Subject:
|
Re: Knee-biting Amtrak Cascades (was:Re: New Look for old trains)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:22:05 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cmasi@cmasi%IHateSpam%.chem.tulane.edu
|
Viewed:
|
681 times
|
| |
|
|
James Mathis wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, John R. Clark writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, James Mathis writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, John R. Clark writes:
<snip> knee biting and complimenting
>
>
> > 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.
If it is too hard to make the coaches much shorter, you could always make the
engines taller...
<snip>
Just jumping in to point out the obvious.
Chris
--
PGP public key available upon request.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
