 | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> We always have had layouts with lots of ramps and bridges.
Quite right - as you should. Are we the only two here (now that Matt
isn't around much) who think (of train layouts) in three dimensions? 8-)
> > We used three controllers per track circuit to lessen voltage drops.
> > One circuit had gaps, one didn't. The gapped one was easier to control
> > as you could more easily adjust speeds independently (it looks cool
> > to have the train crawl through the yard and speed up on the other
> > parts of the line)
I was planning to use multiple gapped controllers at Supertrain2001,
but hadn't thought of slowing down through the yard - good idea.
Any other advice on wiring (or other aspects)? It's going to change,
but currently this is my layout plan. (To give you an idea of the size.)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28383
SRC
StRuCtures
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip>
> > We always have had layouts with lots of ramps and bridges.
>
> Quite right - as you should. Are we the only two here (now that Matt
> isn't around much) who think (of train layouts) in three dimensions? 8-)
I think in 3 dimensions too but on a plywooder layout with no terrain, a
bunch of ramps and bridges tend to make things look more toylike unless
there is some clear justification for the bridges (to cross over another
line for a plausible reason)...
terrain makes much else more possible and realistic. But terrain costs a lot.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > We always have had layouts with lots of ramps and bridges.
>
> Quite right - as you should. Are we the only two here (now that Matt
> isn't around much) who think (of train layouts) in three dimensions? 8-)
I assure you, the GMLTC thinks in three dimensions. The layout we're
working on now will have trains running at least four different heights, and
maybe five if we can squeeze one more into the design...
We try to put "interesting" things at many different heights, because that
causes people to spend that much more time checking out our layout. And a
lot of times kids will notice stuff before their parents do, because we put
stuff down at their level.
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > > We always have had layouts with lots of ramps and bridges.
I thought there was rule that at some point on the layout the trains had to
cross over each other. ;-)
The layout we are working on has a climb into a mountain, where a ski resort
will be and three tunnels to provide transaction from scene to scene. A
little more work but I hope the results will justify it.
Have a look at the work so far, this is a work in process, and let me know
what you think. We have worked more on the mountain and I hope to get some
more pics up this weekend of the waterfall and tunnel.
Matthew Greene
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2353
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.trains.org, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> <snip>
> > We always have had layouts with lots of ramps and bridges.
>
> Quite right - as you should. Are we the only two here (now that Matt
> isn't around much) who think (of train layouts) in three dimensions? 8-)
>
> > > We used three controllers per track circuit to lessen voltage drops.
> > > One circuit had gaps, one didn't. The gapped one was easier to control
> > > as you could more easily adjust speeds independently (it looks cool
> > > to have the train crawl through the yard and speed up on the other
> > > parts of the line)
>
> I was planning to use multiple gapped controllers at Supertrain2001,
> but hadn't thought of slowing down through the yard - good idea.
> Any other advice on wiring (or other aspects)? It's going to change,
> but currently this is my layout plan. (To give you an idea of the size.)
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=28383
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
A problem we encountered with wiring was wire length. Because we did not have
enough long (Mindstorms) wires we had to place controllers in inconvienent
places. If you are not a 100% purist you should consider making some long
exteneders. Some of the Mindstorms sights have information on making your own
connectors and the gauge of wire needed. Unfortunately this does involve two of
the three deadly sins (cutting, gluing and painting).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> A problem we encountered with wiring was wire length. Because we did not have
> enough long (Mindstorms) wires we had to place controllers in inconvienent
> places. If you are not a 100% purist you should consider making some long
> exteneders. Some of the Mindstorms sights have information on making your own
> connectors and the gauge of wire needed. Unfortunately this does involve two of
> the three deadly sins (cutting, gluing and painting).
It involves cutting but no gluing or painting! How about soldering--is that
a fourth deadly sin, a subset of gluing (joining?), or is it just venial?
Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains.org, Peter Guenther writes:
> > Unfortunately this does involve two of the three deadly sins
> > (cutting, gluing and painting).
>
> It involves cutting but no gluing or painting! How about
> soldering--is that a fourth deadly sin, a subset of gluing
> (joining?), or is it just venial?
I'd say a subset of gluing, but what about the electrical tape... :-)
SRC
StRuCtures
| | | | | | |
