Subject:
|
Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:23:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1817 times
|
| |
|
|
"SRC" <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> writes:
> Interesting... http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=19572
> The loop in the bottom left looks like it's been squished or something. :-)
> Why did you move the entire upper section down - to make more available
> "slope-space" for the mountain facing outwards? It means the monorail
> can't change level inside the mountain, (which isn't that big a deal)
> but also that the top is basically wasted isn't it? I thought you wanted
> to include at least on monorail switch? Perhaps the station end on the
> right could loop - like this? (I also replaced those two errant cross-
> over pieces) http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=19573
Thanks for the pics, Steve!
My main concern with this layout is the lack of storage space for trains.
The passenger sidings barely have room for an engine and two cars. The
longer trains we ran at the previous show would have to be broken up in
order to fit anywhere.
I'd extend the right-hand station siding all the way up to the top, or
perhaps one straight below the top.
Perhaps also move the right-hand road to the right of the water one
foot to the right, and move the water itself two feet to the right.
Then, replace the right half of the lower-left "squashed" loop with
as much single ended siding as will fit, servicing the dock and industries
down in that corner.
Hmm. Just had a thought, based on some of my experience with figuring
out the electricals of Lego trains. The lower connecting track between
the two loops is quite long. It could well be that it is difficult to
run a train there unless both loops are otherwise inactive. The lower
rail of it is directly connected to the inner loop, and, if the upper
turnout of the "squashed" loop is switched for straight through, that
same rail is also connected directly to one of the outer loop rails.
No direct short, but I suspect that that track section is useable
only for exchange between the two main loops. Opinions?
--
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 has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Experience? Didn't you just get your first train a week ago? 8-) (...) Depending on where you attached the power it would be a dead section, but I don't think it's inherently flawed. (Unlike the earlier version I made with the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
| | | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
| In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Chris Gray writes: ...More sidings! and Michel responds with a new layout and commentary... (URL) didn't like the funny curve in the bottom left either. I didn't take time to fit in a monorail switch. I think this version has (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Latest Larger Layout
|
| (...) Interesting... (URL) loop in the bottom left looks like it's been squished or something. :-) Why did you move the entire upper section down - to make more available "slope-space" for the mountain facing outwards? It means the monorail can't (...) (24 years ago, 7-Nov-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
|
|
|
|
