Subject:
|
Re: Track? MOC or New?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2001 22:32:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
462 times
|
| |
|
|
Guido Heunen wrote:
>
> I am waiting for ten years now to get automated points, stops and
> decouplers, as well as new track parts.
>
> I am wondering what the train community would like to see as new track parts
> or automation.
>
> I have some examples on brickshelf:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=9156
>
> Did anyone try to make their own track of existing pieces. I am pondering
> if I am going to start....
What would I like to see track wise?
- Automated turnouts as you mention
- A new larger curve radius, probably 16 studs larger
- 4 stud and 8 stud track sections
- New geometry turnouts
+ one which the divergent track is equivalent to one
curved piece
+ two crossovers (left and right, 16 stud track centers)
+ a new turnout to go with the larger curve radius
which the divergent track is equivalent to one
section of curved track
+ a double crossover (16 stud track centers)
The crossover system would be interesting to be done using a left and
right turnout with the diverging track at the larger radius. A normal
piece of straight track would make the crossover, which a new cross
track would be used to make the double crossover (this crossover cross
track will probably be of limited use in any other configuration, but it
might be possible to engineer everything so it is a 45 degree crossing
instead of a 90 degree crossing). An additional special piece which
would go with the turnout are a piece to make the diverging track on the
turnout match 2 sections of the larger curve radius. If things don't
work out such that the curve which is part of the turnout is 1/2 of a
large radius curve, a piece which matches the portion of the curve in
the turnout would be nice (this, combined with a straight section then
allows you to diverge into two parallel tracks spaced 16 studs since you
have created the same S curve in the crossover).
Another possibility for the crossovers and new curve radius would be to
create a 12 stud center spacing for parallel track. This would be a
little more awkward to work with, but would look better. The 8 stud
center spacing which 12v used would not really be suitable since there
wouldn't be enough clearance (not at all for 8-wide models, and
definitely not enough in the curves, 12 studs might not even be enough
in curves).
I would put the chances of getting anything other than automated
turnouts as real slim, though short straights and a new curve radius
aren't too far out of the question.
Ultimately though, I suspect if people really get serious about model
railroading, they may handlay track to L-guage using components designed
for O scale (O scale turnout kits can probably be made to work since the
gauge is pretty close). That will be my plan if I ever get a garden
space (I think LEGO trains in the garden would be cool, but I don't want
to subject my LEGO track to the elements).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Track? MOC or New?
|
| I think we are closer to seeing a new larger track radius than anything else, mostly cause it seems like the least R&D dollars and is backwardly compatible with all other track elements. SteveB (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Track? MOC or New?
|
| I am waiting for ten years now to get automated points, stops and decouplers, as well as new track parts. I am wondering what the train community would like to see as new track parts or automation. I have some examples on brickshelf: (URL) anyone (...) (23 years ago, 17-Dec-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
