| |
It's after 22:00 at night and I haven't eaten anything since breakfast.
(I got carried away with Track Designer...) Here are some shots of
what my plan so far is. I've only shown the "left" half since it's over 60'
wide - there is another long layout that it may well work out well to
be back-to-back with - AFAIK the other layout is 60' long and open
on the back, which would fit well with this. The incline to my bridge is
only one plate per segment - This keeps things nice and gradual, but of
course takes up an looooong segment of track. The good aspect is it
gives some beautiful long sidings, and the overall layout works well IMO.
I envision the switching yard and container depot on the left "end",
with the town and train station and grain elevator on the right section.
Here's a look at the whole left half, and a close-up of the cross-overs:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25349
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25348
And this is a closer look at the cool diagonal yard:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25350
Which side should the tanker section be on? I haven't incorporated or
shown the mountain yet, because I don't know what the "mountaineers"
will be providing... OK - Comment away - I'm going home to sleep. :-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
That's a large layout, compared to what we've had before. The large
yard looks good too.
I'm not sure if I understand the incline. Is there going to be a gap
between two tables for a two-level bridge?
The cross-over idea is great, but the incline in the center of the long
section means that anything behind it is somewhat obscured. Could
you move the incline to the back of the long section so that the grade
level track is in front?
Also, an incline right beside level track reduces the degree of realism.
Could you move the incline so that it spirals around (or inside?) the
mountain? This way, it would appear that the incline serves
some purpose. That is, if the incline is separated from other track,
I think it would fit in better....
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
SRC wrote in message ...
> It's after 22:00 at night and I haven't eaten anything since breakfast.
> (I got carried away with Track Designer...) Here are some shots of
> what my plan so far is. I've only shown the "left" half since it's over • 60'
> wide - there is another long layout that it may well work out well to
> be back-to-back with - AFAIK the other layout is 60' long and open
> on the back, which would fit well with this. The incline to my bridge is
> only one plate per segment - This keeps things nice and gradual, but of
> course takes up an looooong segment of track. The good aspect is it
> gives some beautiful long sidings, and the overall layout works well IMO.
> I envision the switching yard and container depot on the left "end",
> with the town and train station and grain elevator on the right section.
> Here's a look at the whole left half, and a close-up of the cross-overs:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25349
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25348
> And this is a closer look at the cool diagonal yard:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25350
> Which side should the tanker section be on? I haven't incorporated or
> shown the mountain yet, because I don't know what the "mountaineers"
> will be providing... OK - Comment away - I'm going home to sleep. :-)
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> That's a large layout, compared to what we've had before.
> The large yard looks good too.
I've got some improvements to make - I'll post a new one soon.
> I'm not sure if I understand the incline. Is there going to be
> a gap between two tables for a two-level bridge?
> The cross-over idea is great, but the incline in the center of the
> long section means that anything behind it is somewhat obscured.
The incline is for the bridge to "cross-over the cross-over".
Vertically, there are three tracks in one place. Part of my
inpiration was a great 4.5V blue layout that I have in my memory
from a decades old LEGO photo. (I've got it at home somewhere.)
> Could you move the incline so that it spirals around (or inside?)
> the mountain? This way, it would appear that the incline serves
> some purpose.
Heheheh - Fine with me, but you'd better check with "the
mountaineers". I suspect a train spiral inside a mountain is
a bit more ambitious than they had anticipated...
I would like to run the elevated track portion over the
mountain - I'll let you suggest it to Kevin though... 8-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > Could you move the incline so that it spirals around (or inside?)
> > the mountain? This way, it would appear that the incline serves
> > some purpose.
>
> Heheheh - Fine with me, but you'd better check with "the
> mountaineers". I suspect a train spiral inside a mountain is
> a bit more ambitious than they had anticipated...
> I would like to run the elevated track portion over the
> mountain - I'll let you suggest it to Kevin though... 8-)
We can incorperate a line going along a mountain ridge without much
difficulty. I'd prefer to beg off the elevation changes inside the
mountain. (derails...*shudder*)
BTW, John - do you still have a NALUG sign built?
James
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> We can incorperate a line going along a mountain ridge without much
> difficulty.
Great.
> I'd prefer to beg off the elevation changes inside the
> mountain. (derails...*shudder*)
I was thinking of a mountain with an open back, but
if it's enclosed, you're right.
> BTW, John - do you still have a NALUG sign built?
Yup. Don't have a need to rip it apart anytime soon.
It's all white and red bricks--two colors which I hardly
ever use in Technic...
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> James Brown wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
>
> > We can incorperate a line going along a mountain ridge
> > without much difficulty.
>
> Great.
How long can you make the mountain? Could you make three or four
three foot sections (that would connect to each other)? The tunnels
not curving won't matter if the tunnels are long enough, especially with
them being so far from where someone could "look down them" anyway.
> > I'd prefer to beg off the elevation changes inside the
> > mountain. (derails...*shudder*)
>
> I was thinking of a mountain with an open back, but
> if it's enclosed, you're right.
This is a three-sided layout, so it could certainly be open
at the back. Does that change your thinking at all?
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
> > > We can incorperate a line going along a mountain ridge
> > > without much difficulty.
> > Great.
> How long can you make the mountain? Could you make three or four
> three foot sections (that would connect to each other)? The tunnels
> not curving won't matter if the tunnels are long enough, especially with
> them being so far from where someone could "look down them" anyway.
How's this? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25907
The line at the top is the main line where most of the train running
will be. The bottom line can be run through as the "show loop", but
the trains would be going through the curved part of switches, and
we all know how much Chris hates that. :-) The lower tunnel at the
back could just be a couple of short ones at either end, as the middle
"open air" section would, for the most part, be hidden behind the mountain.
I thought the front section could peek out a bit with a small "canyon"
making two tunnels one right after the other effectively. Imagine grey
bricks wherever you see grey base plate now. The elevated line would of
course slope gradually down along the ridge of the mountain, perhaps with
a small tunnel of it's own at the mountain peak. This "mountain ridge"
would be a primo (pun intended) place for trees! The trains would look
excellent running through the rock and trees of the mountain range...
> > > I'd prefer to beg off the elevation changes inside the
> > > mountain. (derails...*shudder*)
> >
> > I was thinking of a mountain with an open back, but
> > if it's enclosed, you're right.
>
> This is a three-sided layout, so it could certainly be open
> at the back. Does that change your thinking at all?
Never mind - I just tried incorporating that into the layout, but it
won't work - a spiral goes over the edge(s) of a two foot wide table...
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
I'm posting this also in the main trains group in case someone has
indeed cut the edge off some switches or found a way to make a
switching yard close together like this. I'm going to try an interleaved
yard to get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > We can incorporate a line going along a mountain ridge
> > > without much difficulty.
> > Great.
> How long can you make the mountain? Could you make three or four
> three foot sections (that would connect to each other)? The tunnels
> not curving won't matter if the tunnels are long enough, especially with
> them being so far from where someone could "look down them" anyway.
>
> How's this? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25907
<snip>
> Imagine grey bricks wherever you see grey base plate now.
OK - Make that imagine grey bricks three times as long as what is shown.
ie. A dozen grey baseplates long. (Yes, that is a fifteen foot mountain.)
Of course it doesn't _have_ to be that long - how long can you make it?
Re: The switching yard. I tried making it this way last night with the
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26033 physical track
segments, and it won't really work without cutting about one stud off
the corner. Also, the switch handle might catch on a low hanging part
of a train car. <sigh> These points go twice as far as they "should".
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I'm posting this also in the main trains group in case someone has
> indeed cut the edge off some switches or found a way to make a
> switching yard close together like this. I'm going to try an interleaved
> yard to get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
Hacksaw. I think that I have some straights/curves with the required
modifications (I know I have some curves, not sure about straights)
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > > We can incorporate a line going along a mountain ridge
> > > > without much difficulty.
> > > Great.
> > How long can you make the mountain? Could you make three or four
> > three foot sections (that would connect to each other)? The tunnels
> > not curving won't matter if the tunnels are long enough, especially with
> > them being so far from where someone could "look down them" anyway.
> >
> > How's this? http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=25907
>
> <snip>
> > Imagine grey bricks wherever you see grey base plate now.
>
> OK - Make that imagine grey bricks three times as long as what is shown.
> ie. A dozen grey baseplates long. (Yes, that is a fifteen foot mountain.)
> Of course it doesn't _have_ to be that long - how long can you make it?
Hmm. I don't think we can pull off a 15 footer, quite. Quick question: How
*wide* are our tables? I've been thinking that they're 30", standard
banquet table width, but I seem to recall you saying "2 feet" somewhere...
> Re: The switching yard. I tried making it this way last night with the
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26033 physical track
> segments, and it won't really work without cutting about one stud off
> the corner. Also, the switch handle might catch on a low hanging part
> of a train car. <sigh> These points go twice as far as they "should".
One way of getting a switching yard with fairly close parallel tracks is in
one of the layout ideas I had... The major complication is that the yard is
90 degrees to the mainline, which pretty much means it has to go on a
corner. Lower left of:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Jamesb/layouts/oct24_v3.tdl
Eats up a lot of switches, though. :/
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > That's a large layout, compared to what we've had before.
> > The large yard looks good too.
>
> I've got some improvements to make - I'll post a new one soon.
OK - Here's the latest. I don't think the play area will be that
large, but you get the idea. I was origianlly thinking of a three-sided
layout facing the play area, but it leaves a huge empty area behind
the layout. If I reverse/mirror everything, then the layout becomes
a sort of court-yard to partly surround the play area. I don't know
what the Calgary organizers will think of this, (that's the main reason
I'm posting this) but they said there was no shortage of space, so...
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26047
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I'm posting this also in the main trains group in case someone has
> indeed cut the edge off some switches or found a way to make a
> switching yard close together like this. I'm going to try an interleaved
> yard to get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
I killed the whole morning (I could never do this with a regular paying
job) making it, but I've got a switching yard that I like. The overall
"industrial end" is 8'x18', with the yard 3' across. (Any wider and we
wouldn't be able to reach it properly.) LMK what you think.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26059
Yes, the piece count is correct - and I'm not even done
yet. I think I'm going to need more track loans... 8-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> Hmm. I don't think we can pull off a 15 footer, quite.
> Quick question: How *wide* are our tables?
Two feet by eight feet (or 6 or 4, but what point is a 2'x4' table?)
> One way of getting a switching yard with fairly close parallel tracks
> is in one of the layout ideas I had...
For the track designer impaired, here's what he's talking about...
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26098
It's nice, but it still doesn't get the tracks any closer together
than the standard switch width. Nice and organized though. :-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> Hmm. I don't think we can pull off a 15 footer, quite.
> Quick question: How *wide* are our tables?
Two feet by eight feet (or 6 or 4, but what point is a 2'x4' table?)
> One way of getting a switching yard with fairly close parallel tracks
> is in one of the layout ideas I had...
For the track designer impaired, here's what he's talking about...
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26098
It's nice, but it still doesn't get the tracks any closer together
than the standard switch width. Nice and organized though. :-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > > That's a large layout, compared to what we've had before.
> > > The large yard looks good too.
> >
> > I've got some improvements to make - I'll post a new one soon.
>
> OK - Here's the latest. I don't think the play area will be that
> large, but you get the idea. I was origianlly thinking of a three-sided
> layout facing the play area, but it leaves a huge empty area behind
> the layout. If I reverse/mirror everything, then the layout becomes
> a sort of court-yard to partly surround the play area. I don't know
> what the Calgary organizers will think of this, (that's the main reason
> I'm posting this) but they said there was no shortage of space, so...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26047
Cool. The only problem I'd have with this is that there's nowhere "behind"
the layout to be. Also, if we're about equi-distant from our layout and the
play area, we may get involuntarily co-opted into some aspect of play area duty.
I think I'd prefer the original horseshoe idea you were working with, backed
against another layout, or a wall or something. It gives us a place to sit,
or put our jackets or lunch, or whatever. It also means we aren't between
crowds and the scenery.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > Hmm. I don't think we can pull off a 15 footer, quite.
> > Quick question: How *wide* are our tables?
>
> Two feet by eight feet (or 6 or 4, but what point is a 2'x4' table?)
>
> > One way of getting a switching yard with fairly close parallel tracks
> > is in one of the layout ideas I had...
>
> For the track designer impaired, here's what he's talking about...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26098
> It's nice, but it still doesn't get the tracks any closer together
> than the standard switch width. Nice and organized though. :-)
?
Why do you want the spurs so close together? If there's one thing we
*aren't* short of, it's space. Stick with the geometry. Even a
space-eating ladder-style yard works just fine.
James
|
|
| |
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I killed the whole morning (I could never do this with a regular paying
> job) making it, but I've got a switching yard that I like. The overall
> "industrial end" is 8'x18', with the yard 3' across. (Any wider and we
> wouldn't be able to reach it properly.) LMK what you think.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26059
> Yes, the piece count is correct - and I'm not even done
> yet. I think I'm going to need more track loans... 8-)
Er, one of the tracks isn't connected.
So, thats 1173 pieces of train track. My guess is about a minute to
place each one. Some as little as a couple seconds, but overall, I think
that's a not unexpected rate. That's a *lot* of time!
P.S. I've been capturing all these jpg's and putting them on the nalug page at
http://www.graysage.com/cg/nalug/
Making yard tracks closer together was one of the first things I wanted
to do with Lego tracks. Ran into the same problems as everyone else, of
course! One suggestion: cut straights in half, and pad the ladder a bit
with them. How far apart does that put the branch-off tracks?
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
Chris wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I killed the whole morning (I could never do this with a regular paying
> > job) making it, but I've got a switching yard that I like. The overall
> > "industrial end" is 8'x18', with the yard 3' across. (Any wider and we
> > wouldn't be able to reach it properly.) LMK what you think.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26059
> > Yes, the piece count is correct - and I'm not even done
> > yet. I think I'm going to need more track loans... 8-)
>
> Er, one of the tracks isn't connected.
Yeah - I noticed that AFTER I'd posted it - there should be another
switch in there, plus there's still more to add to the totals.
Between Michel and I we have almost 250 curved segments which should
be plenty. Straights are another story though. Adding in James P's
track gives over 800 straights, but I'm already over 900 on the layout,
and I expect to break 1000. The three of us together have two dozen
pairs of switches, which _should_ be enough. If I can't confirm
enough track loan(s) before-hand, I'll just have to decrease the layout.
David - How many straights and switches did you say you could
send? :-) Even adding the 80 you said were used for the
Guinness layout, I may still be short...
> My guess is about a minute to place each [track segment].
What are you doing, letting the minifigs lay the track? 8-)
I _conservatively_ estimated one quarter that amount of time.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
James B wrote:
> Why do you want the spurs so close together? If there's one
> thing we *aren't* short of, it's space. Stick with the geometry.
> Even a space-eating ladder-style yard works just fine.
True - there's no shortage of _floor_ space, and I can always add
more tables, but at $1/foot out of my pocket (hopefully reimbursed
but no garauntee) I'd like to make maximum use of space. Also,
I have to stay within reach of the edge of the table and leave lots
of room for the container and fuel and auto depots. Besides,
does it not look more realistic to have them closer together?
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
> > OK - Here's the latest...
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26047
>
> Cool. The only problem I'd have with this is that there's nowhere
> "behind" the layout to be. Also, if we're about equi-distant from
> our layout and the play area, we may get involuntarily co-opted into
> some aspect of play area duty.
>
> I think I'd prefer the original horseshoe idea you were working with,
> backed against another layout, or a wall or something. It gives us
> a place to sit, or put our jackets or lunch, or whatever. It also
> means we aren't between crowds and the scenery.
I agree with you on all points, but don't you think 750 sq. ft.
with nothing in it but us and our coats will look silly?
SRC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> ...get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26210
This shot is of the "industrial side" with the switching yard and the
container, oil and auto depots/yards. The empty spot in the lower
corner is for hand-outs - there's a matching one on the "town side".
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
SRC wrote in message ...
> > I think I'd prefer the original horseshoe idea you were working with,
> > backed against another layout, or a wall or something. It gives us
> > a place to sit, or put our jackets or lunch, or whatever. It also
> > means we aren't between crowds and the scenery.
>
> I agree with you on all points, but don't you think 750 sq. ft.
> with nothing in it but us and our coats will look silly?
You lost me. How do you come up with 750 sq ft. if the layout
is moved away from a wall by a few feet?
Perhaps a diagram would help ...
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
I like your yard, Steve. James' yard was less dense, but it did look
nice and tidy.
I just realized that there is only one loop of track. With a layout
this size, it would make sense to have several things moving
around simultaneously. Otherwise, it could look a bit dead.
Any chance you can cut out some of the long sidings in the center
part and fit in a second loop? If not, maybe just add one to
the town or industrial area.
Just tossing out ideas...
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
SRC wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > ...get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26210
> This shot is of the "industrial side" with the switching yard and the
> container, oil and auto depots/yards. The empty spot in the lower
> corner is for hand-outs - there's a matching one on the "town side".
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> So, thats 1173 pieces of train track. My guess is about a minute to
> place each one. Some as little as a couple seconds, but overall, I think
> that's a not unexpected rate. That's a *lot* of time!
A quick suggestion that will save you some time: Pre-assemble your straight
track into 4 piece long segments. You should be able to find a box large
enough to carry them. That way, when you're setting up at the show, you'll
be able to do it much quicker than if you have to connect every piece of track.
Best of luck at the show, we're all looking forward to pictures!
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
John Koob wrote:
> SRC wrote in message ...
> > > I think I'd prefer the original horseshoe idea you were working with,
> > > backed against another layout, or a wall or something. It gives us
> > > a place to sit, or put our jackets or lunch, or whatever. It also
> > > means we aren't between crowds and the scenery.
> >
> > I agree with you on all points, but don't you think 750 sq. ft.
> > with nothing in it but us and our coats will look silly?
>
> You lost me. How do you come up with 750 sq ft. if the layout
> is moved away from a wall by a few feet?
>
> Perhaps a diagram would help ...
Ah, yes. Good idea.
Steve, can you do a quick diagram of where you're (theoretically) putting
the tables? One for each basic layout that you've done would help a lot, I
think.
I've been getting confused too.
Thanks,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > ...get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26210
> I just realized that there is only one loop of track. With a layout
> this size, it would make sense to have several things moving
> around simultaneously. Otherwise, it could look a bit dead.
> Any chance you can cut out some of the long sidings in the center
> part and fit in a second loop? If not, maybe just add one to
> the town or industrial area.
That's the only thing I don't like about this layout - It's one HUGE
loop with tons of sidings. The main "problem" is the three main tracks
running the length of the main section. There could be one "loop" for
each cross-over, but that would require a reversing polarity loop at
either end of the inner run. James and I are going to be too busy to
manually switch things over every few minutes, and I haven't got the
required pieces to make two automated reversal loops with. Given
enough time and resources, I could probably make up a real slick pair
of loops with optical sensors and motorized switches that would allow
me to do this layout the way I originally envisioned it, but there's
no way I could have it ready in a month, even if I didn't have all
the other details to take care of and things to get ready.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
I agree with John, that it would be best if you had atleast two separate
loops of track. (I still like Chris' "law" that the continuous loop(s) not
run along the branch of a switch.) With a layout that size, if only one
locomotive can run at a time, it will look even more bare. I thought that
one of the reasons for a larger layout was to have the opportunity to run
more trains.
It might be more realistic if there is atleast a smaller yard at the other
end, that way the trains are going somewhere. Steve, I forgot to clarify
one of your earlier questions, I have a few pieces to make up a port scene,
not much yet, but a start, maybe it could be added to the city end.
With a long layout like this, the electrical resistance in the track will be
important to counteract. I will post separately to the trains group for
their comments on minimum length of track between electrical connections,
but in my small home layout, I have 4 separate connections to my track, to
avoid dead or slow patches of track. I counted all my wires and here is my list:
7 of the 51.5 inch connectors
4 of the 22 inch connectors
8 of the 11.5 inch connectors
5 of the 6.5 inch connectors
5 of the 4.75 inch connectors
and 10 of the track connectors they each give you about 19 inches of usable
cable.
If you add this all up, it is only 65.5 feet of cable, barely enough to
reach once across the layout.
Michel
> I like your yard, Steve. James' yard was less dense, but it did look
> nice and tidy.
>
> I just realized that there is only one loop of track. With a layout
> this size, it would make sense to have several things moving
> around simultaneously. Otherwise, it could look a bit dead.
>
> Any chance you can cut out some of the long sidings in the center
> part and fit in a second loop? If not, maybe just add one to
> the town or industrial area.
>
> Just tossing out ideas...
>
> --
> John
> (remove the obvious to reply)
>
> SRC wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > ...get the tracks the way I want - I'll post a shot of the results.
> >
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26210
> > This shot is of the "industrial side" with the switching yard and the
> > container, oil and auto depots/yards. The empty spot in the lower
> > corner is for hand-outs - there's a matching one on the "town side".
> >
> > SRC
> > StRuCtures
|
|
| |
SRC wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > I just realized that there is only one loop of track. With a layout
> > this size, it would make sense to have several things moving
> > around simultaneously. Otherwise, it could look a bit dead.
> > Any chance you can cut out some of the long sidings in the center
> > part and fit in a second loop? If not, maybe just add one to
> > the town or industrial area.
>
> That's the only thing I don't like about this layout - It's one HUGE
> loop with tons of sidings. The main "problem" is the three main tracks
> running the length of the main section.
Without messing with polarity switching, a simple solution would
be to add an extra main line to the center section for a total
of four lines. This way, you can have two loops running the full length
of the layout. [1]
Of course, near the crossover, space for another line may be limited.
No problem--simply add a table to widen this part of the center section.
If the cost of tables is an issue, this extra table is on me.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
[1] Just in case I was unclear, one loop uses the crossover.
The other loop would use the incline and a new line at grade level
in front of the crossover.
|
|
| |
Michel Magnan wrote in message ...
> I agree with John, that it would be best if you had atleast two separate
> loops of track. (I still like Chris' "law" that the continuous loop(s) not
> run along the branch of a switch.) With a layout that size, if only one
> locomotive can run at a time, it will look even more bare. I thought that
> one of the reasons for a larger layout was to have the opportunity to run
> more trains.
To get more trains moving at once, we would have to cut out some
of the long sidings in the center to make room for the second loop.
IMO, not a problem.
"More running locos are better than more stationary ones."
-- John's "law"
:-]
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> I agree with John, that it would be best if you had atleast two separate
> loops of track. (I still like Chris' "law" that the continuous loop(s) not
> run along the branch of a switch.) With a layout that size, if only one
> locomotive can run at a time, it will look even more bare. I thought that
> one of the reasons for a larger layout was to have the opportunity to run
> more trains.
Yup. A 60' layout is going to look pretty empty with only 1 train. I like
(John's?) suggestion for doing 2 loops.
> It might be more realistic if there is atleast a smaller yard at the other
> end, that way the trains are going somewhere. Steve, I forgot to clarify
> one of your earlier questions, I have a few pieces to make up a port scene,
> not much yet, but a start, maybe it could be added to the city end.
Cool. The more stuff we've got, the better.
> With a long layout like this, the electrical resistance in the track will be
> important to counteract. I will post separately to the trains group for
> their comments on minimum length of track between electrical connections,
> but in my small home layout, I have 4 separate connections to my track, to
> avoid dead or slow patches of track. I counted all my wires and here is my list:
> 7 of the 51.5 inch connectors
> 4 of the 22 inch connectors
> 8 of the 11.5 inch connectors
> 5 of the 6.5 inch connectors
> 5 of the 4.75 inch connectors
> and 10 of the track connectors they each give you about 19 inches of usable
> cable.
> If you add this all up, it is only 65.5 feet of cable, barely enough to
> reach once across the layout.
I've got 13 of the longest connector, and a smattering of the smallest 2
sizes. And 1 track connector. (I thought I had two, but can't find the
other one.)
James
|
|
| |
I cut some of my switches with very satisfying result. I have pictures and
will scan them one of these days.
Eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> SRC wrote in message ...
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > > I just realized that there is only one loop of track...
> > That's the only thing I don't like about this layout - It's one HUGE
> > loop with tons of sidings. The main "problem" is the three main tracks
> > running the length of the main section.
>
> Without messing with polarity switching, a simple solution would
> be to add an extra main line to the center section for a total
> of four lines. This way, you can have two loops running the full
> length of the layout. [1]
>
> Of course, near the crossover, space for another line may be limited.
> No problem--simply add a table to widen this part of the center section.
> If the cost of tables is an issue, this extra table is on me.
>
> [1] Just in case I was unclear, one loop uses the crossover.
> The other loop would use the incline and a new line at grade level
> in front of the crossover.
I've already spent considerable time pondering this problem, but I
haven't found a solution I liked. If I were to add a table in the
middle and shuffle/squeeze the track on both sides to accommodate
a fourth "main" line as you suggest, there's the "patched together"
look of the layout, but more importantly, the two main loops would
cross each other on the same level - collisions would be inevitable.
One solution is the automated reversing loops I mentioned before.
Perhaps for next year I could have them ready, but I can't see
myself having enough time to make it for this show - I'm going to
be pressed to find time as it is.
The other solution is to have the lower "cross-over" return to the
same "side of the tracks" on both sides of the bridge. This would
require adding at least ten feet to the layout, but more importantly,
would require two good sized mountains on either side of the
bridge for the track to cross back over within. If James figures
he can handle making two (essentially mirror image) 2' x 4'
mountains (they could be open at the back) with at least two
tunnels (one of them an "S" curve) in each, then yes, I can
make a nice dual line layout. However, as the layout stands
now, I can make it with or without the proposed mountain.
The "dual-line" version would need two additional bridges if
the mountains weren't there, and the result would look rather
silly IMO. (Why have the track cross under three times when
it could just run beside, but if it's run beside, what's the bridge
crossing? If the bridge isn't crossing anything, there's no point
to the inclines and long straight sections, so might as well get
rid of them too. Now the layout is 1/3 the size and doesn't have
it's primary feature - the only true LEGO arch in the world.)
James is already doing a bunch of work he didn't anticipate
due to my commitment to this show - I'm not about to saddle
him with making sixteen square feet of mountain.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
<snip>
Steve,
Can you bring some hardcopy layouts on Saturday, with some of the different
ideas you've had?
I'll confess, sporadic opportunity for Lugnet-ing this week, and a lot of ideas
getting tossed around has left me fairly confused as to what's going on versus
what might be going on versus what can go on versus why what might go on would
but can't because of...
my brain hurts.
We're some pretty bright guys when we want to be, and if we get together and
brainstorm, I'm sure we can come up with a feasable layout that involves
mountains and inclines and bridges and whatnot. :)
I'm also fairly positive that my confusion can be cleared up in a couple
minutes of in-person explaining.
James
(still somewhat recovering from illness, and apparantly, still slow on the
draw)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> Steve, Can you bring some hardcopy layouts on Saturday, with some
> of the different ideas you've had?
I guess - Is everyone going to be there? Might it not be better to post
them where everyone can see them? I guess I could both for that matter...
SRC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > SRC wrote in message ...
> > > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > > > I just realized that there is only one loop of track...
>
> > > That's the only thing I don't like about this layout...
> One solution is the automated reversing loops I mentioned before.
>
> The other solution is to have the lower "cross-over" return to
> the same "side of the tracks" on both sides of the bridge.
Here's the town, bridge and switching yard as I currently have them.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26675
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26676
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26674
At the moment, my method of running multiple trains is just that - run
multiple trains on the one main loop. It's so long that two or three trains
can run on it for quite awhile before catching up (assuming that we find
some similar engine loads/strengths). Having one train chasing another
might turn out to be more popular with the crowds anyway. I'm certainly
open to suggestions though - I'll see what I can bring on Saturday.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
> Here's the town, bridge and switching yard as I currently have them.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26675
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26676
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26674
Added to my nalug page.
> At the moment, my method of running multiple trains is just that - run
> multiple trains on the one main loop. It's so long that two or three trains
> can run on it for quite awhile before catching up (assuming that we find
> some similar engine loads/strengths). Having one train chasing another
> might turn out to be more popular with the crowds anyway. I'm certainly
> open to suggestions though - I'll see what I can bring on Saturday.
With a bit of changing, there is certainly room for a small loop inside
the town end.
So, do we have a time/place for our Saturday get-together yet? Is it out
a James'? We had talked about being able to come here, but we might want
to be a James' because of all the stuff. Time? Rides out there?
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> "SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Here's the town, bridge and switching yard as I currently have them.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26675
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26676
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=26674
>
> Added to my nalug page.
I would like to put a link to a NALug website in the hand-out...
Chris: Is there one? NALug.Graysage.com or Graysage.com/NALug ??
If there's no such thing, can you make something appropriate? Would
someone else prefer to be responsible for the "official" site? It need
not be fancy or amazing, but I'd like there to be something beyond
our little piece of LUGNet...
> With a bit of changing, there is certainly room for a small loop
> inside the town end.
Same with the industrial end, but wouldn't those be too small?
Then again, they'd be as big as the loops at GETS. Hmmmm...
> So, do we have a time/place for our Saturday get-together yet?
I thought it was @ James' to make the barrier buckets and perhaps
a group mountain building session. We could make the play table
ovals at that time too I suppose, but there's not much to that.
James will have to make it official - including start/end time...
SRC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> > So, do we have a time/place for our Saturday get-together yet?
>
> I thought it was @ James' to make the barrier buckets and perhaps
> a group mountain building session. We could make the play table
> ovals at that time too I suppose, but there's not much to that.
> James will have to make it official - including start/end time...
Ok, official it is, then. :)
My place, this Saturday, aiming for noon. I can do a pick up (and drop
off)run for anyone who can't otherwise get a ride.
On the agenda:
barricade making
Supertrain layout discussion
mountain design
general yakking about Lego
going out for food
Specific things I really want to get done:
Supertrain layout - I want this set it stone on Saturday, if we can manage it.
Clearance - I want to know how high/wide/long our biggest train car is going
to be
Food - I want to go out for food; I've missed it the last few times.
Can anyone think of anything else?
James
|
|
| |
Thanks for offering your place James.
I might be a bit late, we won't be leaving St Paul until Saturday morning,
I'll have my wife drop me off at your door on our way into Edmonton. (James, I
misplaced your street address, could you email it to me again.) We have
another funeral to go to! Not a relative of mine, but the mother of our sons
godmother, an aunt I am very close to.
The agenda sounds good to me.
Michel
>
> My place, this Saturday, aiming for noon. I can do a pick up (and drop
> off)run for anyone who can't otherwise get a ride.
>
> On the agenda:
>
> barricade making
> Supertrain layout discussion
> mountain design
> general yakking about Lego
> going out for food
>
>
> Specific things I really want to get done:
>
> Supertrain layout - I want this set it stone on Saturday, if we can manage it.
> Clearance - I want to know how high/wide/long our biggest train car is going
> to be
> Food - I want to go out for food; I've missed it the last few times.
>
>
> Can anyone think of anything else?
>
> James
|
|
| |
Steve, did James Powell ever send you the layout for his intermodal station?
It would be nice to have it on Saturday, to be able to incorporate it into
your plans.
Michel
|
|
| |
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> Ok, official it is, then. :)
> My place, this Saturday, aiming for noon. I can do a pick up (and drop
> off)run for anyone who can't otherwise get a ride.
Thanks - it's likely easier for someone in town to get both myself
and John. What's everyone else's status on this?
> On the agenda:
>
> barricade making
> Supertrain layout discussion
> mountain design
> general yakking about Lego
> going out for food
Sounds good to me. Want me to bring my BURPs? I have a tub of the big
ones and a bucket of the little ones. You must have lots of other grey
and black stuff now, so if I just bring them, we should be able to keep
things straight without any trouble. Oh, large baseplates - I have 3
of the big grey ones available, and a tub and bucket full of various
size 1-high baseplates. Personally, I think I would do the mountain(s)
without any bottom, but the 1-high's can be used for tops, etc.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
> I would like to put a link to a NALug website in the hand-out...
> Chris: Is there one? NALug.Graysage.com or Graysage.com/NALug ??
> If there's no such thing, can you make something appropriate? Would
> someone else prefer to be responsible for the "official" site? It need
> not be fancy or amazing, but I'd like there to be something beyond
> our little piece of LUGNet...
There is nothing there now. The current page is big and ugly. I have
no problem with creating one, but I have neither the skill nor the tools
to create flashy graphics. Putting up jpg's is easy, and I know enough
HTML to make most simple stuff (all of my pages are either hand made
or made with some simple programs I wrote). I prefer that type, since
they are far smaller (less bandwidth) than some machine-made pages.
If anyone has any good images or words to put up, send 'em to me.
Currently, I have the pics of the Nalug train cars, and pics from the
GETS show. Assuming we make one, its path would be:
http://www.GraySage.COM/nalug/
(The trailing slash makes finding it quicker for many browsers, rather
than having to try "default.htm", "default.html", "index.htm" before
finally finding the "index.html" that I use.)
...
OK, there is a dumb page there now. I'll work on it...
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> Steve, did James Powell ever send you the layout for his intermodal
> station? It would be nice to have it on Saturday, to be able to
> incorporate it into your plans.
An intermodal layout? AFAIK he's sending a bunch of containers and
intermodal type sets that James B and I will place as appropriate.
I still have to confirm, but it'll probably include my <set:4549> and then
after the show, the crane and truck will go with the intermodal parts
to James P, while the lowered car and containers will return with me.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
>
> Supertrain layout - I want this set it stone on Saturday, if we can manage it.
Doubtful - The layout is still rather fluid including e-mailing with Calgary.
> Clearance - I want to know how high/wide/long our biggest train car is going
> to be Food - I want to go out for food; I've missed it the last few times.
AFAIK the clearance height is fourteen bricks including track.
ie. Set the train on some track on a table, and put a stack of fourteen
bricks beside it - the bricks had better be taller. If the clearance
is more than that it's going to have a significant "ripple affect".
[ If "Big Red" is more than that, it'll just have to stay as a static
model. Then again, I haven't heard a peep from Kevin in ages,
so it might not even be present - anyone know where he is? ]
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> >
> > Supertrain layout - I want this set it stone on Saturday, if we can manage it.
>
> Doubtful - The layout is still rather fluid including e-mailing with Calgary.
Hmm. Ok then, I want it enough set in stone that we can start building
usefully. I want to know how much room we've got for town (container yard,
Octan yard, rail yard, etc) Some of that stuff we can fake, but I really
want to be able to just plunk down the buildings et al where they're
supposed to go. I don't want to still be planning things 4 hours before the
show.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > >
> > > Supertrain layout - I want this set it stone on Saturday, if we can
> >
> > Doubtful - The layout is still rather fluid including e-mailing with Calgary.
>
> Hmm. Ok then, I want it enough set in stone that we can start building
> usefully. I want to know how much room we've got for town (container
> yard, Octan yard, rail yard, etc) Some of that stuff we can fake, but
> I really want to be able to just plunk down the buildings et al where
> they're supposed to go. I don't want to still be planning things 4
> hours before the show.
Agreed - I think we can get solid enough. The main thing is what
mountain configuration to use (so it can be built) right? That part
at least we should be able to put in stone. (pun intended) ;-)
Whatever I (we) decide on 3 or 4 tracks and cross-overs and main
loops and such I will incorporate the appropriate mountain into
whatever the final layout is. Building placement can easily be
decided later, but still before the 16th (of February).
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > Hmm. Ok then, I want it enough set in stone that we can start building
> > usefully. I want to know how much room we've got for town (container
> > yard, Octan yard, rail yard, etc) Some of that stuff we can fake, but
> > I really want to be able to just plunk down the buildings et al where
> > they're supposed to go. I don't want to still be planning things 4
> > hours before the show.
>
> Agreed - I think we can get solid enough. The main thing is what
> mountain configuration to use (so it can be built) right? That part
> at least we should be able to put in stone. (pun intended) ;-)
Yes and no. I definitely want the mountain down, but I'd also really like a
solid setting for the town. We can build some things before knowing what
space we've got, but a lot of stuff is going to have to wait - it's hard to
build something without knowing how much room you've got to build it in!
The container yard & Octan yard I'm less worried about - they've got less
buildings, so are more flexible.
Also - John & Michel (and everyone else, I guess) - can you either bring
what road plates you have, or have a list of them? That will make life
easier too.
James "Who put the optimist in charge?" Brown
;)
|
|
| |
Steve, look up http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/nalug/?n=431
Michel
> > Steve, did James Powell ever send you the layout for his intermodal
> > station? It would be nice to have it on Saturday, to be able to
> > incorporate it into your plans.
>
> An intermodal layout? AFAIK he's sending a bunch of containers and
> intermodal type sets that James B and I will place as appropriate.
> I still have to confirm, but it'll probably include my <set:4549> and then
> after the show, the crane and truck will go with the intermodal parts
> to James P, while the lowered car and containers will return with me.
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > > Hmm. Ok then, I want it enough set in stone that we can start building
> > > usefully. I want to know how much room we've got for town (container
> > > yard, Octan yard, rail yard, etc) Some of that stuff we can fake, but
> > > I really want to be able to just plunk down the buildings et al where
> > > they're supposed to go. I don't want to still be planning things 4
> > > hours before the show.
> >
> > Agreed - I think we can get solid enough. The main thing is what
> > mountain configuration to use (so it can be built) right? That part
> > at least we should be able to put in stone. (pun intended) ;-)
>
> Yes and no. I definitely want the mountain down, but I'd also really
> like a solid setting for the town. We can build some things before
> knowing what space we've got, but a lot of stuff is going to have to
> wait - it's hard to build something without knowing how much room
> you've got to build it in!
The town can be as solid as you want it - I was intending to leave that
section pretty much up to you. ie. There's tracks entering it here and
here, which should loop back to here and here and the overall dimensions
should be this by that. (6' across and some multiple of 2' long - max. 16')
It should contain a train station and the grain elevator. How's that? :-)
> James "Who put the optimist in charge?" Brown
ROTFL 8-)
Steve
(Off to make some print-outs to bring tomorrow.)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> Steve, look up http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/nalug/?n=431
>
> > > Steve, did James Powell ever send you the layout for his intermodal
> > > station? It would be nice to have it on Saturday, to be able to
> > > incorporate it into your plans.
> >
> > An intermodal layout? AFAIK he's sending a bunch of containers and
> > intermodal type sets that James B and I will place as appropriate.
If James P does have a layout for the container yard that needs to
be followed, I'm sure I can incorporate it. I'll e-mail him about it...
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
I was trying some layouts in my head yesterday after our Saturday
get together and realized two problems with the mountain as it stands.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28154 (The cross
tracks represent the bridge.) Number the tracks 1,2,3,4 from top to
bottom. As of Sat. we had 1 @ 2 (bricks high) 2 @ 0, 3 @ 16, and
4 @ 0 with 2, 3, & 4 enclosed and 1 outside.
The problems are that there's no room for the "port loop" and it's
on the wrong side. I think the front should be keep "flat" such that
the port is behind the tracks and bridge (from the viewer's perspective)
rather than having it stick out into the area where people are walking.
The other aspect is the height of elevated track. If the bridge were
adjacent to the mountain it would be fine, but given that the port area
needs room to loop around, there will need to be distance between the
bridge and mountain, therefore the track elevation when it reaches
the mountain would be less. I really like the "cut-line" effect, where
the trains would be partially visible "through the rock", but we need
to shuffle the tracks a bit such that they're 1 @ 2, 2 @ 12 (or 13),
3 @ 0 and 4 @ 0. Tracks 3 & 4 would be the "inside port loop".
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
I just wanted to publicly thank Michel and James and the rest of NALug
for their help on Saturday making barricades for the show next month.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I was trying some layouts in my head yesterday after our Saturday
> get together and realized two problems with the mountain as it stands.
<snip problems>
Yup, we'll have to figure something out - but this and other details have to
wait for the big question to get answered:
Do we have a 'closed-loop' layout, or an 'open C' layout?
That tells us if we need 3 tracks (Michel's rough draft - my preference) or
4 tracks going around (pretty much necessary for 2 loops on an open C).
Until we know one way or the other, everything else is just speculation and
brainstorming.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I was trying some layouts in my head yesterday after our Saturday
> > get together and realized two problems with the mountain as it stands.
>
> <snip problems>
>
> Yup, we'll have to figure something out - but this and other details
> have to wait for the big question to get answered:
> Do we have a 'closed-loop' layout, or an 'open C' layout?
Well, we're still working on that - this is what I got an hour ago:
" It's up to you, you can be either 40 x 20 foot, or 75 x 20ish.
With the 40 x 20 foot, it would be easier to keep you near the
kid's play area though. "
I wrote back that the main problem with the 40'x20' as it stands now
is that it's only really open on two sides... I'll keep you advised.
Here's what the latest floor plan from them (last week) looks like:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28185 We're basically
in the middle of the entire floor plan.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > I was trying some layouts in my head yesterday after our Saturday
> > > get together and realized two problems with the mountain as it stands.
> >
> > <snip problems>
> >
> > Yup, we'll have to figure something out - but this and other details
> > have to wait for the big question to get answered:
> > Do we have a 'closed-loop' layout, or an 'open C' layout?
>
> Well, we're still working on that - this is what I got an hour ago:
>
> " It's up to you, you can be either 40 x 20 foot, or 75 x 20ish.
> With the 40 x 20 foot, it would be easier to keep you near the
> kid's play area though. "
>
> I wrote back that the main problem with the 40'x20' as it stands now
> is that it's only really open on two sides... I'll keep you advised.
Hmm. Well, two and a half, but yeah, it's not a 4-sided layout location.
There's an easy solution, but it depends on what requirements they have for
clearances. If we do a 36x12 layout, that gives us a walkway (4' wide) behind
- but the show might not be allowed to have traffic flow that constricted.
Or we can do a 36x18 'open C'. Basically, if we're still being given a choice
between big and freakin' huge, I'm still (again, in perpetuity) registering a
perference for merely big.
I don't think I can emphasize enough how hesitant I am about manning a 60'
layout with 2 people at a '10,000 expected attendance' show.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I was trying some layouts in my head yesterday after our Saturday
> get together and realized two problems with the mountain as it stands.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28154 (The cross
> tracks represent the bridge.) Number the tracks 1,2,3,4 from top to
> bottom. As of Sat. we had 1 @ 2 (bricks high) 2 @ 0, 3 @ 16, and
> 4 @ 0 with 2, 3, & 4 enclosed and 1 outside.
I ran across another problem if we have an 'open C' style of layout - we need
another bridge. The loop containing your arch can't come back around if our
layout is open behind.
James
|
|
| |
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> I ran across another problem if we have an 'open C' style of layout - we need
> another bridge. The loop containing your arch can't come back around if our
> layout is open behind.
That's where the four tracks come from. The way Steve drew it the other
night, the main loop crossed over itself on the bridge, which of course
implies that it can't be "water" under the bridge.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
>
> > I ran across another problem if we have an 'open C' style of layout - we need
> > another bridge. The loop containing your arch can't come back around if our
> > layout is open behind.
>
> That's where the four tracks come from. The way Steve drew it the other
> night, the main loop crossed over itself on the bridge, which of course
> implies that it can't be "water" under the bridge.
Hmm. I musta been out of the room at the time... If we're dispensing with
the idea of the bridge going over anything, why not just run 3 continuous
loops? (or in the case of an 'open C', 2 loops?)
James
|
|
| |
> > I wrote back that the main problem with the 40'x20' as it stands now
> > is that it's only really open on two sides... I'll keep you advised.
> ...it depends on what requirements they have for clearances.
From what I've seen, they want fairly large isles - a good idea IMO.
> I don't think I can emphasize enough how hesitant I am about manning
> a 60' layout with 2 people at a '10,000 expected attendance' show.
"The optimist" doesn't want to get us in over our heads either. ;-)
I heard back this morning, and it appears we may be able to get the
"best of both worlds". The layout planner sent a diagram of the kids
play area backed into the "courtyard", (I can't believe I hadn't thought
of it myself) and IMO it works very well. Combine it with the layout
from Nolin (the local boy) and you have a nice block in the middle of
the train show. The other big plus I see with this is that we can use
the building pillars as both visual and physical reinforcement of the
rope barricades - should be sufficient to keep everyone at a safe distance.
I have drawn in the ropes and tables as I would expect them to be and
written back for confirmation that I am understanding the layout correctly.
(It looks too crowded in the top right - I'll let you know what he says.)
See for yourself: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28309
Blue is 5' high "show curtains" and red is rope (which I still need to buy).
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> > "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> >
> > > I ran across another problem if we have an 'open C' style of
> > > layout - we need another bridge.
Quite right - I've got it "covered". ;-)
> > That's where the four tracks come from. The way Steve drew it the other
> > night, the main loop crossed over itself on the bridge, which of course
> > implies that it can't be "water" under the bridge.
>
> Hmm. I musta been out of the room at the time...
I think you were actually. :-) My original premise was that the bridge
was crossing over the cross-over tracks in a larger scale update of my
favorite train LEGO train cover photo from the 60's. The discussions
on Sat. about harbour loops and "water" giving us opportunity to show
boats and loading docks, etc. I also like. As you say, it requires at
least one more bridge if done as a "C" - I've already got it built
(in my head, along with the primary arch bridge) James P has some
ships he will send if he can squeeze them in - He also has a Technic
"automated" coal loading station, but it's staying with him... :-)
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I heard back this morning, and it appears we may be able to get the
> "best of both worlds". The layout planner sent a diagram of the kids
> play area backed into the "courtyard", (I can't believe I hadn't thought
> of it myself) and IMO it works very well. Combine it with the layout
> from Nolin (the local boy) and you have a nice block in the middle of
> the train show. The other big plus I see with this is that we can use
> the building pillars as both visual and physical reinforcement of the
> rope barricades - should be sufficient to keep everyone at a safe distance.
> I have drawn in the ropes and tables as I would expect them to be and
> written back for confirmation that I am understanding the layout correctly.
> (It looks too crowded in the top right - I'll let you know what he says.)
> See for yourself: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28309
> Blue is 5' high "show curtains" and red is rope (which I still need to buy).
Looks like a plan to me. Do you want me to work on some track plans, or
have you already got a good idea of the layout?
It would be very cool if the town area doesn't need to have 4 tracks in
front of it... it doesn't seem like much, but that extra 1/2 baseplate makes
a significant difference with the ideas I was playing around with last night.
In fact, if you tell me where the town is, and give me the number tracks
coming in (and which ones have to loop back to themselves), that would give
me the most flexability on street planning.
Thanks,
James
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes:
> > > "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I ran across another problem if we have an 'open C' style of
> > > > layout - we need another bridge.
>
> Quite right - I've got it "covered". ;-)
>
> > > That's where the four tracks come from. The way Steve drew it the other
> > > night, the main loop crossed over itself on the bridge, which of course
> > > implies that it can't be "water" under the bridge.
I must have been low on coffee to miss this opportunity the other day...
Isn't it all just water under the bridge? <GD&R>
> > Hmm. I musta been out of the room at the time...
>
> I think you were actually. :-) My original premise was that the bridge
> was crossing over the cross-over tracks in a larger scale update of my
> favorite train LEGO train cover photo from the 60's. The discussions
> on Sat. about harbour loops and "water" giving us opportunity to show
> boats and loading docks, etc. I also like. As you say, it requires at
> least one more bridge if done as a "C" - I've already got it built
> (in my head, along with the primary arch bridge) James P has some
> ships he will send if he can squeeze them in - He also has a Technic
> "automated" coal loading station, but it's staying with him... :-)
Keep in mind that if we want to run absolutely everything, we need 16 height
clearance on the car loader, and effectively 10 wide for big red. I've
built a clearance car for checking the mountain - do you want me to make a
copy for you to check against bridges?
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I heard back this morning...
> > See for yourself: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28309
>
> Looks like a plan to me. Do you want me to work on some track plans,
> or have you already got a good idea of the layout?
> In fact, if you tell me where the town is, and give me the number
> tracks coming in (and which ones have to loop back to themselves),
> that would give me the most flexability on street planning.
Yes I've got the over-all plan much the way I want it, (I'm going to
incorporate Michel's idea's as possible) and plan to leave the town
area entirely up to you - I'll have something more specific soon.
I also just heard back - As I suspected, there needs to be more room
to the "northeast" and especially on the "east". Hence, I have redone it
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310 and sent it to
see what he thinks. The white is a "white picket fence" while the
blue should be too high to see over. I'll confirm the blue barriers.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > I heard back this morning...
> > > See for yourself: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28309
> >
> > Looks like a plan to me. Do you want me to work on some track plans,
> > or have you already got a good idea of the layout?
>
> > In fact, if you tell me where the town is, and give me the number
> > tracks coming in (and which ones have to loop back to themselves),
> > that would give me the most flexability on street planning.
>
> Yes I've got the over-all plan much the way I want it, (I'm going to
> incorporate Michel's idea's as possible) and plan to leave the town
> area entirely up to you - I'll have something more specific soon.
Cool.
> I also just heard back - As I suspected, there needs to be more room
> to the "northeast" and especially on the "east". Hence, I have redone it
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310 and sent it to
> see what he thinks. The white is a "white picket fence" while the
> blue should be too high to see over. I'll confirm the blue barriers.
Cool. Even if the blue isn't too high to see over, I think it's OK. As
long as it's too high to "accidently" walk over, or push closer, I'm OK. :)
James
|
|
| |
SRC wrote in message ...
> I also just heard back - As I suspected, there needs to be more room
> to the "northeast" and especially on the "east". Hence, I have redone it
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310 and sent it to
> see what he thinks. The white is a "white picket fence" while the
> blue should be too high to see over. I'll confirm the blue barriers.
Floorplan looks great. Looks like we can fit in two or more loops. :-]
Good arrangement of tables as well. What are the dimensions?
Idea: Make a track designer template containing only the
tables and send it to the mailing list.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> I also just heard back - As I suspected, there needs to be more room
> to the "northeast" and especially on the "east". Hence, I have redone
> it http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310 and sent
> it to see what he thinks. The white is a "white picket fence" while
> the blue should be too high to see over. I'll confirm the blue barriers.
He's still checking on the height (and strength) of the blue barriers,
but the overall plan is A-OK. 8-) I will now make a more detailed
layout plan and get the town dimensions to James as soon as I can.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > I also just heard back - As I suspected, there needs to be more room
> > to the "northeast" and especially on the "east". Hence, I have redone
> > it http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310 and sent
> > it to see what he thinks. The white is a "white picket fence" while
> > the blue should be too high to see over. I'll confirm the blue barriers.
>
> He's still checking on the height (and strength) of the blue barriers,
> but the overall plan is A-OK. 8-) I will now make a more detailed
> layout plan and get the town dimensions to James as soon as I can.
Woohoo!
:)
The mountain as it currently stands is here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Jamesb/layouts/mountain.tdl
...which is not to say that it can't change, but that's currently got
clearance for all the tracks, and the track sections end exactly on the
baseplate lines, which will make it easy to move & assemble. (ignore the
fact that it doesn't *look* like it ends on baseplates - that's because
track designer doesn't have 1/4 width (8x32) baseplates.
James
|
|
| |
Here's a close-up of mountain spacing, with the "incline corner-stone
reference" highlighted. I moved the "industrial loop" closer in to
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28918
the mountain because this way the mountain and loop have a 4'x10'
table area. Let's the mountain spread out beyond two feet and makes
a more uniform overall appearance. (James has the TD file of course.)
I still have to update the overall file to reflect his base-plates...
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> This is the overall view with us in the middle of the whole show...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28310
> Here is a 3D view of the tables, though it's not done yet...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28913
> And here is a screen shot of the layout so far...
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28912
> James will be adding/changing the town on the far right hand side,
> and I still have the switching yard and industrial area to do, (plus the
> play area) but the town outline is done and the bridge/harbour area is
> basically done, and the incline height and locations for the mountain are
> done. (In the TD file sent to James) Who's got blue base-plates? 8-)
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > Here's a close-up of mountain spacing, with the "incline corner-stone
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28918
>
> OK - Mountain update: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28919
> The baseplates should match what James has in his basement. The short
> track segment by itself is the "show circle" for BigRed if Kevin can get
> those CP stickers ready in the next three weeks... 8-)
Show circle? Unless Kevin has some objection, I intend to run that sucker!
:)
James
|
|
| |
SRC wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > Here's a close-up of mountain spacing, with the "incline corner-stone
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28918
>
> OK - Mountain update: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28919
> The baseplates should match what James has in his basement. The short
> track segment by itself is the "show circle" for BigRed if Kevin can get
> those CP stickers ready in the next three weeks... 8-)
Whoops! I didn't pay enough attention the first time around... The baseplates
should be lined up with the inside, not with the outside of the tracks, if that
makes sense - there's an extra 8 studs of baseplate on the outside of this: (TD
doesn't have 8x32 baseplates)
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Jamesb/layouts/mountain.tdl
This is important because of a couple things - the baseplates as I've got them
have the track & baseplate edges lining up - makes it *much* easier to assemble
and not worry about track segments sticking out and banging into things when
moving.
Sorry for not being clear about that the first time,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> Whoops! I didn't pay enough attention the first time around...
> ...(TD doesn't have 8x32 baseplates)
Just overlap the baseplates to give the result you want.
As long as it fits on a 4'x10' table and the tracks are where they're
supposed to be, the baseplates etc. are irrelevant (to me). :-)
SRC
|
|
| |
SRC wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > Whoops! I didn't pay enough attention the first time around...
> > ...(TD doesn't have 8x32 baseplates)
>
> Just overlap the baseplates to give the result you want.
>
> As long as it fits on a 4'x10' table and the tracks are where they're
> supposed to be, the baseplates etc. are irrelevant (to me). :-)
Ok. You do know that it won't fill a 4x10 table in either dimension,
right?
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> SRC wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > > Whoops! I didn't pay enough attention the first time around...
> > > ...(TD doesn't have 8x32 baseplates)
> >
> > Just overlap the baseplates to give the result you want.
> >
> > As long as it fits on a 4'x10' table and the tracks are where they're
> > supposed to be, the baseplates etc. are irrelevant (to me). :-)
>
> Ok. You do know that it won't fill a 4x10 table in either
> dimension, right?
Yup - Just didn't want it hangin' over the edge. :-)
Any luck finding a grey cloth to give the illusion of the mountain
extending up from the floor? That reminds me - How many of
those $2 blue table cloths did Michel leave at your place?
I only ever saw the one sample that I have with me.
SRC
|
|
| |
OK - I've got the layout design basically done. Here's what it looks
like: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29015
Here's a closer view of the industrial side. Moving clockwise, there is
the switching yard, container yard, auto yard, and fuel yard. Michel's
cool spring-loaded track ends terminate the container and fuel sidings.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29014
I don't have the finalized track count - James is still finalizing the
town layout, and I may change the top-most section to a long high
speed straight-away without sidings, so that will lower the count a bit.
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
Excellent. Great yard. I can't find much to change. :-]
If we will be short on straight track, no problem--I am in need
of some anyway and could be convinced to place an order. LMK.
John
SRC wrote in message ...
> OK - I've got the layout design basically done. Here's what it looks
> like: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29015
> Here's a closer view of the industrial side. Moving clockwise, there is
> the switching yard, container yard, auto yard, and fuel yard. Michel's
> cool spring-loaded track ends terminate the container and fuel sidings.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29014
> I don't have the finalized track count - James is still finalizing the
> town layout, and I may change the top-most section to a long high
> speed straight-away without sidings, so that will lower the count a bit.
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > SRC wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > > > Whoops! I didn't pay enough attention the first time around...
> > > > ...(TD doesn't have 8x32 baseplates)
> > >
> > > Just overlap the baseplates to give the result you want.
> > >
> > > As long as it fits on a 4'x10' table and the tracks are where they're
> > > supposed to be, the baseplates etc. are irrelevant (to me). :-)
> >
> > Ok. You do know that it won't fill a 4x10 table in either
> > dimension, right?
>
> Yup - Just didn't want it hangin' over the edge. :-)
Cool. :)
> Any luck finding a grey cloth to give the illusion of the mountain
> extending up from the floor?
Can do - although not in a fireproof varient, if they're wanting such.
> That reminds me - How many of
> those $2 blue table cloths did Michel leave at your place?
> I only ever saw the one sample that I have with me.
I only have 1, unless they're hiding somewhere clever. I'll e-mail him and ask
him to bring them in when he drops stuff off on the 7th.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> Excellent. Great yard. I can't find much to change. :-]
Whoa - I'd better make a note of the date. ;-)
I've added another table to the town for the grain elevator. Here's
what the latest town layout looks like. Please note this is my idea
and James will probably make wholesale revisions to it... :-)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29046
SRC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > Excellent. Great yard. I can't find much to change. :-]
>
> Whoa - I'd better make a note of the date. ;-)
>
> I've added another table to the town for the grain elevator. Here's
> what the latest town layout looks like. Please note this is my idea
> and James will probably make wholesale revisions to it... :-)
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29046
Heh. Yup. :)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29065
This is, unless anyone spots something glaring, a final plan. The extra
table lets us do a long stretch of highway, and what can be more Alberta
than that? ;)
John - I'm taking you up on your offer to do a warehouse-like building... if
you can do it on 2 baseplates, then we can put a parking lot in front for
the trucks.
The blue plates around the outside are lined up a little funny, becuase
that's a close approximation of the actual size of the tables.
James
|
|
| |
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29065
> This is, unless anyone spots something glaring, a final plan.
> The extra table lets us do a long stretch of highway, and what
> can be more Alberta than that? ;)
Here is the updated town incorporated into the full layout:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29134
I couldn't fit the last meter or two onto the screen, but you know
what it looks like from the close-up. If someone has excess
blue plates they'd like to trade, I'd like to give the river some
texture - plus I have to turn my grey plates blue. <Hum that
last bit to the tune of "Don't it make my brown eyes blue." :-)
SRC
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote in message ...
> John - I'm taking you up on your offer to do a warehouse-like building... • if
> you can do it on 2 baseplates, then we can put a parking lot in front for
> the trucks.
Ok. Does anyone have garage door segments that they could
loan for the warehouse loading bays? I have enough to make
four doors but the segment colors are a mix of clear, red, blue
and black. Also the 1x2 slotted bricks are a mixture of white,
red and black. Anyone have these hard-to-find bricks?
If no one has any, I'll just reduce the number of bays, since
the colors have to work together...
John
|
|
| |
I left the 10 packs of white plastic skirting at my parents with the other two
blue ones, hopefully I'll have time to dash to Millwoods to pick them up
before I go to Sherwood Park to drop off the rest of the stuff.
Michel
>
> > That reminds me - How many of
> > those $2 blue table cloths did Michel leave at your place?
> > I only ever saw the one sample that I have with me.
>
> I only have 1, unless they're hiding somewhere clever. I'll e-mail him and • ask
> him to bring them in when he drops stuff off on the 7th.
>
> James
|
|
| |
Looks really nice Steve.
You have to stop posting these improved plans, sooner or later I will weaken
and take the trip to Calgary to see this in person. It would be the last
thing I would enjoy in my life, as my wife would kill me for leaving her
alone with my parents in St Paul for the weekend!
Michel
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29015
> Here's a closer view of the industrial side. Moving clockwise, there is
> the switching yard, container yard, auto yard, and fuel yard. Michel's
> cool spring-loaded track ends terminate the container and fuel sidings.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29014
> I don't have the finalized track count - James is still finalizing the
> town layout, and I may change the top-most section to a long high
> speed straight-away without sidings, so that will lower the count a bit.
|
|
| |
Looks good James, is there anyway to leave a siding in front of the station,
there are several passenger trains on the roster. Perhaps moving the station
to the far right, enlarging that loop, and shrinking the loop on the left.
Did you try just a straight between the switches in the crossover from the two
loops, it might allow the tracks to be placed closer
together.
A while ago you had asked about baseplates, I have 2 16x24,
1 32x32 and 1 16x32 in green. One 16x32 beach, part blue
and part several colors. Eight tan 16x32 and one grey
16x32
Let me know if you want me to bring any of these.
I found a better box for the elevator, did you want that
huge box back?
Michel
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29065
>
> This is, unless anyone spots something glaring, a final plan. The extra
> table lets us do a long stretch of highway, and what can be more Alberta
> than that? ;)
>
> John - I'm taking you up on your offer to do a warehouse-like building... if
> you can do it on 2 baseplates, then we can put a parking lot in front for
> the trucks.
>
> The blue plates around the outside are lined up a little funny, becuase
> that's a close approximation of the actual size of the tables.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> Looks really nice Steve.
> You have to stop posting these improved plans, sooner or later I will weaken
> and take the trip to Calgary to see this in person. It would be the last
> thing I would enjoy in my life, as my wife would kill me for leaving her
> alone with my parents in St Paul for the weekend!
Just take her with you. There's got to be one or two passable restaurants in
Calgary. Bribery will get you everywhere. Hee Hee.
KMaynes
|
|
| |
"John Koob" <jkoob@nospam.v-wave.com> writes:
> Ok. Does anyone have garage door segments that they could
> loan for the warehouse loading bays? I have enough to make
> four doors but the segment colors are a mix of clear, red, blue
> and black. Also the 1x2 slotted bricks are a mixture of white,
> red and black. Anyone have these hard-to-find bricks?
>
> If no one has any, I'll just reduce the number of bays, since
> the colors have to work together...
I'm not sure I've ever even *seen* a Lego garage door! I don't know if they
are the same slots, but I have some 1 x 4 bricks with straight side slots.
2 red, 4 grey, 4 dark grey, 14 black.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> Looks good James, is there anyway to leave a siding in front of the station,
> there are several passenger trains on the roster. Perhaps moving the station
> to the far right, enlarging that loop, and shrinking the loop on the left.
OK.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29309
I think this is the final, since yours was the only suggested revision. Good
idea, since this gives us a long enough straight stretch in front of the
station to actually have a train not stopped on a curve or a switch.
James
(ps: Steve: I'll send you the .tdl tomorrow)
|
|
| |
> "John Koob" <jkoob@nospam.v-wave.com> writes:
>
> Ok. Does anyone have garage door segments that they could
> loan for the warehouse loading bays? I have enough to make
> four doors but the segment colors are a mix of clear, red, blue
> and black. Also the 1x2 slotted bricks are a mixture of white,
> red and black. Anyone have these hard-to-find bricks?
I do have some bits that could help...What color(s) do you need
for them? I mostly have red, from the old firehouses (see my
roundhouse at http://www.baylug.org/zonker/ZRondDom.html).
I have some smaller quantities of other colors...
I also have a large number of black and of grey 5-brick-tall sloted
uprightes...they are 1x2 at the base, but the top is 2x2. Write me
in email, and let me knlow what you'd like, and I'll check to see
what I have. I could put in in the box of trains heading to Steve. :-)
-Z-
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> > Looks good James, is there anyway to leave a siding in front of the station,
> > there are several passenger trains on the roster. Perhaps moving the station
> > to the far right, enlarging that loop, and shrinking the loop on the left.
> OK.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29309
> I think this is the final, since yours was the only suggested revision. Good
> idea, since this gives us a long enough straight stretch in front of the
> station to actually have a train not stopped on a curve or a switch.
> James
> (ps: Steve: I'll send you the .tdl tomorrow)
Looks like you've got enough room for two or three stations.
I have a retrostation built and available - LMK if you need it.
SRC
|
|
|
