 | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A33E042.D55AD1...est.net... (...) official (...) currently (...) probably (...) designed (...) wide (...) bigger (...) will (...) Take a look at my trainstation: (URL) see my style of (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) *will* license with Kadee® to produce trucks and couplers which will fit O scale track. After that, you are on your own, and we will release 10 new locos/cars a year." (...) Ick. Worst possible solution, because it renders 30 years of Lego (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) The major drawback to going smaller is that, if you scale back to 6 wide, you will alienate the minifig. They would become almost 7 feet tall (Remember, 4 wide is HO scale; 6 wide isn't much larger than that). But speaking of scaling back, O (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) No, because one will have the choice of 4' or 60cm curves (IIRC, they are 60 cm, too lazy to find the box for my 7710 to check) So, it will only matter to people like me who have fixed room layouts, and event then, not all that much, because (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Larry's all wet with his 1/3 this and 1/3 that blah blah. 8 wide trains are just that-- 2 studs wider than your trains-- that's all. Why ever would you think you'd need to increase the size of a huge layout like yours by a third???? But you (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
