 | | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 10-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
|
|
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... (...) (20 years ago, 15-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
|
|
(...) 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. (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
|
|
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 (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Nailing down Moonway and Rail Standard
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
