 | | Re: Layout possibility
|
|
(...) Looks not bad to me. A bit boring, but otherwise good. A couple of short industrial spurs might be useful. Perhaps a short backwards one from the spur to the turntable could lead to a trainwash. Another possibility is to replace the lower-left (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Layout possibility
|
|
I had more free time this afternoon than I expected, so whipped up a .tdl... (URL) the .tdl and a .jpg of it are in that gallery) Blue is water on a lowered table (part of the mountain would also be over the lowered table), grey is mountain, green (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) That calls for a lot of brick, probably more than I have. Verticle lift is what requires the most volume of bricks, if you want it sturdy, and I was fairly well tapped out with the Supertrain mountain at about 2 feet of lift. I've got some (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) I agree there isn't enough room for elevation ramps. That's why my mountain-valley-bridge suggestion has both tracks at the level of the tables. The upper portion of the mountain peaks are above track/table level, while most of the "two (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) We don't have the room at GEMTS to elevate track to the level required for your arch bridge, not without dedicating a full *two thirds* of our space to elevating the track, and consiquently obscuring at least 1/2 of our layout behind (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
