Re: Scale Measurements -vs- Details

Andy Harman

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:01:56 -0000, scottpitzer2002 wrote
I might have agreed with that, but there's a lot of interest in mixing-and-
matching kits and parts for prototype modeling. So when a well-detailed "41
foot steel boxcar" was accidentally put on the market a few years ago, the
choices for alternate running boards were severely limited (because those had
been made for "40 foot boxcars"-- of course.) There might be more leeway for
"39 foot gondolas" and "41 foot flatcars" but there are sure to be some
problems there as well. Scott Pitzer
Yeah, being able to interchange parts is a good thing and is generally indicative that
the manufacturers got the dimensions right. Or at the very least made identical
mistakes and of course that would never happen unless they relied on erroneous published
drawings and we all know that never happens ;-)

I'm really just a beginner at freight car modeling, and I'm slowly replacing and
upgrading my "three foot" fleet. Not to say I can't accept a stand-in, but if the
correct car is available, I'd rather have it than a stand-in, I'd rather have an
Intermountain or Red Caboose AAR box car than an Athearn bluebox. And if I'm going to
do any painting, detailing, kitbashing myself, then it's a lot more important to get it
right. I don't mind buying a stand-in, if it's close, but I don't really want to put my
time and efforts into *building* a stand-in.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.