 | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| James Brown wrote in message <39DBE42C.527B8E3C@s...ht.com>... (...) mountain (...) I agree with the need for an obvious train yard. One idea would be to squeeze in two more 30" tables at the bottom center. Our total layout dimensions would (...) (24 years ago, 5-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| (...) Have a look and tell me what you think... (URL) mountain (upper left) has the main line running under in via a tunnel, and the elevated section goes over and through it. A curved section would be carved out to make room, just like the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| (...) Hmm. I'll confess I have a *really* hard time judging how elevations and so forth look from a 2D overhead. That being said, I think I'd prefer if the elevation changes were limited to what we need to have for the terrain. I realize that we're (...) (24 years ago, 6-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| Hello Steve, The new train yard is much better. But, the elevated section doesn't really tie in to anything, it is just there because. The clearances are inadequate, both for the trains, only about 12 bricks I think, and the monorail track is about (...) (24 years ago, 8-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| (...) Well it ties into the mountain - Chris was talking about making the mountain even bigger, and that's fine by me. The layout photo as it stands might be a bit off, but I'm sure could make it work - especially if the clearances are for the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | | | Re: latest layout photo
|
| (...) My main problem here is that the main-line loops all have places where the train has to go through the curved part of a switch. The outer loop has three. That could restrict operation at high speed, and unattended. If you can fix things so (...) (24 years ago, 11-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| |
