Subject:
|
Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:33:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
562 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess wrote:
> 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 possible with one engine. ;-) IIRC the unofficial slope was 1
> plate per track section.
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'm more interested in the Space Community's opinion of train v. monorail
> with regard to availability. My hunch is that there are more people with
> trains than monorails, but I've been wrong before.
I don't think it has to be an either/or. We can have both.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
