MTL cars

[pfs]

There are lots of topics on here, and atlas, on how to lower MT cars, weather MT cars, etc .. also if they are foobies or not .. then there is always the UMTRR that George Irwin maintains .. everything you ever wanted to know about MT cars but were afraid to ask ..

Does this mean it's time to go back to monty python references?

But wouldn't that be...........................spam???!?!?!











Bloody Vikings!

[Ian MacMillan]

Shrubbery!

[tom mann]

then there is always the UMTRR that George Irwin maintains  

Ironically, George does the best job of all pointing out errors in MT cars. ;D

[asciibaron]

Ironically, George does the best job of all pointing out errors in MT cars. ;D

seriously, i'm considering going back to HO scale based on the amount of toy crap that is labeled as a scale model.  N scale is just getting to the point of being a serious scale choice - but with the limited amount of rolling stock, is it worth it to stick with N scale?

[sizemore]

Seriously finish the layout first! 

[asciibaron]

Seriously finish the layout first! 

why finish a layout if i can't find cars to run on the damn thing? 

[Ryan87]

What cars are you looking at? can we at least know which one's we're bashing?

[wcfn100]

but with the limited amount of rolling stock, is it worth it to stick with N scale?

Probably not, but HO is for pre-teens and the elderly so unless I get space for O scale, I'm sticking to N.

If this 'hobby' ever become kit oriented again, maybe we'll get what is needed (like some AC&F 40' and 50' boxcars).


Jason

[sirenwerks]

Come on Steve, you knew that. Stop looking for excuses not to finish. As the BNSF says... err, I mean Nike, 'Just Do it!'.

[Philip H]

You can have plenty of cars as stand ins, or you can have a small fleet of really prototype cars.  I agree that it isn't often worth it to put a lot of time and $$ into detailing the Bachman stuff, or old Atlas for that matter.  But with decals, and some of the BLMA and Gold Medal Models stuff out there, you can get really close to prototype.  If you don't want to go that route - if you'd rather run then detail (which I totally understand) then I think you either accept the foobies, or just build your fleet really slowly.

Yes, it's not like our HO breathern, who have some fantastic and prototypical rolling stock that is really ready-to-run.  But the situation has improved by leaps and bounds since I got my first N Scale in 1980.  :-\

[wm3798]

Honestly.  You're stalling.  If you can't do what you really want to do, then just finish a loop around the damn room, and build some scenery.  Call it the Baltimore, York and Laurel Valley, and run some goddam trains.

If you keep analyzing it to death, we're just going to keep making fun of you.

Lee

[Ian MacMillan]

Really quit stalling and get building. I have a crap load of cars I need to get my layout to operate the right way, but Im not worrying about that now because I have a lot of layout to build first.

[Dave V]

Seriously finish the layout first! 

why finish a layout if i can't find cars to run on the damn thing? 

Really, Steve, man-up, grow a pair, and make a decision like a big boy.  It's your layout, not a committee.  Running ideas past one another is a great benefit of a forum like this, but you're using it as a crutch.  If you don't like N scale, then do HO.  But we can't and shouldn't decide for you.

[davefoxx]

Yes, it's not like our HO breathern, who have some fantastic and prototypical rolling stock that is really ready-to-run.  But the situation has improved by leaps and bounds since I got my first N Scale in 1980.  :-\

Heck, I would argue that it's improved by leaps and bounds since 2003 when I got into N scale.  Patience, grasshopper.  And why in the wide, wide world of sports do you care about prototype fidelity and rivet-counting at this stage anyway?  Sheesh.

DFF

[wm3798]

It's definitely better than it was in 1975 when I got into the pool...