Subject:
|
Re: Building Bridges
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Nov 1999 19:54:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi, all:
I'm in the midst of a large bridge project myself. I'm adhering to the
2 plate slope / 1 plate rate-of-change guideline, but for other reasons.
I'd add that you probably shouldn't climb sharply through turns - that
just complicates the issue.
I haven't personally had much trouble with engine power on somewhat
steeper grades, pulling moderate-sized (8-12 car) trains. The *big*
problem in the train speed coming *down* the slope - unless you're
very careful, or have *huge* straight run-outs, the train will be going
too fast when it hits the next turn, and *then* you'll see derailments.
This is of particular concern to me, as my layout is set on a ledge at
work, a full 5 feet off the ground - derailments are to be avoided at
all costs :)
My track climbs a total of 7.1 bricks, using supports of height:
0.1, 1.0, 1.2, 2.1, 3.0, 3.2, 4.1, 5.0, 5.2, 6.1, 7.0, 7.1 ...
The reason for the climb, btw, is that I needed to put machinery under
the track to support a lift-bridge that spans a hallway; the ledge is
5', and when idle, the train needs to allow, say, 6'6" clearance. This
is simply too high to build a permanent bridge, so I've built a vertical
lift bridge to span the 28.75" gap that carries two parallel tracks.
The whole layout is about 26'7" long.
***
Another question - have people met with any trouble using a Mindstorms
unit to control their trains? I'm looking to use one to control the
lift bridge, and I thought I'd dual-purpose it. Consider that I might
be powering 2 trains over 4 power connectors and about 150 pieces of
track.
Thanks,
Jeff Elliott
In lugnet.trains, Nick Taylor writes:
> The two plates per track length rule is best, however my kids and I
> have built (and kept) a pier set that changes one block (3 plates) per
> track section ... it requires a heavy loco or a fairly short train,
> but it does allow for a shorter bridge approach.
> - Nick -
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > Consensus seems to be:
> >
> > - don't change elevation by more than 2 studs per track length
> > - this avoids overtaxing the ability of the motors to climb
> > - don't change the rate of change in elevation by more than 1 stud per
> > track length
> > - this avoids derailments due to sudden grade changes.
> >
> > Track Designer uses these rules when calculating bridges, etc. You want
> > to use that to doodle before you actually start building, saves a lot of
> > time.
> >
> > Scott-A wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm contemplating building a bridge so my train can cross over the track
> > > below. Are there any guidelines for this. My main worry is track
> > > gradient right now.
> > >
> > > Scott A
> >
> > --
> > Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
> > - - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
> > fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
> >
> > NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Building Bridges
|
| (...) A lift bridge or a draw bridge? (...) Why would you use mindstorms to control the bridge except perhaps as a aproach sensor? It's easier to do that with manual blocks, than with electronics. Although, I suppose you could get it to work fine. (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Building Bridges
|
| The two plates per track length rule is best, however my kids and I have built (and kept) a pier set that changes one block (3 plates) per track section ... it requires a heavy loco or a fairly short train, but it does allow for a shorter bridge (...) (25 years ago, 26-Nov-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
