 | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | Manfred: (...) Why is it labeled "4.5V"? It works quite fine for 12V trains too (just to make sure we get a long discussion :-). (...) Yes. We might want to remember the 12V power tracks too. (...) Actually I distinguish between "unpowered", "12V", (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | (...) My 12V trains don't move when I put them on the 4.5V-only track :) Now seriously, maybe we could drop the "4.5" from the name and replace it with "old" but I don't think it's going to be a good idea. Of course we'd have to keep the current (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Leonardo: (...) Neither do mine. - But they don't move on the so-called 12V track either. :) (...) So am I (but then we can't discuss :). (...) Makes sense. (...) The stuff we mostly use for 9V trains. Actually I like to use 2nd and 3rd generation (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I fear I am about to be inconsistent with something I said before... but maybe what we are trying to distinguish with 4.5v and 9v is confusing us. 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen would work... if we can't come up with something better. But what if we use (...) (25 years ago, 8-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | Hello all, This mail contains answers to Jacob Sparre Andersen, Larry Pieniazek and Chris Dee . (...) The track supplement sets 7850 (straight, containing parts #3228 and #4166) and 7851 (curved, containing parts #3229, #3230 and #4166) where (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Snipped most of a well thought out posting. (...) I agree with your ordering, and tapered is a better descriptor than rounded. Where I differ is in the use of 4.5 V, 12 V and 9 V in the naming. While I don't think gen 1, 2 or 3 are good, these (...) (25 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Manfred Moolhuysen
|
| | | | In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes: [Snipped] (...) Hmmm, hmmm, that might actually work, but I think it's just a tiny bit more complicated as you think. Please keep in mind that there are track parts implicitly intended for either the 4.5 V (...) (25 years ago, 12-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Yes! Excellent compromise! It's got the key stuff up front and the fact that not all parts are 4.5v specific or 9v specific comes out clearly. Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn wrote: <very nice work, all of which I snipped> (...) I'll say! :-) Now say (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Track parts naming scheme survey —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn wrote: <snipped it again!> Except I think you forgot the sleeper, or else I missed it. it's neither 12v or 4.5v so it ought to be Train Track Sleeper or Train Track Slotted Sleeper but I'm not sure which. (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
