Subject:
|
Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Mar 2000 14:23:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2157 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes:
> My only problem with this system is that it is difficult to maintain how the
> "slope" from the front to the back is to be maintained between one person's
> modules to another's, unless the edge of a module is designated as a high
> one with a tunnel entrance or a low one with a bridge. Perhaps my idea is
> not the best for modular display, but I think it is the coolest in terms of
> display value.
I agree completely. That's why we try to do that exact thing on our 'common'
sections - the sections that *always* line up next to each other. Building
vertical is good - it adds a lot of interest and visual appeal...
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard
|
| (...) Terminology alert. I'd tend to call sections that are designed never to mate with anything else something other than "common", They're more or less unique, since the interface across the module boundary is non standard and unique to that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard
|
| I have been envisioning a different idea. Start at, for example, 4 bricks + 1 plate at the audience side of the module. Run 1-2 main lines there. At the back of the module, run 1-2 main lines at an elevation of 22 bricks +1 plate. That leaves 18 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
7 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
|
|
|
|
