 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / July 2006Trumpeters 1/35 Loco
Hullo Folks, Am going to be getting Trumps Loco soon (on backorder) and would like info on just what hung on the back of a german loco tooling 'round Europe in the early forties. I have an 8' long mantle piece and can just see a loco and some dragon rail cars stretched across it. Any ideas suggestions or hints?? I have no prob's making it up as i go, but would like to be close to real if I can. TIA, Tak John, From what I've read on the net and in articles the BR52 was one of the standard Reichsbahn engines. There were two tender designs a square riveted unit (early?) and a rounded unit that was more easily produced. You could show it pulling most of the available cars - Tank transporter flat cars, and the box cars etc available from ironsides. If they were shipping tanks I would expect it would be many flatcars with similar units. There's a few places to be careful. The original release of the Leopold gun had 1/32nd scale rail trucks - so it would fit with a popular model RR scale. One post indicated that this was later corrected to 1/35th - but that was the only mention of such a change. Basically be careful what you get all has the same track scale. A Morser Karl with support cars may make a interesting set. There's a Yahoo Group that specializes in Military trains. The HO and N scale guys have had many discussions on shipping things like midgit submarines - V-2 Rockets, disassembled Messerschmidts etc. VLS had some Reichsbahn crew figures - engineer and fireman in a recent flyer. Hope this helps. Val Kraut > Hullo Folks, Am going to be getting Trumps Loco soon (on backorder) and > would like info on just what hung on the back of a german loco tooling > 'round Europe in the early forties. I have an 8' long mantle piece and can > just see a loco and some dragon rail cars stretched across it. Any ideas > suggestions or hints?? I have no prob's making it up as i go, but would > like to be close to real if I can. TIA, Tak A flatcar with a dissasembled aircraft under a tarp would be sort of neat...and different. I'm looking forward to building this loco myself. The etch sets for it from Eduard look particularly juicy.  Signature- Rufus > John, > From what I've read on the net and in articles the BR52 was one of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>suggestions or hints?? I have no prob's making it up as i go, but would >>like to be close to real if I can. TIA, Tak > I'm looking forward to building this loco myself. The etch sets for it > from Eduard look particularly juicy. From all the sources I've seen the smoke deflectors are essentially post war additions - so I'll probably pass on them - but the rest look really good. Val Kraut >>I'm looking forward to building this loco myself. The etch sets for it >>from Eduard look particularly juicy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Val Kraut Yup. Get some photos and apply accordingly. That's what I like about the sets - they're so extensive with so much to pick and choose from. Signature- Rufus > A flatcar with a dissasembled aircraft under a tarp would be sort of > neat...and different. > > I'm looking forward to building this loco myself. The etch sets for it > from Eduard look particularly juicy. Hey Rufus. The aircraft is an interesting thought but complicates things ... so now is going to the front or back from it?? I like the idea of a return trip ... the 'plane and other partial wrecks. I never have much luck with etch sets so it'll be oob for me. Regards, Tak >> A flatcar with a dissasembled aircraft under a tarp would be sort of >> neat...and different. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > return trip ... the 'plane and other partial wrecks. I never have much > luck with etch sets so it'll be oob for me. Regards, Tak Hmmmnnn...I didn't think about the loco pushing a car...like a flatcar with an AA gun and crew on it...now that would be neat. Signature- Rufus Rufusrote: >>> A flatcar with a dissasembled aircraft under a tarp would be sort of >>> neat...and different. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Hmmmnnn...I didn't think about the loco pushing a car...like a flatcar > with an AA gun and crew on it...now that would be neat. Something I have to add to the list .... did I mention the mantle is 'only' 8 ft long!! and extra to that .. vague memories of a car before the engine in case the track was mined ??? doesn't seem to make sense, train couldn't stop in time anyway but still seem to recall it. > Rufusrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the track was mined ??? doesn't seem to make sense, train couldn't stop > in time anyway but still seem to recall it. Yeah - a flatcar full of sandbags or something like that. Signature- Rufus I've seen photographs occasionally of trains pushing two wagons in front of the locomotive. The trains didn't travel very fast so that there was time to slow down or stop if the first wagon hit a mine. Having two also kept the blast away from the locomotive and made repair and recovery of the train easier. Gordon McLaughlin > Rufusrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > track was mined ??? doesn't seem to make sense, train couldn't stop in > time anyway but still seem to recall it. > John, > From what I've read on the net and in articles the BR52 was one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shipping tanks I would expect it would be many flatcars with similar > units. FWIW. In one of the Squadron books is a picture of an armored unit being shipped the loads were actually mixed Panther on one car and trucks/cars on others. Frank I got a peek inside the box from someone who bought one on these monsters. I hope you have a lot of time on your hands (:> > I got a peek inside the box from someone who bought one on these > monsters. I hope you have a lot of time on your hands (:> Other than work I got no life so i got too much time on my hands ;-P... Tak >>John, >> From what I've read on the net and in articles the BR52 was one [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Frank Hullo Frank. Do you know of many/any books on the loco itself?? Can't say I've seen any, but then haven't thought to look. I guess I should try huh! Been doing google searches for pic though. Tak One of the early profile booklets - published in the late 60s/early 70s covered the BR-52. Not very available. There was a resin kit some time back which had some problems. A modeler name Swanson (Spelling??) offered a CD with pictures and descriptrions of corrections required. You might do an internet search on this. Val Kraut > John, > From what I've read on the net and in articles the BR52 was one of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>suggestions or hints?? I have no prob's making it up as i go, but would >>like to be close to real if I can. TIA, Tak Thx for the info Val. By Ironsides you mean a model company and not Raymond burr?? I have not heard of them (am Down under here). I'll check out the rail newsgroups too, didn't think of them. Thx again, Tak Ironside is a French Company. They do plastic and resin. Not always easy to get - although I did find a mail order shop in Austria that had some of their stuff as plastic bagged kits. They did some German Rolling stock - flat cars, box cars etc. Theres a Spanish company that did some rolling stock and engines - Baluard. Red Lancer's handles the line, and of course DML. Val Kraut > Ironside is a French Company. They do plastic and resin. Not always easy to > get - although I did find a mail order shop in Austria that had some of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Val Kraut Thx Val, getting a bit complicated, think I will stick with what I can find locaL >Hullo Folks, Am going to be getting Trumps Loco soon (on backorder) and >would like info on just what hung on the back of a german loco tooling >'round Europe in the early forties. I have an 8' long mantle piece and >can just see a loco and some dragon rail cars stretched across it. Any >ideas suggestions or hints?? I have no prob's making it up as i go, but >would like to be close to real if I can. TIA, Tak Going back to the early 80s I remember seeing plastic kits of a number of locomotives, firetrucks and 1:1 plastic replicas of pistols. Is it possible that Trumpy's locomotive is a reissue of an old kit? The old kit was probably on a much smaller scale than 1/35 though. : Going back to the early 80s I remember seeing plastic kits of a number : of locomotives, Revell/ConCor 1/87 (HO) scale, probably. Big Boy, FEF. Still around. There are some Japanese steam locos kitted by a Japanese companly (ARII?) as well. Not close to 1/35, however. : firetrucks AMT, 1:25 scale. : and 1:1 plastic replicas of pistols. Is LS, I believe. They turn up from time to time. : Is : it possible that Trumpy's locomotive is a reissue of an old kit? No. Look at it sometime, and you will understand. : The : old kit was probably on a much smaller scale than 1/35 though. Yep. CMK offered a BR52 and smaller loco in 1/35 resin. CMK also offers a larger loco than the BR52, I believe. Bruce Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX. - Thuganlitha The Power and the Prophet Robert Don Hughes > Going back to the early 80s I remember seeing plastic kits of a number > of locomotives, firetrucks and 1:1 plastic replicas of pistols. Is > it possible that Trumpy's locomotive is a reissue of an old kit? The > old kit was probably on a much smaller scale than 1/35 though. You're thinking of all the Revell (of Germany) and US H0 (1:87.1) models of various European and Americal steam locos. Also there was "The Geneal" loco in 1:48 scale made by MPC. Nice model. I have couple of them. And Iseem to recall that Entex made several models of Japanese locomotives (electric and steam). I don't recall the scale. Trumpeter loco is a new mold. Peteski >> Going back to the early 80s I remember seeing plastic kits of a number >> of locomotives, firetrucks and 1:1 plastic replicas of pistols. Is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Peteski i wonder why no trolleys? i would love a ca car, a double decker open or closed, some interurbans would be good. perhaps a gas powered mexican and a natural gas or naptha car. there is 80 years of transports that don't exist for modelers....seems sad. > i wonder why no trolleys? > i would love a ca car, a double decker open or closed, some > interurbans would be good. perhaps a gas powered mexican and > a natural gas or naptha car. > there is 80 years of transports that don't exist for > modelers....seems sad. I have a feeling that someone at some time did make a model kit of a San Francisco Cable Car. I just don't know about it. Peteski > > i wonder why no trolleys? > > i would love a ca car, a double decker open or closed, some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Peteski Yeah there was 1/48th one from Hawk, I think. --- Stephen >>i wonder why no trolleys? >>i would love a ca car, a double decker open or closed, some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Peteski There is a cable car.. had the model yrs ago. bought 2nd hand at an op shop ( thrift, community, ummm charity shop). I think 1/48 and it's probably still in the shed i left behind with the ex. never did get to finish it. >> i wonder why no trolleys? >> i would love a ca car, a double decker open or closed, some [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Peteski pyro. and there is a toonerville trolley outnthere. but those are not representing the many thousands of cars that were in use. rosie didn't take the bus to the b17 plant, she wrote a trolley,. in 1946, you could ride the interurban lines and go cross country. a guy did it. took him a month and cost $22.11 in fares. oil and bus makers promoted busses as cheaper. they weren't, eben then. a long gone bar in harvard sq had pictures of the last trolleys from arlington heights and no camb. i spent many nights making them blurry. > in 1946, you could ride the interurban lines and go cross > country. a guy did it. took him a month and cost $22.11 in > fares. That's a bit off in three respects, I believe. 1. The apex of the interurban system when such feats were (almost) possible was in the early 1920's, IIRC. 2. There were no interurban lines through the Rockies, or much west of the central plains, so "across the country" travel solely via "electric railways" (to use the ICC term) and transit systems wasn't possible. (There had to be "urbans" to be "inter".) The long route I have heard of was from southern Maine to Minneapolis, St Louis, Omaha, or something like that. 3. Interurbans typically were not "trolleys". Interurbans were essentially small regular railroads running between various towns and cities. "Trolleys" were usually mass transit systems within a city or between a city and it's suburbs. A distinction without a difference, perhaps. > oil and bus makers promoted busses as cheaper. they weren't, Well, actually they were. Buses used a free and expanding RoW. Rail systems had a much more limited and expensive infrastructure. If buses - or more importantly trucks - had to pay for their own RoW, rail vehicles would be much more plentiful today. BTW, the Greyhound fare from Portland ME to Los Angeles CA for military personnel is $198. I believe that this represents their typical 10% discount to the military, so let's say regular fare is $218. That (apocryphal) 1946 fare of $22.11 would be $229.60 today. . . The fare is not that stunning a number for the time. In 1954 you could go from NYC to New Orleans or Miami in a coach on a "steam" (regular) railroad like the PRR for $39. Even the top-end Pullman car "drawing room" fare was only $98, or $71 in 1946 dollars. For 50 bucks I'd gladly shave 27 or so days off my trip, as well as all the meal and hotel costs. KL >> in 1946, you could ride the interurban lines and go cross >> country. a guy did it. took him a month and cost $22.11 in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >1. The apex of the interurban system when such feats were (almost) possible >was in the early 1920's, IIRC. trolley car treasury is one source quoting 1946. i've seen others. >2. There were no interurban lines through the Rockies, or much west of the >central plains, so "across the country" travel solely via "electric >railways" (to use the ICC term) and transit systems wasn't possible. (There >had to be "urbans" to be "inter".) The long route I have heard of was from >southern Maine to Minneapolis, St Louis, Omaha, or something like that. nope, ny to ca, via mostly the coast but through some landlocked states. >3. Interurbans typically were not "trolleys". Interurbans were essentially >small regular railroads running between various towns and cities. >"Trolleys" were usually mass transit systems within a city or between a city >and it's suburbs. A distinction without a difference, perhaps. they ran on catenarys and were owned by street railways. >> oil and bus makers promoted busses as cheaper. they weren't, > >Well, actually they were. Buses used a free and expanding RoW. Rail >systems had a much more limited and expensive infrastructure. If buses - or >more importantly trucks - had to pay for their own RoW, rail vehicles would >be much more plentiful today. we're talking daily operating costs. trolleys ran on public streets. many interyrbans ran paralell to rr tracks, leasing row from them for pretty cheap. >BTW, the Greyhound fare from Portland ME to Los Angeles CA for military >personnel is $198. I believe that this represents their typical 10% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >KL i don't believe what i read about that trip was wrong. i've read similar in other places. i'm a lifelong trolley fan and think you vastly underestimate the trolley and interurban system. even in 1960's boston, when i moved there, there were many signs of the trolley system and the mattapan green line was an interurban takeover that once ran all the way up the south shore. you could reach the cape by interurban and many row's remain to be seen along with stations. even in bumfuck midwest, there's the old mounds of the interurbans lines.... i remember riding the orange line just to see the old stations my first week in boston. EVERY street and the two rows of tar down it. the forse hills car barn was still there and it was huge. the brighton, jp, and watertown trolleys still ran. >>2. There were no interurban lines through the Rockies, or much west of the >>central plains, so "across the country" travel solely via "electric [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > nope, ny to ca, via mostly the coast but through some > landlocked states. If you could, please find out how exactly they got from, say, the 100th meridian west, without riding a "steam" railroad. > i'm a lifelong trolley fan and > think you vastly underestimate the trolley and interurban > system. even in 1960's boston, when i moved there. . . I think I have a pretty good appreciation of the system. I would not extrapolate the traffic density in 1960 Boston (at the time the 13th largest US city and bigger than Dallas) to rest of the country, however. KL >>>2. There were no interurban lines through the Rockies, or much west of the >>>central plains, so "across the country" travel solely via "electric [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >If you could, please find out how exactly they got from, say, the 100th >meridian west, without riding a "steam" railroad. do it yourself. >> i'm a lifelong trolley fan and >> think you vastly underestimate the trolley and interurban [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >KL boston was pretty typical of n.e. i remember seeing many trolley remnants in ny as well. >>> i'm a lifelong trolley fan and >>> think you vastly underestimate the trolley and interurban [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>largest >>US city and bigger than Dallas) to rest of the country, however. > boston was pretty typical of n.e. i remember seeing many > trolley remnants in ny as well. The northeast US, the most densely populated region of the US, was not typical of the entire country, however. Once you got west of the Susquehanna, things thinned out quite a bit (or north of the Maine/NH border, for that matter.) Can you post or reference an interurban/trolley map of the US? KL >>1. The apex of the interurban system when such feats were (almost) >>possible >>was in the early 1920's, IIRC. From Wikipedia, (FWIW): "In the late 1890s, electrified systems called streetcars, which had been developed by Frank Sprague, expanded rapidly. By 1900, just over 2,100 miles of track had been laid, and by 1916, at their peak, over 15,500 miles were in service. Most of the interurban track that had been laid was located in Ohio and Indiana; both states had 3,000 miles of track. In Michigan and Illinois there was another 2,000 miles of track which was interconnected. In Texas and in California thousands of miles of additional track was also laid down by different companies. In Central Virginia, interurban lines connected City Point and Hopewell with Petersburg, and Petersburg with Richmond. Another connected Richmond with Ashland. "In the early 1900s, interurban transportation was very popular in both rural areas and cities. Although slower in speed than steam driven passenger trains, the interurban system made up for speed by increased frequency of service. After 1910, the popularity of the Ford Model T automobile began to diminish the interurban passenger load, and during the 1920s, many interurban systems were declared bankrupt. As a result of this shift in transportation methods, the small and unprofitable lines were discontinued. By the 1930s, the interurbans began to disappear, although some of their rail lines were taken over for the use of freight drawn by steam engines. Most were replaced with buses. By the 1960s, very few lines remained; the Pacific Electric Railway in California was abandoned in 1961, and the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad near Chicago in 1963." KL >P > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >KL wikicrap. >>From Wikipedia, (FWIW): >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>Pacific Electric Railway in California was abandoned in 1961, and the >>Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad near Chicago in 1963." > wikicrap. OK, what specifically is incorrect about what they've written, and can you give sources for your info? Do you call it crap because they have mileage figures wrong, dates wrong, general trends wrong, or simply because it contradicts your previously stated views? (Note that this article was not the basis of my postings, simply an easily postable source. I does however agree with what I have read over the years.) And don't forget to look up the interurbans west of 100 W while you are digging through your references. KL >>>From Wikipedia, (FWIW): >>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >KL i'm digging through some crap. i don't believe the is was as dismebered as they claim until later. >>>>From Wikipedia, (FWIW): >>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >i'm digging through some crap. i don't believe the is was as >dismebered as they claim until later. lets try that again. i don't think the interurban system died that early. i don't trust wiki......they lie. i once hung out at seaside trolley museum and picked through their books. i don't think there's a national interurban map. but that sure would be cool. say 1935 or so. >>>>>From Wikipedia, (FWIW): >>>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > i don't think there's a national interurban map. but that > sure would be cool. say 1935 or so. So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on the interurban???? > >>>>>From Wikipedia, (FWIW): > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on the > interurban???? Oh ja! It was difficult but with the jury-rigged pantographs....... ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. ..Electric Railway Fan.. >> > In article <xQVtg.245814$cd2.218324@fe06.news.easynews.com>, > someone@some.domain (e) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >...Electric Railway Fan.. you mean centaphs? what a grave matter. >> In article <xQVtg.245814$cd2.218324@fe06.news.easynews.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on the >interurban???? only in lower sprechenheim on thursday during months with an r in them. do try to keep up. >>>In article <xQVtg.245814$cd2.218324@fe06.news.easynews.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > r in them. > do try to keep up. "do try to keep up"???? thats what the ex used to say. Never did figure out what she meant by that...... >> In article >> <44b857a7$0$21695$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, john [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > "do try to keep up"???? thats what the ex used to say. Never did figure > out what she meant by that...... By the way I got an email from a bloke over in r.m.railroad who sent me a pic of an 88mm on a flatbed, I can't imagine them shooting off on the run, but if they did I wonder how many gunners fell overboard!! It did have high sides on it and widened out where the gun was which makes me wonder about narrow tunnels and bridges. >>> In article >>> <44b857a7$0$21695$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, john [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] >have high sides on it and widened out where the gun was which makes me >wonder about narrow tunnels and bridges. yeah, how about them krauts? >> In article <44b857a7$0$21695$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, >> [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >"do try to keep up"???? thats what the ex used to say. Never did figure >out what she meant by that...... it means that wasn't a cabbage with a moustache you found one her pillow. > So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on the > interurban???? Oh pffft on DRB stuff .... European railways are so wimpy, I'll bet a typical US interurban COULD outpull a BR52. That is, if the interurban didn't shatter the euro rail just by sitting on it. What did they use over there, 45, 50 lb rail? I am convinced that one reason American rolling stock has never been kitted in 1/35 is that the WW II armor world simply couldn't deal with a "heavy metal" subject where the US technology was not only bigger and badder than the German stuff, but markedly better as well. KL > I am convinced that one reason American rolling stock has never been kitted > in 1/35 is that the WW II armor world simply couldn't deal with a "heavy > metal" subject where the US technology was not only bigger and badder than > the German stuff, but markedly better as well. The other reason of course is very little "home front" stuff if any gets kitted. >> I am convinced that one reason American rolling stock has never been kitted >> in 1/35 is that the WW II armor world simply couldn't deal with a "heavy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The other reason of course is very little "home front" stuff if any gets >kitted. i would love to see the tiny ww1 trench railroad stuff out. how cool would a little rr going past an aerodrome be? > The other reason of course is very little "home front" stuff if any gets > kitted. Unless German. KL >>The other reason of course is very little "home front" stuff if any gets >>kitted. > Unless German. Yes but at some point Germany was the war front, no such thing here except the Aleutians and a few Pacific islands. >> So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on the >> interurban???? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >KL what fo the rolling stock center over in both ww wars? was that all copies of euro stuff? i'm sure we didn't send any big boys, but american locos ran on euro rails. >>Oh pffft on DRB stuff .... European railways are so wimpy, I'll bet a >>typical US interurban COULD outpull a BR52. That is, if the interurban >>didn't shatter the euro rail just by sitting on it. What did they use >>over >>there, 45, 50 lb rail? > what for the rolling stock center over in both ww wars? was > that all copies of euro stuff? i'm sure we didn't send > any big boys, but american locos ran on euro rails. I was exaggerating. However, look at the BR52 example. It sort is held up as this fantastic example of German technology and power, but it's really more a case study in economy of manufacture. (Perhaps taken too far. I understand there were real compromises in performance. Wartime German - and Russian - manufacturing "improvements" here and in armored vehicles seem to have favored deleting parts and functions altogether rather than maintaining the performance while reducing manufacturing costs.) It's not a particularly noteworthy locomotive by American standards. As to Ron's comment about American rolling stock being a "home front" subject, remember that we sent almost 2000 locomotives and 11,000 freight cars out as Lend Lease, in addition to what we brought over with our Railway Operating Battalions, so it would seem to be as "valid" a subject as, say, the US tractors and semi-trailers that have already been kitted. (Although the numbers might appear small, keep in mind that American equipments was more capable than the European "equivalents". A few examples are the standard DRB OOt coal car which had a 30 tonne (33 US ton) capacity, compared to the common pre-war US coal hopper of a 70 ton capacity; the German GG boxcars - again of 30 tonne capacity - when the most American boxcars of the wartime period were 36 foot or 40 foot 50 ton cars; or most notably for the 1/35 modeler, the fact that a run of the mill American flat car could easily carry *two* 30 ton medium tanks while it took a special capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an American flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 just for a pair of trucks and wheels . . . KL > capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an American > flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 just for a pair of > trucks and wheels . . . Check O gauge stuff, I think that's the closest to 1/35. I bet you could easily find a set of wheels and trucks to convert. >> capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an >> American flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 >> just for a pair of trucks and wheels . . . > > Check O gauge stuff, I think that's the closest to 1/35. I bet you > could easily find a set of wheels and trucks to convert. O Gauge is 1/43. Gauge 1 is 1/32. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. OK, gauge 1 then......not much into railroads. >>>capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an >>>American flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > O Gauge is 1/43. Gauge 1 is 1/32. >> capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an >> American flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 just >> for a pair of trucks and wheels . . . > > Check O gauge stuff, I think that's the closest to 1/35. I bet you could > easily find a set of wheels and trucks to convert. That's 1/48 while G is variously 1/22.5 or 1/24. About the only thing - possibly - usable would be wheels (which are the easiest thing to make) but they'd be on axle sets that were the wrong gauge. Checking the numbers, the largest 1/48 wheel (36 inch) and smallest 1/22.5 (28 inch) would not be close to the required 33 inch in 1/35. . . KL Ah well.........railroads are not my thing and it was a wild chance you might find something useful. >>>capacity German car just to hold one.) Anyhoo, I'd like to see an >>>American flat in 1/35, and would pay $100 for one in resin or $50 just [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > KL > Ah well.........railroads are not my thing and it was a wild chance you > might find something useful. Eh, maybe someday somebody will make something useful. . . KL >>> So, then, Have we decided yet??? Where there any BR52's running on >>> the interurban???? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that all copies of euro stuff? i'm sure we didn't send > any big boys, but american locos ran on euro rails. The problem with sending US engines across to Europe is that the loading gauge is very much restricted. The S160 class was built by ALCO, Baldwin and Lima specifically for service in the UK and Europe and to conform to the UK loading gauge. http://www.gcrailway.co.uk/locos/e5197.htm There was also a smaller class of dock shunters, a number of which were sold to the Southern Railway after the war. http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/usa.html SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > The problem with sending US engines across to Europe is that the loading > gauge is very much restricted. That and the max axle loading. In addition to the American stuff being "bigger and badder", it was also more efficient, safer, more economical, i.e. better. That's really the crux of my argument: In a complete turnaround of the tank/armor situation, the American technology was vastly superior to the German. Not just bigger, say like a Maus in comparison to a Sherman, but better, say like an M60 compared to a Pz IV. There are a lot of SGF-types who don't like to hear that. KL >>>Going back to the early 80s I remember seeing plastic kits of a number >>>of locomotives, firetrucks and 1:1 plastic replicas of pistols. Is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > there is 80 years of transports that don't exist for > modelers....seems sad. There is a whole world of models that no-one will produce, trains and trollies are but a small part. While the bottom line is $ they never wil be either. which is even sadder..... >>Hullo Folks, Am going to be getting Trumps Loco soon (on backorder) and >>would like info on just what hung on the back of a german loco tooling [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > it possible that Trumpy's locomotive is a reissue of an old kit? The > old kit was probably on a much smaller scale than 1/35 though. I have a model (i think) BR52 in ho scale built up, from Revell (again I think). They have a few other similar trains. I have a Revell catalogue somewhere (can't find it when I want it!!). I don't know of any others. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.