 | | Re: 5 points<long post> —John Gerlach
|
| | | (...) Ok, since you asked: 1: Larger radius curved track. The current track geometry is good for small layouts, but difficult to work with for larger trains and larger layouts. There are rumors that LEGO is already working on this. 2: Larger driver (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Yup. (...) Yup. (...) I'd settle for a complete overhaul of train wheels to American-style Bettendorf trucks. This possibly would be my number 1. Redesign the couplers, but I'm going to use non-LEGO anyway, so I really don't care if they do or (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) I am beginning to think that there is no real hope for this from TLC. I just don't think they can justify the R&D cost, the production ramp up cost, and the division of volume amongst more track components. The current track components work (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Huw Millington
|
| | | | "John Gerlach" <john.gerlach@bestbu...ospam.com> wrote in message news:H0DKpp.9nt@lugnet.com... (...) Let's hope so, but let's hope also that the turnout geometry is fixed to allow a proper crossover between two tracks a standard width apart and (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I would argue that the 4.5v/12v turnouts have a better geometry than the 9v. Adjacent tracks touching looks a lot better (and gets more yard into a small space) than adjacent tracks being so far apart. Of course the 4.5v/12v geometry (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Steve Barile
|
| | | | "Even the wooden track systems don't have than many different pieces, and that's a toy system almost exclusively for trains." Perhaps I miss read this, but Brio has a ton of track elements... Straights: 2", 4.25", 5.5", 8.5", & ramps. Curves: 3.5", (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Frank Filz
|
| | | | (...) bridges... I wouldn't count ramps and bridges, at least in comparison to LEGO or other track systems (though these days you can get HO bridge track from at least one manufacturer, and bridge track is different from normal straight track, and (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | | "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:H0E9Fv.F7u@lugnet.com... (...) [ ... snip ... ] (...) to (...) All of them. There is enough slop in the way Brio track connects that kids can make just about anything work. We have a layout (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) My point was not can they make an interesting layout with the pieces, but more do they actually make parallel tracks and such using the differing radii. (...) A 1/4 or 1/2 section would be real nice (we really only need the 1/4 section), and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 5 points<long post> —Dan Voelkerding
|
| | | | (...) the (...) I remember about all of it, and whenever I go to a childrens store I play with the Brio a little bit. I also had 3-way switches, that was a while ago though. But when I was real young, I had awesome layouts in the same part of my (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
