Subject:
|
Re: Great train related web sites?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 May 2001 15:32:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
632 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> I think both have their merits. "G" or "Large Scale" as John more aptly puts
> it is nice because of its size and with size certain details can become
> clearer. I do think at least these USA "G" scale models tend to be a bit
> short. I also think many of us make our models a bit short because of the
> tight turning radiuses we are forced to use.
There's a perfect example, thanks Eric! I agree with you, you *need* to make
things selectively compressed in length, but my point is that I prefer to
make that decision starting from an accurate depiction, instead of thinking
that something that has already been shortened is the right length.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Great train related web sites?
|
| (...) Bah! You are right I was just tierd. I had been looking at GP9's just previously and must have been confused getting myself... :-) (...) I think both have their merits. "G" or "Large Scale" as John more aptly puts it is nice because of its (...) (24 years ago, 25-May-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
38 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
