| |
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.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> 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.
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 track strongly isn't prone to snapping off then
that would be a reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, I've got so much
9v rail, and don't see myself running out and buying a bunch of plastic
rail regardless of it's design.
Chris
--
http://mysite.verizon.net/cjmasi/lego/
Learn about brittle bone disease
http://www.oif.org/
|
|
|
