 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
