John & Friends,
S is the perfect size, but it's not perfect for everything
everybody wants! If you want to run long trains through miles of
countryside "N" may be too large, however if you want to run the rolling
stock with the best detail and be able to uncouple with functioning cut
levers, O may be the ticket.
There used to be a get together, meeting, BBQ thing called the
'BullShoot' put on by a few of the 0 guys. It was a big deal to be
invited. The S guys, and many HO guys were welcomed to the event
because it was (is) commonly thought that if everybody could build the
dream layout without qualifications of time, money or space they would
build in 0! I couldn't argue with that point except we all know the
'dream' layout is like 'this' guy sleeping with Pam Anderson! we'll need
more than Andy's beer train to make that happen!
Bob Werre
John Degnan wrote:
>All of this talk about how compromises must be made in S scale to models
>(rolling and/or structural) due to limited space... because to model it
>"accurately" would require too much room... leads me now to thinking that
>maybe S isn't really the "perfect scale" after all due to space requirements.
>
> Hmmm... if this is true, than maybe it is time for some real heart searching
> and some serious brain-working... ... ...on whether or not it is worth it to
> stay in S after all.
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
