Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:25:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
705 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
> John Neal wrote:
> > What's so wrong with starting a new line? Nobody complained when they
> > switched to 9 volt in 1991 ...
>
> 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.
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 having buffers and one without.
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
