 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman wrote:
> > Did you ever convert the final stud length measurements into inches or
> > centimeters?
>
> I've just assumed that LEGO's accuracy with stud-to-metric measurements is neigh
> on perfect (or, too close for me to accurately measure discrepancies). So, I've
> just assumed an interstud spacing of 8mm per stud.
>
> > I'm curious what accuracy is needed (in terms of significant digits) in order
> > to accurately (within, say, 1/10 inch) state the track length of a layout on
> > the order of 2,000 feet. Is that level of accuracy possible?
>
> I guess it depends on what the composition of the layout was. I'm pretty
> confident in the "lengths" established for long straights, short straights,
> start/stops, curves, half-curves, and switches (when straight). Ramps and
> switches (when curved) are another matter.
>
> So, in our recent record, the switches (when curved) are probably pretty
> irrelevant, because we used so few of them (we tried to use them all pointed
> straight, to maximize distance).
>
> The ramps are (of course) another matter. There were something like 200+ ramps
> used in our layout, which means for 1/10 inch accuracy, I'd have to be accurate
> to within (roughly) +/-0.0008 studs for my ramp measurement, and I'd doubt I'm
> that accurate.
>
> I wonder if the patent office has any more accurate descriptions of the elements
> that we could use...
>
> DaveE
I know I'm speaking to two of the most 'detail oriented' people I've ever had
the fun of working with...
But you're thinking about this too much.
If we all agree on-
a straight equaling 10 inches
a quarter straight equaling 2.5 inches
a curve equaling 15 inches
ramps equaling 10 inches
a reverse switch equaling 5 inches
a switch--17.5 inches (I actually added the straight and the half curve)
a half curve equaling 7.5 inches
If we all agree on these parameters, then we can ascertain 'who has the biggest'
;)
I tried physically measuring the ramps, and seriously, the length that the
monorail train actually traverses isn't much more than 10 inches or a straight
piece--it's negligible. And if we're all agreed on the numbers above (or
whatever numbers you want to change them to--I'm good with that as well), then
that should be good 'nuff
As it is, DaveE's (et al) record is pretty much not going to be touched by me.
Though I may be convinced to try.
Going with this, I should actually inventory my collection again. As it was
inventoried 3 years ago, I have 276 feet of monorail track in my personal
collection. Dunno if that number's changed.
The latest OBB space layout has 146 feet of monorail track.
I can e-mail you guys the excel spreadsheet that I use to figure all this stuff
out :)
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
>
> Dave K
Talking about monorail for shows and such (since we were, indeed talking about
that ;) )....
Ever since the big 12.5 x 12.5 layout we did back in 2009 (I think), I've tried
to avoid putting switches into my show layouts. First, as we all know here,
switches get old, and with that age, become 'less functional'.
But, more importantly for shows, invariably someone will throw a switch or two
during the show. Since we usually have 5-6 monorail trains moving around, this
has led to some spectacular derailments (as much of our monorail is well above
the baseplate level)
This isn't saying that we don't experience monorails falling off tracks now--we
still do, but it isn't 'purposely caused'.
I do find that TD'ing a layout without switches is easier, and the separate
loops are more fun. Having completely separate loops offers lots more
flexibility and takes up less space. As well, all length of track will have a
monorail train traversing them at some point (which sometimes doesn't happen
when you add a bunch of switches, unless those switches are only for
turn-arounds). I've watched many families try to figure out where a monorail
train will go in the layout, and the kids have fun following the many trains
around.
In the future, I may add a switch or two back into the layout, but for now, I'm
good that they're not there. I'll save em for something important *cough* beat
DaveE *cough*
:)
Dave
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
> But, more importantly for shows, invariably someone will throw a switch or
> two during the show. Since we usually have 5-6 monorail trains moving
> around, this has led to some spectacular derailments (as much of our
> monorail is well above the baseplate level)
Yeah, we've had that happen for both monorail and 9v rail-- never a pretty
sight!
> Having completely separate loops offers lots more flexibility and takes up
> less space.
Yeah, we debated whether or not the "world's longest monorail" should mean that
it's a single loop, or merely CONNECTED track that ought to count. So if we had
(say) 3 loops connected by some switches, should we count the switches and
separate loops as one big number? Or just count the distance that a single train
would travel? We ended up playing it safe and counting only the loop that the
train traveled.
BUT, I have to say the temptation to make it take up less space is huge. The
amount of square footage necessary to make a layout that's on par with
world-record sizes is daunting, unless you do things like lots of little loops
and have vertical climbs!
> I've watched many families try to figure out where a monorail train will go
> in the layout, and the kids have fun following the many trains around.
Hmmm... I hadn't thought much about that, but it sounds like a great challenge
for kids, actually. I wonder if you could set up a REALLY long loop, and then
put different color "stations" on it, and have the kids determine the order of
the stations visited. Could be rather difficult depending on how complex you
made the loop!
> In the future, I may add a switch or two back into the layout, but for now,
> I'm good that they're not there.
Yeah, it definitely makes sense. The switches are fun to fiddle with, but they
do cause a lot of issues as you point out.
Oh, and from the "Learn Something New Every Day" department, I learned from
Abner at the recent BrickFair that apparently LEGO once took out a patent on a
monorail *CROSS* track. Dunno what the details are, but now I'll have to make it
a mission to find out more about it...
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
snip
>
> Oh, and from the "Learn Something New Every Day" department, I learned from
> Abner at the recent BrickFair that apparently LEGO once took out a patent on a
> monorail *CROSS* track. Dunno what the details are, but now I'll have to make it
> a mission to find out more about it...
>
> DaveE
I heard that as well! I've sketched out a design as to what I think could
potentially work, using the 'guts' of an existing switch track, but, alas, since
I don't own a 3d printer, I won't be prototyping anytime soon...
There was those .jpgs of the patents of the monorail track and train I 'copied'
from old web pages, but there was no monorail cross track.
Dave K
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
> But you're thinking about this too much.
... I'm not sure I understand this concept.
> If we all agree on-
>
> a straight equaling 10 inches
> ...
Inaccuracy! It burnsss usssssss!
> I tried physically measuring the ramps, and seriously, the length that the
> monorail train actually traverses isn't much more than 10 inches or a
> straight piece--it's negligible.
Yeah, it's not a huge amount-- 0.8 studs is only 2.5% of the distance of a
straight, so it'd take about 40 ramps (or 20 "complete" ramps) to make up the
distance of a single straight. But with that said, I figure when we get into the
ballpark of 400 individual ramps (200 bottoms, 200 tops), it's more than 8 feet
of track!
> And if we're all agreed on the numbers above (or whatever numbers you want
> to change them to--I'm good with that as well),
Oooo! I have some numbers to switch them to! (... Some of them may not be fully
rational, in more than one sense of the word!)
I was actually thinking I might make a quickie web calculator that did the messy
calculation for me-- the "easy-to-remember" numbers are all in stud lengths,
which are really bizarre in inches/feet/etc, and too long in metric for me to
remember. So I always do calculations by converting track sections to studs to
metric to feet (guh).
> As it is, DaveE's (et al) record is pretty much not going to be touched by
> me.
>
> Though I may be convinced to try.
Yeah, this latest one's pretty big. It could definitely get beaten with the
right participants, but it won't be easy. We certainly aren't looking to try
again in the near future. I'm still working on the final numbers (going through
photos to see what we ACTUALLY did versus what we PLANNED on doing). Should be
in the 1900 foot ballpark, if our 'rough' counts were correct.
DaveE
| | | | | | |
