Subject:
|
Re: latest layout photo
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:38:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
"James Brown" <galliard@shades-of-night.com> writes:
> Yup, we should. I'll start another thread.
And, just to be ornery, I'll continue this one. :-)
My thinking has mostly been centered around what I like, and what I think
I ought to be able to contribute. So, here is what I'd like:
- a goodly stretch of straight, paired, track, with active trains on both.
In front of the station would be good.
- something other than flat right-angles
- main loops that can run unattended (this likely means a combination of
things, like limitations on switch orientation, limitations on any
slope, limitations on what is inaccessible in tunnels, etc.)
- good yard space for keeping rolling stock
What I think I could contribute:
I like the idea of a mountain. I'm less happy with trying to connect the
raised top of the mountain with the regular level. The monorail can do
that sort of level change much easier than the 9V trains. So, what I
think would be good, and that I could do, would be to build a big mountain
which has one or two main lines going through it, but no internal switches
or crossings (a double-track tunnel entrance on one end, and a pair of
single-track tunnel entrances on the other would be cool). There could be
an internal ravine which exposes the lower track, and requires the upper
track to cross on bridges/trestles. The upper track could be as simple as
a standard oval. I would have a bit of slope all along it, and I would
have at least 1/3 of it inside higher mountain. I would build a one-truck
small steam engine, and 3 or 4 short logging or mining cars (same sort
of proportions as my earlier ones), and have it endlessly circling.
Since I'll have some switches (next week?), I could include spurs that
aren't actually used during operation.
I realize that this takes a lot of space, so it could be a separate,
optional, module that tacks onto the end, extending the existing loops.
--
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
|
| (...) a (...) Solvable. :) (...) Heh... No, but it's not a bad idea. :) I can, without having to stretch my collection at all (although my big castle will have to come apart - which is OK, it has to anyway) raise a 61" square by 20 bricks. I suspect (...) (24 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
