Subject:
|
Re: "Core" layout features for rtlTrainN
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:15:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
434 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Jeff Elliott writes:
> _Description_: The modules, in at least one place, form a ring and the
> engineers can stand inside.
> _Pros_: You can keep the speed regulators inside and out of harm's way
> _Cons_: Tends to make the layout "thinner" - it's usually only 1 module
> thick at any point, which limits the size of building you can place in a
> town.
You can do this with a figure eight making one of the "loops" open for
engineers and the other one closed with a harbour or mountain or whatever.
Other pros include the fact you can differentiate the audience from the
rtlToronto members, which is if anything, psychologically good for
maintaining order.
> (B) A high-low crossover
>
> _Description_: A point where two tracks cross one another at heights
> differing by enough to pass a train on the lower route. (usu ~16+ bricks
> delta) eg: my tunnel/siding mountain module.
> _Pros_: Very cool-looking when done right. Very fun to build
> _Cons_: If you want all the track to be continuous and linked, this
> involves a 30+ track sloped run-in. See also: Mountain
I really like this idea. I mentioned to JeffVW on the ride home from
Washington that you could half the requirements for height and run in if you
dropped one track under the surface of the module by cutting a path below
the plywood. The "under" track goes down eight and the "above" track goes
up eight". Requires creative benchwork.
> (C) Mountain
> _Description_: A big hill of Lego bricks, possibly supporting track.
> _Pros_: Looks very cool if done well
> _Cons_: Really needs to be at the centre of the layout, or else it
> blocks the sight to the lower parts of the layout. Gobbles up vast
> tracts of land and thousands of bricks. I've also noticed that if you
> place a loop of track at height, many many modules have to participate
> in supporting high track, which means everyone has to be into building
> hills.
Another pro is that it visually separates two areas-ie, two regions, two
towns, two time periods, etc.
> (D) Tunnel
> _Description_: A hole into which trains go, and come out again
> _Pros_: *Everyone* wants tunnels in their layout. High neatness
> quotient. Also makes dealing with mountains easier, and ALLOWS MORE
> TRACK PER SQUARE INCH (CM) OF LAYOUT.
> _Cons_: Kind of implies a mountain, unless we cheat and raise the
> baseplates up 16 bricks high. Which is certainly possible...
I dont' mind cheating btw :)
> (F) Multiple independent loops
> _Description_: A layout topology which allows two independent trains on
> separate regulators, should we choose.
> _Pros_: Doubles number of engineer-hours. :) Elegant.
> _Cons_: Wow, this eats a lot of space
Ideally I'd like to see two independent tracks. It allows for a lot of fun
and staging flexibility.
Calum
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Core" layout features for rtlTrainN
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Yes, this had occured to me as well. Minimum # of modules is 11 to get this effect with a figure-8 though, and that's a lot for the amount of "core" comittment we're getting. (...) <snip> (...) A number of my designs revolve (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | "Core" layout features for rtlTrainN
|
| I've been creating dozens of layouts in TrackDesigner. I see some things recurring, and I wanted to know how people felt about the importance of including certain features in a layout: (A) An "inside" centre space. _Description_: The modules, in at (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
