 | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Mountain Switching —James Brown
| | | | (...) Hmm. I don't think we can pull off a 15 footer, quite. Quick question: How *wide* are our tables? I've been thinking that they're 30", standard banquet table width, but I seem to recall you saying "2 feet" somewhere... (...) One way of getting (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Mountain Switching —Steve Chapple
| | | | | | (...) Two feet by eight feet (or 6 or 4, but what point is a 2'x4' table?) (...) For the track designer impaired, here's what he's talking about... (URL) nice, but it still doesn't get the tracks any closer together than the standard switch width. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Mountain Switching —Steve Chapple
| | | | | (...) Two feet by eight feet (or 6 or 4, but what point is a 2'x4' table?) (...) For the track designer impaired, here's what he's talking about... (URL) nice, but it still doesn't get the tracks any closer together than the standard switch width. (...) (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Mountain Switching —James Brown
| | | | | (...) ? Why do you want the spurs so close together? If there's one thing we *aren't* short of, it's space. Stick with the geometry. Even a space-eating ladder-style yard works just fine. James (24 years ago, 5-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: SuperTrain 2001 layout - Switching Yard —Steve Chapple
| | | | | (...) True - there's no shortage of _floor_ space, and I can always add more tables, but at $1/foot out of my pocket (hopefully reimbursed but no garauntee) I'd like to make maximum use of space. Also, I have to stay within reach of the edge of the (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jan-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug, lugnet.trains)
| | | | | | |
