerned that the weight of batteries could limit long trains. So the battery weight will be just as important as it's (...) (17 years ago, 7-Oct-07, to lugnet.trains)
|
124 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
