Subject:
|
Re: Even More MOC Cars
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jul 2000 15:49:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
684 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Richard W. Schamus writes:
> Well, now you aren't cause I just posted the blasted URL again.
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=850
OK, thanks. I went and looked at them. Some interesting ideas there. Tank cars
are hard to do, that's for sure. I'm a fan of "busy", as real industrial things
tend to have a lot of things sticking out, small handles, hatches, valves, etc.
especially if they are older and have had mods made to them over time. Stuff
accretes.
That said, I think you may have went a bit too far. Especially with the blue
tanker. Did you have a specific prototype in mind? All that clutter isn't quite
convincing me of anything.
And finally, except for really old old cars most tanks in the US tend to not
have full frames (meaning don't use wagon plates, which I'm not a big fan of
anyway) but rather the tank itself adds a lot of structural integrity and has
small platforms (or nothing at all other than something stikcing out of the
bottom) that the trucks connect to.
That is so tough to model it's no wonder that hardly anyone manages to pull it
off. I sure haven't...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Even More MOC Cars
|
| (...) things (...) etc. (...) quite (...) Well, No, no, and... ummm no. I didn't have a prototype in mind other than what I wanted it to look like. So, it's not modeled after any specific type of tanker. Some of the busy thing help to hide all the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 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
|
|
|
|
