 | | 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 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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
(...) 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 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...
|
|
(...) 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)
|
