| |
Are there any web pages which have a study of how to line up Lego train
layouts with diagonal track?
That is, I want a little more freedom in my layout than forcing it to
always use ninety-degree curves and parallel/perpendicular tracks, but
I've found that if I try to be *too* freeform, nothing lines up and I
end up with two-inch gaps between the pieces I'm trying to connect.
If someone else has already done the math for how to make curves using
one, two, or three pieces of standard 22.5-degree curved track and then
get the track to line up properly and snap together firmly without
having to rely on any 'wiggle room,' that would be a great help to me!
Thanks!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Kendig writes:
> Are there any web pages which have a study of how to line up Lego train
> layouts with diagonal track?
>
> That is, I want a little more freedom in my layout than forcing it to
> always use ninety-degree curves and parallel/perpendicular tracks, but
> I've found that if I try to be *too* freeform, nothing lines up and I
> end up with two-inch gaps between the pieces I'm trying to connect.
>
> If someone else has already done the math for how to make curves using
> one, two, or three pieces of standard 22.5-degree curved track and then
> get the track to line up properly and snap together firmly without
> having to rely on any 'wiggle room,' that would be a great help to me!
> Thanks!
It's pretty much impossible actually. I'd like to be able to just side-step
a track in by one straight's length (16 studs) for a layout, but the only
way to do it with correct geometry is to branch it in with a point and leave
the straight-on dead-end as a siding.
The only other geometries are approximate. Try putting one or two straights
part way round a curve to tweak the run-out from a curve if you need a small
adjustment, but it's never going to fit perfectly.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Kendig writes:
> Are there any web pages which have a study of how to line up Lego train
> layouts with diagonal track?
>
> That is, I want a little more freedom in my layout than forcing it to
> always use ninety-degree curves and parallel/perpendicular tracks, but
> I've found that if I try to be *too* freeform, nothing lines up and I
> end up with two-inch gaps between the pieces I'm trying to connect.
>
> If someone else has already done the math for how to make curves using
> one, two, or three pieces of standard 22.5-degree curved track and then
> get the track to line up properly and snap together firmly without
> having to rely on any 'wiggle room,' that would be a great help to me!
> Thanks!
See the resources in the header of the newsgroup, in particular the .tdl
layouts available at the train depot. Doodle your design in Track Designer
to see if it works first and you'll reduce your frustration.
Now to your particular question,
first, if you do the same diagonal shift on both sides of a loop, you'll
never get out of alignment.
Second, there are configurations that are very very close to working out.
One I (re?)discovered just the other day is useful in making dogbones that
end up with the standard 16 stud on center double track spacing...
Try this in Track Designer
go straight a while... then do one track piece LESS than 3/4 of a circle. Go
one straight. Now go 3 curves in the other direction. Now go straight. You
are 16 studs on center, or very very close, and your track ends are at the
same exact point as the track coming in, or very very close.
There are other ones too. In particular I found a folded dogbone config that
has 45 degree loops at both ends and one fold that worked out pretty close.
|
|
| |
Brian,
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> See the resources in the header of the newsgroup, in particular the .tdl
> layouts available at the train depot. Doodle your design in Track Designer
> to see if it works first and you'll reduce your frustration.
Couldn't agree more!!!
> Try this in Track Designer
>
> go straight a while... then do one track piece LESS than 3/4 of a circle. Go
> one straight. Now go 3 curves in the other direction. Now go straight. You
> are 16 studs on center, or very very close, and your track ends are at the
> same exact point as the track coming in, or very very close.
What Larry has done here works because of the fundamental idea described for
the compact cross-over at the bottom of this page:
http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/geometry.htm
If you have two opposite curves joined together you can replace them with a
straight as long as you "compress" the layout everywhere else by one
straight along the angle where the two curves met. I know I'm not being too
clear here but its hard to say in words. Here's the original "pure"
construction that underlies Larry's dog-bone:
go straight a while... then do 1/4 circle. Go one straight. Go 1/2 circle.
Now go 1/4 circle in the other direction. Now you have the "pure" 16 studs
on center but your dog-bone looks "chunkier". To get back to Larry's nice
and smooth creation, replace the two opposite-joining curves with a straight
and then remove the straight you added after the first 1/4 circle. This is
the same idea as replacing the two opposite curves in a cross-over with a
straight and then moving the points closer together by one straight. This
is a basic technique I try to use to make my layouts look smoother. I'll
start with a "pure" chunky layout and then try to find ways to replace
opposite-joining curves with straights. Track designer is an essential tool
for this kind of thing!
Also, for some ideas you can check out these track layouts of mine on
brickshelf:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263408
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263409
It's two similar variations on the same idea. I'd been trying to come up
with layouts that fit on my kitchen table that are more interesting than
simple ovals and chunky cross-overs. I'm particularly proud of this one
because it uses "pure" construction but doesn't look like it from first
glance (in my opinion, at least). I didn't even need to use the above
mentioned technique for this one.
I did use the compact cross-over in this other one to get this "folded"
figure-eight to fit on my table. Notice the odd spurs I'm stuck with in
order to funnel the track into the cross-track. Not too pretty, but it is
the longest loop I've found for my table, in terms of time that elapses
until the train returns to where it started.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263410
Good Luck, Hope this helps...
-Paul
|
|
| |
Thanks for the great follow up, Paul.
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
> I did use the compact cross-over in this other one to get this "folded"
> figure-eight to fit on my table. Notice the odd spurs I'm stuck with in
> order to funnel the track into the cross-track. Not too pretty, but it is
> the longest loop I've found for my table, in terms of time that elapses
> until the train returns to where it started.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263410
I wanted to comment on this one in particular because it's particularly
devious! It REALLY stretches what's possible and shows a good understanding
of the compact crossover geometry relationships. Nice work!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Thanks for the great follow up, Paul.
>
> In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
>
> > I did use the compact cross-over in this other one to get this "folded"
> > figure-eight to fit on my table. Notice the odd spurs I'm stuck with in
> > order to funnel the track into the cross-track. Not too pretty, but it is
> > the longest loop I've found for my table, in terms of time that elapses
> > until the train returns to where it started.
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263410
>
>
> I wanted to comment on this one in particular because it's particularly
> devious! It REALLY stretches what's possible and shows a good understanding
> of the compact crossover geometry relationships. Nice work!
Thanks Larry,
I know I could have done something prettier with the spurs but I had to
limit myself to the track that came with the MOT kit, plus the cross-track
kit, plus one set of points. I've since found a slightly different
arrangement of the spurs to allow my entire MOT train to be on the track,
split-up among the spurs, while my Santa Fe train runs on the main line.
The reverse is impossible due to the size of the Santa Fe, which makes the
spurs still more decorative than useful. I can use them to play with
re-ordering my MOT cars and swapping my MOT locomotive for the F7, but
otherwise the "hand of GOD" has to reach down from the heavens to get my
full Santa Fe train off the track. Oh well, guess I just have to buy more
track...
By the way, a compliment from you means a lot, thanks again!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
>
> I did use the compact cross-over in this other one to get this "folded"
> figure-eight to fit on my table. Notice the odd spurs I'm stuck with in
> order to funnel the track into the cross-track. Not too pretty, but it is
> the longest loop I've found for my table, in terms of time that elapses
> until the train returns to where it started.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263410
>
> Good Luck, Hope this helps...
> -Paul
Really clever!
I purchased an HO sample layout book, and spent some time with Track Designer
trying to convert them into similar versions with Lego track. The 30-degree
crossovers were the hardest to figure out how to emulate. These sorts of books
can be handy for inspiration (for me, anyway).
Now, if only I had enough striaght rails to actually build some of the layouts
I made...
Brian
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Kendig writes:
> Are there any web pages which have a study of how to line up Lego train
> layouts with diagonal track?
>
> That is, I want a little more freedom in my layout than forcing it to
> always use ninety-degree curves and parallel/perpendicular tracks, but
> I've found that if I try to be *too* freeform, nothing lines up and I
> end up with two-inch gaps between the pieces I'm trying to connect.
>
> If someone else has already done the math for how to make curves using
> one, two, or three pieces of standard 22.5-degree curved track and then
> get the track to line up properly and snap together firmly without
> having to rely on any 'wiggle room,' that would be a great help to me!
> Thanks!
If you're trying to keep things squared up, the two magic numbers are 7 and 11.
which is to say, a corner that keeps straights lined up with the normal Lego
geometry can be one of 3 things:
4 curves
1 curve, 11 straights, 3 curves
2 curves, 7 straights, 2 curves
There are similar combinations for coming off of switches, but they have the
same drawback as the corners: it takes lots of space.
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Paul S. D'Urbano writes:
>
> I did use the compact cross-over in this other one to get this "folded"
> figure-eight to fit on my table. Notice the odd spurs I'm stuck with in
> order to funnel the track into the cross-track. Not too pretty, but it is
> the longest loop I've found for my table, in terms of time that elapses
> until the train returns to where it started.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=263410
Since a couple people commented on this one I figured I'd mention that over
the weekend I came up with a "folded-figure-eight" that avoids the use of
points on the inner loop but still fits on my table:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=272105
Unfortunately it requires one more curved track than I currently own. I
took the idea a step further and removed the last remaining switch track
(and the extra curve) which makes the layout about one straight wider.
Although it doesn't fit in the grid of baseplates I use to approximate my
table, it does barely fit on my real table. (Rather I should say, the rails
fit but the ends of the sleepers hang over the edges of the table.)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=28173
I built this one and it uses every piece of track I own, I even have to use
my switches as stand-ins for straights (I guess my scarcity of track reveals
my newbie-ness). I think this may well be the longest continuous (folded)
loop I'll be able to make for my table. I think it really enhances running
a long train like the Super Chief to extend the amount of time before the
train returns to where it started. I know Track Designer creations aren't
the flashiest MOCs in the world, but maybe this will be useful to someone
who has limited space like me and thinks watching a full Santa Fe train
going around the 4561 oval is kind of ridiculous.
I've also included some pictures there showing how the construction is
derived from a basic "pure" structure and then beat down to size by using
the fundamental ideas of the compact cross-over (1). Again, may be useful
to other newbies.
Regards,
Paul
1: A curved track is very-very close to being the same size as two
half-straights joined at 157.5 degrees (180 - 22.5). Besides being the
fundamental reason why the compact cross-over works, it also is why I'm able
to replace the two hi-lighted curves in this picture with a cross-track
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=272006
|
|
| |
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> If you're trying to keep things squared up, the two magic numbers
> are 7 and 11.
>
> which is to say, a corner that keeps straights lined up with the
> normal Lego geometry can be one of 3 things:
>
> 4 curves
> 1 curve, 11 straights, 3 curves
> 2 curves, 7 straights, 2 curves
>
> There are similar combinations for coming off of switches, but they
> have the same drawback as the corners: it takes lots of space.
This is very interesting... Is there a similar formula for a dog-leg?
1 curve, X straights, 1 curve the other way? What equations/formulae
would you use to compute this? It's been way too many years since I
studied trigonometry...
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency is not really a human trait.
--Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
|
|
| |
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> If you're trying to keep things squared up, the two magic numbers
> are 7 and 11.
>
> which is to say, a corner that keeps straights lined up with the
> normal Lego geometry can be one of 3 things:
>
> 4 curves
> 1 curve, 11 straights, 3 curves
> 2 curves, 7 straights, 2 curves
>
> There are similar combinations for coming off of switches, but they
> have the same drawback as the corners: it takes lots of space.
The 1-11-3 design isn't very close at all, according to Track
Designer. Here's what I did: straight, curve right, 11 straights (5
switches and a straight, but that is equivalent), 3 curves right,
cross-track. Then from the cross-track, a bunch of straights, 4 right
curves, some more straights, and another cross-track. But it doesn't
line up...
However, when I tried the 2-7-2 design I found it to be much closer,
but still not close enough for Track Designer to consider it
connected: 2 rights, 7 straights (3 switches and a straight), 2
rights, and a cross piece, connecting back up to the beginning in the
same manner as above.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency is not really a human trait.
--Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, William R. Ward writes:
> The 1-11-3 design isn't very close at all, according to Track
> Designer.
What does work is 1-13-3. It's close enough that Track Designer will
consider it a closed loop.
You can turn it into a triangle with a 5-13-7-12-4-5 pattern (starting with
curves and alternating with straights). Then it's easy enough to see that
it forms a lesser know Pythagorean triplet, 5-12-13. The angle formed by
short leg and the hypoteneuse is 22.62 degrees, which matches very close to
the curve track being 22.5 degrees.
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gramley writes:
> The angle formed by
> short leg and the hypoteneuse is 22.62 degrees, which matches very close to
> the curve track being 22.5 degrees.
Oops. That should be the long leg and the hypoteneuse.
John
|
|
| |
William R Ward wrote:
> This is very interesting... Is there a similar formula for a dog-leg?
> 1 curve, X straights, 1 curve the other way? What equations/formulae
> would you use to compute this? It's been way too many years since I
> studied trigonometry...
I don't have an equation, but I think one curve, 12 straights, one curve
will do a dog-leg that is eight 32-stud baseplates long and 88 studs
wide (3 baseplates minus 4 studs each side).
-chris
|
|
| |
Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> writes:
> William R Ward wrote:
> > This is very interesting... Is there a similar formula for a dog-leg?
> > 1 curve, X straights, 1 curve the other way? What equations/formulae
> > would you use to compute this? It's been way too many years since I
> > studied trigonometry...
>
> I don't have an equation, but I think one curve, 12 straights, one
> curve will do a dog-leg that is eight 32-stud baseplates long and 88
> studs wide (3 baseplates minus 4 studs each side).
THANK YOU!!! This works perfectly! I just tested it in Track
Designer....
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency is not really a human trait.
--Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, William R. Ward writes:
> "James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> > If you're trying to keep things squared up, the two magic numbers
> > are 7 and 11.
> >
> > which is to say, a corner that keeps straights lined up with the
> > normal Lego geometry can be one of 3 things:
> >
> > 4 curves
> > 1 curve, 11 straights, 3 curves
> > 2 curves, 7 straights, 2 curves
> >
> > There are similar combinations for coming off of switches, but they
> > have the same drawback as the corners: it takes lots of space.
>
> The 1-11-3 design isn't very close at all, according to Track
> Designer. Here's what I did: straight, curve right, 11 straights (5
> switches and a straight, but that is equivalent), 3 curves right,
> cross-track. Then from the cross-track, a bunch of straights, 4 right
> curves, some more straights, and another cross-track. But it doesn't
> line up...
John is correct; it's 1-13-3 that works. Blame my faulty memory, it's been
a bit since I played in TD.
> However, when I tried the 2-7-2 design I found it to be much closer,
> but still not close enough for Track Designer to consider it
> connected: 2 rights, 7 straights (3 switches and a straight), 2
> rights, and a cross piece, connecting back up to the beginning in the
> same manner as above.
The 2-7-2 is close enough that it connects physically very soundly. The
offset is roughly 1 stud. Easy enough to cover with slop, with this many
track sections involved.
The dogleg number is like the large corner. switch, 13 straights, curve
(back to parallel), then close the loop. This will generate a
close-enough-for-TD connection (which warns you about the short-circut).
A siding can use switch-6straight-curve-curve-6straight-switch to be close
enough for slop to absorb; not quite close enough for TD.
Hope that helps, sorry about the confusion caused by my faulty memory!
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
William R Ward wrote:
> Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> writes:
> > I don't have an equation, but I think one curve, 12 straights, one
> > curve will do a dog-leg that is eight 32-stud baseplates long and 88
> > studs wide (3 baseplates minus 4 studs each side).
>
> THANK YOU!!! This works perfectly! I just tested it in Track
> Designer....
Does it work perfectly or does it go over in length by at least a half a
stud? I couldn't tell from Track Designer.
-chris
|
|
| |
This has been an absolutely great thread, just packed with helpful ideas and
findings (even some good track designs to get people thinking!
Anyone want to volunteer to write up a summation and share it with Cary so
it might get into the FAQ?
Thanks Brian for asking and thanks everyone for your great answers.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> writes:
> William R Ward wrote:
> > Christopher Tracey <ctracey@enviroweb.org> writes:
> > > I don't have an equation, but I think one curve, 12 straights, one
> > > curve will do a dog-leg that is eight 32-stud baseplates long and 88
> > > studs wide (3 baseplates minus 4 studs each side).
> > THANK YOU!!! This works perfectly! I just tested it in Track
> > Designer....
>
> Does it work perfectly or does it go over in length by at least a half
> a stud? I couldn't tell from Track Designer.
It's close enough that TD considers it to be connected, and that's
good enough for me. I used it for the yard design I just posted (q.v.)
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistency is not really a human trait.
--Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Brian Kendig wrote:
> Are there any web pages which have a study of how to line up Lego train
> layouts with diagonal track?
>
> That is, I want a little more freedom in my layout than forcing it to
> always use ninety-degree curves and parallel/perpendicular tracks, but
> I've found that if I try to be *too* freeform, nothing lines up and I
> end up with two-inch gaps between the pieces I'm trying to connect.
>
> If someone else has already done the math for how to make curves using
> one, two, or three pieces of standard 22.5-degree curved track and then
> get the track to line up properly and snap together firmly without
> having to rely on any 'wiggle room,' that would be a great help to me!
> Thanks!
I now this is an old thread but I was doing a search on attaching curved track
to base plates and had something to add to this thread.
I have a Brickshelf folder that I have not updated with current studies and
layouts recently. But I have many different LEGO track geometry that all connect
100% to make a loop. Different loops, turn-offs, turns, corners, angles, yards,
and such. This has many folders within folders I tried to keep the ideas
organized in some sort.
Main folder, many within,
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=72559
Enjoy
Mike Gallagher
|
|
| |
OK, I'll add to an old thread too...
Is there any software available for doing LEGO train layouts? I don't think
this would have to be very complex -- just your several different kinds of track
pieces, which you can drag around and arrange to see how they connect up.
Maybe you could drag road plates around into a road-plate-sized background grid
as well, for planning a combined road/train layout.
Would anybody be interested in software like this? If so, for which platforms?
I might be able to whip something up.
Best,
- Joe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
> OK, I'll add to an old thread too...
>
> Is there any software available for doing LEGO train layouts? I don't think
> this would have to be very complex -- just your several different kinds of track
> pieces, which you can drag around and arrange to see how they connect up.
>
> Maybe you could drag road plates around into a road-plate-sized background grid
> as well, for planning a combined road/train layout.
>
> Would anybody be interested in software like this? If so, for which platforms?
> I might be able to whip something up.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
Joe,
This is a liitle off this threads origianl topic but.
I use Train Depot Track Designer (by Matthew Bates) and there are other programs
to use. But I like this one.
Here is the link
http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/td.htm
Enjoy
MIke Gallagher
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Gallagher wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
> > OK, I'll add to an old thread too...
> >
> > Is there any software available for doing LEGO train layouts? I don't think
> > this would have to be very complex -- just your several different kinds of track
> > pieces, which you can drag around and arrange to see how they connect up.
> >
> > Maybe you could drag road plates around into a road-plate-sized background grid
> > as well, for planning a combined road/train layout.
> >
> > Would anybody be interested in software like this? If so, for which platforms?
> > I might be able to whip something up.
> >
> > Best,
> > - Joe
>
> Joe,
>
> This is a liitle off this threads origianl topic but.
>
> I use Train Depot Track Designer (by Matthew Bates) and there are other programs
> to use. But I like this one.
>
> Here is the link
> http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/td.htm
Track Designer was great, back in the day. But it's been unsupported for years
now. If you're a long time user, it works fine, although it's not extensible.
New users would be well advised to look into TrackDraw instead... way more
features, extensible menus, and the format is XML rather than obscure opaque
object dumps that can't be imported by anything else.
http://home.nc.rr.com/cary/ should get you started, or see this post
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=23725
Hope that helps.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> New users would be well advised to look into TrackDraw instead... way more
> features, extensible menus, and the format is XML rather than obscure opaque
> object dumps that can't be imported by anything else.
Both seem to work only on Windows though. Pity it wasn't written in REALbasic;
then I could just bug the author to click the "Mac OS" and "Linux" checkboxes.
:)
Does anyone happen to know of anything available for the Mac?
Thanks,
- Joe
P.S. It doesn't seem off-topic to me -- presumably using an app like this would
really help you plan a layout where the diagonals line up properly.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > New users would be well advised to look into TrackDraw instead... way more
> > features, extensible menus, and the format is XML rather than obscure opaque
> > object dumps that can't be imported by anything else.
>
> Both seem to work only on Windows though. Pity it wasn't written in REALbasic;
> then I could just bug the author to click the "Mac OS" and "Linux" checkboxes.
> :)
>
> Does anyone happen to know of anything available for the Mac?
>
> Thanks,
> - Joe
>
> P.S. It doesn't seem off-topic to me -- presumably using an app like this would
> really help you plan a layout where the diagonals line up properly.
The link I sent is the program I used to work out the diagonal and other layout
designs. I have not used the one LAR recommended but will try it out now. As far
as other programs I could not say, but you can all ways search Lugnet's
newgroups for more info on MAC's. Do you have virtual pc on your mac? if so then
you could use the wimdows version. That's all I know on MAC's. Sorry
Gallagher
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Gallagher wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Joe Strout wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > P.S. It doesn't seem off-topic to me -- presumably using an app like this would
> > really help you plan a layout where the diagonals line up properly.
>
> The link I sent is the program I used to work out the diagonal and other
> layout designs.
>
> <snip>
>
> Gallagher
Having done a few experiments with real track, I used Excel to tell me whether
particular combinations of track pieces would line up. Since the spreadsheet
can do it, I used accurate figures for the track geometry.
I then made tables of each family of curves and double bends, in order to see
which configurations worked best to make multiples of 8 or 16 studs in each
direction.
I defined the following nomenclature for double bends:
A = One curve plus one reverse curve.
A+n = One curve + n straights + one reverse curve.
B = Two curves plus two reverse curves.
B+a,b,c = One curve + a straights + one curve + b straights + one reverse curve
+ c straights + one reverse curve.
C = Three curves + three reverse curves.
C+a,b,c,d,e etc...
Combinations that work particularly well with whole or half multiples of 16
studs are:
A+12 13L x 5W
B+0,0,0 3.5L x 1.5W (use in pairs)
(used in 7777 railway ideas book track plan A)
B+0,5,0 7L x 5W
B+1,1,1 6L x 3W
C+1,1,3,1,1 9L x 8W
C+1,2,2,2,1 10L x 8.5W (use in pairs)
C+2,1,1,1,2 10L x 7W
C+2,2,5,2,2 13L x 12W
For curves I used three numbers a,b,c to define the number of straights between
each of the four curves in a 90 degree corner. Each set of a,b,c became a table
of curves, with successive rows incrementing a,b,and c by 1. Adding a straight
at each angle together in this way adds 32.219 studs to both the length and the
width of the corner. Given the actual size of the corner, the 0.219 studs is a
very small percentage, so it can be ignored because the track is slightly
flexible. I regularly use curves of 1,1,1 and 2,2,2 for 8mm scale trains, since
they represent 80ft and 120ft radius curves respectively.
My tables have not identified any corners with a,b and c different that line up
well on both straight sides, thoguh there are some that line up with the whole
multiple of 16 studs on one side and a half multiple on the other side,
permitting them to work in combination with a double bend such as C+1,2,2,2,1.
Mark
|
|
|
