Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:22:12 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@stopspamUSWEST.NET
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, John Neal (<3A32A16E.30CC5580@uswest.net>) wrote at
> 21:18:00
>
> > 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?
>
> 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 sort of Model Team Train theme.
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 4561-type sets (or even 4558 for that matter) for all
of those who want their toy train line that is compatible with trains from
1964. And they can play with their 4533s and dream of acquiring the rare
3225...
And let those of us who want new couplers, trucks, better details, more
realism, etc., have our train line. Call it "Model Trains". Aim it at
ALTDs instead of kids, for LTCers who show off LEGO at train shows. Keep it
to scale with the minifig, but make it 8 wide. But I bet that if they did
that, people would abandon the old 9 volt system in a New York minute, akin
to the mass exodus from RTL to LUGNet.
-John
> > 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?
>
> The track thing is width independent, and would be an absolutely
> brilliant development. DCC would be cool, as would the eventual works,
> but I want the track first.
> >
> > Or, if TLC just out of the blue started producing 8 wide trains, how
> > would you feel about it? Would you just accept it and build from there,
> > or would you feel that 6 wide was better and consider it another bad
> > move by TLC? Or would you just be happy that TLC was producing more
> > trains again-- 6 wide, 8 wide--whatever?
>
> Speaking as someone who can still afford to buy 'good' (ie. old) MISB 9V
> sets, I don't have a problem with the extra expense that would
> inevitably be involved. It's up to the TLC MGs to work out if they could
> sell enough.
> --
> Tony Priestman
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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...
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
