Subject:
|
Re: Plans for next NALUG layout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:57:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
858 times
|
| |
|
|
I wanted the whole layout to be 8 wide friendly, Kevin reports that Big Red
takes 14 bricks of clearance from the ties on the track, hence more than one
pillar is needed, and the inclines are only in full pillar increments. I tried
to make it go generally from ground level in the upper right to 2 story in the
lower left, with extra altitude change at the train station only. If you want
to replace one of the ends with a spiral, (Probably the stadium end) go ahead,
but the way it is designed, allows the monorail to run continuously without
changing direction, or stopping, as well the monorail switches are really neat,
and I believe they would be a crowd pleaser. Plus tyhe monorail is already
eating a lot of our relatively scarce surface area, since everyone agrees that
a large switching yard is needed.
>
> Why up and down so much? Double height isn't needed for going over
> train tracks, although it does leave good clearance if it's double.
>
> Keep in mind that I can make one or more of my monorail spirals.
> One full circle spiral is one pillar high, so I could make the part
> that goes over the train tracks 1.75 high by using 7 curves at one
> corner of the layout and 3 at the other (leading onto normal pillars)
> or something like that. I would also like to run the monorail
> UNDERNEATH the train at one point. (See below for more details.)
>
> > This brings the Lego citizens from downtown, to the train station,
> > to the stadium... ...with one set of bleachers, looking outwards
> > onto a nonexistant field.
>
> Why not use the soccer sets and make part of a soccer stadium?
I guess I didn't explain myself, that is exactly what I meant!
> I would like to make the mountain "double-decker" for want of a better
> term. Most train layouts only explore two dimensions - I like to have
> inclines and trains crossing over one another. (I was making such
> layouts with blue 4.5v track two decades ago.) IMO you should remake
> the mountain with a track going through AND a track going over. By the
> way, yes I'll have tons of black bricks soon, (to answer your earlier
> question) but don't you want grey from James to expand the mountain?
> One of the loops could incline up, cross over one of my bridges and
> the mountain and slope back down to normal level. While elevated, it
> could cross over some train tracks, and at one point, when the monorail
> is at the same level as it, the monorail could dip down under it. This
> would be the inverse of the little arch over the container crane, and
> I think it would be a real crowd pleaser to have the monorail headed
> straight for the train in the same plane, and then dip underneath it.
Having two train tracks cross over each other will not work at this time, if
you look at Matt Bates site http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/inclines.htm you
will calculate that it will take 22 lengths of track to climb 14 bricks high,
and another 22 lengths to go down again. The entire straight length on the
long end of the plan is only 24 tracks, so we would have to run an outer loop,
on each long side upwards to climb the necessary height. As we are limited to
6 lanes of track in 30.5 inches we once again restrict the size of any
switching yard, anywhere on the layout, to a maximum of 5 tracks, less
buildings and storage space.
The black bricks are for the inner wall lining the tunnel, obviously grey will
be the outside color of the mountain. I also would like the mountain to be
twice as high as the previous version, but I want to leave a lower space to fit
Chris' neat narrow gauge locomotive.
I do not think the monorail should run near the mountain. Monorails and
mountains, with narrow gauge equipment, just don't fit together in my mind.
>
> As for the bottom and lower-right corner, let's skip the wimpy three
> segment sidings, and make a proper switching yard. I'd fill the entire
> bottom section six tracks across. Should I make up a design or modify
> Michel's and generate another "photo" so you guys have a better idea?
As I posted earlier, the switching yard should be moved to the right side, and
the mountain and elevator to the bottom, allowing a nicer switching yard.
Michel
>
> SRC
> (Just thinking out loud)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Plans for next NALUG layout
|
| (...) 14 high shouldn't be a problem - that's the clearance I was after. (...) This is LEGO - anything will work. 8-) (Just have to figure it out.) (...) Sounds great. See what you think of my modifications. I moved the mountain (hey - I moved a (...) (24 years ago, 6-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Plans for next NALUG layout
|
| (...) I had a look - nice - I've appended some thoughts about it. (...) Why up and down so much? Double height isn't needed for going over train tracks, although it does leave good clearance if it's double. Keep in mind that I can make one or more (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
