- 1. [CBQ] Re: New Q steam (score: 1)
- Author: "trainboy.geo" <tczephyr@hotmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:24:29 -0600
- Bob many be right about finding steam locos that are common or similar to other railroads. Unfortunately, not many (except USRA design) were common to multiple RR's. Most RR companies designed what t
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2006-02/msg00009.html (12,065 bytes)
- 2. Re: [CBQ] Re: New Q steam (score: 1)
- Author: Bob Webber <no17@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:56:26 -0600
- There were a lot of near duplicate locomotives - likely far more than most people consider. If you think about it logically, the barrel and running gear are more or less standard products - with obvi
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2006-02/msg00011.html (14,098 bytes)
- 3. Re: [CBQ] Re: New Q steam (score: 1)
- Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:54:41 -0600
- In today's market "close" may or may not cut it. While there might be some locomotives that share driver spacing, there are subtle variations in most "mechanisms" that prevent much sharing of model c
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2006-02/msg00025.html (13,030 bytes)
- 4. Re: [CBQ] Re: New Q steam (score: 1)
- Author: Bob Webber <no17@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 13:49:53 -0600
- Close may not be enough - which is why I mentioned getting the other HS involved. Even if you were to do a 2-8-2 for the Q - and wanted to branch out for the Grand Canyon RR, there would be enough ch
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2006-02/msg00027.html (16,295 bytes)
- 5. Re: [CBQ] Re: New Q steam (score: 1)
- Author: "Charlie Vlk" <cvlk@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 15:45:20 -0600
- Even if you were to do a 2-8-2 for the Q - and wanted to branch out for the Grand Canyon RR, there would be enough changes The Grand Canyon rebuild would have to be included foi the reasons you menti
- /archives/BRHSLIST/2006-02/msg00030.html (12,290 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu