Subject:
|
Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 18:49:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3151 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > James Brown wrote in message ...
> > > Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
> > > Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with
> > > had one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an
> > > option, and how soon would you need any elevating written in stone?
>
> > We've already had an unsupported bridge spanning a gap in the tables,
> > and we've already had an arch. We have not had a true trestle bridge.
>
> My arch at Supertrain only appeared to be supporting the bridge deck.
> I still have to finish it properly, and plan to for GEMTS2001.
We don't have the room at GEMTS to elevate track to the level required for
your arch bridge, not without dedicating a full *two thirds* of our space to
elevating the track, and consiquently obscuring at least 1/2 of our layout
behind elevation.
> A trestle bridge would be nice, but consumes a LOT of black beams. (I do have
> enough to make a nice one, yes, but at the moment I'm not planning to
> do so.)
OK. John, you're our next stop on the "heaps of technic" train, would you
be willing to tackle a short (30" or less) trestle bridge, possible a double
track bridge?
I am also hesitant to make a double-wide arch bridge spanning
> a full 60cm for the same reason - expensive consumption of beams.
Ok. This means we need to make 2 more table sets instead of 1 this summer,
but does give us that extra room for buildings & stuff.
> However, I have come up with a layout and bridge design that will IMO be
> quite impressive. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41923
The only problems I see with this are that 1) the roundhouse is in the wrong
place - it is in the middle of a 30x60 table, not the end, so the rail yard
would have to get shuffled around and 2) there's virtually no room for
buildings and town stuff. You need at least 2 baseplates wide to have
buildings and a street.
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (for GEMTS 2001)
|
| (...) I agree there isn't enough room for elevation ramps. That's why my mountain-valley-bridge suggestion has both tracks at the level of the tables. The upper portion of the mountain peaks are above track/table level, while most of the "two (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
23 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
|
|
|
|
