| |
In lugnet.trains.org, John Neal writes:
> The coloring is going to be a problem because if we make the ties dark gray,
> there will be no color distinction between bed and tie. That wouldn't
> look good either. So would you say that black would be better as a tie
> color than brown?
Prolly.
<tie spacing>
American practice is to have a rather weird spacing that varies from one tie
to the next and which is spaced so that the average distance apart is such
that it does not match anyone's stride walking or running. This is deliberate,
to make it uncomfortable for people to walk along the tracks. (thus reducing
trespass, and more importantly, reducing injury...)
In this next para I am talking about G and only G, not Lego...
> > It would be nice if TLC got the tie (sleeper for you UK and european types)
> > width and spacing "right". Which begs the question, what is right? This
> > problem comes up in G. The right tie spacing if you assume the track is • meter
> > gauge
>
> I'm confused. If you are assuming that the track is meter gauge,
LGB track, not TLC track
> than you *are* implying about a 1:29 scale, or Belville children
> sized adults. I can put LEGO wheels on my 14 wides and run them on LEGO
> track and call it narrow gauge (about 42")
No. I am talking about G and only G. Belville has nothing to do with it.
> > (implying a 1:22.5 scale like LGB) is wrong if you assume the track is
> > standard gauge (implying more like a 1:32 scale ala the Aristocraft trains).
To reiterate. LGB assumes their G gauge track represents meter gauge. Hence
the relatively small ties with wide spacing, simulating narrow gauge track.
(because narrow gauge was built cheaply) When you put an Aristocraft model on
it which is using that track gauge for standard gauge models, the track looks
vaguely wrong. The ties should be larger and more closely spaced to match
American standard gauge practice.
> Well, *if* they would fix it, it would be the time to fix *everything* I've
> thought about this a lot, and I think that the way to go would be flex track.
> Anybody have major aversions to flex track over perhaps TLC producing, say, 2
> different radii?
I would be happy either way. Or both. The problem that I think we have with
flex (as I was telling Tony Priestman when we were at Huw's house) is what to
do about the ends. TLC track has a split end, in which the cross section
changes as you get close to the end, rather than the more common rail joiner
that slips under a rail of fixed cross section. Thus you can't just trim one
end to the right length unless you have a way to remake the split end. That
makes flex track hard unless you have two joining systems available, also kind
of a kludge.
Good topic, though
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Idea for Rail Ties
|
| (...) How to do this:(my thoughts) Have .5 M or 20 inch lengths (enough to cover 2 32x plates). Use a 1" or 2" fixed end at both ends, with a sliding fit into or over the flexable pieces. This would let you have (if you used 2" lenghts, 3" travel (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.trains)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Idea for Rail Ties
|
| (...) Prolly not high enough either. It would look better with 1x1 tiles on the outside instead of 1x2s. (...) The coloring is going to be a problem because if we make the ties dark gray, there will be no color distinction between bed and tie. That (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.trains.org, lugnet.trains)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
