Subject:
|
Re: Train6L, more revisions than the Zorro III arbitration and the A3000 Buster Chip.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:04:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Derek Raycraft wrote:
> Post after they become public or post deep links. Otherwise no-one will
> ever look at them.
I posted it at 2AM or something, on the assumption it would be read the next day
(and perhaps the moderators would have got it). Oh well. What's that Larry
good for anyways? :)
> I'm not a fan of the cross over, especially if it involves two different
> lines. It means it is no longer possible to just setup two trains and
> just let them run. You have to be constantly watching them.
I like the crossover (though I've always said it's the most useless track piece
ever invented) primarily because it increases the viewing surface area to have a
figure eight layout. Meaning, I think for the same amount of modules, you get
more frontage to the viewer, AND it allows you to build a "wrap around" view.
Given the 6L diagram, you'd get to see both a bridge and a mountain range if you
stood in the cusp there.
> There really isn't enough space there to do a proper ramp to make a
> bridge crossing either.
Dueling Metroliners?
> Then it just looks tacked on. I thought David's previous layout, the
> simple rectangle actually fit the station in, in an effective way.
> Where it was positioned other buildings could be built around it. This
> would make it look like part of the environment, rather then a piece on
> its own.
BTW, I'm very happy NOT to include the station. The thing is getting long in
the tooth anyways, I'm sure people are sick of it (both us and the public). If
we choose a dramatically different layout, I'm very happy to leave it out. Like
if we did urban Japan, it wouldn't fit at all.
> I don't see how these options are separate. These no reason we can't
> build a detailed themed display on top of a rectangular arrangement of
> modules.
I think the square arrangement with a loop encourages a certain planned square
look which is very common in Lego train layouts. It's hard to describe in
words, but it looks like American tract housing. The rectangular loop
encourages a sort of "decorated face" approach with no depth, all oriented to
pointing out towards the viewer. I'm hoping we can get away from this. I can
draw some sketches on Friday about what I mean.
> Jeff E and I were discussing how far we took the detail of the Altenberg
> layout, and we both agreed we were only got to about 50% of were we
> wanted to go with it. I would love to see this level of integration
> taken all the way around the layout.
I agree. The problem is we're awfully spotty with this. This is also why I'm
against any large switchyard-it dilutes the visual density of the layout. I
think our best layout by far has been the Roadshow Reduced Altenburg one. Even
with tacked on side modules, it had much more density than the 4.5 NMRA layout.
What if we said, we're only doing 12 modules like at Hobby Show, but they have
to be extra dense?
> I think we need to be practical about how we setup the modules though.
> The rectangle is simple to setup, it's easy to surround with stations,
> and it give us a place to sit, store equipment and run the trains away
> from the crowed.
I'm against the idea of having a place inside that's too large. As comfortable
as it may be, it weakens the look of the layout.
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
4 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
