Subject:
|
Trains and moonbase (Was: Moonbase and monorail)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:46:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
644 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi,
First, thanks to all for the positive feedback!
Space Trains :-) sounds like an interesting idea!
I wonder if we could define a "low rider" kind of train that could run under
the corridors... I think this was part of the idea behind the requirement to
keep the four studs clear on each side of a module.
I'll play around with Train Designer tonight and see if I can work out some
geometry (knowing TLG, I bet it's going to work!).
The thing to remember with trains is that they take a lot more space than
monorails and have some limitations in terms of possible layouts (return
loops are possible but they are messy).
One more thing: with a light load, a train motor will go up a one brick per
track panel (I guess that would be a 1 bptp) and maybe more... One problem
when trying to build modules with grades is that the track geometry is
broken. What I mean is a track panel which is normaly 16 studs long will be
shorter when put at an angle (if my math is correct, the apparent length is
15.92, for an elevation os 1 bptp). This problem is usualy solved by raising
half of a loop; while this is fine for a layout with a "master plan" it can
be difficult to organize on a modular layout. One option is to build extra
steep grades and use a cog rail made of Technic racks (I've built prototypes
that went up almost 45 degree angles).
Greetings,
David Wegmuller
In lugnet.space, Frank Filz writes:
> Duane Hess wrote:
> > I was thinking more along the lines of required train motor/track friction
> > than physical part limitations. I've read some of the discussions in .Trains
> > on the subject, but I know that those Train Guys are intent on pulling as
> > many cars as possible with one engine. ;-) IIRC the unofficial slope was 1
> > plate per track section.
>
> The Monorail's hill climbing ability does make it more suitable for
> elevation changes, especially large ones to get up and over an
> obstruction.
>
> > I'm more interested in the Space Community's opinion of train v. monorail
> > with regard to availability. My hunch is that there are more people with
> > trains than monorails, but I've been wrong before.
>
> I don't think it has to be an either/or. We can have both.
>
> Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trains and moonbase (Was: Moonbase and monorail)
|
| Hi, As I stated earlier, I've played around with Track Designer to see how things would fit... I've drawn a few layouts, all based on the idea that train tracks would be installed on the edges of the modules. (URL) : this one is very simple and does (...) (22 years ago, 15-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
| (...) The Monorail's hill climbing ability does make it more suitable for elevation changes, especially large ones to get up and over an obstruction. (...) I don't think it has to be an either/or. We can have both. Frank (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
