 | | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Elroy Davis wrote: -snip- (...) On the topic of fun, classification, and yard work, have you tried John Allen's Timesaver switching puzzle? It's very compatible with LEGO. A version I created is available here: (URL) The nice think (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
The layout looks great (you will be so much happier with it when it's up on a table)! It's really hard to resist the temptation to make a loop, but point-to-point layouts have many more interesting possibilities. I think you'll be having fun with (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) Using a standard #1 knuckle coupler is an interesting idea. But instead of using the raw shank version, why not go with one that is mounted in a draft gear box? A little epoxy or MEK could probably mount the draft gear box on a hacked brick. (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Norfolk & Western Y6b 2-8-8-2 Steam Locomotive
|
|
Hi Cale! This is a great build, I am very impressed! I very much enjoyed seeing this fantastic model. You do excellent work. Thank you, Eric Sophie (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) If you really want knuckle couplers for your LEGO trains, you could try these; (URL) They're made by Kadee (famous to all model railroad fans for their couplers). On their (URL) site>, they retail at 4,95$ for a pair. By modifying the shank (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) In lugnet.trains, Elroy Davis wrote: (...) Cool. I was worried that my reply was a bit arrogant. I spend a lot of time on the design of my layouts. Spending all year planning the design of the track and changes to the models, for an exhibition (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) I expand one more baseplate, it looks like I could angle my yard down, and actually gain a bit of length by adding some curves to the switches and straights that I currently have. I'd also have room to expand in the future. I'll have to play (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
Nice idea I like seeing yards in layouts. Even better if you can get some automation on switching and de-coupling. My only beef is with the switch layout. We see so many layouts where the design on the switch points is basic. I would rather see more (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) Heh. Compact is a relative term. It barely fits between the basement wall and the stairway. :-) I could actually make it smaller, but I designed it around the A/D track, which I made just long enough to hold the Adventurer's train that I built (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) Uncoupling is probably my biggest issue. Right now, I'm doing it by hand, which means holding a set of cars apart with one hand and working the speed control with the other. This isn't too much of a problem down in the yard, but it's a stretch (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) A man after my own heart! I love yards, love designing yards. You have covered all the basic functions in a nice compact model. The car card system will be a lot of fun. I've always been a fan of "layouts with a purpose" -- producer/consumer (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
I'm really looking foward to this. My biggest beef with pretty much every Lego layout I have seen is that they are basically a glorifed roundy roundy train set (ignore the fact that Lego trains are basically a glorifed train set!) There are some (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Power Functions infra-red RC protocol released!
|
|
(...) Very good. Have you done experiments to map the power level settings to RPM? I am guessing that each of the 7 steps sets literally a power level (PWM width) and not a speed. Have you done experiments under load to see what happens to the speed (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Power Function control with RCX and BrickOS
|
|
(...) Could it be that the long range mode of IR is not set (I saw no reference to range setting in your source, and I don't know the default state). Despite the difference in carrier frequency, the RCX 1.0 and RCX2.0 are able to dialog albeit with (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.general, lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Long Span Suspension Bridge?
|
|
(...) How much clearance should I have track to (...) At work they like to quote the statement "Standards are great. That's why we have so many of them." Standard height is whatever you and whomever you interoperate with agree on. At SCLTC, standard (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) I used TrackDraw for the layout, then put a screen shot into Photoshop to add the notes. There's a Yahoo group for TrackDraw at (URL). I've found it pretty useful for playing with different layout ideas. -Elroy (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Scale Modelers Aren't the Only Ones . . .
|
|
(...) What is the track design software that you are using? (17 years ago, 27-Jan-08, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Power Functions infra-red RC protocol released!
|
|
(...) I just tried the new commands with a home-made NXT-controlled IR remote. I was able to get them to work without a problem. I verified the single-output PWM mode, which starts a motor at a given power level, in which it stays indefinitely (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-08, to lugnet.general, lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Power Function control with RCX and BrickOS
|
|
(...) i have not really spent a lot of time trying to figure these modes out. i was more concerned with getting the PWM to work correctly. i'm going to spend more time testing this and will let you know. bob (17 years ago, 26-Jan-08, to lugnet.general, lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Power Function control with RCX and BrickOS
|
|
(...) Glad it worked for you and thanks for the heads up on the RCX 2.0 problems. i don't have a 2.0 RCX to play with so i'm not sure if it is a timing issue that can be resolved or what. i was very excited the first time i got my RCX to talk to the (...) (17 years ago, 26-Jan-08, to lugnet.general, lugnet.technic, lugnet.trains, lugnet.robotics)
|
