Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:14:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1038 times
|
| |
|
|
Matthew Greene wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> > 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 would be your response? Would you care
> > necessarily? What if he/she also said, "We're also going to offer
> > larger radius track curves, new points, DCC; eventually the works."
> > Would that influence your preference between 6/8 wide?
>
> 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.
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 of my head, here's some benefits:
-- 6-wides trains are criticised for looking too small on the track. This
would rebalance the look.
-- More track could be fit in less space.
-- With a reworking of the entire track system, many of the other features
previously discussed could be added.
Obviously, buying new track, trucks, and motors would be expensive, especially
for those like myself who have a large investment in all three. (Although
anyone who wanted to sell their existing inventory to purchase such a new
system would probably find that the sale of newly "collectible" elements would
offset much of the cost, especially since new, smaller elements would be
slightly less expensive (or at least not MORE expensive). Wouldn't help me, of
course. I still haven't sold my 12v track, even though I never use it...)
Okay. I gotta at least see what this'd look like. Be right back...
...
I just mocked up 2 straights and 2 curves using 4.5v rails and 1x6 plates. Then
I replaced the wheelsets on one of my wagons with 2x2, double-pin bricks. I put
wheels without tires on the pins, and put the car on the "track." I pushed it
back and forth and looked at it through squinty eyes (and felt like I was in
the 70s!).
And I can't decide. It might look okay. The curve definitely seems to be less
severe. But the trucks seem too small. I just don't know. I wish I could post
pics so y'all could see too. If there's curiosity, maybe someone with more
accessible web resources will whip up a similar prototype and post it.
Well, anyway, it's more hypothetics.
> 8 wides are great for models, 10 or 12 wides are probably even better, but
> for an operating layout, 6 wide is the right size for me.
Me too.
Rick Clark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
