 | | | | | |
The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
In the near future, I plan to post pictures detailing how the lattice
structure is made from 2x4 bricks as well as the optional 2x6 style.
Over time, I will document all stages of module construction and show all
the building techniques to speed up putting these things together, including
easy ways to install roads in towns, control boxes, etc.
The building instructions are not up yet, as I need to make some more
examples on the modules I have at home for pictures.
Mike Poindexter
BayLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
>
> In the near future, I plan to post pictures detailing how the lattice
> structure is made from 2x4 bricks as well as the optional 2x6 style.
>
> Over time, I will document all stages of module construction and show all
> the building techniques to speed up putting these things together, including
> easy ways to install roads in towns, control boxes, etc.
>
> The building instructions are not up yet, as I need to make some more
> examples on the modules I have at home for pictures.
>
> Mike Poindexter
> BayLTC
So a module is defined as 144 x 96 studs according to your page which is
a 2x3 grid of 48x48 stud baseplates, cool. The only problem I saw with the
page is that you are using the terms 'wide' and 'deep' to discuss size
but haven't really defined them. Actually, you did, but it seemed backwards
to what I know of the modules. So a normal, standard module will have two
baseplates or three baseplates on the side facing the crowd?
Paul (at work)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Paul Foster writes:
> So a module is defined as 144 x 96 studs according to your page which is
> a 2x3 grid of 48x48 stud baseplates, cool. The only problem I saw with the
> page is that you are using the terms 'wide' and 'deep' to discuss size
> but haven't really defined them. Actually, you did, but it seemed backwards
> to what I know of the modules. So a normal, standard module will have two
> baseplates or three baseplates on the side facing the crowd?
>
> Paul (at work)
2 baseplates. The older modules from the GMLTC that most people are familiar
with will soon be no more. They have opted for new modules that are 60" wide
and 40" deep and will be running all 8-wide rolling stock. The size they
chose was influenced a lot by what their trailer could handle. I guess it is
better than basing it off the width of two horses' asses. :-)
On the BayLTC modules, we are not limited by a specific trailer, and the 45"
depth was easier to work out with the large gray baseplates, so it was
chosen. I should also mention that I had already built 15 module tables that
were 30"x45". Although 60" x 45" modules would have worked fine, I have no
other AFOLs in my area to really help me move the modules, so I have to have
them light enough that my wife can help me move them. Also, two of my modules
are the same width as the new GMLTC modules.
I realized some people might be confused, so I added definitions to make sure
that people didn't misunderstand what was written. I hope this answers your
questions.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mike Poindexter wrote:
>
> The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
Looks good, but one thing which just struck me is TLC's protectiveness
of it's trademarks. We probably should either get permission to name the
standard LEGO-Modular, or find a different name (but maybe I'm all wet).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
If they come to me and tell me that I can't call my Lego train layout that
has about a half-million of their bricks in it and costs tens of thousands
of dollars a Lego-modular layout, I will retort that they would prefer it to
a Megablock-modular layout. Their protect the brand name crusade is getting
silly in some instances. God forbid that people will mistake Suzanne's
Legopolis site as an official Lego site - it would be much better to have it
featuring porn.
Mike
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38E35391.6FBE@mindspring.com...
> Mike Poindexter wrote:
> >
> > The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> > http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
>
> Looks good, but one thing which just struck me is TLC's protectiveness
> of it's trademarks. We probably should either get permission to name the
> standard LEGO-Modular, or find a different name (but maybe I'm all wet).
>
> --
> Frank Filz
>
> -----------------------------
> Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Poindexter wrote:
>
> If they come to me and tell me that I can't call my Lego train layout that
> has about a half-million of their bricks in it and costs tens of thousands
> of dollars a Lego-modular layout, I will retort that they would prefer it to
> a Megablock-modular layout. Their protect the brand name crusade is getting
> silly in some instances. God forbid that people will mistake Suzanne's
> Legopolis site as an official Lego site - it would be much better to have it
> featuring porn.
I'm certainly not up on all the intricacies of trademark law, but I
would think that there is a difference between what you use to describe
your layout, and the name applied to a published standard. I'm just
suggesting that this issue be looked at before TLC Legal has an
opportunity to get in a dither about it.
Frank
> Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:38E35391.6FBE@mindspring.com...
> > Mike Poindexter wrote:
> > >
> > > The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> > > http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
> >
> > Looks good, but one thing which just struck me is TLC's protectiveness
> > of it's trademarks. We probably should either get permission to name the
> > standard LEGO-Modular, or find a different name (but maybe I'm all wet).
> >
> > --
> > Frank Filz
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> > Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I think that Lego is getting pretty ridiculous on their protection.
Lego-modular describes exactly what it is. What else should it be called?
Modular train tables using ABS automatic binding bricks? That opens the
door for people to use rivtek and other brands, which most people don't want
to do.
What are their lawyers going to do, force me to change the name? Well, then
they can do that, but why should I change the name out of fear of their
lawyers? They are not going to start off with a lawsuit, so the worst I
will be in is to get the same letter that tons of other people get. If they
want it changed, they will let me know. If they don't care, but I am afraid
to name it Lego-modular, then I have lost the desired name for nothing.
Really, this shouldn't be a big deal. I don't know how often their legal
department reads lugnet, but I have a feeling that if they want it renamed,
they will let me know soon. At that point, they will have to pony up a
suggestion that would meet with their approval.
All trademark infringement laws aside, this is the "standard" set for
modular Lego train layouts. I think that should be stated somewhere in the
title and to not do so doesn't make sense. Perhaps I will just have to put
LEGO in all caps and the tm sign on it.
Mike
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38E3766A.42DC@mindspring.com...
> I'm certainly not up on all the intricacies of trademark law, but I
> would think that there is a difference between what you use to describe
> your layout, and the name applied to a published standard. I'm just
> suggesting that this issue be looked at before TLC Legal has an
> opportunity to get in a dither about it.
>
> Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> I think that Lego is getting pretty ridiculous on their protection.
> Lego-modular describes exactly what it is. What else should it be called?
When I coined Legomodular I left the hyphen and capitalization out on purpose.
Not really sure why except it seemed more suitable.
Putting the hyphen back in emphasizes use of LEGO as an adjective.
If there is a problem with it though, you have to ask, is there then a problem
with Lugnet(tm)? After all, it expands to Lego User Group NETwork..
I dunno.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Well, it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. I think that
legomodular could be claimed as deprecating a brand more than
LEGO(tm)-Modular could. Either way, it would seem very silly to have their
legal department crack down on a couple of their biggest[1] individual
customers.
Mike
[1] I would put Conan as #1, but I don't think I even fit into the top 10.
I think I sell as much as Frank Filz buys and I am sure there are bigger
fish than me, but I don't know how many that would be. Maybe I am a top
buyer, but I don't know. Just curious and not trying to fill some machismo
need.
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:Fs8un3.1JC@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> > I think that Lego is getting pretty ridiculous on their protection.
> > Lego-modular describes exactly what it is. What else should it be • called?
>
> When I coined Legomodular I left the hyphen and capitalization out on • purpose.
> Not really sure why except it seemed more suitable.
>
> Putting the hyphen back in emphasizes use of LEGO as an adjective.
>
> If there is a problem with it though, you have to ask, is there then a • problem
> with Lugnet(tm)? After all, it expands to Lego User Group NETwork..
>
> I dunno.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> It would seem very silly to have their legal department crack down on a
> couple of their biggest[1] individual customers.
>
> Mike
>
> [1] I would put Conan as #1, but I don't think I even fit into the top 10.
> I think I sell as much as Frank Filz buys and I am sure there are bigger
> fish than me, but I don't know how many that would be. Maybe I am a top
> buyer, but I don't know. Just curious and not trying to fill some machismo
> need.
I don't know who buys the most LEGO, or who has the most LEGO - but I think we
can safely say that there are some pretty huge collections being represented
on LUGNET and especially here in .TRAINS!
If LEGO (the company) doesn't realize how much goodwill a LEGO Train Club
creates every time they do a show, then all hope is lost... We are the best
advertising they could ever want, and we do it because we love it.
*Maybe* someday LEGO will do something for us in return... (Bulk orders,
perhaps?) Wouldn't that be nice?? <sigh>
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Mike Poindexter" <lego@poindexter.cc> wrote:
> The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
...I've been quiet till now, waiting for the draft to come up (had trouble following the
discussion thru threads before now :-/. But I can say I support the idea and am figuring
out now how to make our layout compatible with the modular one.
...We are using table top layouts based loosely on the PNLTC standard. An observation I
have is using incremental brick heights between the two different table heights. PNLTC
(and WAMALUG) use 36 5/8" as 'ground level' while the proposed standard uses 29 3/4" + 10
bricks as ground level (33 11/16"). That's nearly 8 bricks difference (1 brick ~1 cm), and
unfortunately, this does not come out to a clean number of bricks so it would be
exceedingly difficult to marry the two together in a pure fashion.
...The problem can be solved if/when we need to by just putting books or something else
under the legs of the shorter/modular tables, but since we are proposing a standard here,
I thought I'd bring up a suggestion to take into account the higher tables so that future
tables can be built to make the transition easier. Or if the table height wont change
(likely) a standard sized 'box' or 'riser' can be spec'ed out so we can have a few on hand
to raise the tables as needed.
> In the near future, I plan to post pictures detailing how the lattice
> structure is made from 2x4 bricks as well as the optional 2x6 style.
>
> Over time, I will document all stages of module construction and show all
> the building techniques to speed up putting these things together, including
> easy ways to install roads in towns, control boxes, etc.
...I look forward to those. :-)
> The building instructions are not up yet, as I need to make some more
> examples on the modules I have at home for pictures.
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...We are using table top layouts based loosely on the PNLTC standard. An
> observation I have is using incremental brick heights between the two
> different table heights. PNLTC (and WAMALUG) use 36 5/8" as 'ground level'
> while the proposed standard uses 29 3/4" + 10 bricks as ground level (33
> 11/16"). That's nearly 8 bricks difference (1 brick ~1 cm), and
> unfortunately, this does not come out to a clean number of bricks so it would
> be exceedingly difficult to marry the two together in a pure fashion.
There are two 'standard' heights:
29 3/4" table + baseplate + 10 bricks + 1 plate
29 3/4" table + baseplate + 22 bricks + 1 plate
(extra plate is used to represent 'ballast' under the tracks)
The higher one should be close to PNLTC / WAMALUG table height, or at least
closer than the lower one.
The proposed GMLTC layout will have both heights, so if someday we do a show
with another club we should be able to work our layouts together...
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
And the BayLTC layout will be using the upper height exclusively, as our
layout will include the optional low track at 4 bricks+1 plate.
JIG: Where the heck did you guys get THAT MANY small black and gray plates?
I can't imagine how I am going to put the road ballast on my entire layout,
so I will start in one area and slowly work my way across as I add to my
collection, but that is a tremendous amount of plates. Sure, Conan has a
huge collection, but still, that seems a high number of plates to have even
in such a large collection, unless you bought heavily in certain sets that
had the parts you needed.
Mike
John Gerlach <john.gerlach@bestbuy.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Fs8wuu.CFu@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> > ...We are using table top layouts based loosely on the PNLTC standard. An
> > observation I have is using incremental brick heights between the two
> > different table heights. PNLTC (and WAMALUG) use 36 5/8" as 'ground • level'
> > while the proposed standard uses 29 3/4" + 10 bricks as ground level (33
> > 11/16"). That's nearly 8 bricks difference (1 brick ~1 cm), and
> > unfortunately, this does not come out to a clean number of bricks so it • would
> > be exceedingly difficult to marry the two together in a pure fashion.
>
> There are two 'standard' heights:
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 10 bricks + 1 plate
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 22 bricks + 1 plate
> (extra plate is used to represent 'ballast' under the tracks)
>
> The higher one should be close to PNLTC / WAMALUG table height, or at • least
> closer than the lower one.
>
> The proposed GMLTC layout will have both heights, so if someday we do a • show
> with another club we should be able to work our layouts together...
>
> JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> And the BayLTC layout will be using the upper height exclusively, as our
> layout will include the optional low track at 4 bricks+1 plate.
>
> JIG: Where the heck did you guys get THAT MANY small black and gray plates?
> I can't imagine how I am going to put the road ballast on my entire layout,
> so I will start in one area and slowly work my way across as I add to my
> collection, but that is a tremendous amount of plates. Sure, Conan has a
> huge collection, but still, that seems a high number of plates to have even
> in such a large collection, unless you bought heavily in certain sets that
> had the parts you needed.
The last layer where we would normally brick over the top instead gets a layer
of whatever plates are available. Then we use black and grey bricks to get
the rest of the height.
-John
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, John Kelly writes:
> The last layer where we would normally brick over the top instead gets a layer
> of whatever plates are available. Then we use black and grey bricks to get
> the rest of the height.
>
> -John
So to get our 20 bricks + a plate we have:
Baseplate + 19 bricks + 1 plate (usually something big like 6x8) + 1 brick...
Yea, it's cheating, but it works! ;-)
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"John Gerlach" <john.gerlach@bestbuy.nospam.com> wrote:
> In lugnet.trains, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> > ...We are using table top layouts based loosely on the PNLTC standard. An
> > observation I have is using incremental brick heights between the two
> > different table heights. PNLTC (and WAMALUG) use 36 5/8" as 'ground level'
> > while the proposed standard uses 29 3/4" + 10 bricks as ground level (33
> > 11/16"). That's nearly 8 bricks difference (1 brick ~1 cm), and
> > unfortunately, this does not come out to a clean number of bricks so it would
> > be exceedingly difficult to marry the two together in a pure fashion.
>
> There are two 'standard' heights:
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 10 bricks + 1 plate
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 22 bricks + 1 plate
> (extra plate is used to represent 'ballast' under the tracks)
>
> The higher one should be close to PNLTC / WAMALUG table height, or at least
> closer than the lower one.
...Yea, its closer, but overshoots some :-/ (sunken rail beds? :-)
...Its only a nuisance because its close to 2" for either version, and as we all know,
LEGO trains do _not_ like going up or down slopes much :-/
> The proposed GMLTC layout will have both heights, so if someday we do a show
> with another club we should be able to work our layouts together...
...That's about all I'm thinking is to go ahead and think about how we could integrate
them when/if we ever need to. If we think about it now, we can have on hand the fix (like
some 2" hi boxes to go under the legs of the tables or something of that like). And
whatever fix we use at WAMALUG so we can use some modules along with our regular tables
will be compatible with the 'standard' fix....
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"John Gerlach" <john.gerlach@bestbuy.nospam.com> wrote:
> There are two 'standard' heights:
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 10 bricks + 1 plate
> 29 3/4" table + baseplate + 22 bricks + 1 plate
> (extra plate is used to represent 'ballast' under the tracks)
...Well, since most of the terrain is red bricks, it could also be shielding from the
rolling rivers of lava... :-)
...you can go back to ignoring me now...
wubwub
stephen f roberts
wamalug guy (http://wamalug.org)
wildlink.com
lugnet #160
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Is there going to be a standard size car/rolling stock standard?
i.e.,clearance on all tracks for something 8x44x14 (or whatever) I would
think that this would be just as important as standard track interfaces and
such, as this is going to be the hardest to work out once a layout is built
and tracks are embedded into the structure of the layout.
Wayne G.
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> The preliminary page for Lego-modular standards is up at:
> http://www.sirius.com/~latha/lego/modules/standards.htm
>
> In the near future, I plan to post pictures detailing how the lattice
> structure is made from 2x4 bricks as well as the optional 2x6 style.
>
> Over time, I will document all stages of module construction and show all
> the building techniques to speed up putting these things together, including
> easy ways to install roads in towns, control boxes, etc.
>
> The building instructions are not up yet, as I need to make some more
> examples on the modules I have at home for pictures.
>
> Mike Poindexter
> BayLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Robert Green writes:
> Is there going to be a standard size car/rolling stock standard?
> i.e.,clearance on all tracks for something 8x44x14 (or whatever)
8x44 but I am not sure about the height. John Kelly?
Note that 8x44 allows 7xM and 6xN (where N>M>44) due to curve effects, although
I am not quite sure what the values of M and N are. That's why I personally am
pleased to see layouts switching to 8 wide standards, it gives more room for my
longerish 6 wide creations.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I'm not sure that we've really set a hard top yet. By guess is that 14 will
be probably the high end, mostly because the tunnels start to look really
silly if they need to let through cars that are taller than that. A lot of
that will depend on how poor the tunnels look at higher clearances.
-john
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Robert Green writes:
> > Is there going to be a standard size car/rolling stock standard?
> > i.e.,clearance on all tracks for something 8x44x14 (or whatever)
>
> 8x44 but I am not sure about the height. John Kelly?
>
> Note that 8x44 allows 7xM and 6xN (where N>M>44) due to curve effects, • although
> I am not quite sure what the values of M and N are. That's why I personally am
> pleased to see layouts switching to 8 wide standards, it gives more room for • my
> longerish 6 wide creations.
>
> ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I knew that there was something I forgot to include! I think 16 was what we
mentioned for tunnel clearances. I LOVED Brian Williams' suggestion of
having the entrance to the tunnel removable so that a smaller or larger
"mouth" could be added to look more in scale with different rolling stock.
This would allow a tunnel that was just right for an 8 wide, 15.3 high car
to go through to be quickly converted to look just right for 6 wide 13 high
cars to enter.
14 high might sound good, but if you build an 8 wide with a pantograph, I
think you will run into problems. I am personally putting 15 2/3 bricks
from the top of the ballast (that is where the track sits) to the lowest
clearance point in the tunnel. That should allow a 15 high train to pass
with no problems and a 15.3 to be relatively safe (but might hit if the
track comes up a bit and the tunnel sags, or hits a bump where some track
join kind of rough).
Is 44 long enough for 8 wide stock? That translates to a 55 foot long car.
I would have though 64 studs (80 feet), or at the minimum 56 studs (70
feet). What is the longest train car that could be considered very common?
You would have to worry about both the interior of the curve where the car
hangs over and also the outside of the curve where the nose might stick out
if the trucks are set back a bit, like they are on many locomotives.
When this is agreed on for length between wheel sets and length in front of
the front wheelset and behind the rear one, I will add the clearance
requirements to the standards.
Mike Poindexter
John Kelly <jkelly69@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:Fs9FKz.AMK@lugnet.com...
> I'm not sure that we've really set a hard top yet. By guess is that 14 • will
> be probably the high end, mostly because the tunnels start to look really
> silly if they need to let through cars that are taller than that. A lot • of
> that will depend on how poor the tunnels look at higher clearances.
>
> -john
>
>
>
>
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Robert Green writes:
> > > Is there going to be a standard size car/rolling stock standard?
> > > i.e.,clearance on all tracks for something 8x44x14 (or whatever)
> >
> > 8x44 but I am not sure about the height. John Kelly?
> >
> > Note that 8x44 allows 7xM and 6xN (where N>M>44) due to curve effects, • although
> > I am not quite sure what the values of M and N are. That's why I • personally am
> > pleased to see layouts switching to 8 wide standards, it gives more room • for
> my
> > longerish 6 wide creations.
> >
> > ++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
>
> Is 44 long enough for 8 wide stock? That translates to a 55 foot long car.
> I would have though 64 studs (80 feet), or at the minimum 56 studs (70
> feet). What is the longest train car that could be considered very common?
> You would have to worry about both the interior of the curve where the car
> hangs over and also the outside of the curve where the nose might stick out
> if the trucks are set back a bit, like they are on many locomotives.
Good point. Perhaps instead of setting a length standard (although that is
useful when calculating siding capacity) the standard should speak to the
envelope of clearance that must be provided. (there must be 4 studs clearance
from the edge of the tie at all heights above 2 bricks above rail, 2 below
that, or something similar)
Then if a large articulated can fit, it doesn't matter how long it is.
Conversely I bet I can make a (pathological) 44 stud long 8 wide that won't
pass the nominal standard. I'll just put the wheels in the very center,
ensuring that the ends swing out and swipe everything.
If you see what I am saying.
Nevertheless speaking in terms of a length that's allowed is an easy way
as measuring clearance envelopes is rather tedious work.
> When this is agreed on for length between wheel sets and length in front of
> the front wheelset and behind the rear one, I will add the clearance
> requirements to the standards.
Precisely what i was getting at, guess I should have read to the bottom. These
lengths matter. Perhaps we need a standard "clearance car" that has to fit.
Anything else is fine as long as it doesn't exceed the loading gauge/clearance
envelope the "clearance car" defines.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Precisely what i was getting at, guess I should have read to the bottom. These
> lengths matter. Perhaps we need a standard "clearance car" that has to fit.
> Anything else is fine as long as it doesn't exceed the loading gauge/clearance
> envelope the "clearance car" defines.
Hmm, interesting, can one come up with a single car?
One thing I immediately wondered is if the clearance specs define a
maximum distance between wheelsets (actually between truck pin) and a
maximum extension beyond this point, would you get different, non
overlapping envelopes between a short car with a long overhang, and a
long car with little overhang. Fortuanately, I realized that the longer
wheelbase is going to push the overhang further out on a curve than a
shorter wheelbase (think of the "angle" the car is making with the track
at each truck, the longer the wheelbase, the sharper this angle, and the
sharper that angle, the more the overhang sticks out).
Of course this degenerate (extremely long) car will actually produce
more clearance than is strictly necessary, but it never hurts to have a
little too much clearance.
One issue though, one probably will want to have a tunnel portal
situated in the middle of a reasonable straight section, otherwise it
could look real ridiculous (of course if your curve has straight
sections interspersed, it will allow tighter clearances).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Precisely what i was getting at, guess I should have read to the bottom. These
> > lengths matter. Perhaps we need a standard "clearance car" that has to fit.
> > Anything else is fine as long as it doesn't exceed the loading gauge/clearance
> > envelope the "clearance car" defines.
>
> Hmm, interesting, can one come up with a single car?
Sure - since the specs are being set, a ClearanceCar can be defined. Anyone
building a layout that doesn't allow it to clear gets a wedgie ;-)
All you need are LWH, and pivot point distances from the ends for the center of the
trucks, and each person can mock one up quickly enough.
> One thing I immediately wondered is if the clearance specs define a
> maximum distance between wheelsets (actually between truck pin) and a
> maximum extension beyond this point, would you get different, non
> overlapping envelopes between a short car with a long overhang, and a
> long car with little overhang. Fortuanately, I realized that the longer
> wheelbase is going to push the overhang further out on a curve than a
> shorter wheelbase (think of the "angle" the car is making with the track
> at each truck, the longer the wheelbase, the sharper this angle, and the
> sharper that angle, the more the overhang sticks out).
>
> Of course this degenerate (extremely long) car will actually produce
> more clearance than is strictly necessary, but it never hurts to have a
> little too much clearance.
Right. But you don't want 3/4 of the module to be clearance space either. Doesn't
leave much space for environment.
--
| Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp
| Please do not associate my personal views with my employer
| | | | | | |
