Subject:
|
Re: Moonbase and monorail
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 20:08:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
604 times
|
| |
|
|
"Duane Hess" <LEGOZILLA@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:H0sq4w.I6z@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Markham Carroll writes:
> > > > Now what do others think?
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, I think that I have no monorail. Everything here sounds fine • though.
> > >
> > > The only thing that I could ask for is that there be a provision for • those
> > > of us who are monorail-less. I'm not against using standard train • track,
> > > even though it's not quite as cool. I haven't seen any MOCs yet, but • I'm
> > > sure that we could build futuristic trains using the standard track.
> > > Elevation changes would be out, but I'm sure that there are quite a few
> > > ready made standards that we could snag from the .Trains group.
> >
> > I have successfully created an elevation change with train track that
> > worked. There are limitations, but it is easily possible with lots of
> > hinges and structural support.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
My train could make a 30 degree climb at the third or fourth notch on the
regulator, though it had about three cars aside from the engine. Two
engines can pull more, and they can be easily disguised if it's a space
train.
--
Markham Carroll
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
