Subject:
|
Re: Track on the modules
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:09:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Iain Hendry writes:
> I really don't think that's the issue - It's not my fault you went ahead and
> built your modules before we had all agreed as a majority on how we'd like
> to place the track.
Actually, you should rephrase your comment to "It's not my fault you went
ahead and built your town 3 plates deep back in 1995". But I'm not asking
anyone to fit their layout to mine, in fact, the last two messages I've very
obviously said I'm working a layout on MY MODULES to fit the PNLTC standard.
And I've actually figured out a layout that fits the outside track (8 from
edge on center) AND the third track over from the other edge (40 over, on
center), which is the minimum for an inner radius turn.
> (why would you need 3 extra modules?)
Because I'm now taking 3x3 plates by four modules plus two corners, and
taking a third away on each. So I'd only actually need two, but I was
perfectly balanced out to 9 modules.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Track on the modules
|
| "Calum Tsang" <tsangc@mie.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:GEFqqr.EKo@lugnet.com... (...) more (...) That (...) I really don't think that's the issue - It's not my fault you went ahead and built your modules before we had all agreed as a majority (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jun-01, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
