 | | 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)
| | | | | 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?
|
| (...) 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, yes, there are the motors: (2 URLs) But, why then stop there? Slice that wire: (URL) Drill those plates: (2 URLs) Saw some track: (URL) Solder a switch: (URL) Drill'em, burn'em: (URL) Mwaaahahahaha... Whoa... Ahem... It's a slippery (...) (21 years ago, 13-Sep-03, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
| |
