 | | Re: 10017 Mini-Hopper —Mark Palmer
|
| | | Interesting, I came up with a similar design last year, (URL) is literally half of 10017. Mark "Harvey Henkelman" <Ferroequus@webtv.net> wrote in message news:H83nMp.Mr2@lugnet.com... (...) only (...) 10017 (...) in (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jan-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 10017 Mini-Hopper —Harvey Henkelman
|
| | | | | (...) Your trains are colorful and excellently rendered. Who says 'bigger is better' is best? I like strings of smaller waggons as they have more of a dramatic effect. Don't let the building stop now, -Harvey (22 years ago, 2-Jan-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 10017 Mini-Hopper —Kevin McMillin
|
| | | | (...) Very nice, Harvey and Mark. I must agree that bigger is never necessarily better. Although it's nice to see a long line of rolling stock on a track, I personally prefer cars that are 16 studs or less. This allows to make fixed axle cars, and (...) (22 years ago, 2-Jan-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: 10017 Mini-Hopper —Harvey Henkelman
|
| | | | (...) It's interesting how two people can take divergent paths when it comes to their ideas for making a set smaller while still preserving the overall effect. I'm waiting for more tan slopes and 6×12 plates so I can remove those clumsy tie rods (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-03, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
