Subject:
|
Re: Train? Thoughts sqrt(2) - Fuel the Insanity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:18:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft writes:
> Ok, no one seemed to balk at the last design, so lets go a little further.
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/derek/miscellaneous/hightown3.gif
>
> First off we are still in cloud talk phase, we shouldn't think of
> anything as set. We should have a big jam session and work out the details.
>
> Second I know Jeff VW doesn't have nearly enough space. We can work
> more to the right, or down to provide more room.
>
> The big idea with this one is to provide a way to get to and from
> Altenburg with a loop. To achieve this I added a second line parallel
> to the original ramp up to Altenburg and expanded the half modules to
> full modules. This would be really cool, because it gives a giant loop
> that a train could take up to Altenburg, back down and around the
> bottom. Now not all trains could handle this but it would be a lot of
> fun for those that could. Its always nice to set a train and just let
> it run. This would give a nice long run.
I think the run would be pretty short without human intervention - if the
speed regulator is set high enough to drive the train up the hill, it's
going to *careen* back down on the return trip, and depart controlled flight
around where the track slopes & turns. Perhaps we can convince a mindstorms
to regulate it, or maybe we can insulate the track and gang 3 speed regs to
it - one in Altenburg, one up, one down, and set each appropriately. But
from my experience with slopes & train, a speed setting of "off" can run out
of control with the wrong train...
> I added Jeff E to one half of Altenburg, not because he definitely
> wanted to do that, but because I know he has enough bricks to build it.
> I added myself to the other half because I'd like to build that bit,
> but I don't necessarily have to. Also the base of Altenburg can be
> build by one person, but we could divide up buildings on top to
> different people.
I think Calum may be right - perhaps we should separate the construction of
terrain from that of building, etc. Then people can chip in buildings where
they'll look good, etc. Thoughts?
>
> The biggest problem with this is finding someone to build the ramp
> sections. Now a friend here at work, who never wanted to get involved
> with rtlToronto before, was looking at the layout and thinking: "I could
> build that ramp. I'd love to build that ramp."
>
> There are a few problems though, he's not committed at this point, he
> doesn't have easy access to his Lego, he doesn't have any module bases
> and has no means to make them. However he is really disparate to build
> something out of Lego. He's hardly been able to touch it since he moved
> in with his girlfriend.
I'm happy to build the ramp; I'm good at them. If he'd like to do it,
great, but I expect he'll need access to a zillion green and/or grey bricks,
so maybe he & I should link up.
>
> So at this stage if there was someone that wanted to commit to the ramp
> that would be really cool. Although it would be neat to suck this guy
> into the group. :-)
>
> Derek
OK, here's my addition to the madness:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=217165
This contrasts with your last offering in the following ways:
Shorter run-in on the cross-switches under Altenburg, and on the switches at
the tops of the ramps. Take a *close* look at the track geometry there -
did you know that you don't have to use two curves to link a pair of
switches, you can do it with one straight, and the geometry works? Saves 16
studs of space.
The ravine / trestle crosses at right angles, and you don't have to build
much curved trestle. It feels like a feature to me, but if you have your
heart set on a curved trestle, feel free to pull in some more of the end of
Altenburg. But it struck me there'd be a nice point out there, suitable for
a lonely tower or lighthouse.
The ramp doesn't descend down the middle of a full module, it's back to a
half-mod. I think on a full mod, the space behind the ramp will be
relatively inaccessible. Furthermore, this way it's easier to "cheat" and
not build a backslope to the ramp, which saves roughly 1/2 the building effort.
The 1/2 mods carry the ramp all the way to the turns at the end. If you
look at the full mods on either side, you'll see that this makes them much
closer to "standard", or at least less confusing.
I got rid of (buried) the wide turn on the upper right - I think that module
would be hard to design, since the turns and clearances would eat most of
the surface area, giving a blank-looking module. By burying it, we have
nice, shiny, attractive Altenburg on top of the module.
In this version, Altenburg shares fewer edges with lower modules. The way I
see it, each edge needs to be contoured & bricksculpted, which eats up a lot
of energy and resources. In contrast, even at my least creative, I can hack
together a blank, 18-brick tall black wall for where Altenburg borders the
edge of the world. That means we can focus our brick resources and energy
making a few, really good-looking slopes & contours.
I made the layout narrower and longer. I think it winds up using slightly
fewer modules this way. 13 & 4/2 instead of 16 & 2/2
Options: Feel free to throw in the wide curves, but you're going to have to
make a new LDraw image of the clearances for the Go train, in that case >;)
Some things we still need: An easy patch to allow us to incorporate more
modules that people bring.
I like the fact that you can play with this layout to give 2 or 3 loops, as
desired.
We'll have to put a net off the end of the table to catch runaway trains
going downslope... Do you remember the games we played with my little
siding and runaway cars? As I recall, they tended to derail somewhere down
around the corner in Jeff VW's layout. Well, this slope will be longer and
higher.... :D
* * *
A final thought - I know that there's a pressure to expand the core area to
give everyone oodles of space, but I'd like to try to curtail that tendency.
I'm happy making about 1 or 2 modules' worth of buildings & other ground
cover, along with contouring whatever needs to be done. I'd rather have
dense, detailed and crowded modules than sparse, widespread ones.
If we're clever, we should be able to build a fascinating core pretty close
to 10-15 modules in size, sort of the minimum to get in the terrain features
we're after. Then we should arrange to be able to add an arbitrary number
of additional modules outside the core. So everyone who wants to can
contribute a small piece to the core, and bring oodles of extra modules to
be part of the extensions.
Derek, back over to you :)
Tired. Must sleep.
Jeff E
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Train? Thoughts sqrt(2) - Fuel the Insanity
|
| (...) I see a solution to this: Where do we see unpowered trains on hills? Iain and others, this should be obvious to you. Now, the solution I see, is to let the coaster experts get together and figure out a braking system for this section of track. (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
| | | Re: Train? Thoughts sqrt(2) - Fuel the Insanity
|
| (...) This is true, you would have to manage the train somehow on the way down. If Iain would like to try and make something to do this automaticly I say let let him go for it. (...) I agree with that. I was trying to work everybody in too soon. I (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Train? Thoughts 2 - Stop the Insanity
|
| Ok, no one seemed to balk at the last design, so lets go a little further. (URL) off we are still in cloud talk phase, we shouldn't think of anything as set. We should have a big jam session and work out the details. Second I know Jeff VW doesn't (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jul-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
