| |
In lugnet.trains, Daniel Siskind writes:
I draw on my 30 years of MR experience in my reply to Dan...
> The compatability issue is actually a moot point at the moment for the new • GMLTC
> layout for a couple of reasons:
No it isn't and I will refute your reasons point by point.
> 1.) GMLTC is switching to 8x44 stud rolling stock which will most likely be
> large to fit around corners, tunnels, bridges, towns designed for the 6xN
> standard. Unless others adopt larger trains too, the scale will be
> incompatable from our point of view.
I've been advocating larger clearances for some time now. Other layouts SHOULD
adopt 8 wide clearances because in so doing they enable longer 6 wides even if
they themselves never switch to 8 wide by 44L. So a new standard should be
developed and it should allow for larger clearances and track center spacing
than the current one does. Slavish adherence to current standards is not being
suggested. Merely some thought about the bigger picture.
So this point is not applicable.
> 2.) The new GMLTC layout will slope from end to end and may even
> have tracks at more than one elevation. It also means there will be
> no uniform standard in height for our modules either as we want the
> layout to go 3D and have mountains, cable cars, canyons, mines, and
> other interesting landscape dependent features.
Not every module has to be an interface point. Only "some" of them, as few as
2, even. But if the modules themselves are an odd size in the two horizontal
dimensions, you preclude interfacing without special odd sized interface
modules. That's what everyone is arguing against so strenuously.
So this point is incorrect.
> 3.) Is there really a need for one big super layout? I think several smaller
> layouts would offer more mainlines and more trains running at any given time.
You miss the point of modularity. One big layout is a nice thing to do from
time to time, and it shouldn't be precluded, but by not having a consistent
standard, you also preclude someone from making a module or two that can
interoperate with YOUR layout as well as with other people's.
So this point (the third of your original 2 :-) ) is also invalid.
I guess I am a bit bemused by the somewhat vociferous defense being mounted
here in the face of almost universal suggestion that this may not be a good
idea. No one is saying GMLTC can't do what it wants, by why be deliberately
exclusionary? And I'd say I'm as much a member of GMLTC as the next guy and I'm
against doing things that close down options in the future.
++lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
| (...) The compatability issue is actually a moot point at the moment for the new GMLTC layout for a couple of reasons: 1.) GMLTC is switching to 8x44 stud rolling stock which will most likely be large to fit around corners, tunnels, bridges, towns (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
84 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
