| |
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
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Dual main lines?
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
