 | | Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jon Palmer
|
| | | Let's hammer this out for good this week. I'd like to put it on the Moonbase site soon. We'll work on width first. Look at this bad pic: (URL) Lenny has proposed that the train track also be moved to the seam between baseplates. I see pros and cons (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Markham Carroll
|
| | | | | "Jon Palmer" <jon@zemi.net> wrote in message news:HxH8C6.16I2@lugnet.com... (...) Why don't when we put these things together, just keep the train tracks away from the moonway tracks? It's not often roads run flush with rails IRL anyway. -- Markham (...) (21 years ago, 12-Apr-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Christian Treczoks
|
| | | | | (...) Ouch. Please take into account that any train-like construction over a certain (very short) length needs to be put on svivel (SP?) bases in order to be kept on track. So even if then train car stays within 6 studs, a car of 24-32 studs length (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | | | (...) The second I hit send on my second message in this thread, yours showed up in the newsticker. Nice timing. I've considered the train car length and see what you mean. The first idea was just to keep the cars short, but I do see how that is (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Christian Treczoks
|
| | | | | | (...) Yep. A train consisting of undecorated boxes of 6x12 studs max would be a most exciting design, wouldn't it? (...) Well, taking the basic track parameters into account, there will propably be only one solution: It's either train track or race (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | | Me again. I was just catching up on the cool container threads that were going on awhile ago. Jason, Jake etc came up with some really great ideas. But this brings up a new issue. Most of the container ideas thrown around are 8 wide. This clashes (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | (...) I haven't tested this to see if it will actually work, but shortly after I made the proposal to you, I thought of a compromise. Ok, if you take a curve piece and then put another curve piece opposing so that both sides outside of the curve (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Mark Bellis
|
| | | | (...) Sadly, a double reverse curve will move the track centre 6.0896 studs over, and be 30.6146 studs long - not quite the solution you're looking for :-) (I've spent ages calculating track geometry and I'm not the only one!) Practically, you'd (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | (...) Thanks for the info! Being a spacer/castler, I've not had the pleasure of dealing with track geometry yet. (...) My original proposition was to forget the track meeting at ends of the baseplate, but to have an overlay of 4 studs on each side (...) (21 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | | | I believe this pic that I made a while back will help people visualize what Lenny is talking about : (URL) beleive that this idea maximizes the real estate available... (...) (21 years ago, 15-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) The advantage to that design is that the area between modules should already have 8-stud/9-brick clearance, so as long as the train isn't too high, it should be able to pass through safely without any major modifications to existing modules. (...) (21 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jason S. Mantor
|
| | | | | | You got me thinking and, they *can* work alongside each other : ) Check it out : (URL) just to prove that I really spend way too much time in front of a computer screen, I made some low polygon, mockup, moonbase elements in MLcad to try out ideas (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —David Laswell
|
| | | | | | (...) That's not quite what I meant. I was saying that you can't have a single line of track that has sections that follow the current official layout standard and other sections that follow the proposed idea of riding down the seams between (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) No official Moonbase standard should ever hinge upon customized pieces. If someone wants to make them for their own personal collection and use them to tweak the track layout for some reason, that's one thing, but requiring that people start (...) (21 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Jon Palmer
|
| | | | (...) Having short cars was one of the main ideas in the beginning, yeah. (...) You might just have a good point there. It would be nice to raise the race-track but then we have to worry about running into monorail. (URL) [ j o n ] (URL) zemi.net> (...) (21 years ago, 11-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) It really makes sense as far as clearance goes, but all of the discussions on how to do a Moonbase-compatible container kept pushing to make it really long so they could serve double-duty as corridor modules, and using Space Train to haul them (...) (21 years ago, 12-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | "Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:HxKx9u.1sG7@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) without (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Have any of the Moonbase folks tried using TrackDraw[1] for moonbase design yet? I don't know (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) I don't have a copy of TrackDraw yet (I only recently downloaded Track Designer), but I'm pretty sure it's less a problem with the design program and more a problem with the actual track geometry. The Monorail track was designed with the (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
