To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.org.us.nelugOpen lugnet.org.us.nelug in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Organizations / United States / NELUG / 2440
2439  |  2441
Subject: 
Re: My attempt at designing a layout for Greenberg
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.org.us.nelug
Date: 
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:45:09 GMT
Viewed: 
3777 times
  
Well I've been reluctant to comment, because I didn't want it to look like
mud throwing, but I just feel I have to say something though.

In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Eric Kingsley writes:
<snip>
> http://www.nelug.org/layout/3x6layout5.GIF
<snip>

> 3.  Lots more MOC space.

There actually might be too much space.  I see the layout looking sparse in
the middle.  Kinda patchy feeling.  Granted we could add more sidings, but
then the layout just looks like a large railyard.

> 4.  Lots more space for the Amusement Park in the "Fair Grounds".

Again sparsity, but this should be a lot easier to fill with booths and
small rides.

> 5.  The Fair Grounds include a passing siding (Switches at both ends).  This
> makes it easy to either have a Circus/Zoo/Amusement Park support train there >or to use it as a station for droping off and picking up passangers visiting
> the Fair Grounds.  Picture a passenger train with passangers getting on and >off with lots of commotion and excitement.

This idea I like.  It has a really cool story line aspect.

> 6.  The large Main Street sections are at opposite ends of the layout in order
> to help balance things.

As much as I understand the reasons for seperating them, The layout now
feels too heavy at the ends.  There isn't enough between them.

> 8.  There are a couple sidings that are easily accessable from the inside of
> the layouts which makes switching out trains easier that it was in the past.

This should make the layout more interesting as well, because we can change
trains more often.

> For my tastes I don't see much in the way of downsides to this layout but I
> can think of a couple things that some might mention.

Is that my nickname 'some'.  ;-)

> 1.  The roads don't connect.  This is a model railroading thing, you need to
> use more imagination about what is off the layout.  Townies would probably
> prefer that all the roads connect.

Ick, as a townie and an architect could you just extend the road between the
factory and your main st.  All you have to do is shift two switches and
build a bridge across the gorge.  It really isn't that hard to do.  As an
added bonus the road should help pull the layout together, instead of having
these small pockets.

> 2.  The smallest of the 3 loops is a little small but my view is that we don't
> need three massive trains running all at once.  This can be used for a smaller
> short-line train or even for a trolly if we choose.  It's still 1 more
> operational loop than we have had in the past.

Do we have any short trains?  I guess we could take a few cars off, but
Shaun's train, Tom's two trains, and your's are all fairly large.

Ooh Ooh, I thought of another one. :-)
3. Too many S-curves.  Didn't we have problems with decoupling in the first
few shows, because of an annoying S-curve.

Jonathan.



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: My attempt at designing a layout for Greenberg
 
(...) Speaking from our experience, people like bridges. Bridges are cool. Especially if they look like they're too fragile to support a train -- but of course we know that they're plenty strong, because we built 'em! And moving (drawbridge, (...) (24 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
  Re: My attempt at designing a layout for Greenberg
 
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Jonathan Dallas writes: Fair enough on all points, I probably won't have time to relook this before the meeting. I think some of our differences are obvious and I would like to see what other people think. I have to see if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
  Re: My attempt at designing a layout for Greenberg
 
(...) I just read this again and wanted to comment of a couple of things before our meeting next week. (...) Well I am not going to rehash me reasoning for not connecting the roads I did want to pose a question. Is Chris or anyone else planning on (...) (24 years ago, 11-Sep-02, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)

Message is in Reply To:
  My attempt at designing a layout for Greenberg
 
I decided to start a new thread to detail my vision of what our next layout could look like. (That nasty reversing loop has been successfully eliminated). Layout (URL) let me say I am supprised how much more flexibility 3 tables gives us. Here is a (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-02, 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR