Subject:
|
Re: Track? MOC or New?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2001 01:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Steve Barile writes:
> > 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
>
> Roger that. Just ONE new mold, and a rather simple one at that, and all of a
> sudden a lot of people are a lot happier.
>
> But here's the rub. WHAT new radius? I would argue a radius that is just
> larger than the current one by the "standard" offset so that parralel track
> curves look good.
>
> Problem: *what* is the standard offset? Is it the spacing you get taking a
> single track to two parralel tracks using the current turnout and one curved
> track (I tend to say yes) or the spacing you get when you build a crossover
> using two turnouts (that is twice the first spacing... but it is way too
> wide of a spacing for realistic layouts)
I'd tend to agree with your thoughts on spacing - the other question is, do
they make the sections 22.5 deg to match the current ones, or do they go to
11.25 deg to make the sections smaller? Or maybe even 15 deg (24 per circle),
or 18 deg (20 per circle)?
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Track? MOC or New?
|
| (...) Roger that. Just ONE new mold, and a rather simple one at that, and all of a sudden a lot of people are a lot happier. But here's the rub. WHAT new radius? I would argue a radius that is just larger than the current one by the "standard" (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.trains)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
