 | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking... —John R. Clark
|
| | | (...) 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... —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) 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... —James Powell
|
| | | | | (...) *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
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... —Charles Eric McCarthy
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... —James Powell
|
| | | | | | (...) 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... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hypothetically Speaking... —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
