 | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Agreed. Unfortunately, I don't see this thread as "working toward a common goal". Instead what I see is that J2 has went to every post that he didn't agree with and tried to refute it, point by point. If someone were trying to hypothetically (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Maybe you are on to something, Tony. Rather than try and get all of these folks into the mindset of evolving the 9 volt system, let TLC create a second, more realistic, prototype-modeling 8 wide train line. And TLC can still keep producing (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) "Not at all" what? You said "if the guy in charge asked what I would think" and I told you what I would say. Are you now speaking FOR this hypothetical person? (...) We'll see. We'll just see what we shall see. ++Lar (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Unusable??? Thought that was the beauty of LEGO (or have you *glued* all of your bricks?:-) What's so wrong with starting a new line? Nobody complained when they switched to 9 volt in 1991, and rendered all of the 12 volt stuff "usable". So (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A33E582.4335F9...est.net... (...) least (...) fair (...) real (...) larger (...) of (...) go (...) makes (...) or (...) of (...) saying (...) you (...) As someone who builds 'toy trains', I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
