 | | Re: //WWW.BAYLUG.ORG (weavers)
|
|
(...) Tom Stangl wrote: (...) Well, rather than SPAM the trains and SF list with website/HTML talk, I've created a small mailing list for the webmasters on the BayLUG site If you have comments and suggestions, you can send them to "weavers" at (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: economics of set 3225
|
|
(...) While we're being pedantic, it's not TLG that is wrong, it's the US Lego Shop at Home service that is wrong. S@H may be part of TLG but it is not TLG. S@H (and LEGO Systems Inc of North America) seem to make up their own names for things (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: economics of set 3225
|
|
(...) Blimey! I've just looked those sets up. 2150 is exactly the same as the station I've got, except it's red instead of yellow. That looks incredible. I want one of them as well. Oh dear. I'm not going to have any money at all soon. I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Got One of Last Freight Loading Station
|
|
Robin, Yes, 4555 is a great set. The only thing I didn't like was the truck design, so I made it look 100% better (In my humble opinion, anyway!) Have fun building it! Isn't that what Lego sets are all about? :) Scott Sanburn (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: economics of set 3225
|
|
Hay, The TLG has been wrong for years! Long before Town Jr. just look at some of the old S@H catalogs. Robin :) P.S. I like this set(3225) good parts at good price but I think they can do better. (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
