| |
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
