Bob did note that on a thread.
While I also had issues with Stacy, let’s not start bashing someone when he cannot respond, all I can say is too bad that he had to be at odds with the whole world sometimes.
Greg
Gregg I agree. I was trying to say that the person who started this thread isn’t around anymore. So the thread doesn’t need to continue, unless someone else has the same question.
I find no fault with your statements David, I was trying to stave off any possible dogpiling…
Greg
This can become an interesting topic perhaps…
I find this leads to other questions like quality vs quantity. Do you really need museum quality, if long-train quantity can be achieved within your budget? Its almost like 1:29 vs 1:32. Yes, 1:32 is more proper and refined, but i think 1:29 has more of that “wow factor” when running outside. Could we be happier with lower quality models if it meant we could more easily attain more of them? Do I need aluminum cars, when plastic could be cheaper? What about diecast trucks, interior details, and interior lighting?
That’s the great thing about “G” scale, you can be happy with true to scale models, or run somewhat “looser” scale trains for a lot less.
I agonized for a long time, coming from smaller scales, over getting “correct” 1:32 or the much less expensive 1:29 Aristo and USAT stuff.
I finally put some on the ground and stared and stared… 1:29 looked fine from that vantage, and that’s where I went.
Never regretted it.
Greg
Rockwall Canyon Jeff said:
This can become an interesting topic perhaps…
I find this leads to other questions like quality vs quantity. Do you really need museum quality, if long-train quantity can be achieved within your budget? Its almost like 1:29 vs 1:32. Yes, 1:32 is more proper and refined, but i think 1:29 has more of that “wow factor” when running outside. Could we be happier with lower quality models if it meant we could more easily attain more of them? Do I need aluminum cars, when plastic could be cheaper? What about diecast trucks, interior details, and interior lighting?
Well, from my perspective, I am happy with a string of cars that are decently detailed. I don’t need to have a such and such type boxcar that has the proper number of rivets per panel. Just as long as it looks reasonably close to that type of boxcar. I felt that way when I was in N scale, HO scale, and now that I am in large scale.
I would like to populate the interior of my passenger vehicles (passenger cars, streetcars, railbus), but again, I just need figure in there that look good as the car goes rolling by. Aunt Mini doesn’t have to have on matching earrings, and Uncle Bud doesn’t need a properly pressed handkerchief in the breast pocket of his suit.
Those who run museum quality trains I applaud, its just not where my interest lies. I don’t need to be reattaching fiddly details after each run. I just want trains that look good running down the tracks.
We each seem to want something different. I “feel” for the manufacturers trying to supply product to this scale.
Rockwall Canyon Jeff said:
This can become an interesting topic perhaps…
I find this leads to other questions like quality vs quantity. Do you really need museum quality, if long-train quantity can be achieved within your budget? Its almost like 1:29 vs 1:32. Yes, 1:32 is more proper and refined, but i think 1:29 has more of that “wow factor” when running outside. Could we be happier with lower quality models if it meant we could more easily attain more of them? Do I need aluminum cars, when plastic could be cheaper? What about diecast trucks, interior details, and interior lighting?
On the price issue - note that Accucraft just introduced smooth-side passenger cars for $250 in 1.32nd, which is less than you’ll pay for the USAT 1/29th coaches.
Personally, if it looks right it’s fine with me. The difference between 1/32nd and a 1/29th is irrelevant (to me) as long as I’m not mixing them togather!
Rockwall Canyon Jeff said:
This can become an interesting topic perhaps…
Do I need aluminum cars, when plastic could be cheaper? What about diecast trucks, interior details, and interior lighting?
OK considering I probably own the biggest Amtrash Livery in G -scale (not by volume of stuff you can purchase but by stuff I made) I can probably answer some of those questions Jeff.
1…No you don’t need aluminum cars as the effect can be achieved with out solid metal
2…It’s not the trucks that are an issue it’s the shocks and sway bars(however Ray Schoup now deceased had some nice Superliner trucks made and I believe Scott S has some) not sure who made them but they looked nice from the pics I saw.
3…Interior detail is useless as the 1:1 has tinted glass and you can’t see in even with interior lighting.
Pete Thornton said:
Rockwall Canyon Jeff said:
This can become an interesting topic perhaps…
I find this leads to other questions like quality vs quantity. Do you really need museum quality, if long-train quantity can be achieved within your budget? Its almost like 1:29 vs 1:32. Yes, 1:32 is more proper and refined, but i think 1:29 has more of that “wow factor” when running outside. Could we be happier with lower quality models if it meant we could more easily attain more of them? Do I need aluminum cars, when plastic could be cheaper? What about diecast trucks, interior details, and interior lighting?
On the price issue - note that Accucraft just introduced smooth-side passenger cars for $250 in 1.32nd, which is less than you’ll pay for the USAT 1/29th coaches.
Personally, if it looks right it’s fine with me. The difference between 1/32nd and a 1/29th is irrelevant (to me) as long as I’m not mixing them togather!
Scale matters not to me as well Pete as I model my stuff by eye