Subject:
|
Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Sep 2000 02:33:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1709 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Dan Parker writes:
>
> Iow, 'purity' is a sliding line, and I'd support adapting O-equipment if TLG
> bailed on us.
Yes. I'd do it. I'd support it. I just wouldn't *like* it as much. But I'm
much less pure than I was. If someone made a viable DCC kit that was
installable by a guy who usually picks up the wrong end of the soldering iron,
I'm there. If someone makes a well packaged coupler that improves on the
magnets, I'm there. If someone makes track that interoperates, I'm there.
And that's just what I'd accept assuming TLC didn't bail 100% but also didn't
supply these items. If they DO bail, anything goes. It just won't be as much
fun.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
| (...) Wouldn't you also go for wheels? Howabout an uncoupling ramp to go with the Kadee couplers (hey, I want nothing less than the best for couplers, if were going to go non-LEGO there, let's do it right). In some ways, the things I see most likely (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Train Purity (was Got NMRA? (was....
|
| In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes: ....whether or not someone would accept non-LEGO (...) Hey, the concept of 'purity' itself could be greatly debated. What's the difference between string supplied in the Pirate sets and track used for train (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
70 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
|
|
|
|
