Subject:
|
Knee-biting Amtrak Cascades (was:Re: New Look for old trains)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:44:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
889 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, John R. Clark writes:
> In lugnet.trains, James Mathis writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, John R. Clark writes:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > > Regarding the models: Disgusting. I hate you. You're a complete • knee-biter.[1]
> >
> > I do not think I have ever been called a "knee-biter" before.
>
> It's actually a quote from Douglas Adams's _Life, the Universe, and
> Everything_. An immortal alien is bored by his existence, so decides to
> insult everyone in the entire galaxy, and to do it alphabetically. The
> complete quote (as I recall) is his line to Arthur Dent, "Arthur Philip
> Dent? You're a jerk, Dent. A complete knee-biter."
Ah, so I should present my train models in alphabetical order. Got it! ;-)
> BTW, I forgot to write and tell you how great it was to see your Cascades
> model in person at the Washington show that Dan Parker did. I'm really glad
> you were able to send it up. I'm pretty sure Dan got a lot of pics of the
> layout, including your train, and will hopefully post them soon. The train
> ran regularly on the layout, and when it wasn't running, it was on a siding
> in the front. It was easily recognizable by all, and received much praise
> and comment.
I'm glad you got to see it run and discover any and all its flaws.
> In discussing your Cascades model, Dan and I consensed that if it is at all
> possible, the coaches should be shorter (less tall, not less long). One of
> the distinctive things about the prototype is how short the coaches are in
> relation to the engine (only slightly more than half the height!). In
> looking at yours, we thought that removing a green brick from the bottom and
> a white plate from the top would go a long way in suggesting the low height.
> Logistically, of course, this may not be possible, due to internal
> construction constraints. But I thought I would mention it. (Besides, the
> model's so good-looking, I -have- to find something wrong with it, just so I
> don't get totally discouraged and quit building trains altogether...)
Yes! This is the type of comment I love! Yes: less tall. I totally agree.
When I get it back, I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, I'll try to think
about possible coupler re-configurations that could achieve a lower profile
coach.
> Also, the train often runs in a configuration that goes: Engine--power
> unit--coaches--power unit. The second power unit on the back has a
> particularly distinctive look when -not- accompanied by a trailing engine
> (so much so, that they use it in their ads:
> http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/amtrakcascades/library/images/t-Peace.jpg).
Ah, I was wondering if this was the case. Hmm... the current spring-loaded
wheel on the "power unit" depends on the ball-socket linkage to the "engine"
for proper alignment. I'm not sure how I could modify this wheelset to rotate
through a curve without the guidance of the "engine". ????
<snip>
Thanks for all the comments, Rick. Very much appreciated.
later,
James Mathis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Look for old trains
|
| (...) <snip> (...) It's actually a quote from Douglas Adams's _Life, the Universe, and Everything_. An immortal alien is bored by his existence, so decides to insult everyone in the entire galaxy, and to do it alphabetically. The complete quote (as (...) (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
