 | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> Hello
> Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis is
> a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
>
> A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> Paul
Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I'm with you on this ... did you notice the pirate torso on the woman at the
station? If it's a fake then it's a well done fake ... Could it be April 1st
already?
-- pn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
That would be the most amazing April fools day trick ever if it was. They
would have had to actually make some fake pieces or some some really good
image enhancements.
Pawel Nazarewicz wrote in message ...
> I'm with you on this ... did you notice the pirate torso on the woman at • the
> station? If it's a fake then it's a well done fake ... Could it be April • 1st
> already?
>
> -- pn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi everybody, please read the message below
I rarely watch this group
But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
not to 9V
2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
released in 1986
4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
THIS IS A HOAX
--
Michael
- - -
Please reply on
medwards@ukonline.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Home of the UK Technic Club Magazine
www.technic-uk.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pawel Nazarewicz <verneer@utk.edu> wrote in message
news:FsAGM9.9L7@lugnet.com...
> I'm with you on this ... did you notice the pirate torso on the woman at • the
> station? If it's a fake then it's a well done fake ... Could it be April • 1st
> already?
>
> -- pn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
>
> THIS IS A HOAX
I'm going to hope that it is real... I'm thinking these aren't the final
versions of the pictures, that this is being used to test layout, colors,
whatever. Yes, the picture quality is lower than what we're used to, but I've
seen prototype images direct from LEGO that were lower quality than these.
JohnG, GMTLC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> >
> > THIS IS A HOAX
>
>
> I'm going to hope that it is real... I'm thinking these aren't the final
> versions of the pictures, that this is being used to test layout, colors,
> whatever. Yes, the picture quality is lower than what we're used to, but I've
> seen prototype images direct from LEGO that were lower quality than these.
Too many things point to it being a hoax, IMO. Also, While the quality is low,
whoever made it, tried to make it as real as possible. The Train Logo is way
too clear, while the Lego Logo is way too fuzzy...
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Maybe we're spending too much time on the quality of the graphics. Lets look
at the sets themselves. Where would those wheels on the 4460 and the gray
wheels on the 4432. And the doors and windows on the passenger cars on the
4450? Those are awesome creations if they weren't made by LEGO.
I think I'll hold out hope that they are real. We did hear rumors a few
weeks back about digital trains from LEGO coming out soon.
jt
Jeff Stembel wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> > >
> > > THIS IS A HOAX
> >
> >
> > I'm going to hope that it is real... I'm thinking these aren't the final
> > versions of the pictures, that this is being used to test layout, colors,
> > whatever. Yes, the picture quality is lower than what we're used to, but • I've
> > seen prototype images direct from LEGO that were lower quality than these.
>
> Too many things point to it being a hoax, IMO. Also, While the quality is • low,
> whoever made it, tried to make it as real as possible. The Train Logo is • way
> too clear, while the Lego Logo is way too fuzzy...
>
> Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, James J. Trobaugh writes:
> Maybe we're spending too much time on the quality of the graphics.
Image quality is a big part of determining if it is a fake. IMO, at least.
For example, is it just a bad scan? What evidence is there for or against
this? One piece of evidence is that many of the colors are too universal for
it to be a scan. (I do a *lot* of scanning here at work)
> Lets look at the sets themselves. Where would those wheels on the 4460 and the
> gray wheels on the 4432.
Homemade would be my guess. Paint would turn the wheel covers gray... The
image quality is poor enough to mask imperfections and such.
> And the doors and windows on the passenger cars on
> the 4450?
Again, I'd say paint.
>
> I think I'll hold out hope that they are real. We did hear rumors a few
> weeks back about digital trains from LEGO coming out soon.
I don't remember that... But then, I don't read trains that much. :)
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> Hi everybody, please read the message below
>
> I rarely watch this group
>
> But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
>
> 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> not to 9V
I was thinking this, too. Lego now uses the "<-o->" symbol. Not to mention
that the stickers are poorly applied, and Lego doesn't even use stickers for
the door symbols anymore (I think, they didn't with 4558).
>
> 2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
> wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
Right, too much reflection, for one. Also, 4450 used a wide angle lens,
causing it to "bend".
>
> 3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
> released in 1986
6676 Mobile Command Unit. The map is still on the appropriate part, too! 4424
also has a gray treasure chest (which I find suspect), and 4450 has the train
schedule from 7824, still on the three white 1x4 bricks.
>
> 4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
> the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
Yup, and the parts don't seem to fit together well.
>
> 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
Actually, it is a good idea. More flexibility in making layouts.
> 6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
Yup.
Also, Old torsos are in these, even when lego has newer "versions". And the
points images are mirrored copies of each other, IMO.
Certain parts are too pixelated, the letters are too clear (no grays, like
you'd get in a real scan), same with the red dot in the train lego (which is
too large), etc. There is *no* doubt in my mind that these are fakes.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
These are compelling arguments... :(
And here I was thinking of auctioning all my 12V track and trafos to be
able to but this stuff in the fall...
If they are fake...the person who did this deserves a nice round of
applause....and we should all make sure someone at LEGO sees these pics
and how excited we all were about them....maybe they could generate
similar excitement with a REAL product :)
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
Jeff Stembel wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> > Hi everybody, please read the message below
> >
> > I rarely watch this group
> >
> > But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
> >
> > 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> > not to 9V
>
> I was thinking this, too. Lego now uses the "<-o->" symbol. Not to mention
> that the stickers are poorly applied, and Lego doesn't even use stickers for
> the door symbols anymore (I think, they didn't with 4558).
> >
> > 2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
> > wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
>
> Right, too much reflection, for one. Also, 4450 used a wide angle lens,
> causing it to "bend".
> >
> > 3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
> > released in 1986
>
> 6676 Mobile Command Unit. The map is still on the appropriate part, too! 4424
> also has a gray treasure chest (which I find suspect), and 4450 has the train
> schedule from 7824, still on the three white 1x4 bricks.
> >
> > 4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
> > the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
>
> Yup, and the parts don't seem to fit together well.
> >
> > 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
>
> Actually, it is a good idea. More flexibility in making layouts.
>
> > 6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
>
> Yup.
>
> Also, Old torsos are in these, even when lego has newer "versions". And the
> points images are mirrored copies of each other, IMO.
>
> Certain parts are too pixelated, the letters are too clear (no grays, like
> you'd get in a real scan), same with the red dot in the train lego (which is
> too large), etc. There is *no* doubt in my mind that these are fakes.
>
> Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> > 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> > not to 9V
It is not the same DB logo as the 12V ones - they changed it in the early 90's
- the one on the scans is the newer version. It is shown more clearly bottom
right of 1.jpg.
Compare old logo:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/de/electric/ice/401/rail97.jpg
with new logo:
http://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pix/de/electric/ice/403-406/ICE3_1.jpg
Look at the new train scans - the main difference between the two logos is the
font - these use the new one - hence authentic.
> I was thinking this, too. Lego now uses the "<-o->" symbol. Not to mention
> that the stickers are poorly applied, and Lego doesn't even use stickers for
> the door symbols anymore (I think, they didn't with 4558).
That's no indication, sometimes I can do stickers better than LEGO can.
> > 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
> Actually, it is a good idea. More flexibility in making layouts.
It's great.
Carbon 60
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> Hi everybody, please read the message below
THis is a needless comment. If your message is worthy of reading it will be
read without the prefacatory fluff.
> I rarely watch this group
>
> But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
>
> 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> not to 9V
Stickers can be reprinted.
> 2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
> wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
No idea what you're getting on about here.
> 3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
> released in 1986
Parts can be reprinted. Parts can be reused. Why design new parts if you can
use old ones again?
> 4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
> the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
It would be logical to use the tooling for the outside casing for the DCC
controller instead of developing a new one, if the dimensions work. These are
low volume, save tooling where you can. (the INSIDE of the casing might well be
different but that's a different surface of the mold and could be new tooling.
> 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
Because people who build real layouts have been screaming for them for years,
as you'd know if you read the group much. GMLTC makes these with a hacksaw on a
regular basis. This may be the most important new item of them all. Really. Too
bad they didn't redo the switches/points to fix the geometry problem.
> 6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
Lame critique.
> THIS IS A HOAX
Maybe. But a very elaborate one. I'd reserve judgement. Wasn't that what was
said about the star wars preproduction pics? Please name off a significant
announcement that came with pictures that actually turned out to be a hoax.
Seems like every time TLC does something good everyone thinks it's a hoax. It's
funny. They deserve it, but it's still funny.
If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on 4460
came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers on
4450 for that matter.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > THIS IS A HOAX
>
> Maybe. But a very elaborate one. I'd reserve judgement. Wasn't that what • was
> said about the star wars preproduction pics? Please name off a significant
> announcement that came with pictures that actually turned out to be a • hoax.
> Seems like every time TLC does something good everyone thinks it's a hoax. • It's
> funny. They deserve it, but it's still funny.
>
> If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on • 4460
> came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers • on
> 4450 for that matter.
I would really like that train to come out, But we will have to wait for
confirmation from Lego if it's true, if it's true were did Paul Rutenberg
get the pictures from?
--
Michael
- - -
Please reply on
medwards@ukonline.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Home of the UK Technic Club Magazine
www.technic-uk.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> > Hi everybody, please read the message below
>
> THis is a needless comment. If your message is worthy of reading it will be
> read without the prefacatory fluff.
>
> > I rarely watch this group
> >
> > But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
> >
> > 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> > not to 9V
>
> Stickers can be reprinted.
>
> > 2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
> > wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
>
> No idea what you're getting on about here.
>
> > 3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
> > released in 1986
>
> Parts can be reprinted. Parts can be reused. Why design new parts if you can
> use old ones again?
>
> > 4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
> > the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
>
> It would be logical to use the tooling for the outside casing for the DCC
> controller instead of developing a new one, if the dimensions work. These are
> low volume, save tooling where you can. (the INSIDE of the casing might well be
> different but that's a different surface of the mold and could be new tooling.
>
> > 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
>
> Because people who build real layouts have been screaming for them for years,
> as you'd know if you read the group much. GMLTC makes these with a hacksaw on a
> regular basis. This may be the most important new item of them all. Really. Too
> bad they didn't redo the switches/points to fix the geometry problem.
>
> > 6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
>
> Lame critique.
>
> > THIS IS A HOAX
>
> Maybe. But a very elaborate one. I'd reserve judgement. Wasn't that what was
> said about the star wars preproduction pics? Please name off a significant
> announcement that came with pictures that actually turned out to be a hoax.
> Seems like every time TLC does something good everyone thinks it's a hoax. It's
> funny. They deserve it, but it's still funny.
>
> If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on 4460
> came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers on
> 4450 for that matter.
It looks like 4450 and 4460 use the same motor to me. Looks like the new
motor has two small wheels and 4 large spoked ones.
I did a quick look through the train sets, and unless I missed
something, I don't see a white/blue split color train door.
The 1st picture has a mountain made out of green rectangular BURPS. I
have seen green triangular ones, but not the rectangular ones.
The brown box car in 4479 looks like it has green 1x3x4 solid doors,
I've seen those in a bunch of colors but not green.
Why would a hoax put the set numbers in the 44xx range?
How did the hoaxer get grey train wheel frames? Why create a color no
one would have expected LEGO to create.
Of course some of these ideas could be carefully chosen image
manipulations to try and hide the hoax.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> It looks like 4450 and 4460 use the same motor to me. Looks like the new
> motor has two small wheels and 4 large spoked ones.
I'm thinking 4460 uses steel rimmed (powered) and 4450 uses plastic rimmed
(unpowered) with the motor unit in the tender. That looks like a glint of
steel on the tender wheels.
That's good news because it means we get a new size wheel for building our own
locos with. I was scared at first that we'd ONLY get the sealed small/2large
power unit. If we're really lucky, the small steel wheels are power pickup
wheels to power the lights instead of attached to the larger unit.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net> writes:
> I'm thinking 4460 uses steel rimmed (powered) and 4450 uses plastic rimmed
> (unpowered) with the motor unit in the tender. That looks like a glint of
> steel on the tender wheels.
It _is_ a bit strange that the red 4460 has metal rims on all the
wheels, though. Surely, only two pairs are powered.
On the other hand, mixing metal and non-metal rims on one engine would
probably look daft.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> On the other hand, mixing metal and non-metal rims on one engine would
> probably look daft.
?? <set:4551>
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Michael Edwards writes:
> > Hi everybody, please read the message below
>
> THis is a needless comment. If your message is worthy of reading it will be
> read without the prefacatory fluff.
What is with the rude comments of late? Someone can't just throw in a little
meaningless statement here and there? You do it often enough. I do it, too,
and so do most people.
>
> > I rarely watch this group
> >
> > But i am amazed by the pictures, but the following things puzzle me
> >
> > 1. Since when those DB stickers come back? I thought they belong to the 12V
> > not to 9V
>
> Stickers can be reprinted.
Yes, but isn't that a real train company? Wouldn't it have to be liscensed?
Lego hasn't liscensed many realworld companies recently, at least not for
general release sets.
>
> > 2. Look at 4450 Right at the top right corner appears to be a part of the
> > wall showning, and the pictures don't look like the way lego does theirs?
>
> No idea what you're getting on about here.
There is a triangular section in the corner. Seems to be a different object
from the background. Also, notice the bending in this picture? That is from a
wide angle or panoramic lens, IMO.
>
> > 3. Look at 4424, the Station map there, that came from the Police Van
> > released in 1986
>
> Parts can be reprinted. Parts can be reused. Why design new parts if you can
> use old ones again?
Have you *completely* forgotten Lego's track record? Since when do they
re-issue 14 year old stickers?? That is a *sticker* and not a preprinted part
after all. Also, 4450 uses the train schedule from 7824, still on the white
bricks.
>
> > 4. Look at 4468 Looks like at Old 9V Technic motor same for 4438 and 4439,
> > the old motor was discountued a few years ago.
>
> It would be logical to use the tooling for the outside casing for the DCC
> controller instead of developing a new one, if the dimensions work. These are
> low volume, save tooling where you can. (the INSIDE of the casing might well
> be different but that's a different surface of the mold and could be new
> tooling.
Again, Lego likes to make new parts for new functions...
>
> > 5. 4465 Looks Odd?, why do Lego want to start making little pieces of track?
>
> Because people who build real layouts have been screaming for them for years,
> as you'd know if you read the group much.
I've never screamed for them, and I build "real" layouts. What is the
definition of a "real layout", anyway?
> GMLTC makes these with a hacksaw on a regular basis. This may be the most
> important new item of them all. Really.
'Tis more challenging to create within the bounds Lego sets for us... ;)
> Too bad they didn't redo the switches/points to fix the geometry problem.
The person who created this hoax probably didn't want to expend the effort,
otherwise I'm sure they would've been there. :)
>
> > 6. 4479 There is too much shadow, it's not well done.
>
> Lame critique.
Lame Response.
I read Michael's "critique" (more of an observation, really) as saying
something like, "There is too much shadow for this to be a real lego image; if
it is, it is not well done."
>
> > THIS IS A HOAX
>
> Maybe. But a very elaborate one. I'd reserve judgement. Wasn't that what was
> said about the star wars preproduction pics?
Just the first one, IIRC. And most of us had never seen a prepro image then,
so we didn't know what techniques and styles they used.
> Please name off a significant announcement that came with pictures that
> actually turned out to be a hoax.
There *is* a first time for everything, you know. Why exactly do you believe
it is real, other than wishful dreaming? :)
> Seems like every time TLC does something good everyone thinks it's a hoax.
No, just when things are so completely different from what they normally do.
These are not, IMO, of a style lego would build in. For example, the steam
engine in 4450 is way to big for an official Lego model, IMO. This is the kind
of thing I'd expect to come from someone like Eric Brok.
> If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on 4460
> came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers on
> 4450 for that matter.
Since the quality isn't very good, it is impossible to say for sure what they
are made of. Maybe the hoaxer has access to metal or plastic molds (maybe the
sand kind, but not permanant ones).
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on • 4460
> > came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers • on
> > 4450 for that matter.
>
> Since the quality isn't very good, it is impossible to say for sure what • they
> are made of. Maybe the hoaxer has access to metal or plastic molds (maybe • the
> sand kind, but not permanant ones).
Naw. Those are black model team wheel hubs - recently available in Bi-Wing
Baron (thanks LFB :-) and the Twisted Time Train - with chromed edges. Ben
Fleskes has an engine using these wheels in grey and I've just negotiated
the acquisition of enough of these in black to keep me in steamer heaven for
quite a long time :-)
The poor picture quality hides the round cutouts (I think Lar referred to
wheels of this design as "boxpox" drivers) and the very deep flange.
Will
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Will Hess writes:
> > > If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on
> > > 4460 came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large
> > > spokers on 4450 for that matter.
> >
> > Since the quality isn't very good, it is impossible to say for sure what
> > they are made of. Maybe the hoaxer has access to metal or plastic molds
> > (maybe the sand kind, but not permanant ones).
>
> Naw. Those are black model team wheel hubs - recently available in Bi-Wing
> Baron (thanks LFB :-) and the Twisted Time Train - with chromed edges. Ben
> Fleskes has an engine using these wheels in grey and I've just negotiated
> the acquisition of enough of these in black to keep me in steamer heaven for
> quite a long time :-)
Nope, because those aren't spoked. However, the could be painte Maxifig
wheels... (also found on the "pre-model team" classic cars, in the 390's)
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Will Hess wrote:
>
> > > If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on • 4460
> > > came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers • on
> > > 4450 for that matter.
> >
> > Since the quality isn't very good, it is impossible to say for sure what • they
> > are made of. Maybe the hoaxer has access to metal or plastic molds (maybe • the
> > sand kind, but not permanant ones).
>
> Naw. Those are black model team wheel hubs - recently available in Bi-Wing
> Baron (thanks LFB :-) and the Twisted Time Train - with chromed edges. Ben
> Fleskes has an engine using these wheels in grey and I've just negotiated
> the acquisition of enough of these in black to keep me in steamer heaven for
> quite a long time :-)
>
> The poor picture quality hides the round cutouts (I think Lar referred to
> wheels of this design as "boxpox" drivers) and the very deep flange.
What I see are CLEARLY spoked wheels with a single stud hub.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
You are both correct. Now, where's that shoehorn? I seem to have my foot
stuck in my mouth :-)
I still think his whole thing is a hoax.
Will
Lego Beach Department of Emergency Services
www.crosswinds.net/~hokie
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Will Hess wrote:
> > > If you think it's a hoax you have to explain where the metal wheels on • 4460
> > > came from, those are going to be very hard to fake. And the large spokers • on
> > > 4450 for that matter.
> >
> > Since the quality isn't very good, it is impossible to say for sure what • they
> > are made of. Maybe the hoaxer has access to metal or plastic molds (maybe • the
> > sand kind, but not permanant ones).
>
> Naw. Those are black model team wheel hubs - recently available in Bi-Wing
> Baron (thanks LFB :-) and the Twisted Time Train - with chromed edges. Ben
> Fleskes has an engine using these wheels in grey and I've just negotiated
> the acquisition of enough of these in black to keep me in steamer heaven for
> quite a long time :-)
>
> The poor picture quality hides the round cutouts (I think Lar referred to
> wheels of this design as "boxpox" drivers) and the very deep flange.
Lighten that picture up in PSP, and you'll see that IF they are those rims, they
were EXTENSIVELY modified. As in the flange on the smaller diameter was
removed, most of the larger ends' flange was removed, black spokes were machine
for the center (including a stud in the center), and a peg was machined as part
of the spokes (it's NOT a Technic peg, though it could be a technic peg/ball
combo). A TON of work for a fake.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Michael Edwards" <medwards@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> THIS IS A HOAX
Feel free to call me gullible, but I believe this is real. The layout
of the ads are different than what we are used to, but I would
attribute that to it being a Deutsche Bahn promotion catalogue, or
something to that effect. At least the text in the yellow triangle
appears to refer to some sort of contest.
We recently had a "TINE LEGO milk truck" promotion in Norway, and the
layout of the ad folder was totally non-LEGO like.
How could someone fake those new train wheels, say? Sure, they could
have been faked, but it would have taken much effort from the one
doing the fake.
I think the train people can look forward to a bright future!
Fredrik (gullible)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
After having another look, I am not too sure now, I am stuck in-between. You
guys are going to have to connive me.
If this is the True Lego picture
It would be great, but why is there some mistakes in the picture. I now
believe that this is a hoax for April 1st or it has been leaked out of Lego
and somebody has tempered with it.
I also believe it's a prototype for the new trains, the are so many new
parts in the pictures. Like the train wheels and different colour parts,
also like Larry said you might as well use old stickers and things before
you make the final product. A common example was the 8448 Super car, I have
prototype pictures for these.
So I am pointing to the direction that there is light at the end of the
tunnel for the train fans like Larry and his friends. And I will enjoy it
these do come out.
--
Michael
- - -
Please reply on
medwards@ukonline.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Home of the UK Technic Club Magazine
www.technic-uk.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:qrdsnx7uqn5.fsf@masterblaster.uio.no...
> "Michael Edwards" <medwards@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
>
> > THIS IS A HOAX
>
> Feel free to call me gullible, but I believe this is real. The layout
> of the ads are different than what we are used to, but I would
> attribute that to it being a Deutsche Bahn promotion catalogue, or
> something to that effect. At least the text in the yellow triangle
> appears to refer to some sort of contest.
>
> We recently had a "TINE LEGO milk truck" promotion in Norway, and the
> layout of the ad folder was totally non-LEGO like.
>
> How could someone fake those new train wheels, say? Sure, they could
> have been faked, but it would have taken much effort from the one
> doing the fake.
>
> I think the train people can look forward to a bright future!
>
> Fredrik (gullible)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
I think it is obvious that the images are fakes. It's probably an April-fools
joke, and very well done. Similar someone else's, of a fake set. That was really
good, he made a fake box and even took a kid, dressed him in typical 70's
clothes and had a pic of him playing with the train, just like LEGO used to
have. It appears that LEGO Trains is popular for April-jokes.
The pictures does not look like they have been scanned, they would have looked
more soft in the edges then. And the trains look like MOC:s (and really great
ones), LEGO would never design anything like that. The first thing that stroke
me when watching the images was that they all looked like they hade been made in
windows paint, and then saved as JPEG, because they simply look fake.
--Tobias
> I'm with you on this ... did you notice the pirate torso on the woman at the
> station? If it's a fake then it's a well done fake ... Could it be April 1st
> already?
>
> -- pn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jeff,
> Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't • feel
> right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
>
> Jeff
You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in this
set before:
http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it. I never saw it
before. The pictures sure seem a little "non-professional" for LEGO as well.
(The shadows of the bright lighting in the above mentioned picture is
suspect) Could be a hoax, I don't know.
Scott S.
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeff,
>
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't
> > feel right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> >
> > Jeff
>
> You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in this
> set before:
>
> http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
>
> The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it. I never saw it
> before. The pictures sure seem a little "non-professional" for LEGO as well.
> (The shadows of the bright lighting in the above mentioned picture is
> suspect) Could be a hoax, I don't know.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "3x3 wall part, with the window in it", but
all windows have appeared in other sets.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> > font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in • this
> > set before:
> >
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
> >
> > The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it. I never saw it
> > before. The pictures sure seem a little "non-professional" for LEGO as • well.
> > (The shadows of the bright lighting in the above mentioned picture is
> > suspect) Could be a hoax, I don't know.
>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "3x3 wall part, with the window in • it", but
> all windows have appeared in other sets.
Alright, in front of the engine, there is a angled window. (going from the
train door forward) There is the 3 1x1 tile, the 1x2x3 window with the thin
slot window, and the angled window in front. Maybe it is a 2x2 instead. Was
it in the crocodile engine perhaps?
Scott S.
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > > You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> > > font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in • this
> > > set before:
> > >
> > > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
> > >
> > > The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it. I never saw it
> > > before. The pictures sure seem a little "non-professional" for LEGO as • well.
> > > (The shadows of the bright lighting in the above mentioned picture is
> > > suspect) Could be a hoax, I don't know.
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "3x3 wall part, with the window in • it", but
> > all windows have appeared in other sets.
>
> Alright, in front of the engine, there is a angled window. (going from the
> train door forward) There is the 3 1x1 tile, the 1x2x3 window with the thin
> slot window, and the angled window in front. Maybe it is a 2x2 instead. Was
> it in the crocodile engine perhaps?
>
> Scott S.
>
> Scott E. Sanburn
> Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
> LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
> Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
I don't have a crocodile, but I can tell you that the type of frame without
the actual Lego Train type window glass, (I have to word it just right so
Larry wont be confused,) is available in #5958, Mummy's Tomb. It's red, just
as shown in the new train pictures. The "glass" piece, I couldn't tell you
though. I'm sure that they are produced in something, so it could have been a
MOC, foolery.
I'm still hoping for it not to be. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Lego, if it's a
fake, take the lead and do something good for us for a change.
Rich
--
Have Fun! C-Ya!
Legoman34
*****
Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (No, I don't work for TLC, but I want
to...)
Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70
Visit http://www.wamalug.org &
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/1334
...(the wait is over...)
..."The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ...
EASTCOAST LEGOFEST IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL, 9-11 JUNE!!
*****
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
< cross posted to Dear-LEGO >
Dear Brad,
In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> Hello
> Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis • is
> a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> I'm still hoping for it not to be. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Lego, if it's a
> fake, take the lead and do something good for us for a change.
>
> Rich
Well, if it is fake or not, it sure has attracted many people, and I hope
TLC sees this. This is what we would really like to see in train sets. Sets
like these have the possibilities and parts needed for everyones imagination
to flourish and grow. Whatever the case, i hope some good comes out of this.
Sincerely,
Scott S.
--
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> < cross posted to Dear-LEGO >
and I set the FUT there too.
>
> Dear Brad,
>
> In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > Hello
> > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis • is
> > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
>
>
> > I'm still hoping for it not to be. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Lego, if it's a
> > fake, take the lead and do something good for us for a change.
> >
> > Rich
>
> Well, if it is fake or not, it sure has attracted many people, and I hope
> TLC sees this. This is what we would really like to see in train sets. Sets
> like these have the possibilities and parts needed for everyones imagination
> to flourish and grow. Whatever the case, i hope some good comes out of this.
Indeed. These sets get a number of things right: More subdued colors (lots of
dark grey, brown, tan and green), more realism, less juniorization, additional
options for power, more use of train windows, and more options for track
layouts thanks to the shortened track pieces.
If they're hoaxes, get your designers cracking and get us something nearly as
good. If they're for real, congratuations and thank you for listening.
As I said, Train heads buy a lot of stuff. We're nutty that way. Since you've
gotten the Star Wars heads hooked up (and hopefully made lots of money doing
so) we were a natural market. And DCC (Digital Command Control) means you're
going to be taken a lot more seriously.
Just fix the turnout geometry, come out with a new larger radius of track in
addition to 4520, and make sure some of these parts are available in spares or
bulk, and we'll go from ecstatic to delerious.
++Lar
Member, Guild of Bricksmiths
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeff,
>
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't • feel
> > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> >
> > Jeff
>
> You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in this
> set before:
>
> http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
>
> The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it.
Try <set:4563> or <set:4551> both of which command over 100 to over 200 each on
the aftermarket. I am looking forward to having that part available in larger
quantities. I've seen at least one MOC streetcar use this part
We need to hear the provenance of these scans. This "it's a hoax, it isn't a
hoax" frenzy that always breaks out drives me crazy. If they're leaked Todd
isn't going to be happy about it or that we're discussing it, either.
I'd like someone to remind me of an announcement of any significance that was
this close in (7 months away) that actually WAS a hoax. No one has pulled off a
significant hoax in our hobby that I can remember. Ever.
Prove me wrong. Remind me of it. Can't? That's a strong argument FOR it being
real.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry,
> > You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> > font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in • this
> > set before:
> >
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
> >
> > The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it.
>
> Try <set:4563> or <set:4551> both of which command over 100 to over 200 • each on
> the aftermarket. I am looking forward to having that part available in • larger
> quantities. I've seen at least one MOC streetcar use this part
That's right, I was just trying to see if it was a new part or not. It is
one of those, darn, I missed it sets.
> We need to hear the provenance of these scans. This "it's a hoax, it isn't • a
> hoax" frenzy that always breaks out drives me crazy. If they're leaked • Todd
> isn't going to be happy about it or that we're discussing it, either.
Indeed. I think Todd is sleeping right now, isn't he? I really don't know if
it is or not, but until we know for sure, I am going to assume they are
real. It would be nice, however.
> I'd like someone to remind me of an announcement of any significance that • was
> this close in (7 months away) that actually WAS a hoax. No one has pulled • off a
> significant hoax in our hobby that I can remember. Ever.
>
> Prove me wrong. Remind me of it. Can't? That's a strong argument FOR it • being
> real.
Yes, like I said, if it is real, it is an early production run anyway, much
like those SW sets (The X Wing, etc.) I know for sure that if these are
real, most of the LUGNET group would buy enough of these sets to keep TLC in
the black, along with the other items like SW and Mindstorms. Let's hope TLC
is learning! : )
Scott "Still glad I bought the Metroliner because it was a cool set" S.
Scott E. Sanburn
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Coming Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > We need to hear the provenance of these scans. This "it's a hoax, it
> > isn't a hoax" frenzy that always breaks out drives me crazy. If they're
> > leaked Todd isn't going to be happy about it or that we're discussing it,
> > either.
>
> Indeed. I think Todd is sleeping right now, isn't he? I really don't know
> if it is or not, but until we know for sure, I am going to assume they are
> real. It would be nice, however.
Ya, got to bed really late last night and only woke up about 3 hours ago.
This was the first thing Suzanne & I talked about today -- we had a good
laugh. I hate to use the word "hoax" because "April Fool's Joke" is probably
much more appropriate, but it's clear to us (in our minds) that these images
are beyond the shadow of a doubt simply a good-natured April Fool's Day joke
from someone who can build some really nice things (but isn't a very good
photographer or image-editor).
IMHO, these are just "real" enough to cause a modicum of belief, yet crufty
enough from an image-details point of view that people won't be upset when
the truth comes out from whoever did this (because it was obvious enough) --
I look forward to seeing what they'll come up with next year! This is an MOC
milestone for the community, methinks.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(canceled)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeff,
>
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't • feel
> > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> >
> > Jeff
>
> You know, I was thinking the same thing to some extent, the pictures, the
> font, who knows? I was wondering, though, did you ever see the part in this
> set before:
>
> http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
What I can't figure out is the pantagraph on the roof. Most of it looks
familiar: the very top piece looks like a 1x6 black low "fence" piece; the
hinge structure looks familiar; but, the method of attaching the 1x6 black low
"fence" piece to the "finger" hinges is what I can't readily dicern.
> The red part, the 3x3 wall part, with the window in it. I never saw it
> before. The pictures sure seem a little "non-professional" for LEGO as well.
> (The shadows of the bright lighting in the above mentioned picture is
> suspect) Could be a hoax, I don't know.
Gotta wonder! Love the models, regardless of the truth. My compliments to the
builder(s).
later,
James Mathis
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, James Mathis writes:
> What I can't figure out is the pantagraph on the roof. Most of it looks
> familiar: the very top piece looks like a 1x6 black low "fence" piece; the
> hinge structure looks familiar; but, the method of attaching the 1x6 black low
> "fence" piece to the "finger" hinges is what I can't readily dicern.
There may be one new piece here. Consider a 1x1 plate with 2 fingers on both
edges? Plug that into a clip to clip into the bottom of the rail
Either that or they borrowed your unsymmetric method and we can't spot it.
I would rather they used the old panto as in 4551 but that doesn't allow for
diamond pantos, only L (single sided) pantos
> Gotta wonder! Love the models, regardless of the truth. My compliments to • the
> builder(s).
My complements to the hoaxer if it is a hoax (Suz weighing in on the hoax side
does carry some weight with me, she knows a fair bit about image prep and how
Lego does things stylistically) and my complements to the set designers if not.
Hopefully the latter. But like I said (and no one's called me on it) point me
to a successful hoax of this magnitude in our hobby, please... hasn't been one
IIRC.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, James Mathis writes:
>
> > What I can't figure out is the pantagraph on the roof. Most of it looks
> > familiar: the very top piece looks like a 1x6 black low "fence" piece; the
> > hinge structure looks familiar; but, the method of attaching the 1x6 black • low
> > "fence" piece to the "finger" hinges is what I can't readily dicern.
>
> There may be one new piece here. Consider a 1x1 plate with 2 fingers on both
> edges? Plug that into a clip to clip into the bottom of the rail
>
> Either that or they borrowed your unsymmetric method and we can't spot it.
>
> I would rather they used the old panto as in 4551 but that doesn't allow for
> diamond pantos, only L (single sided) pantos
>
> > Gotta wonder! Love the models, regardless of the truth. My compliments to • the
> > builder(s).
>
> My complements to the hoaxer if it is a hoax (Suz weighing in on the hoax side
> does carry some weight with me, she knows a fair bit about image prep and how
> Lego does things stylistically) and my complements to the set designers if • not.
>
I concurr.
> Hopefully the latter. But like I said (and no one's called me on it) point me
> to a successful hoax of this magnitude in our hobby, please... hasn't been one
> IIRC.
>
> ++Lar
...wasn't there an artist who generated a bit of controversy when he created a
mock up of a LEGO set under the theme of a WWII era concentration camp? That
was kicked around on r.t.l a couple of years back, and I may not be recalling
it correctly and with enough detail at this point. However, I seem to remember
some people trying to pass it off as a real set, thus the hoax connection. The
artist's intention was probably not to create a prank, but rather an artistic
expression (which I found distasteful, by the way). If we don't remember it,
he failed to impress, I guess.
Ed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
If I remember correctly, lego had some involvement with that artist. The
artist misled (maybe another word is better) lego such that they were shocked
when they saw his creation. I know a lot of people complained. Here's what I
found in dejanews:
:: A model of a Nazi concentration camp built out of bricks by a
Polish artist was condemned by the company as "terrible taste" even though it
had provided the Lego free under a worldwide programme
to encourage artists to use its product.
Looks like Ken Rice still has the pictures up:
http://users.erols.com/kennrice/
Sorry if this reopens old wounds.
BTW: I'm inclined to believe that the new train sets are not a hoax. I
remember everyone being convinced that the canopy on the x-wing was non-lego.
I could be a hoax, but I think it's much more likely to be real.
brian
In lugnet.trains, Ed McGlynn writes:
> ...wasn't there an artist who generated a bit of controversy when he created a
> mock up of a LEGO set under the theme of a WWII era concentration camp? That
> was kicked around on r.t.l a couple of years back, and I may not be recalling
> it correctly and with enough detail at this point. However, I seem to • remember
> some people trying to pass it off as a real set, thus the hoax connection. • The
> artist's intention was probably not to create a prank, but rather an artistic
> expression (which I found distasteful, by the way). If we don't remember it,
> he failed to impress, I guess.
>
> Ed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"James Mathis" <thakius@nmt.edu> writes:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
>
> What I can't figure out is the pantagraph on the roof. Most of it
> looks familiar: the very top piece looks like a 1x6 black low "fence"
> piece; the hinge structure looks familiar; but, the method of
> attaching the 1x6 black low "fence" piece to the "finger" hinges is
> what I can't readily dicern.
Perhaps the 1x6 low fence is simply a placeholder, while a different
part or a different design will be used on the final version?
That would be consistent with the hypothesis that the "scans" are not
scans but layout drafts.
I wonder if it is against the LUGNET terms of use to discuss images the
one believes are "leaked" from the LEGO Company? When the LUGNET
maintainers have decided that they are not leaked? Isn't that an
interesting question? ;-)
It will certainly be interesting to see if these sets are fakes or not.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> I wonder if it is against the LUGNET terms of use to discuss images the
> one believes are "leaked" from the LEGO Company? When the LUGNET
> maintainers have decided that they are not leaked? Isn't that an
> interesting question? ;-)
It is against the Terms of Use Agreement to infringe on the privacy or
publicity rights of others.
Interpret our (mine & Suz's) opinions at your own risk.
--Todd
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.trains, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > I wonder if it is against the LUGNET terms of use to discuss images the
> > one believes are "leaked" from the LEGO Company? When the LUGNET
> > maintainers have decided that they are not leaked? Isn't that an
> > interesting question? ;-)
>
> It is against the Terms of Use Agreement to infringe on the privacy or
> publicity rights of others.
>
> Interpret our (mine & Suz's) opinions at your own risk.
Interesting thinking about this, the debate should settle down to just
naysayers (if you believe the scan is real, it is almost certainly a leak,
and therefor shouldn't be discussed). The only thing which would change
debate is if someone from TLC said it was real (but most likely they won't
say that until they announce it for real).
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> > I wonder if it is against the LUGNET terms of use to discuss images the
> > one believes are "leaked" from the LEGO Company? When the LUGNET
> > maintainers have decided that they are not leaked? Isn't that an
> > interesting question? ;-)
>
> It is against the Terms of Use Agreement to infringe on the privacy or
> publicity rights of others.
>
> Interpret our (mine & Suz's) opinions at your own risk.
I'm not following you completely. Here's where my thinking currently is, and I
admit I should have thought this through before posting extensively as I now
think some of that posting may not be correct from a legal perspective. I am
prepared to suffer the consequences of that but am also willing to have
whatever posts need to be cancelled removed from LUGNET to reduce or mitigate
LUGNET exposure.
Here's what I see the possible provenance of the images as being (and I think
this is an exhaustive set based on my analysis but could be wrong);
- An officially released flyer or catalog page that we just have not seen by
any other means as of yet, which has already been officially released. In this
case there is no issue whatever about posting links or discussion. However, my
analysis indicates this is quite unlikely as it's not up to TLC quality levels,
even for promotions (such as this seems to be purported to be, a promotion with
DB at least initially). It also is unlikely that they would release in so
limited a fashion
- An offical flyer that hasn't yet been released (it was either stolen or
someone with insufficient authority leaked it). As unlikely as the first from
image analysis. But more likely than the first based on analysis of TLC
activity, they don't pre-release or deliberately leak. In this case we
shouldn't be discussing it. Differentiating between these two is easy, we need
better provenance.
- A preproduction flyer that has been officially released, perhaps in a
circuitious manner. While it is likely that this is a preproduction flyer (I
count it as more probable than that it is a hoax for reasons I have already
discussed) it's not likely that TLC would officially release preproduction.
They're not that open. If someone makes a definitive statement, OK to discuss.
- A preproduction flyer that has been deliberately leaked for whatever reason
and the provenance deliberately tangled.. perhaps to judge reaction, perhaps to
test internal security, who knows. Unlikely, too machivellian for TLC. If so,
we shouldn't be discussing it until someone from TLC makes an official
statement as to provenance and disposition
- A preproduction flyer that hasn't yet been released. (it was either stolen or
someone with insufficient authority leaked it). In this case we shouldn't be
discussing it. Differentiating between these two is (as with the first pair)
also easy, we need better provenance. Unfortunately I judge this to be the most
likely case.
- a design study or other advance work that may not ever be released. Same
likelyhood based on image analysis as above. Lower likelihood of truth as it's
rather far along in the process for someone to scratch. cf the early star wars
design studies that TLC publicly showed which were rather crude. Same
bifurcation as the first two pairs, was it leaked or officially released some
how? Same discussion restriction outcomes
- a hoax. Entirely fan generated with no offical TLC involvement. In that case
the fan or fans who did so may have some trouble with TLC legal. We ought to be
OK discussing it though.
Did I miss any?
Now, this puts me in a box. Unless this is a hoax, or unless TLC clarifies, I
can't talk about it and abide by the T&C. But I don't WANT it to be a hoax and
I don't want to do a legal fiction and call it a hoax just so I can discuss it.
My read on Todd and Suz is that either they really think it's a hoax or they
are taking the position that it is for other reasons. But I doubt that, they
don't usually get that devious either. So I think they really think it is.
Maybe I should too, it certainly would make things easier.
I guess I'm done for now.
But can I talk about talking about it? :-) Hence FUT admin.general
I'm not sure I see any clear guidance from Todd in his statements at the top of
this post, and if he'd like to clarify, that would be great.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/3.jpg
>
> What I can't figure out is the pantagraph on the roof. Most of it looks
> familiar: the very top piece looks like a 1x6 black low "fence" piece; the
> hinge structure looks familiar; but, the method of attaching the 1x6 black low
> "fence" piece to the "finger" hinges is what I can't readily dicern.
Perhaps the little antenna pieces.
Alan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > Hello
> > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis is
> > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> >
> > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > Paul
>
> Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
>
> Jeff
nice models. if they had been taken in prototype format, not mocked up onto
pages, I almost could have fallen for it. :-)
There are many specific flaws in the design of the pages. LEGO has style
guidlines.
- The name SYSTEM would have to appear beside the LEGO logo before the presence
of anything that looked like a train logo. Train logo would not be blown up to
height of LEGO red square.
- the trademark/copyright info would not say (c) Logo(R) (yes, L-o-g-o)
- the colors are too bright around boxes, etc to have been scanned (they dont
match the intensity of photos, too smooth to be descreened halftone.esp next to
choppy text which looks unscanned.
- one of the yellow 'new' triangles is positioned off by one pixel. In a print
copy, I don't think a scan could produce that error effect.
- old 9v motors are no longer being used.
- photography is of unacceptable quality. even for a first layout draft.
- layout of page 2 is too poor.
- screened background photos are of large LEGO setups, not real-world.
No doubt an April 1 hoax. good one.
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > > Hello
> > > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis
> > > is a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> > >
> > > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > > Paul
> >
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> >
> > Jeff
>
> nice models. if they had been taken in prototype format, not mocked up onto
> pages, I almost could have fallen for it. :-)
Listen up, people!! This is from "Someone in the know"!! :)
>
> There are many specific flaws in the design of the pages. LEGO has style
> guidlines.
>
> - The name SYSTEM would have to appear beside the LEGO logo before the
> presence of anything that looked like a train logo. Train logo would not be
> blown up to height of LEGO red square.
I thought they got rid of SYSTEM... Also, the red dot is too large... I'm
sure Lego has premade scalable templates for this kind of thing, so there
wouldn't be errors...
> - the trademark/copyright info would not say (c) Logo(R) (yes, L-o-g-o)
I didn't notice that. Not a mistake Lego would make, for sure.
> - photography is of unacceptable quality. even for a first layout draft.
And some of them seem to've been taken with a panoramic lens, causing
"bending".
>
> No doubt an April 1 hoax. good one.
And the models are nice, too. But I fully agree it is a hoax.
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> And the models are nice, too. But I fully agree it is a hoax.
>
> Jeff
Doesn't this fall under "emotional abuse" on the part of the hoaxer? Thank
goodness he or she didn't release a castle. I would have to jump out of a
window.
-- pn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > And the models are nice, too. But I fully agree it is a hoax.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Doesn't this fall under "emotional abuse" on the part of the hoaxer? Thank
> goodness he or she didn't release a castle. I would have to jump out of a
> window.
lol!!! You're right! I would, too, if it was more believable. :)
Jeff
P.S. We've still got a number of hours before the hoaxer posts his "Gotcha!
Happy April Fool's Day" post. And boy is he making a number of people look
like fools. ;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > Hello
> > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis is
> > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> >
> > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > Paul
>
> Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
You're right -- I noticed the background in the main picture is all made
out of LEGO. TLC never does that anymore. Highly suspicious.
Steve
--
;)'s for everyone!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > Hello
> > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis • is
> > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> >
> > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > Paul
>
> Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
Yet more proof: I had a friend match up the "digital points" to see if they
where, in fact, mirrored. And guess what? They were! Feel free to try it
yourself...
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Has anyone noticed the new link on the site?
http://legoit.itgo.com/Kataloge.html
....I swear that wasn't there this morning :)
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
Jeff Stembel wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > > Hello
> > > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis • is
> > > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> > >
> > > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > > Paul
> >
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
>
>
> Yet more proof: I had a friend match up the "digital points" to see if they
> where, in fact, mirrored. And guess what? They were! Feel free to try it
> yourself...
>
> Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Yeah and the counter isn't working any more!
jt
Thomas Main wrote in message <38E4E488.3482DB3D@appstate.edu>...
> Has anyone noticed the new link on the site?
>
> http://legoit.itgo.com/Kataloge.html
>
> ....I swear that wasn't there this morning :)
>
> --
> Thomas Main
> main@appstate.edu
>
>
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > > > Hello
> > > > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, • gtfthis
> > is
> > > > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > > > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> > > >
> > > > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > > > Paul
> > >
> > > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't • feel
> > > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> >
> >
> > Yet more proof: I had a friend match up the "digital points" to see if • they
> > where, in fact, mirrored. And guess what? They were! Feel free to try • it
> > yourself...
> >
> > Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeff Stembel wrote:
> Yet more proof: I had a friend match up the "digital points" to see if they
> where, in fact, mirrored. And guess what? They were! Feel free to try it
> yourself...
Here's the mirror proof:
I took the images of the points from the 'leaked' catalog and cut them out
into separate files. I mirrored one of them. I then dropped the red and
green components from one and the green and blue from the other. I then
put the opacity of one to 50% while leaving the other opaque. The
transparent one was placed on top of the other. Any pixel that is the same
will turn up
purplish, while a different one will be either red or blue. My conclusion
was that the images were exactly the same and appeared in the 'catalog' as
mirror images of the same photo. Here are the results:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3188
I don't believe this proves that the images are a fake. I have seen
catalogs where they use mirror images to illustrate left/right versions
of a product. Make your own conclusions.
-Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Tracey writes:
> Here's the mirror proof:
> I took the images of the points from the 'leaked' catalog and cut them out
> into separate files. I mirrored one of them. I then dropped the red and
> green components from one and the green and blue from the other. I then
> put the opacity of one to 50% while leaving the other opaque. The
> transparent one was placed on top of the other. Any pixel that is the same
> will turn up
> purplish, while a different one will be either red or blue. My conclusion
> was that the images were exactly the same and appeared in the 'catalog' as
> mirror images of the same photo. Here are the results:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3188
very nice technique :)
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dan Boger wrote:
> very nice technique :)
standard image processing techique(sorta) for change detection. It's
used a lot in ecological and archaeological studies with a time series
of aerial photographs. You can tell what has changed from time point
to time point just by looking at the different color combinations.
-chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Christopher Tracey <ctracey@wamalug.org> wrote:
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > Yet more proof: I had a friend match up the "digital points" to see if they
> > where, in fact, mirrored. And guess what? They were! Feel free to try it
> > yourself...
>
> Here's the mirror proof:
> I took the images of the points from the 'leaked' catalog and cut them out
> into separate files. I mirrored one of them. I then dropped the red and
> green components from one and the green and blue from the other. I then
> put the opacity of one to 50% while leaving the other opaque. The
> transparent one was placed on top of the other. Any pixel that is the same
> will turn up
> purplish, while a different one will be either red or blue.
...lol... yea.. simple! :-)
...Chris, u have too much time on ur hands! :-)
> My conclusion
> was that the images were exactly the same and appeared in the 'catalog' as
> mirror images of the same photo. Here are the results:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=3188
>
> I don't believe this proves that the images are a fake. I have seen
> catalogs where they use mirror images to illustrate left/right versions
> of a product. Make your own conclusions.
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Stephen F Roberts wrote:
> ...Chris, u have too much time on ur hands! :-)
maybe, i just tried the same analysis on the two 4 stud track pieces and
i can't tell if they are the same segment copied twice or not. They are
two small to get an accurate judgment.
i'm a geek.
-chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Christopher Tracey wrote in message <38E51BAD.B42D5DA9@wamalug.org>...
> Stephen F Roberts wrote:
>
> > ...Chris, u have too much time on ur hands! :-)
>
> maybe, i just tried the same analysis on the two 4 stud track pieces and
> i can't tell if they are the same segment copied twice or not. They are
> two small to get an accurate judgment.
>
> i'm a geek.
I just loaded this picture up into Paintshop Pro and zoomed in. I'm not sure
what kind of effects JPG compression can actually have, but it is
interesting to see that the background immediately around the track and
lettering is not a uniform color, but the rest of the background is. If JPG
compression is the cause (looking at it closer, it must be, the pattern of
non-uniform grey around the track pieces has a very rectangular shape to
it), it is impossible to tell if the two track pieces are the same, if not,
they are not the same image, the studs map to pixels differently.
What may be a better guess is that the bounding box of the upper end ties
for all three track pieces is approximately 87x45 pixes, while the bounding
box of the lower end ties are all about 93x49 (using a somewhat subjective
definition of the bounding box since the JPG compression effects scatter
pixels from the ties another 5-10 pixels or so). Those numbers are kind of
close, but they are also about 10% different, and I would estimate that my
subjective bounding box only has a pixel or two error.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
There's something that has been bothering me with those pictures of automated
points and I finally realized what it is.
The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both parts
of the point. One is attached to the straight part and the other to the
curved piece. My electric knowledge isn't all that great, but I was under the
impression that part of the point is isolated as the current is switched from
one part to the other. Wouldn't this cause havoc with the motor connections?
If so, then I think we would have proof that someone is laughing quite
foolishly.
Point well,
Andreas Stabno
http://www.megsinet.net/~stabno/SimiLego.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Andreas Stabno <stabno@megsinet.net> wrote in message
news:FsAv72.EDJ@lugnet.com...
> There's something that has been bothering me with those pictures of • automated
> points and I finally realized what it is.
>
> The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both • parts
> of the point. One is attached to the straight part and the other to the
> curved piece. My electric knowledge isn't all that great, but I was under • the
> impression that part of the point is isolated as the current is switched • from
> one part to the other. Wouldn't this cause havoc with the motor
connections?
The outside rails are always live (while there's power being applied to the
track) - the inner rails are switched on or off when the point changes, so
as it is wired, I believe it is correct.
Huw
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both parts
> of the point.
> outside rails are always live (while there's power being applied to the
> track) - the inner rails are switched on or off when the point changes, so
> as it is wired, I believe it is correct.
Yes, Huw, that is correct. However, why not have internal metal wires in the
point? I would think it easier to make it so that the take off was from within
the tie bar than to have the external connection. However, I would view it as
entirely possible that this is a preproduction model.
Someone else commented on the problems of the box being hit by trains, it
shouldn't be, since it is onto the other end of the switch, so it should clear.
James P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Powell <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:FsB2pJ.JJ9@lugnet.com...
> Someone else commented on the problems of the box being hit by trains, it
> shouldn't be, since it is onto the other end of the switch, so it should • clear.
>
> James P
No, it will NOT CLEAR. It is on the "other side" in regards to being before
the switch, but it is on the curved side instead of the straight side. A
long car going through the switch will "cheat" the curve and hit the box.
If it was on the other side, it would have no problems, as the overhang is
on the inside. (Unless the car juts out enough on the outside of the curve
to cause it to hit the box, but increasing clearance on the front or rear is
easier than increasing clearance in the middle of a car.
This new point motor WILL BE 8-wide hell. If these things come to pass, I
will want them, as I am sure the rest of the GMLTC will. Will this cause
them to switch back to 6 wide rolling stock? And how will John Neal take
it? 8-wide and no switches or 6 wide and DCC? What a dilemma!
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> This new point motor WILL BE 8-wide hell. If these things come to pass, I
> will want them, as I am sure the rest of the GMLTC will. Will this cause
> them to switch back to 6 wide rolling stock? And how will John Neal take
> it? 8-wide and no switches or 6 wide and DCC? What a dilemma!
>
> Mike
But what a nice dilemma to have! (I'd vote for 8-wide trains...)
John Neal is too busy building *14* wide "G" scale cars... ;-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I realize that, but what if the simple installation of an automatic point
makes clearance of 8-wide trains impossible? Do we then not allow the
remote points on 8 wide layouts? What about layouts that are 6 wide, but
will connect to 8 wide train layouts? I would still prefer to run 8 wide,
but now it looks like there is an increase to the cost of switching to 8
wide in regards to the opportunity to have remote points, unless you build
your own.
This just makes me question where I stand. I don't mind making my own
points, but when others want to hook up to my layout and I have to tell them
to remove their new cool remote points to let my trains pass through
properly, I feel like it just won't really fly. I prefer 8 wide and I think
it is a lot better. Lego just doesn't seem to really want to make certain
that their designs can handle 8 wide (or extra long 6 wide) trains. I fear
that this is a problem that we will continue to run into, as it will be
unlikely that they will make certain that other train accessories in the
future are compatible with 8-wide trains.
I love the new things I see, but it just makes me a little sad to know that
the point motor could have been on the opposite side and allowed oversize
trains to pass, but was instead put on the current side to save money and
use the mold they already have. It also could have been redesigned to fix
the point geometry while they fixed the point motor location. Sure, I love
the 80% (of what we asked for) that we got, but we can see that it is highly
unlikely that we will get all of the remaining 20% of what we want.
Mike Poindexter
John Gerlach <john.gerlach@bestbuy.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FsB470.51p@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > This new point motor WILL BE 8-wide hell. If these things come to pass, • I
> > will want them, as I am sure the rest of the GMLTC will. Will this cause
> > them to switch back to 6 wide rolling stock? And how will John Neal take
> > it? 8-wide and no switches or 6 wide and DCC? What a dilemma!
> >
> > Mike
>
> But what a nice dilemma to have! (I'd vote for 8-wide trains...)
>
> John Neal is too busy building *14* wide "G" scale cars... ;-)
>
> JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, James Powell writes:
>
> > The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both • parts
> > of the point.
>
>
> > outside rails are always live (while there's power being applied to the
> > track) - the inner rails are switched on or off when the point changes, so
> > as it is wired, I believe it is correct.
>
> Yes, Huw, that is correct. However, why not have internal metal wires in the
> point? I would think it easier to make it so that the take off was from • within
> the tie bar than to have the external connection. However, I would view it as
> entirely possible that this is a preproduction model.
Yes, or that they have solved how to retrofit this mechanism to existing
points, or that they wanted to reuse the tooling for the current points ties
and subplate. Or that it's a hoax.
To people that think I am not willing to admit it's a hoax, I am. I just
happen to be currently convinced it's not based on the evidence so far (but I
haven't read all the way to the end of the group yet!, it could have been
revealed already)
>
> Someone else commented on the problems of the box being hit by trains, it
> shouldn't be, since it is onto the other end of the switch, so it should
clear.
I think the clearance problem comes from hitting the power connectors. 8wides
seem to need to have the power connectors on straight track for a good distance
either way or else overhangs sometimes clip them (especially if you've done
anything funky in your trucks or pilot, etc.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, James Powell writes:
> >
> > Someone else commented on the problems of the box being hit by trains, it
> > shouldn't be, since it is onto the other end of the switch, so it should
> clear.
>
> I think the clearance problem comes from hitting the power connectors. 8wides
> seem to need to have the power connectors on straight track for a good • distance
> either way or else overhangs sometimes clip them (especially if you've done
> anything funky in your trucks or pilot, etc.
>
> ++Lar
Lar and others:
The 8 wides WILL hit that box going through points. My DD40 cannot spur off
on a set of points unless the actual yellow point switch is removes, as it
ovehangs on the inside of the curve by too much. The box is way further
inside. Take a 6x48 train and you will very likely have the same results with
that remote point box that I have with the point switches. That was why I
suggested putting the point motor UNDER the switch, as it can be placed
anywhere and be very large and still remain hidden and not a problem.
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
Note, I will speak of a hypothetical remote control switch which just happens
to resemble something posted which may or may not be a hoax and which may or
may not be OK to talk about.
> Lar and others:
>
> The 8 wides WILL hit that box going through points.
Sigh. Well one could hope that it was done in a modular way. Moving the power
taps as it turns out is actually not that hard. Moving the actuator is.
> My DD40 cannot spur off
> on a set of points unless the actual yellow point switch is removes, as it
> ovehangs on the inside of the curve by too much. The box is way further
> inside. Take a 6x48 train and you will very likely have the same results with
> that remote point box that I have with the point switches. That was why I
> suggested putting the point motor UNDER the switch, as it can be placed
> anywhere and be very large and still remain hidden and not a problem.
Not if you're a plywooder.
Note that for the forseeable future, although I plan to build a module to spec,
my home layout will be table based.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Huw Millington writes:
>
> Andreas Stabno <stabno@megsinet.net> wrote in message
> news:FsAv72.EDJ@lugnet.com...
> > There's something that has been bothering me with those pictures of • automated
> > points and I finally realized what it is.
> >
> > The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both • parts
> > of the point. One is attached to the straight part and the other to the
> > curved piece. My electric knowledge isn't all that great, but I was under • the
> > impression that part of the point is isolated as the current is switched • from
> > one part to the other. Wouldn't this cause havoc with the motor
> connections?
>
> The outside rails are always live (while there's power being applied to the
> track) - the inner rails are switched on or off when the point changes, so
> as it is wired, I believe it is correct.
>
> Huw
Traditional model railways with DCC control have required the 'self-isolating'
points to be hard-wired so that there is power to both rails on both tracks at
all times. This is of course to allow not only movement of trains independant
of the track status but also accessories taking their power from the track
which may be situated at the end of an otherwise 'dead' siding.
Like the power connection to the point motor, there is no reason why this
should be externally wired. It's not like TLC to produce a messy set up like
this.
(Nice pictures, hoax or not.)
Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Andreas Stabno writes:
> There's something that has been bothering me with those pictures of automated
> points and I finally realized what it is.
>
> The power connectors to drive the switching motor are connected to both parts
> of the point. One is attached to the straight part and the other to the
> curved piece. My electric knowledge isn't all that great, but I was under the
> impression that part of the point is isolated as the current is switched from
> one part to the other. Wouldn't this cause havoc with the motor connections?
No. this is exactly where you would have to connect. The outer rails are
unswitched (think about it, they have no points in them, they're unbroken.
If this is a hoax, the hoaxer got this right.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Paul Rutenberg writes:
> > Hello
> > Look at following link, about time we get something before the USA, gtfthis • is
> > a scan of of upcoming sets for Lego end of the year, YEAHHHHHHHHH:
> > http://members.tripod.de/legoit/herbst2000.html
> >
> > A happy 9V Trasin Collector and builder
> > Paul
>
> Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
Also note that they are using many old pieces that haven't been used for
years, like the pitchfork and the 12v timetable sticker thing. And they have
the old necklace and workman torsos. And the Train logo is of very poor
quality. And on and on and on. Oh: and the only new piece is a motor. And
what logo is on top of the dcc thing?
Alan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Alan Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Jeff Stembel writes:
> >
> > Hmmm... Anyone besides me find these suspicious? The images just don't feel
> > right... Not to mention the font is wrong...
> Also note that they are using many old pieces that haven't been used for
> years, like the pitchfork and the 12v timetable sticker thing. And they have
> the old necklace and workman torsos. And the Train logo is of very poor
> quality. And on and on and on. Oh: and the only new piece is a motor. And
> what logo is on top of the dcc thing?
> Alan
None of this matters if this is a leaked mockup of preproduction models and
artwork that was created to give a sense of what an ad would look like.
There are lots of new pieces present.. motor, DCC controller, points
controller, short track, powered and unpowered spoker wheels in two sizes.
Just not many new brick elements.
Evaluate this as a leak (in which case we should stop talking about it, leaks
are verboten for discussion here) and not a single criticism is a knock out.
Sure, images got flipped because maybe one points is all that has been done so
far. Sure, some torsos might be off because they're from the parts bins.
etc. Sure, the track was faked because it hasn't been made yet. Sure, bars
and lines are perfect, that's because they were added to an image which has
never been printed so it could be seen what it looked like.
I just got preproduction artwork from a vendor mailed to me earlier today. It
has the same sorts of problems. Won't be there in the final version.
Still could be a hoax though.
++Lar
| | | | | | |
