 | | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly? —William R. Ward
|
| | | (...) The 1-11-3 design isn't very close at all, according to Track Designer. Here's what I did: straight, curve right, 11 straights (5 switches and a straight, but that is equivalent), 3 curves right, cross-track. Then from the cross-track, a bunch (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly? —John Gramley
|
| | | | | (...) What does work is 1-13-3. It's close enough that Track Designer will consider it a closed loop. You can turn it into a triangle with a 5-13-7-12-4-5 pattern (starting with curves and alternating with straights). Then it's easy enough to see (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly? —John Gramley
|
| | | | | | (...) Oops. That should be the long leg and the hypoteneuse. John (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly? —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) John is correct; it's 1-13-3 that works. Blame my faulty memory, it's been a bit since I played in TD. (...) The 2-7-2 is close enough that it connects physically very soundly. The offset is roughly 1 stud. Easy enough to cover with slop, with (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
