Subject:
|
Re: new train layout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:47:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
I actually did this just after the show but havn't had time to put it up. I
did a couple of layouts. Both of these need some work. Both are also at the
largest size (6 additional tables) that we discussed but could be downsized
fairly easily.
The first I don't have roads on yet but I like this the best of the 2. It has
2 loops of track without any S curves but it is set up for 3 loops as well with
the inner 2 loops having S curves. This kind of increases the possibilities.
http://www.nelug.org/layout/newLayout1.gif
The second layout bunches tables 2 thick on one side. This limits us to 2
loops of track but it helps get the track a bit furthur from the edge of the
table.
http://www.nelug.org/layout/newLayout2.gif
I like Jonathans layouts as well but I have this thing about loops that arn't
connected to the rest of the track. Plus both of mine keep the current Main
Street side of the layout the same, so things would have to change to
accomidate Tom's expansion.
Eric Kingsley
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> I made some changes to my layout.
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=91219
>
> The new plan has a 2x8 space for Tom. But I couldn't quite make a
> continuous 2x7 for eric, but it's close. Yes, if I move my factory you
> would have a 2x7, but I'm going to be selfish. :-p
>
> To address Shaun's concern about space (I'm assuming track), I have twice
> the amount of usuable siding track than our current layout. Also we have an
> addition loop to run a train on. I think we might have enough space if you
> and freight can control yourselves. ;-)
>
> I would like to add more baseplate space, but the tracks just keep getting
> in the way. I only increased it by 7-10 complete plates.
>
> Two keep Chris from having to make too many crossings, I only need 4 of
> them. 8 would be better, but I'm not concerned with lights on the edge
> crossings.
>
> We will however need to build some new trains stations. I don't think the
> current ones will fit in well, but thats just me being anal.
>
> Here are a few stats to look at:
> 3 vs. 2 loops
> 60 vs. 25 siding track sections
> 63 vs 53 baseplates
> 4-8 vs 4 crossings
> 1 vs 0 ravines
> 3 vs 0 bridges
>
> I'll bring pics to the meeting on Monday.
>
> Jonathan D
>
> In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> > In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes:
> > >
> > > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=8895
> >
> > This is an addition of three tables, correct? My initial reaction is that we
> > could easily fill this up already, and still be crowded in some areas. I do
> > like the idea of the figure-eight layout though ... if we have permission to
> > use more room (Eric, any reply to that e-mail?), we could add 6 tables to • make
> > another loop off our long side (making the entire layout 4 by 5 with two
> > equally-sized inner spaces), or five tables to add another square loop of one
> > of our short ends (to make a 6 x 3 layout, with a 2-table inner space and a
> > 1-table inner space).
>
>
> >
> > > Some of the new additions are:
> > > -A third loop so we can run three trains.
> >
> > Definitely! Or maybe even 4 ... if we can get it to work out right
> >
> >
> > > -A huge outer loop without any S curves allowing us to run those longer
> > > trains. You know who you are.
> >
> > Those shmucks. They're out there.
> >
> > Another concern for longer trains is the corners ... the longer cars will
> > overhand the corner space by quite a bit. In the upper right hand corner, a
> > train sitting on the dead-end track section would probably interfere with • some
> > designs (ahem). That's pretty easily remedied.
> >
> >
> > > -Spaced out sidings for better viewing of the trains not running.
> >
> > That's a great point. I think we'd actually want even more of those sidings,
> > though. In addition to the two trains we had running during the show, there
> > were at *least* another *6* trains (3 full-length, two short, and one
> > extra-extra-long) that were assembled and present. Who knows, by April there
> > might be even more.
> >
> >
> > > -A lowered table that we can build a ravine and bridges on.
> >
> > Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, gully. This will be great if we can get it done! Finally, a
> > sensible use for a lighthouse! A great place for a boat! A bridge! And so
> > on.
> >
> > -s
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: new train layout
|
| "Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message news:GoAJyq.MJ5@lugnet.com... (...) I (...) the (...) downsized (...) has (...) with (...) possibilities. (...) the (...) arn't (...) Main (...) And let's not forget about room for the amusement (...) (23 years ago, 15-Dec-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: new train layout
|
| I made some changes to my layout. (URL) new plan has a 2x8 space for Tom. But I couldn't quite make a continuous 2x7 for eric, but it's close. Yes, if I move my factory you would have a 2x7, but I'm going to be selfish. :-p To address Shaun's (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
