Subject:
|
Re: GMLTC going 8 wide
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:13:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
771 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
> Believe it or don't, I had absolutely no input to the decision for the GMLTC
> to go 8 wide -- in fact, as you well know cuz you weren't a stranger to
> dishing it out, I took all kinds of heat and ridicule for my 8 wide MOCs....
> Then Conan saw the light....;-)
EXCUSE ME????? What sort of revisionist history rewrite is this????
John Neal whined for months for the GMLTC to go 8-wide instead of 6-wide.
And after we couldn't take his whining anymore we broke down and voted 'yes'.
And NOW he wants us to run train cars that are 60 studs long -- even though
the REST OF THE GROUP agreed that 8-wide x 44 studs long was a workable and
realistic maximum size... John Neal won't be happy until we're building at
12" = 1' scale. (That's *life sized*!)
Methinks John Neal needs some more ventilation in his print shop, he's
obviously been breathing too many fumes again...
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: GMLTC going 8 wide
|
| (...) :-) (...) (I stuffed the ballot box;-) (...) For most cars. J-1 refers to my impressive but long passenger cars, but hey, I'm modeling an 80 foot long train car here! Even at 60 studs I am compressing, so I will continue to "whine";-) (...) (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Acela ver2: Magnetic nose coupler
|
| (...) Trollman, that's exactly the myth, the myth (Yeth?;) I have been talking about. There really isn't any big difference between 8 wide and 6 wide except that when you look at a 6 wide from its ends, it looks too tall for its width and looks (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
16 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
|
|
|
|
