 | | Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
Some questions which I would like all LTDs (LEGO Train Dudes) to ponder and discuss: What if the guy/gal in charge of designing LEGO trains posted here and asked, "Should we continue to design LEGO trains 6 wide or begin to design them 8 wide?" What (...) (24 years ago, 9-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains) !
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A32A16E.30CC55...est.net... (...) For me, when LEGO would ask I would prefer to keep it 6 wide. Why? Al my current rolling stock is 6 wide to match the 'look and feel' of the official sets I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) 6 wide. Why? because Lego is NOT to scale, and the amount of space I cover with traintrack is excessive as it is :). New curves, yes. 8 wide? No thanks. If I want scale models, I go downstairs and work on the P4 stuff. If I want large scale (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Ultimately, no, I suppose it doesn't much matter to me, as there'd still be the issue of particular prototypes and genres. Personally I prefer 8W, and North American prototype (or near to it). As long as the basics can be had, like track, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A32A16E.30CC55...est.net... (...) I'd prefer them to stay 6-wide. Moving to 8-wide would likely mean at least a 33% more bricks to build a train which means the cost would go up a fair (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I'd respond "Are you out of your mind?". If you think TLC 6 wide trains are too expensive, just think how bad 8 wide ones would be. 1/3 more in each direction == approximately double == 2x the cost. I don't think you have to worry that this is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) For me the basic point comes down to size. My layout is 9 X 20 and to increase it by 1/3 would mean I could never set all the modules up. Also as Larry point out increased cost would slow down developement. 8 wides are great for models, 10 or (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I have really enjoyed building eight wide, but I do not think it would be the right thing for LEGO to do. I think 8-wides would be too expensive. I also think that 8-wides would be too big. To have good size run of track for 6-wides takes up a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I just had a new thought I've not heard others mention. What if, instead of scaling up the trains to 8-wide, they scaled the track down to 6-wide? (!!!!!!) I just had the thought, so I don't know whether this would even work, but off the top (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, John Neal (<3A32A16E.30CC5580@...west.net>) wrote at 21:18:00 (...) I wouldn't be that bothered. When I get round to it, I'll be building 8 wide, but the wheelsets, couplers, etc are the same either way. Perhaps both sizes? A (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) 6 wide. I'd rather they continue to match past and current trains than start something new .My home layout doesn't have the clearances for 8 wide. I would also be concerned about the 8 wide cost vs. future 6 wides. (...) No. I can't see how (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I'd rather see GOOD 6-wide designs than BAD 8-wide designs. The recent LEGO trains (4559 & 4561) are just not very realistic trains. I think kids (and AFOLs) would rather have realistic looking trains. One of the issues is the North America (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I think that you can't have it both ways. MOCs IMO will always look bigger (and better) than TLC offerings, mainly because we are not limited by some imaginary price point TLC set designers are. So having the 2 side by side will always not be (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) This is my whole point! Are people happy with TLC producing "toy" trains, or would people like to see a move on the part of TLC to go to the next level of detail and sophistication in the trains theme! I hear a lot of people saying that they (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Not at all. (...) Never said that. (...) This "funny math" needs to be dispelled right now. True, it is 1/3 wider, but length is arbitrary according to how much you want to compress (even I compress BION). And height remains the same (I just (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
In lugn (...) Because no one else even comes _close_ to the price that Lego have for a 1/4"-1/2" model range. Old Hornby O goes for astronomical prices, new Lionel is just about as bad! (I mean, the current production hudsons are $500 USD...not in (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) *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...
|
|
"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...
|
|
"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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) "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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) Well, seems I didn't really specify to whom your response should be directed, and so I took your vague response personally. Now that we know you would respond that to them, why say you that? Anyway, maybe it would be a good thing that they (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A342C3A.27804F...est.net... (...) it (...) akin (...) I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I'm only a lurker in L.T right now - I'm not a serious buider yet, but one of the projects (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <3A33F533.F484ACC4@u...st.net>... (...) *will* (...) track. (...) year." I'd say HOORAY to that! Kevin (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Hear Hear, 6 or 8 either way bigger radius curves, 1/2 and 1/4 length straight track would be welcomed by all. If TLG wants sales to all, make a track adjustment pack available. While their at it "Y" and "X" points would be a nice addition (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) What is the common goal??? That's what I'm trying to establish . Would people still want toywides or would they want something more? Do people just want more metroliners in 5 colors, or something more? *Do people really care, or would they (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) My final verdict? 1.Continue current 9V line with optional DCC upgrade (decoders in the power trucks). 2.Offer couplers similar to Aristo-Craft G-scale trains(spring-loaded knuckle couplers)with option of continuing with current magnetic (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Hmmm... I'm going to come down on the other side from most of the posts in this thread. I'd really like to see Lego produce some 8 wide train models. Personally, I build in 6, 7 or 8 wide. I mix and match them on the same train and I don't (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
"John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:3A32A16E.30CC55...est.net... (...) 6 wide please regards lawrence (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, John Neal (<3A342C3A.27804FD4@...west.net>) wrote at 01:22:12 (...) This was what I was thinking. (...) ...which is not unreasonable, if you are a 10 year old, and have to play with it in your bedroom & take it down before you (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) 8 wides will be more expensive. Even if height remains the same - and based on the 8-wides constructed so far within the GMLTC that's not necessarily the case - you're still expanding the footprint by 1.33 * 1.33 = 1.75 area increase, and (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) I too was thinking this. Keep all the current compatibility with the 9V track, but add the occasional 8-wide model. Kevin's "BigRed" was a great high-light at our show, just sitting there on its own track segment looking good while all the (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
Matthew Greene <hrcpins4us@aol.com> wrote in message news:G5DuuA.7AD@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) would (...) And standard points without the double curve!! ROSCO (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, SRC (<G5FCJJ.J68@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:16:31 (...) So true. All we are talking about here is a difference in the loading gauge. The only incompatibility is trackside clearances. Model Trains would make an excellent *addition* (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) That's not quite accurate. Maybe nobody complained in Lugnet newsgroups... Anyway, add me to the list of likely complainers if they changed the gauge. I can handle a change in couplers, though. /Eric McC/ (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) That's because, if they change the couplers, one would hopefully still be able to use the current couplers (which I find adaquate, although hard to uncouple) with the new couplers. I'd like to see 2 'styles' of Kadee type coupler, with one (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
|
(...) Wouldn't it be better to separate buffers and couplers? I'm thinking of the individual buffers that used to be produced. As far as trucks and couplers go, I think a talgo config would prolly work best (although not prototypical). -John (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
