Subject:
|
Re: New train MOCs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Jul 2000 04:46:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane/nospam/.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1002 times
|
| |
|
|
I do not know about the EMD GP38 or the SD40-2, but usually the high nose was
for generating steam for passneger trains. I am sure if I have this info wrong
I'll be corrected, but I think I am right.
Chris
Tom Cook wrote:
> "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:397CB609.952CFB25@uswest.net...
> > Great work, Tom. I like the layout of your page-- very clean. And great
> > looking MOCs. You are too good for 6 wide (come to the dark side;)
> >
> > Tom Cook wrote:
> >
> > > I just updated my page with some new train MOCs. Please take a look and
> > > tell me what you think.
> > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cook_thomas/
> > >
> > > New creations include: EMD GP38, EMD SD40-2
> >
> > I found the high noses on your EMDs interesting. Are you working from
> > specific pics? I wasn't aware of high nose versions in these make (when I • see
> > high nose, I think GP-9).
>
> Yes, I worked from prototype photos. Southern Railway liked high nose
> units.
>
> > > , Wide Vision Caboose,
> >
> > I like the caboose, although your posts are way too thick. Even at 14 • wide I
> > used flex tubing for mine-- would probably look okay at 6-8 wide too.
>
> hmmm....yes. I will try that. Thanks for the idea.
>
> > > Centerbeam Flat, Coil Car, Front Runner, High Cube, Hopper, Stock Car, • Twin
> > > 45, and Wagontop Box Cars.
> >
> > Nice variety. You are raising the bar, as Lar would say, for 6 widers-- 8
> > wide, too, for that matter:-)
>
> Thanks.
>
> > -John
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of you may have already seen glimpses of these MOCs in the pics
> > > (http://www.peeron.com/pics/Chantilly/) from the latest www.WAMALUG.org
> > > exhibit.
> >
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: New train MOCs
|
| (...) My understanding of it is that if the engine has both Dynamic Brakes and a Steam heater, that problems with space resulted, so you ended up with a high nose. I also think that this is less true in the more modern engines, which usually have (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: New train MOCs
|
| "Christopher Masi" <cmasi@cmasi.chem.tulane.edu> wrote in message news:397D1BA5.385EED...ane.edu... (...) was (...) wrong (...) Southern Railway (among a few others in North America) prefered to run their diesels "long hood forward" for safety, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
| | | Re: New train MOCs
|
| (...) In general, yes. But SR and N&W tended to run long hood first (for crash protection) so saw no reason to have a low hood on what to them was the "back end", since low hoods actually cost more, IIRC (the steel fab work for a high nose was less (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New train MOCs
|
| "John Neal" <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message news:397CB609.952CFB...est.net... (...) see (...) Yes, I worked from prototype photos. Southern Railway liked high nose units. (...) wide I (...) hmmm....yes. I will try that. Thanks for the idea. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jul-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
26 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
|
|
|
|
