 | | Re: Almost a drug...
|
|
(...) I was not moderated due to technical difficulties. But they are there now. (URL) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.org.ca.monlug, lugnet.org.ca.parlugment, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
This has been an absolutely great thread, just packed with helpful ideas and findings (even some good track designs to get people thinking! Anyone want to volunteer to write up a summation and share it with Cary so it might get into the FAQ? Thanks (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.faq)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) Does it work perfectly or does it go over in length by at least a half a stud? I couldn't tell from Track Designer. -chris (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) Here's some examples of non-standard connections I have played around with. All of these line up in Track Designer: (URL) if these links line-wrap. Folder is here when moderated, with TDL files: (URL) well. Tim Strutt (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) THANK YOU!!! This works perfectly! I just tested it in Track Designer.... --Bill. (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: 4537 and 7722 Train cars for trade
|
|
(...) It is generally held to be, I believe. Posting for sale info isn't explicitly permitted in the header of the .trains group. I know that I'd be interesting in hearing more about your experiences in restoring these sets to their former glory (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | 4537 and 7722 Train cars for trade
|
|
Don't know whether this is off-topic.... If interested look here: (URL) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) I don't have an equation, but I think one curve, 12 straights, one curve will do a dog-leg that is eight 32-stud baseplates long and 88 studs wide (3 baseplates minus 4 studs each side). -chris (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Almost a drug...
|
|
(...) My Brickshelf directory is now moderated with pictures from the show: (URL) Brickshelf directory has lots of pictures too: (URL) still isn't moderated. :-( Play well. Tim Strutt (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.org.ca.monlug, lugnet.org.ca.parlugment, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
(...) Well, yes, saying merely "G" certainly opens up a can of worms since, as you mentioned, many scales utilize gauge 1 track. Scaling at 1:24 would simulate 30" I believe. But your point illustrates that, while there is much precision among some (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ... (...) 3 (...) Now I'm nitpicking :-).... there is one good fit for 3 feet, which is TTN3 using the Brit scale for TT of 3mm to the foot: N gauge 9mm track fits perfectly. I used to build Isle of Man Railway to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
(...) Noted and apology accepted. However for ME to know what you're talking about, it's first required for YOU to know what you're talking about. And that's a leap of faith I am not prepared to take without some supporting evidence. :-) (1) Next (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
G uses O, O uses HO, and HO uses N, (...) gauge). G uses what? G in this context is of metre gauge anyway...gauge 1 uses O (SM32), but not for 3' gauge. G is #3 scale, on #1 scale track (or 1/2" to the foot on 1.75" gauge...)-at least, that is what (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Train that runs on tires.
|
|
(...) I thought that too, when I saw this creation. It is a very annoying ride. I came across two links that describes the new "Automated People Mover" at DFW: (2 URLs) refer to the new APM that DFW's building to connect the new terminals to the old (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> Okay, okay. I was wrong thinking 0n3 meant 30" (dropping the "0"), but what fouled me up was your initial incorrect correction: Me: sort of like the popular scale On3, where you'd model in O scale (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting diagonal track to line up properly?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Scales and Gauges (was Shay #5
|
|
(...) No, John. If you'd pay attention you'd learn something. The 3 means 3 FEET or 36 inches. NOT 30. This would be the third or fourth time you've been told that, and not just by me either (Jeff C is exactly correct). (...) And subsequent ones... (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Shay #5
|
|
(...) I thought that when numbers like this were used for narrow gauge they were in reference to the gauge of the rails in feet? As in On3 for 3 feet or 36" gauge while On2&1/2 was two and a half feet or 30" gauge. I've also heard of On2, but never (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
