 | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Steve Martin
|
| | | (...) individuals... That would be great to go to eight wide trains. The only thing that I would want is for TLC to make available the pieces necessary to upgrade the old trains. Things like nose pieces, replacement motors, and wagon plates. I'm I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | Dollars to donuts, no matter what the change is, it won't be to go 8 wide... RCX width is primarily due to the battery. Microscout is only 4 wide if you don't count non key mounting stuff... I think. (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll take that bet. If TLC was smart, they'd change everything-- points, trucks, curves, even the magnet coupling. A change to 8 wide would be a natural evolution. Of course, they could come out with stuff to run on G scale track like (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | There is a dark side to TLG going to 8 wide. Here goes.... Current 6 wide trains are $130-150. So, if 8 wide is 33 percent bigger (2/6) will the sets be 33% more exspensive. Maybe LEGO will use big single piece wall parts and specialty pieces to (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, it is both worse and better than that. Going 8 wide means going longer, too. That means that trains will be 78% larger, assuming that height remains the same. I would figure that it would be about twice as big as a 6 wide train. (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | Good points...going from 700 to 1200 pieces would be 500 piece increase, or $57.50 increase based on an 11.5¢ per piece estimate. Which would be right around $200. But $200 is alot of money, and many people already balk at the $150 price tag. If it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Mike Poindexter (<FqD42y.7FB@lugnet.com>) wrote at 02:54:34 (...) This could be *very* good news, because they'll have to introduce a larger radius curve for longer stock. (...) It's unlikely they'll just add more bricks. To (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. (...) I could live with larger pieces, as long as they are the *right* pieces;-) Train fronts (split), nose shells, specialty items (fans), railings, new trucks. Let them accent play, give us the tools and we will accent the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, John Neal (<38B40110.28868009@...west.net>) wrote at 15:47:29 (...) That's where I was going as well. If it was compatible with the existing 9V stuff (in terms of usable parts), it would be monstrously good. (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | (...) And I suppose you'll want it weatherproof, so you can have a garden railroad, right? I'll be happy if they come out with some decent looking 6 (or 8) wide trains that actually look like trains... The 4559 was a joke, the 4561 isn't much (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | (...) TLG have got to sell this to the larger market - kids, or more specifically, parents buying for kids. If the scale gets too big, and the radius of the curves gets too large, there is a danger that parents will look at the space required for a (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I might have thought that too except for the existence of Playmobil trains... Playmobil was smart in choosing an existing track gauge (G) and therefore didn't even necessarily need to support its own products with track, etc. (...) You can't (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) the (...) etc. (...) didn't (...) Oh, before anyone gets into too much of a tizzy about Playmobil trains...they are on there 3rd incarnation. The first one was made by Fallar (sp), the German Kit maker. (Play train/Hit Train) and they were to (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not to be picky, but there have been 3 voltages: 4.5v, 9v, and 12v. I've never seen any 12v and played with 4.5v once, a long time ago, so I can't comment on the gauge of the different tracks. Ben Roller (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —Jason Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Just going to pop in here: The gauges are indeed the same, or close enough. My 4.5v will run on 9v no prob (well, I swapped the motor with the 9v, but the cars work just fine), and 9v cars will work on 4.5v track. And I belive that 12v is (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | | | Jason Brown wrote in message <38B42F60.9B907B00@m...es.edu>... (...) never (...) comment on (...) Yep, of course the 4.5V being battery operated will work on ANY track! I assume you can combine 12V and 9V if you don't use any turnouts or crossings, (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains? —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | (...) never (...) Not in NA. Only 2 voltages, plus the push trains in NA. 12V was _never_ available here from Lego Canada or Lego USA. The 12V was also concurent with the 4.5V, and most sets were availabe essencially the same (the 4.5V train was (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) I've NEVER understood why Lego didn't make nose pieces split to begin with. Then they could make each half 2-wide, and you could insert slopes between them to make them any width you want. Then they'd only have to worry about making 6/8/10/12 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | | | | By making the nose split however you would run into an issue with the trans-yellow headlamp piece. The only solution I can think of would be to use two light bulbs to light-up both sides. -Nick Tom Stangl wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Technic brick with a lens in the center? I'm not sure I follow what the problem is, exactly... can you elaborate? (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | | | | | The lower half of the nose piece has two square openings. To my knowledge only the special trans-yellow "Y" will fit into these square openings and allow a single bulb to illuminate the right and left side simultaneously. If you increase the spacing (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | Ah. (...) Right. Make that square opening thing into a separate brick. If you widen the nose you can leave it centered. (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | Oh oh oh...another problem with 8 wide (main reason I am avoiding it): anyone recall how many engines John uses for his 8 wide stuff? Eight wide is going to weight a lot (unless there is exstensive use of thinwalls). Eight wide trains are going to (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | Christopher Masi wrote: Yes, Mr Horshack? ;-) (...) No, they be heavy;-D But it's all relative. They are feathers compared to my 14 wides{:^D (...) I use 2 motors in my 8 wide engines. To tell the truth, I'd use 2 motors in 6 wides, too, because (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | Christopher Masi <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:38B42AE5.D23FB9...ane.edu... (...) anyone recall (...) weight a lot (...) to hit the (...) both current (...) pushed (...) high enough (...) the technology (...) it another (...) (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Steve Martin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I think Mike has gotten to the crux of the problem. All the issues brought up are merely technical puzzles to solve. Personally, my investment in my 5 trains and assorted train items wouldn't hold me back from 8 wide. Again, I think if TLC is (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) To clarify, I was running at the end 89 cars with 3 motors on the point. The circuit is 124 pieces long, and I had a gap of 4 pieces. So, total length was 1920 studs, with a average length per car of 21 studs. (somewhat longer than a 16 plate (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) OOh, before Lar jumps in here ranting about compression, blah, blah, blah and the flames start igniting(;) I will say these two things about 8 wide. First, I feel 8 wide *is* MF scale; it just allows for a little more interior room (Also, see (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) wide. (...) the (...) feel (...) see (...) LEGO (...) narrow (...) nothing (...) Whatever you choose, most Lego trains (of old) were loosely based on European prototypes. The "correct" width assuming 4'8 1/2" track gauge will of course depend (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) You make a good blah, blah [1] -John [1] (point;-) BTW, what is the width of a TGV et al? (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | snip lots of valid points (...) I agree totally. The problem really lies within me. I like the 8 wide stuff I have seen. John's Hiawatha (?) is beautiful! Barbra's (?) mototrain is gorgeous, and it is simply not possible to put the the stuff she had (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | Christopher Masi <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:38B46A14.581C66...ane.edu... (...) but (...) stuff I (...) her 8 (...) brainer (...) See comment below (...) but (...) SD40-2 (...) look (...) thought (...) which (...) thought (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Another 6wide/8wide ramble was: Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Ben Fleskes
|
| | | | | | | | Your right, I'm against 8 wide and havn't built any 8 wide. Why not? Lots of reasons: 1) 8 wide demands larger scenery and buildings. If your logic for building 8 wide is because LEGO minifig trucks are 6 wide then you should make all your buildings (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble was: Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) What is wrong with larger scenery and buildings? You should check out Legoland sometime;-) Seriously, you don't have to build ginormous structures-- we are still talking MF scale here. I will now *have* to take some photos of my double stall (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Ben Roller
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think this point is key. 8 widers seem to think of Lego trains as models, where a majority of 6 widers (there are exceptions) see them as toys. My opinion is that 6 or 8 wide in your own collection is up to you, but Lego needs to keep making (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Ben Roller <broller@clemson.edu> wrote in message news:FqGGKz.C3G@lugnet.com... (...) attitude, (...) models, (...) needs (...) some (...) toys. (...) I say they should make what people want. If some people want 8 wide trains, then they should look (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Andreas Frank Werner
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | (...) The problem with TLC is that they DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. The old 12V trains were too complicated for younger children and needed much care. Thus, they were replaced by the easier-to-handle 9V ones. The trend continues; modern sets consist of (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Jonathan Reynolds
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) By the same token, An 8-wide tarin layout in the same area as a 6-wide layout will (from a distance) look MORE toy-like simply because the trains will have a shorter run before 'chasing their tails'. Or, put another way, if you are into (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Unless, of course, your layout is 22' long like the GMLTC's is (and growing;) (...) Not true. I rabbit sleep time;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:38B70743.BC3916...est.net... (...) layout (...) have (...) are (...) your (...) wide) (...) inter- (...) growing;) (...) I think that a more accurate measurement of size would be running feet of (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) Yes. Here is a schematic: (URL) That is 108 large gray baseplates, or 168.75 square feet, which is (...) lol Mike, I applaud your devotion-- all I can say is....GET HELP (building;) (...) Absolutely we will have to:-) J-1 and I have been (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | Oh, did I just get psyched out. I checked you layout outline and the pointer turned into a finger, and I thought, "WOW, a map to the layout. Very nice." I clicked and got the layout outline again...d'Oh! Actually, it is nice to see the organization (...) (25 years ago, 26-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Put me down in the exception column. I do models. Just not scale models. I don't design for play value, I design for evokation of a look within the imposed palette limitations. This may be semantics but I suspect most of us, across all genres, (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —Tony Priestman
|
| | | | | | | | | | On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<38B5C904.EF423D8@v...ager.net>) wrote at 00:12:52 (...) Not actually being in either column at the moment, I must say that my perception points to more people being in Larry's column than the toy one. At least (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Kelly
|
| | | | | | | | | | I'm in it as a toy builder!! And even though I don't think I'm switching over any time soon, John Neal's 8wides are very nice. Just tougher for me to play with!!! -john 3 (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Toy vs Model...The real issue (was Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) That's why I put a rim of tiles on my 8 wide passenger coaches' roofs, J-3! {;^D -John (...) (25 years ago, 25-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Another 6wide/8wide ramble —Nick Goetz
|
| | | | | | | | I just purchased a few three foot high trees for my back yard. They cost about $40. I guess I will have to return them to the nursery and say "Nope! Nope! These trees are too small. I need trees that are at least 20 feet tall. A guy on the Internet (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | Tom Stangl <toms@netscape.com> wrote in message news:38B41F69.3A1A53...ape.com... (...) pieces;-) (...) with. Then (...) to make (...) 6/8/10/12 wide (...) <shudder> (...) With the extra size, it is much easier to make to nose look proper with (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of LEGO Trains ? was Re: Model Railroad Scenery —Ludo Soete
|
| | | | (...) Lets hope, if so, that we can remote control the points too (with DCC signals as Maerklin does). And that we get more related stuff too, as signal posts, different style points,... Regards, Ludo (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
