Subject:
|
Re: Hypothetically Speaking...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:46:31 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.%stopspammers%net
|
Viewed:
|
1358 times
|
| |
|
|
James Powell wrote:
> 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.
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
>
>
> James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
