 | | And now for something completely different....
|
|
... for me anyway! When Dean Earley announced on the <http:\www.brickish.org Brickish Association> forum that he was building the GP38-2B using the BNSF set and linked to a (URL) photo> of the real thing my curiosity was piqued. I did some research (...) (19 years ago, 29-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.announce.moc, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote: SNIP That's really lovely. Looks a bit incomplete without an A unit, but still.... Would love to see it with Ross Neal's GP-38. Legoswami (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Tim David wrote: ...snip... (...) ...snip... Hello Tim, Very nice model. You really catched it in six wide. Thank you for sharing. Philippe "frogleap" Label, FreeLUG member. (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
(...) Which one, his 2-wide version or his 8-wide version? I think that the combination of this 6-wide B Unit and either of those would look a bit silly :) I guess this would be an example of three great things that go together badly (as opposed to, (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
(...) What, (URL) this A unit>? (...) Was looking at that earlier, I though it was a (URL) GP50> tho' Have to agree, it wasn't built to be very accurate, but as a speedy method to get building after a spot of 'builders-block' and to go with the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
(...) Whoops, my bad, Ross's is labeled GP50. (...) I wasn't commenting on the accuracy of your model, I was just making a silly size joke. After all, Ross "Son of 8-wide" Neal builds a bit bigger. I think your B-Unit is great regardless of size. (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | US MOC loco numbering
|
|
(...) This brings me to a question that was bothering me when i was looking throught the NMRA photos. I don't know my US loco classes by sight so I was looking up the numbers to find what the MOCs represented. None of them seemed to have correct (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: US MOC loco numbering
|
|
(...) Someone didn't check the published rosters? Every railroad has their own scheme, which they violate with impunity when they want to, or if they run out of numbers (UP just started a second reporting mark for locos because they had run out of 4 (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: US MOC loco numbering
|
|
(...) I just liked the number-- it's palindromic fun! :-) For the most part, actually, I choose that number for the ease of it. On the decal itself, there were 2 numbers "8003", along with the usual 0,1,2,3,4.... Now, obviously, one can create any (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
(...) D'oh. I screwed up the names :-S Anyway, yeah, I WAS referring to the GP-50. Legoswami (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: And now for something completely different....
|
|
Hi Tim --SNIP-- (...) --SNIP Nice and sleek (and thin). (...) Thanks for the advice. (...) That's excellent work. I really like the way you've varied the grill styles and used the 10133 Cowcatchers. Nice photography too! Tim G (19 years ago, 2-Aug-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
