Subject:
|
Layout Ideas
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.indylug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:51:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
426 times
|
| |
|
|
I don't have a concrete layout, but I do have some ideas, specs, and
issues, at least some of which need to be decided upon before we can
decide on a layout.
General Design Principles for the Layout:
(1) The layout should be designed to consist of at least three
interconnected, nontrivial (i.e., of enough length to be interesting)
loops of 9V track. Ideally, a loop (probably the inner loop) should be
elevated.
(2) Any train the club plans to run on the layout should be able
to reach any part of the track layout under its own power.
(2a) Switching activities should be able to be accomplished
without touching the trains (using only switches and speed regulators).
(3) Trains should be able to run continuously on the three loops
without human monitoring.
And a useful, but not essential, fourth principle:
(4) Loops should have a preferred direction of travel, with the
middle opposite the inner and outer loops for aesthetic impact, and no
need to ever go backwards on a main loop or while moving between loops.
------------------------------------
So what do these mean? Well, (2) speaks to a need for an IndyLUG standard
for train cars. At the show, we had problems with the trains not fitting
the layout: of course, the 8-wides could only run on the outer loop; the
Metroliner had to have its pantographs removed to run in the middle loop;
at least one 6-wide caboose was too tall for the middle loop; one of
Mark's locos had to have parts removed to operate on the middle loop (it
collided with the loading dock); the Metroliner could not get up to the
inner track without adding a second motor. All but the last of these
could be resolved by coming up with a standard (and presumably a mockup)
for the maximum size of cars and locos on our layout. Then all IndyLUG
rolling stock could be planned to fit inside that standard. This standard
would then determine the layout---height of elevated track running over
lower track, placement of pylons and buildings, treatment of curves, etc.
Note that the height of the elevated track must be determined before a
layout can be chosen[0], because the geometry of the upward ramp[1][2] is
determined by how high it needs to go.
The last problem (getting the Metroliner up the ramp[3]) points to a
bigger standard: length and weight of "trains" as a whole. That is, we
need to decide how long any train we would normally expect to run
(excepting unusual circumstances, such as when, on the last day of the
show, we made the train on the outer loop as long as possible) will be,
and how much it will weigh. Weight is especially important for bridges;
there are limits to what basic track sections can take, and if we want to
run heavier loads than that, we will need to compensate (add Znap-type
bridges, etc.)[4]. We need to establish a reasonable standard ratio of
weight and motor-power to that every train can safely make it up and down
every incline.
Finally, length plays into principle (2a): it was really hard to switch
trains at the show. Part of the problem was an excess of cars.
Basically, the easiest way to put a different train on a loop is to have
another train waiting on a siding. Switch the points for the siding; the
new train moves onto the loop, and when the old train moves onto the
siding stop both trains and switch the points back. A similar principle
works for moving trains between loops---so long as you have a place to
store a train that shouldn't be moving. At GATS, did not have a siding
long enough to accommodate the trains we were running---to store, say, the
Super Chief in front of the train station, we had to remove a car or two.
I think that each loop should have a siding long enough to accommodate any
train we will run. This siding could still be used to "store"
trains most of the time, but at will we could switch the train on the loop
for the train on the siding.
(2) and (2a) also speak to the question of coupling and decoupling.
Basically, there's lots of fun stuff we could do with a train yard/cargo
yard/roundhouse, with remote control by an operator, but it requires the
ability to decouple cars and engines remotely. With the old layout, we
had this neat roundhouse, but we couldn't really do much more than show
off locos and run them into and out of the roundhouse; we could not, for
example, switch the loco pulling a train (quite aside from logistical
problems of having the roundhouse directly on a spur of our main loop)
because there was no decoupling mechanism. I don't know how to automate
this process, but the mechanism will have an impact on the layout. For
example, in Jeramy's proposed layout there was this big rail yard, where
the rails were very close together. This would require decouplers that
came up from beneath the tracks (not enough room beside the tracks),
requiring elevating the whole area (or sinking the table)---doable, but
something to think about beforehand.
(3) basically requires that main loops not have any sections of track in
common, and that cross tracks only be part of one loop.
(4) is actually a simplifying assumption. It would make switching
decisions easier if you always knew which direction a train would be
heading on a given loop, and could help with the elevated loop (see
footnote [1]). Rigging the middle loop have an orientation opposite the
other two would, I think, be more interesting. The mechanics of switching
between loops would then become more challenging. . .
----------------------------------------------------------
Other random ideas:
There are two big consumers of space that could be in the layout: a
soccer field and a drive-in theater. The former ties in to sets that kids
might actually own, and would be a unique and potentially fun part of the
layout. The latter is something I think we should definitely try to
incorporate; it would show off Lego films[5], attract attention[6], and
generally be really cool. The downside to both these ideas is that they
would each use 0.5--1 tables by themselves. On the other hand, they would
not be as brick-intensive as, say, another city block, so if we had the
space. . .
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
[0] There are other factors in determining how high the elevated track
should be; for example, if the layout included monorail we would have to
choose if the monorail goes over or under, or if it would be at the same
level (which is determined by the fixed monorail ramps).
[1] Yes, there needs to be a downward ramp, as well, to prevent the need
to back up trains and to allow smooth flow of traffic. Presumably a
downward ramp could be steeper than an upward ramp (a benefit of having a
preferred direction of travel).
[2] I say "geometry" rather than "length" because a ramp needn't be
linear ascending; for example, it could ascend, level off long enough to
allow the whole train to be level, and then ascend again to allow traffic
underneath to clear.
[3] Note that part of this problem might have been that, just as soon as
the Metroliner had lifted its whole length up at least a few plates and
was wholly on an incline, the track turned 90 degrees, which acceleration
required an additional force the engine could not provide.
[4] This will also affect clearance below, shifting up the required height
for the actual track.
[5] For reference, everyone should see Jay Silver's Rise of the Empire
http://users.eastlink.ca/~jaysilver/
This is the kind of movie we could be showing during a show. . .
[6] The guys who beat us at GATS had a drive-in, right?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Layout Ideas
|
| If the tracks in the rail yard could be elevated by 2 bricks high we can use a decoupling system from underneath and not have to be concerned so much about how close the tracks are together. The only problem I have ran into in figuring this out is (...) (21 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: track plan and parts needed
|
| (...) I like the larger center space which should make it easier to set up buildings inside the layout. The city block looks beter organized than your last plan and should provide plenty of blocks for members to fill. However, I noticed there (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-03, to lugnet.org.us.indylug)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
