 | | Re: Moonbase: Starting to put up the rail standard
|
|
"Xanthra47" <jmantor@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message news:HLBF8K.800@lugnet.com... (...) Now that I disagree with. I don't think the standard should bend because we need tall trains. Just make em short. Like Larry said, even some mining carts are (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Starting to put up the rail standard
|
|
Yeah. I'll retract those two rules. They are too limiting. I tried to build a sample train/corridor model and it just doesn't fit : ( I think if we're going to do trains we need to revisit the corridor height/setback again. Even the new 10 brick (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Starting to put up the rail standard
|
|
(...) 1) This requires the coordination and cooperation of the neighboring module. A road requires little infrastructure when compared to rail. (at least when you are looking at moonbase construction) 2) I'm assuming that there is less clearance (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Starting to put up the rail standard
|
|
(...) The NILTC has noted that 6-wide trains are technically 8 with grab bars and protrusions, and 8-wides are technically 10. We adjust our layout clearances accordingly. I think the soft-seal airlocks should be on rack gears, and be able to move (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Moonbase: Starting to put up the rail standard
|
|
(...) This is kind of limiting, especially when designing trains that are supposed to look squat and futuristic. I think train tracks will be fine...people will just need to work out a layout for the Moonbase and all the monorail/trains (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.space, lugnet.trains)
|
