Subject:
|
Re: Train Zoning (was Re: Layout Ideas)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.indylug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:10:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
I am working on a maximum clearance for the largest 8 wide possible. My two
union pacific and the indylug engines are all 42 studs long and roughly 9
studs wide. i am working on the corners only because the straight away
should be fairly easy to calculate (minus any inclines). as for the upper
level train running on an elevated loop, i think there should be designated
trains for this loop only. more than one though, so they can be switched
out, but a lighter train that is less likey to fall off and is not too long
would probably be preferable. a mamximum height for the train is really a
consensus and not a test of any car (though i believe mark caboose is the
tallest car) and estimate that a clearance of 14 bricks tall should well
suffice. i also uploaded some picks of the new roundhouse and a new moc i
created based on shaun sullivans designs.
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=34357
i will have this finished (waiting for yet more green bricks) by the next
meeting and will bring to leave at steve's house.
jeramy
> From: "Brian B. Alano" <throwaway@insightbb.com>
> Reply-To: "Brian B. Alano" <throwaway@insightbb.com>
> To: lugnet.org.us.indylug@lugnet.com
> Subject: Train Zoning (was Re: Layout Ideas)
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:05:20 GMT
>
> Also, will any locomotives or
> > cars be considered for use that are more than 8x32 providing that they do
> > not swing as widely in the corners?
>
> Would it be more concise to specify a max wheelbase (distance between the
> centers of rotation of the bogeys) and max overhang (distance from the
> center of the bogey to the end of the structure)?
>
> We could be even more precise, and define a maximum deflection
> (perpendicular distance from the track) for any part of the vehicle's
> structure when rounding a turn. This, after all, is the essence of our
> concern: that no fixed structure be too close to the track, and that no
> car/engine get too close to a structure.
>
> Thinking about this makes me realize that we shouldn't test cars against a
> reference model of a car (or engine), but against a reference tunnel
> through which the car must be able to pass. Likewise, we should use a
> reference car which *just* passes through the reference tunnel. This car
> can then be used to test the rest of the layout.
>
> Does vertical clearance need to be "zoned"? I remember the Santa Fe cars
> bottoming out around curves in the raised loop. Might long cars bottom out
> when transitioning from an incline to a level track, or when going over
> "bumps" in the track? What's the precise way of specifying this? Likewise,
> we would need to zone the amount of permissible change in inclination (for
> clearance reasons), and the maximum degree of incline (for climbability
> reasons). These two parameters, I believe, already have values assigned to
> them by conventional wisdom.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
3 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
