|
|
 | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) I guess I really really don't see the need for a moc group... what would be left after you take the mocs away? I don't think any other theme has separated out mocs, has it? After all isn't just about everything we do a moc? Help me understand (...) (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) Oh, it still is. But allowances must be made, after all... a DCCized motor is a good thing that outweighs any impurity. Or does it? Gee... maybe you HAVE rubbed off on me. (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| well if it goes, on the same note, lugnet.trains.moc? Sort out the trains group so you can follow one subject matter? I like the thought of DCC, I'm gonna start fooling around with it after I do a test Run, & maybe a learners run on an HO model... (...) (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| <snip> (...) required (...) </snip> I must be rubbing off on you Lar. Before now, ANY mutilation of parts was considered sacrilegious blasphemy by you! :P Rob "Have Lego, Will Dremel" Hendrix (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
| | | | | Re: lugnet.trains.dcc?
|
| (...) It may make sense from a compartmentalization standpoint but has the volume been that great? I admit of bias since it's a topic of interest, but I'm not thinking it's high enough that we NEED to do this. As for mutilation of parts... ??? There (...) (21 years ago, 12-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
|
