Re: Adelaide Museum Melbourne 294

IS Edit
Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:23 PM

So that's why!

A person wouldn't build a car that ugly out of choice!

I said those cars had a front edge like the wedge splitter I use to chop firewood last time the topic came up but I attracted a torrent of vituperation and abuse and I'm so thin skinned I couldn't cope so I'd better not repeat that about those cars. :)

Mechanically they sound like good cars, but...

I grew up in San Francisco, Mal. We had very wide bodied cars there and skinny ones have always looked odd to me. The width of a big W class in Melbourne is about what I was used to. Anything less looks narrow gutted.

Bob Murphy

----- Original Message -----

From: Mal Rowe

To: [email protected]

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:28 PM

Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Adelaide Museum Melbourne 294

--- IS Edit <[email protected]> wrote: > The older Melbourne tram fans will probably show > their distaste but I reckon the W-2 looks better > with the retro-fitted clearance lights. The front > end looks too narrow gutted without them to me. > Guess it's what you get used to. Well Bob, if you think the W2's looked narrow gutted, what about Bisbane's 400's? (See pic of 554 ... OK ... ... I used a wide angle lens!) Brisbanes distinctive front ends were a product of a decision to NOT widen the track centres when they converted from horses. Even with the pointy ends, there were some curves where cars could not pass - see the other pic. Mal

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.