Well, Daniel there might not be as much in Z as if N, but there is a lot to choose from if you look. Marklin has released many different passenger sets and AZL had the surfliners just to name one. I still have my N layout, but I am pretty much a Z scalers these days. Give it a try, I think you'll like it.
Well... Since I have a clue that one road will be to my liking, I'll throw out the others I'd like to see... Chessie System (GP9 TT) C&O B&O (GP9 Torpedo Tube) Adam
I heard that! A GN GP20 HH would be a neat kitbash in Z.... What's the MSRP? GN, NP, BN, D&RGW, ad nauseum... There's so many road names that owned Geep 7/9's...
I was looking at some modellers' pictures recently, and I was inspired to dredge up this thread... Not all U-boats are longer. The U18B is close - 30'8" truck centers as compared to 31' for a GP7/9. Most of them even have Blomberg trucks! The chain of reasoning that reminded me of this thread, not that it matters: I recently saw a (not Z scale) model B18-7, the locomotive GE cataloged but never made in reality. The model ran on, I believe, an RS-3 mechanism. And then I remembered
Just found the GP9 that I want. http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=140747 Please let there be a Canadian model and this is the one Tony
I asked that a while back, and I don't think they're making any. It is true that GP9Bs were used by several roads - UP, PRR/PC/CR and BN/BNSF. But the BN/BNSF GP9Bs are rebuillds from wrecked GP9s. The as-built GP9Bs have a porthole on the side where the cab isn't.
That BNSF #1626 sure looks like an ex-NP unit with the bell on the short end of the roof!! Can anyone with a roster book confirm this? If it is ex-NP, funny how it's in ex-GN colors, for BNSF!! :teeth:
1626 was, according to RR Picture Archives, an ex-BN unit (which probably started as NP) here is the roster along with their heritage and links to photos: BNSF: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=BNSF&mid=49 BN: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?id=BN&mid=49
Jurg, all these pictures are copyrighted. Did you get permission to use them on Trainboard? If not, it would be better to use links directing people to correct web pages (see for example message from Gordon above) Chris ps this applies not just to you but also to many others - I am not picking on you just using as an example
Hello Bambuko Thank you for the hint. As I don't use the pictures for comerical use, I don't think that gives me a problem.
On another hand...a copyright need not be officially registered for the copyright owner to begin exercising his exclusive rights (wikipedia) and the registration fee is 30$ for each pictures (see http://www.copyright.gov/forms/) So not every picture with a © is allready registered. Most people use them on pictures and webpages (webdesign) without a registration. But I don't want to break the Law nore open a discussion about that.
fair use laws dictate that copyrighted material may be used to further a point in discussion when not for commercial gain by the parties involved. Ergo ... to demonstrate a point in a discussion the photo may be used to illustrate said point provided that the image in question is not altered and that any existing copyright information is left intact and is not obfiscated in any way.
It is ex-NP, serial #22731! Sweet! Maybe when they retire her, they can paint it up and donate it to the NP historical society like they did with GN 400!
Gordon, the issue at heart is not so much the copyright aspect but the hosting. The image is called from their server so thay pay for the bandwidth used everytime the image is shown in a new browser window (ie not called from cache). Several sites have the request about linking rather than the posting the image itself hidden somewhere on site and railpictures.net is one of them, for example.
