Subject:
|
Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:40:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2047 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Mountain
|
| (...) How's this? (URL) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout
|
| James Brown wrote in message ... (...) Great. (...) I was thinking of a mountain with an open back, but if it's enclosed, you're right. (...) Yup. Don't have a need to rip it apart anytime soon. It's all white and red bricks--two colors which I (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
