Subject:
|
Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:23:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1764 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> > > OK - Here's an update using 7 large and 7 small.
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18301
> >
> > Looks good. The only problem I see is that it short-circuits the loop.
>
> Blast! You're right - I missed the second inversion. I guess there's
> only one solution... http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=18311
> I guess I can't saddle you with a 61"x61" mountain and not be willing
> to up the ante on my own bridge by making it triple instead of double.
> Part of me is hoping you'll say you can't do the giant mountain, so I
> won't have to make the triple bridge. 8-)
Ok. I can't do the giant mountain. ;]
Well... I probably could, but I'm dubious about transportation issues and
modularity and access.
61 inches across won't fit in a van, or through a door, so it has to come
apart at least once, which makes it *much* more complicated to build
realistically. Also, it's much more accessable from outside the layout than to
the operator, which means we need to be able to take off the outside to handle
any derails. Plus, with 4 tracks going in at 1 place and 4 tracks coming out,
and a large interior hole for a monorail spiral... yikes.
I could do it, but I'll freely confess I don't want to. I'm leaning more
towards Kevin's suggestion of an "open-backed" (curtain covered or what have
you) mountain that the operator can get into in case of derails.
$0.02
James
> SRC
> StRuCtures
> I was about to add a dig at James that my BB store had more parts in
> it than his and noticed Darryl (Sharms?) store. He is an Albertan!
> Does anyone know him? If he's in Calgary, we should contact him to
> see if he'd like to help out with SuperTrain 2001. Adam - know him?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
| (...) to (...) Hear Hear! Well said. The mountain in the above linked image is way too ambitious. Something smaller, positioned toward the inside of the table sloping down and outward, would be much more appropriate. One, maybe two tunneled tracks, (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
| (...) Blast! You're right - I missed the second inversion. I guess there's only one solution... (URL) guess I can't saddle you with a 61"x61" mountain and not be willing to up the ante on my own bridge by making it triple instead of double. Part of (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
116 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
