To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.spaceOpen lugnet.space in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Space / 33456
33455  |  33457
Subject: 
Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.space, lugnet.trains
Date: 
Mon, 10 May 2004 07:20:18 GMT
Viewed: 
1385 times
  
In lugnet.space, Christian Treczoks wrote:

   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 will propably cut into the racer roads.

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 fairly restrictive.

   I’m no trainhead, but there are diagrams showing how much clearence is needed for the trains e.g. in curved tunnels or to place buildings, and this side-by-side layout will not allow for sufficient space.

The basic problem here is what gives and takes on the Moonbase. We want the added appeal that moving trains provide, but don’t want to bend the Moonbase standard around it too much, if at all. My thoughts from the start have been for the 2 track types to take up as small a foot print on a module as possible.

   Besides, 6-wide just means that the cars body is 6 studs wide, handles, clips, bars and other decorative stuff may still extend over this width upto half a stud on each side.

Right. I’ve thought of that too.

   And, there was a thread about space containers recently - most of which are 8wide, anyway, and therefor would not fit.

Yup, see my other post.

   I think that placing those kinds of tracks nearly on top of each other is not a very good idea...

I see your point, but still feel the convenience of them running close together can’t be ignored.

Honestly if this gets too complex I’m not afraid to just abandon train track completely and go with only racetrack (moonway) and monorail. But I’d like to have as much movement and life on a Moonbase as possible.


   [ j o n ]
zemi.net
moonbase
myspace



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
 
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
 
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)

18 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
    

Custom Search

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