 | | Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
|
(...) I was thinking more along the lines of required train motor/track friction than physical part limitations. I've read some of the discussions in .Trains on the subject, but I know that those Train Guys are intent on pulling as many cars as (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
|
(...) The Monorail's hill climbing ability does make it more suitable for elevation changes, especially large ones to get up and over an obstruction. (...) I don't think it has to be an either/or. We can have both. Frank (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
|
"Duane Hess" <LEGOZILLA@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message news:H0sq4w.I6z@lugnet.com... (...) though. (...) those (...) track, (...) I'm (...) .Trains (...) My train could make a 30 degree climb at the third or fourth notch on the regulator, though it (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Trains and moonbase (Was: Moonbase and monorail)
|
|
Hi, First, thanks to all for the positive feedback! Space Trains :-) sounds like an interesting idea! I wonder if we could define a "low rider" kind of train that could run under the corridors... I think this was part of the idea behind the (...) (22 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Trains and moonbase (Was: Moonbase and monorail)
|
|
Hi, As I stated earlier, I've played around with Track Designer to see how things would fit... I've drawn a few layouts, all based on the idea that train tracks would be installed on the edges of the modules. (URL) : this one is very simple and does (...) (22 years ago, 15-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
|
(...) 2 plates per track section is a more typical elevation change for 9V train. At that gentle elevation change, it becomes difficult to develop a standard for tracks. Hence I think that's why some people were suggesting that all train track be at (...) (22 years ago, 18-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
