| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> The track is strips of metal set vertcally in
> concrete (no ties, nowhere near the shape of real rail) and doesn't have
> working turnouts (points).
Hmmmm..... I don't have the magazine with me at work today but I recall the
pictures I saw, had what looked like aluminium (or nickel) rails with wood
ties. There definately were ties set in what looked like gravel/dirt. I
don't remember off hand if any of the pictures showed points.
Katie
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Katie Dokken writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > The track is strips of metal set vertcally in
> > concrete (no ties, nowhere near the shape of real rail) and doesn't have
> > working turnouts (points).
>
> Hmmmm..... I don't have the magazine with me at work today but I recall the
> pictures I saw, had what looked like aluminium (or nickel) rails with wood
> ties. There definately were ties set in what looked like gravel/dirt. I
> don't remember off hand if any of the pictures showed points.
You're both right.
In built up areas the rails are attached directly to concrete (very
unprototypical) and in countryside settings, they rest on ties as you
describe, But the ties are offscale, too large and too widely spaced.
Frank's characterization of the wheels as "lame" is particularly apt. As has
been remarked here before, the US LL trains were done by someone who doesn't
have a sense of the proportion of real trains (or was forced to compromise
for some reason). The locomotives are squashed in proportion, there are no
couplers to speak of (just metal tube links) no sideframes, etc. etc.
Still an interesting layout if only for the operational difficulty of
running as constantly as these do.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Katie Dokken writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > > The track is strips of metal set vertcally in
> > > concrete (no ties, nowhere near the shape of real rail) and doesn't have
> > > working turnouts (points).
> >
> > Hmmmm..... I don't have the magazine with me at work today but I recall the
> > pictures I saw, had what looked like aluminium (or nickel) rails with wood
> > ties. There definately were ties set in what looked like gravel/dirt. I
> > don't remember off hand if any of the pictures showed points.
>
> You're both right.
>
> In built up areas the rails are attached directly to concrete (very
> unprototypical) and in countryside settings, they rest on ties as you
> describe, But the ties are offscale, too large and too widely spaced.
I guess I was remembering primarily the concrete sections.
> Frank's characterization of the wheels as "lame" is particularly apt. As has
> been remarked here before, the US LL trains were done by someone who doesn't
> have a sense of the proportion of real trains (or was forced to compromise
> for some reason). The locomotives are squashed in proportion, there are no
> couplers to speak of (just metal tube links) no sideframes, etc. etc.
>
> Still an interesting layout if only for the operational difficulty of
> running as constantly as these do.
As an outdoor display, I'd rate it pretty good. As an outdoor model
railroad, I'd rate it pretty low. The article was pretty nice, with
several pictures. They also included a planting list (a major feature of
Gardel Railways is to share information on plantings).
Frank
|
|
|
