| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Tom Reed writes:
> > Tom: Fantasy train, black ship (pirate, death, death-pirate???), pirate
> > outpost, black futuristic loco, boxcar
> The ship was "The Sea Snake!",
Ah! Sorry I didn't catch the name. A most excellent model!
> the outpost was Morgan's hideaway!, and the
> boxcar was not my original design..I think I got the idea from Jason McKee
> (I hope that's the right name..my apologies if I made a mistake there! I
> just changed the color scheme.)
Do you mean Jake McKee's boxcar:
http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/equipment/boxcar/index.cfm
> > We ran various train combinations around the tracks and bridges, and we
> > found out the hard way which train cars didn't fit through the bridges.
> Unfortunately, that applied to most of my cars. But the bridges were great!
> I just wished I could have planned for the clearance.
Ha! I though I was being conservative in my bridge design. I allowed for
8-wide cars and a 14 brick-height vertical clearance. It turns out that was
nearly the minimum needed. I goofed when I built my tank car too tall.
The next time I'll try and let everyone know, and I'll most definitely build
more clearance into my bridges.
TJ
> I want to say I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the "regulars" again and meeting
> the newbies! This was a lot of fun and I am in awe of all the great
> designs, MOCs, etc. I hope those that didn't make it will be able to the
> next time. You don't know what you missed! Kudos to all that helped to
> make it happen! I think we've got a great group in the making... I look
> forward to the next time!
> Thanks All!
> Tom
|
|
| |
> Ha! I though I was being conservative in my bridge design. I allowed for
> 8-wide cars and a 14 brick-height vertical clearance. It turns out that was
> nearly the minimum needed. I goofed when I built my tank car too tall.
>
> The next time I'll try and let everyone know, and I'll most definitely build
> more clearance into my bridges.
>
> TJ
The bridges were plenty wide. The boxcar my wife built was just too wide in
design. She's working on a redesign right now that I think will be much more
visually pleasing and a bit narrower. I'm also working on my engine, but I'm
afraid it will always have those side clearance problems at corners and toss
signs across the room.
For next time I plan on making an engine designed for a head-on collision.
I'll make sure it flies apart in a dramatic way and snaps back together easily
for another run! Anybody else interested?
Leonard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Thomas Avery writes:
> In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Tom Reed writes:
> > > Tom: Fantasy train, black ship (pirate, death, death-pirate???), pirate
> > > outpost, black futuristic loco, boxcar
> > The ship was "The Sea Snake!",
>
> Ah! Sorry I didn't catch the name. A most excellent model! • Thanks!
>
> > the outpost was Morgan's hideaway!, and the
> > boxcar was not my original design..I think I got the idea from Jason McKee
> > (I hope that's the right name..my apologies if I made a mistake there! I
> > just changed the color scheme.)
>
> Do you mean Jake McKee's boxcar:
> http://www.bricksonthebrain.com/equipment/boxcar/index.cfm
Yes that's it! An excellent design! I'm sorry I got Jake's name wrong. He
deserves the credit for the model. I had looked at it once and tried to
duplicate it by memory. I think I was close. Thanks Jake!
>
> > > We ran various train combinations around the tracks and bridges, and we
> > > found out the hard way which train cars didn't fit through the bridges.
> > Unfortunately, that applied to most of my cars. But the bridges were great!
> > I just wished I could have planned for the clearance.
>
> Ha! I though I was being conservative in my bridge design. I allowed for
> 8-wide cars and a 14 brick-height vertical clearance. It turns out that was
> nearly the minimum needed. I goofed when I built my tank car too tall.
>
> The next time I'll try and let everyone know, and I'll most definitely build
> more clearance into my bridges.
Well the bridges were great! I didn't mind the problem. Most of the trains
made it through just fine.
>
> TJ
>
> > I want to say I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the "regulars" again and meeting
> > the newbies! This was a lot of fun and I am in awe of all the great
> > designs, MOCs, etc. I hope those that didn't make it will be able to the
> > next time. You don't know what you missed! Kudos to all that helped to
> > make it happen! I think we've got a great group in the making... I look
> > forward to the next time!
> > Thanks All!
> > Tom
|
|
| |
Okay Leonard,
When TJ wrote Mr and Mrs Leonard I forgave him for not
knowing your wife's name (because I managed to forget
it, too). You should use it, though. She is as
valuable a member of Texlug as you (even more so,
because she is a woman). So please keep me in
suspense no longer and give her my apologies for not
remembering.
What is her name?
;-)
Laura
--- Leonard <leonarde@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> > Ha! I though I was being conservative in my bridge • design. I allowed for
> > 8-wide cars and a 14 brick-height vertical • clearance. It turns out that was
> > nearly the minimum needed. I goofed when I built my • tank car too tall.
> >
> > The next time I'll try and let everyone know, and • I'll most definitely build
> > more clearance into my bridges.
> >
> > TJ
>
>
> The bridges were plenty wide. The boxcar my wife
> built was just too wide in
> design. She's working on a redesign right now that
> I think will be much more
> visually pleasing and a bit narrower. I'm also
> working on my engine, but I'm
> afraid it will always have those side clearance
> problems at corners and toss
> signs across the room.
>
> For next time I plan on making an engine designed
> for a head-on collision.
> I'll make sure it flies apart in a dramatic way and
> snaps back together easily
> for another run! Anybody else interested?
>
> Leonard
|
|
| |
> What is her name?
Her name is . . . Margaret. I'm used to saying "my wife" becuase I'm used to
posting to groups who haven't met her. I'll refer to her as Margaret from now
on. You, however, can refer to her however you like, but I would suggest
either Margaret or "Your Highness".
Leonard
|
|
| |
--- Leonard <leonarde@ev1.net> wrote:
> > What is her name?
>
> Her name is . . . Margaret. I'm used to saying "my
> wife" becuase I'm used to
> posting to groups who haven't met her. I'll refer
> to her as Margaret from now
> on. You, however, can refer to her however you
> like, but I would suggest
> either Margaret or "Your Highness".
>
> Leonard
lol!
Finally, a man who knows the proper place of women!!
Margaret did good...
BTW,
I really enjoyed meeting both of you on Saturday.
Welcome to the group!
Laura
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Leonard Erlandson writes:
<snip>
> For next time I plan on making an engine designed for a head-on collision.
> I'll make sure it flies apart in a dramatic way and snaps back together easily
> for another run! Anybody else interested?
>
> Leonard
I don't mean to "butt" into y'alls group, but I was wondering how you plan
on running two trains so that they can hit head-on? You can't do that with
the standard out of the box LEGO train system. Are you (or have you)
converted your trains to another control method, such as DCC?
jt
----------------
James J. Trobaugh
North Georgia LEGO Train Club
http://www.ngltc.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Laura Hayden writes:
> --- Leonard <leonarde@ev1.net> wrote:
> > You, however, can refer to her however you
> > like, but I would suggest
> > either Margaret or "Your Highness".
> lol!
>
> Finally, a man who knows the proper place of women!!
My wife would concur!
TJ- who definitely knows who "the boss" is, and it's not him ;-)
|
|
| |
> I don't mean to "butt" into y'alls group, but I was wondering how you plan
> on running two trains so that they can hit head-on? You can't do that with
> the standard out of the box LEGO train system. Are you (or have you)
> converted your trains to another control method, such as DCC?
>
> jt
I believe that we were considering using some cross pieces in our layout. I
admit to using the "head-on" term incorrectly for dramatic purpose. One train
would run into the side of another.
Leonard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, James Trobaugh writes:
> I don't mean to "butt" into y'alls group, but I was wondering how you plan
> on running two trains so that they can hit head-on? You can't do that with
> the standard out of the box LEGO train system. Are you (or have you)
> converted your trains to another control method, such as DCC?
Well, since you've "butt" in (which is just fine, any advice is welcome ;-)
how can you alter the direction of a train motor? Can you modify the motor
or controller?
TJ
|
|
| |
<Snip>
> how can you alter the direction of a train motor? Can you modify the motor
> or controller?
It is my experience that all of the train motors are directional. I
frequently use 2 motors per train and if you don't get them both going the
same direction, well, the train won't go anywhere. I usually look on the
bottom of the motors and and make sure the LEGO trademark's are going on the
same direction. In this case, make sure they are opposite of one another and
you should be able to get a nice head on crash.
Robert Powell
|
|
| |
Hate to disagree with you Robert, but the LEGO train motors don't work that
way. It doesn't matter which way you put them on the track, they will all
travel in the same direction. You can not run to motors on the same loop of
track in opposite directions.
jt
In lugnet.trains, Robert Powell writes:
> <Snip>
> > how can you alter the direction of a train motor? Can you modify the motor
> > or controller?
>
> It is my experience that all of the train motors are directional. I
> frequently use 2 motors per train and if you don't get them both going the
> same direction, well, the train won't go anywhere. I usually look on the
> bottom of the motors and and make sure the LEGO trademark's are going on the
> same direction. In this case, make sure they are opposite of one another and
> you should be able to get a nice head on crash.
>
> Robert Powell
|
|
| |
"James J. Trobaugh" wrote:
> Hate to disagree with you Robert, but the LEGO train motors don't work that
> way.
I thought he was kidding;-)
> It doesn't matter which way you put them on the track, they will all
> travel in the same direction. You can not run to motors on the same loop of
> track in opposite directions.
*Unless* you have altered them by adding a DCC chip, in which case you could.
-John
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Neal writes:
>
>
> "James J. Trobaugh" wrote:
>
> > Hate to disagree with you Robert, but the LEGO train motors don't work that
> > way.
>
> I thought he was kidding;-)
>
> > It doesn't matter which way you put them on the track, they will all
> > travel in the same direction. You can not run to motors on the same loop of
> > track in opposite directions.
>
> *Unless* you have altered them by adding a DCC chip, in which case you could.
>
> -John
Well yes that's true, or you could just open the motor and reverse some of
the wiring inside so that the motor runs the opposite direction of a stock
motor, but I really doubt it would be worth the effort.
If you really want to crash them, just put in a cross track....and wait for
the right moment. :)
jt
|
|
| |
Sorry guys! Yes, John caught me. I was gearing up for April 1 and forgot to
post it Off-topic.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us.texlug, Leonard Erlandson writes:
> > What is her name?
>
> Her name is . . . Margaret. I'll refer to her as Margaret from now
> on. You, however, can refer to her however you like, but I would suggest
> either Margaret or "Your Highness".
Makes perfect sense since "Margaret" IS Greek for "Your Highness".
:D
Margaret C.
|
|
|
