 | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) I seem to recall Michel saying at some point that the table count had turned out to be inaccurate?? Six full sets as in six 30x60s and six 30x30s? That would mean then that two additional 30x60s (plus something lower for the mountain/bridge (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) What low table are you refering to? (...) Ummm - That's what I'm suggesting. (My bridge is _exactly_ 45" in fact.) By lowering "the table" 16 bricks, the bridge deck and track would be level with the other tables, as Kevin pointed out quite (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | RE: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) We can vary the height on more than one table, that's no problem; all it takes is more legs. If we drop two tables, we can fill in some terrain on each side of the lowered area with brick to make it look more "natural", which would give us (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
John Koob wrote in message ... (...) Clarification - 30" is a bit short, but 60" is too long. How long is the low table? Could we go for something like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood constructed to raise the apparent height of part of the low (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Layout possibility
|
|
Chris Gray wrote in message ... (...) I beg to differ. It looks clean and organized, especially the yard. I suggest that we go for a more polished look this time, rather than size or wackyness. (...) Do we have enough room near the yard for stacks (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) double (...) I'd have enough to do a double track trestle, but 30" is a bit short... Something longer would look better, but would mean borrowing or acquiring some more black beams. More beams ... I like the (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
