Subject:
|
Re: Modular Hill Standard
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2006 23:02:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Mathew Clayson wrote:
| |
how thick are you tables? We use mudular tables that can be adusted in
hieght and stacked apone each other to acheive some vertical change. But
our tables
are 6 brick thick. To allow a train to run under a stacked table we have to
set it at +20 bricks higher then surrounding tables to allow a 14 brick
clearance below. I consider this a bit tall for many situations.
I like what you’ve done, but it looks like any stacked structure adjacent to
a hill modual will need to be a maximum of 2 brick thick. ~3/4 inch thick.
Any thoughts?
Mat
|
Our tables are just over 4, but well under 5 bricks thick. We do not necessarily
plan to run them under tables, it is mainly for on the tables, to give the
layout a more real feel. In populated areas, trains often run elevated, so city
streets can go under the track with rather simple tunnels. However, we also plan
to use them for ramping to lower levels. In fact, at our last show, after I made
and showed a test model at the show before that, someone else also had already
build modules, and on the spot we added them to the layout, see here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1578268
At our next show, GTE Cincinnati, we’ll have more modules, and will run them
mainly on our regular level tables.
Paul
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Modular Hill Standard
|
| (...) Snipped (...) Paul, how thick are you tables? We use mudular tables that can be adusted in hieght and stacked apone each other to acheive some vertical change. But our tables are 6 brick thick. To allow a train to run under a stacked table we (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-06, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
