Subject:
|
Re: latest layout photo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 01:41:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1020 times
|
| |
|
|
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
> I hadn't considered that when I made the changes, but it wouldn't take
> much to make it loop-switchable... <goes away and modifies design>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=16685 How's that?
> 2.3 loops interconnected with an inner inclined loop over/through a
> mountain and an enlarged switching yard. Oh - forgot to make the
> double tunnel in the mountain... Imagine a much larger mountain with
> this one: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=16686
> Please feel free to start another design from scratch and rotate it 90
> degrees - I'm still just mangling the file you sent before to show what
> I'm describing. I'm quite open to wholesale changes to the layout.
> You define the table space and I'll fill it up. :-)
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 that the mainline portion goes through the straight
parts of the switches...
Where does the mountain go? Top left corner? If so, I would suggest not
having switches in tunnels.
--
Don't design inefficiency in - it'll happen in the implementation.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA
http://www.GraySage.Edmonton.AB.CA/cg/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
