Subject:
|
Re: Train clearance specs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:03:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
977 times
|
| |
|
|
Derek Raycraft wrote:
>
> Wow, you must really be bored to go to all that effort. :-)
Yup. Actually, it only takes about 20 minutes if you know where the
pieces hide.
> > This is a copy of Derek's clearance specs for his train. Derek, if
> > these have changed, perhaps you'd better let us know.
> >
> > http://extranet.telepres.com/staff/jeffe/8wideclearance.gif
>
>
> Yes, this is still accurate. I still have the "GO" train built and I'm
> planing to keep it for a while longer. I want to see it do a full loop
> at least once. :-) My new train has lower side clearance requirements.
Meaning lower-to-ground? Or less-stringent?
> I'd like greater height clearance for it but I know that is just going
> to cause problems.
Not necessarily. My Hightown plan is built at 18 bricks elevation. I
run all my track at 1 plate elevation above substrate, so that I can
underbed it and so curves and switches sit flush. This means that the
height-clearance overstructure as-is would be 16 bricks plus baseplate.
That leaves 1.2 bricks for supports, which is kind of a minimum
(plate-brick-plate sandwiches, anyone?), but we could negotiate if you
need a little more room.
>
> That's made me think of something. If we do the High Town thing, we
> should make it a 6 wide standard, and build a cantanery (1. sp?) system
> that fits with the metro liner's pantograph. That would be cool. I was
> thinking of building a streetcar, I could make it fit with this system too.
I could be convinced, although we'd need to dig up enough pieces to do
this throughout.
> 1. I can never figure out how to spell this. I know half the web
> spells it wrong. Even LDraw has it spelt wrong on the parts that should
> be labeled as pantograph parts.
I think it's "catenary", like the mathematical shape. inflexible,
iso-density wires hanging from two points describe a catenary curve, so
it makes sense.
Jeff E
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Train clearance specs
|
| (...) Wow, you must really be bored to go to all that effort. :-) (...) Yes, this is still accurate. I still have the "GO" train built and I'm planing to keep it for a while longer. I want to see it do a full loop at least once. :-) My new train has (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
