 | | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
|
SRC wrote in message ... (...) I like this one better than the previous iteration. A smaller mountain gives us more room for structures. Another plus is that it has a crossover on the inner loop. The monorail supports at the corners of the layout (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
|
(...) Chill guys - I'm just throwing out ideas. :-) I don't remember any vote, but whatever amount of monorail is the concensus is fine by me. I don't think we have to vote on anything/everything. We're not that formal of a club are we? (...) Here's (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
|
Hello Guys, Please NO more layouts with 61x61 mountains. James, Kevin, and I are against the idea. Steve is for it. Chris' idea of two interconnected mountains could be explored another year if the first mountain works out. After all we are (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout (was Re: Get-together last Sunday)
|
|
(...) Don't panic. :-) I just included you as one who would like to help but can't commit to being there for sure. (John and Kevin are in a similar situation.) SRC (24 years ago, 28-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
|
(...) How would you have tunneled tracks *and* a table-level loop? They would be trying to occupy the same space. A raised loop works. Or are you suggesting the tables the mountain is on be lowered the required 11 bricks (14?), so that "table level" (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
