Subject:
|
Re: Over-the-train GBC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Sep 2005 17:09:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
520 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> Ok, so John and I have been talking about the GBC modules
> we're building for the IndyLUG layout in October.
I'm still trying to think up a good one - in other words, one that really
looks like it "belongs" in a train layout.
> I'd like to consider how we can
> make an over-the-train standard.
First, are we limiting to a Type 1b as we called it, i.e. - a Type 1b module
occupies a 32x32 baseplate, not more? What I'm trying to ask is are we talking
about how to "hand-off" balls over the train track, or are we throwing around
ideas for the geometry of *single* modules that straddle the tracks?
> I don't think it's going to work... not really
> accounted for in the GBC Standard is the width
> of the train track.
Another good point, and one that should probably be addressed first. One
possibility is to (further!) limit modules to 32x24 studs, with a seperate 32x8
decorative strip that can be used if need. Now each module either sits beside
the track (with a decorative strip attatched, making 32x32) or harbors the track
(with the 8 wide track taking the place of the 32x8 decorative strip). This way
any Type 1b layout can be made to occupy a linear set of nx2 32x32 baseplates...
...IF you can always ensure the track comes into the GBC section along a
baseplate edge. Also, not something that is standard (or is it? I have no idea).
> I see four possibilities for OTT modules.
I don't, yet. For instance, I'm not *sure* I see a need for a difference
between #1 & #2. Part of my confusion is I realized that with a Type 1b standard
fixing the depth of the module to 32 studs, front and back (or, more explicitly,
which side of the module the the train tracks ajoin) is less determined... with
the exception, of course, of train loading & unloading modules themselves.
> 4) "U" shapped or ")" shapped. Moves balls to
> other side of track, and turns ball stream 180
> degrees, so it will continue along the back of
> the track.
That's usually how I've thought of it.
> I think the S+Z option would be the easiest to
> build into a layout.
Although even there there's some interesting room to wiggle. For instance,
given that gravity-feed ramps will almost certainly work to shift balls
perpendicular from the track during a crossing, it should be possible to make
two "U" modules that either feed each other (performing an S+Z option) or feed
away from each other (making, perhaps, a double crossing as it were).
On a more practical note, what are the constraints provided by the IndyLUG
setup in October? Where will the track enter the GBC section, for instance...
and at what height? You mention:
> I wonder what it will take to raise the train
> 2.5 studs, and make a ball-pump that can
> push the balls under the track...
Just some shimming, and a fair bit of straightaway (I actually shimmed the BF
GBC train at my end, to fine-tune the speed with which it approached one of my
unloading stations). I think you can get away with a delta-H of about 1 plate
per straight section, so to raise it two brick heights (to be safe) or 6 plates
you need a straightaway, on each side, of 3 32x32 baseplates. That's a fair bit
of realestate, but it might be doable.
I'd love some of the options that moving the train track up or down could
open up, but controling the train positioning on a level surface was tough
enough.
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Over-the-train GBC
|
| (...) This won't work with current train loading & unloading stations. The current stations have the front of the track 32 studs from the front of the module output (or input). (...) Here's a small picture from the layout. (URL) "F" is the current (...) (19 years ago, 7-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
| | | Re: Over-the-train GBC
|
| (...) Brian, I put this in my Brickshelf account, it's a large file, but should help you to understand the designated area. (URL) Jeramy -IndyLUG- (19 years ago, 7-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Over-the-train GBC
|
| Ok, so John and I have been talking about the GBC modules we're building for the IndyLUG layout in October. We've both had ideas for GBC modules that move balls over the train track. Before we each wonder off in our own directions, I'd like to (...) (19 years ago, 7-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
4 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
|
|
|
|
