| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Turning around is more important for steam engines than for diesels,
> especially multiple unit diesel which usually are arranged so that the end
> units face outward.
>
> Hence wyes are relatively uncommon. Much more prevalent is the runaround
> track which is basically a double ended siding. The engine "runs around" the
> train and couples to the other end, then proceeds back the way it came.
This brings up one of the things on my wish list for somewhere in the distant
future...
I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
through the loops.
This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as opposed to the more
traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
I realize its a bit of a pipe dream but I do like to dream...
Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
> configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
> with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> through the loops.
>
> This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as opposed to the more
> traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
>
> I realize its a bit of a pipe dream but I do like to dream...
>
> Eric Kingsley
I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it pieced
together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, it's
a simpler solution than you might think!
I'll try to put together a prototype this week.
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
> > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
> > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > through the loops.
> >
> > This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as opposed to the more
> > traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
> >
> > I realize its a bit of a pipe dream but I do like to dream...
> >
> > Eric Kingsley
> I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it pieced
> together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, it's
> a simpler solution than you might think!
>
> I'll try to put together a prototype this week.
Most MR dogbones are doubletracked on the middle part. This avoids needing
to solve the reverser loop problem (if you omit crossovers) and gives much
more operating flexibility since you can have arbitrary numbers of trains
operating (within limits of blocks, control, etc...) instead of just one or two.
My christmas tree layout is always a dogbone, and I recommend them highly.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
> > > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
> > > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > > through the loops.
> > >
> > > This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as opposed to the more
> > > traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
> > >
> > > I realize its a bit of a pipe dream but I do like to dream...
> > >
> > > Eric Kingsley
> > I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it pieced
> > together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> > the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, it's
> > a simpler solution than you might think!
> >
> > I'll try to put together a prototype this week.
>
> Most MR dogbones are doubletracked on the middle part. This avoids needing
> to solve the reverser loop problem (if you omit crossovers) and gives much
> more operating flexibility since you can have arbitrary numbers of trains
> operating (within limits of blocks, control, etc...) instead of just one or two.
>
> My christmas tree layout is always a dogbone, and I recommend them highly.
All three operational loops that we had at Supertrain were dogbones, and
worked well for crowd-pleasing. The only real hitch was that we couldn't
run many long trains becuase they'd keep dropping cars or slowing/stopping
on the end loops because of friction around the loop. The longest train we
could consistently run was about 12-15 cars of 6-wide passenger stuff
(mostly JamesP & Zonker's VIA trains), and even that would occasionally lose
the last few cars going around the end of the dogbone.
$0.02
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Most MR dogbones are doubletracked on the middle part. This avoids needing
> to solve the reverser loop problem (if you omit crossovers) and gives much
> more operating flexibility since you can have arbitrary numbers of trains
> operating (within limits of blocks, control, etc...) instead of just one or
> two.
The thing for me is that I am more into the Single Track "Short Line" type of
layout which is why I would like the reversing loops at either end. There are
many good uses for the double track dogbones though and they are definitely
easier to set up.
>
> My christmas tree layout is always a dogbone, and I recommend them highly.
I love them too hence my origional post!!!
Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, James Brown writes:
> > My christmas tree layout is always a dogbone, and I recommend them highly.
>
> All three operational loops that we had at Supertrain were dogbones, and
> worked well for crowd-pleasing. The only real hitch was that we couldn't
> run many long trains becuase they'd keep dropping cars or slowing/stopping
> on the end loops because of friction around the loop. The longest train we
> could consistently run was about 12-15 cars of 6-wide passenger stuff
> (mostly JamesP & Zonker's VIA trains), and even that would occasionally lose
> the last few cars going around the end of the dogbone.
Yet another good reason why it would be nice to have a wider radius track
section...
For now though if you have room you might want to consider extending the loop
part of the dogbone. Of course if you extend it to much it really isn't a
dogbone anymore :-).
Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog Bone"
> > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight track)
> > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > through the loops. • [snip]
> I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it pieced
> together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, it's
> a simpler solution than you might think!
After I had build my first reversing loop, I discovered it was possible to
operate such a loop without te need for setting the switch. Ofcourse this
requires that you always run through the loop in the same direction, but you
probably want to do this anyway to keep the automated control simple.
In the original version of the reverse loop, the "inside leg" rail between
the switch and the isolated section was unpowered until you operated the switch.
To avoid this problem, make only three isolation points instead of four. The
omission of the 4th isolation point on the "inside leg" rail near the switch
allows this leg to recieve current comming from the isolated section.
The train "klicks" trough the switch without any effort (it's pushing the
springy points open)
This setup works very smoothly, it has been tested rigorously on our club
meetings, by children operating it for 5 hours constantly. Now, even when
the train is running, you're able to reverse polarity on the main track,
just as long as the motor is within the isolated section. This should be
feasable with an automated control also.
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
I was thinking of using 12v track for this kind of thing - running both
rails as 0v, and both centre lines moving betweeen +9v..-9v. Dunno if it's
worth trying to get hold of all that 12v track, though.
Wouldn't need RCX control, but you would need a custom controller to get the
reverse voltage happening. Or maybe just a switch (electrical) of some kind?
ROSCO
Eric Kingsley <kingsley@nelug.org> wrote in message
news:G9DM2E.A91@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog • Bone"
> configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight • track)
> with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> through the loops.
>
> This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as opposed to the • more
> traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
>
> I realize its a bit of a pipe dream but I do like to dream...
>
>
> Eric Kingsley
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a
> > > > "Dog Bone" configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a
> > > > length of staight track) with some sort of RCX style control to
> > > > work the switches and power going through the loops.
> > > >
> > > > This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as
> > > > opposed to the more traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
> > > I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got
> > > it pieced together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter
> > > of programming the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of
> > > everything correctly, it's a simpler solution than you might think!
> > Most MR dogbones are doubletracked on the middle part. This avoids
> > needing to solve the reverser loop problem (if you omit crossovers)
> > and gives much more operating flexibility since you can have arbitrary
> > numbers of trains operating (within limits of blocks, control, etc...)
> > instead of just one or two.
> All three operational loops that we had at Supertrain were dogbones,
> and worked well for crowd-pleasing. The only real hitch was that we
> couldn't run many long trains becuase they'd keep dropping cars or
> slowing/stopping on the end loops because of friction around the loop.
Having spent a great deal of time on the Supertrain layout, this is
something I'm very interested in. A couple of 100' long straight
segments with a town and one end and an industrial area at the other
was what comprised our "main loop". I've described the layout as
three (interconnected) loops, but that's because of how I define "dog
bone". Is it defined simply by how it looks? Doesn't the track
geometry come into play? The first one is what we had at Supertrain,
but I'd only (for sure) call the third one a dog-bone, as it's the only
one that actually loops back on itself. I might call the second one a
dog-bone because the cross-overs _do_ cause it to cross back onto
itself, albeit very briefly and not in the same was as the switches.
Here are three layout diagrams:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36350
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36349
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36351
Which one(s) would be defined as dog bones and why?
SRC
StRuCtures
L#765
|
|
| |
SRC <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G9sIqE.35@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > > > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a
> > > > > "Dog Bone" configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a
> > > > > length of staight track) with some sort of RCX style control to
> > > > > work the switches and power going through the loops.
> > > > >
> > > > > This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as
> > > > > opposed to the more traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
>
> > > > I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got
> > > > it pieced together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter
> > > > of programming the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of
> > > > everything correctly, it's a simpler solution than you might think!
>
> > > Most MR dogbones are doubletracked on the middle part. This avoids
> > > needing to solve the reverser loop problem (if you omit crossovers)
> > > and gives much more operating flexibility since you can have arbitrary
> > > numbers of trains operating (within limits of blocks, control, etc...)
> > > instead of just one or two.
>
> > All three operational loops that we had at Supertrain were dogbones,
> > and worked well for crowd-pleasing. The only real hitch was that we
> > couldn't run many long trains becuase they'd keep dropping cars or
> > slowing/stopping on the end loops because of friction around the loop.
>
> Having spent a great deal of time on the Supertrain layout, this is
> something I'm very interested in. A couple of 100' long straight
> segments with a town and one end and an industrial area at the other
> was what comprised our "main loop". I've described the layout as
> three (interconnected) loops, but that's because of how I define "dog
> bone". Is it defined simply by how it looks? Doesn't the track
> geometry come into play? The first one is what we had at Supertrain,
> but I'd only (for sure) call the third one a dog-bone, as it's the only
> one that actually loops back on itself. I might call the second one a
> dog-bone because the cross-overs _do_ cause it to cross back onto
> itself, albeit very briefly and not in the same was as the switches.
>
> Here are three layout diagrams:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36350
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36349
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36351
> Which one(s) would be defined as dog bones and why?
>
> SRC
> StRuCtures
> L#765
Good question.
Still I think that the first one is usually used for trams, the second not
used much at all, and the third one being a track with a run-around (as they
are called :)))
At least I see them quite often around here, at they take up less space as
well.
With some tricks (pneumatic?) I guess this kind of bone can be made
controlled by RCX.
2 senti.(0.02 EEK)
Sonnich
|
|
| |
I think this is an excellent idea and will add it to the LUGNET trains FAQ
I'm working on. If you see posts you think are excellent ideas, feel free to
cross-post them to .faq.
Thanks
Cary
"Manfred Moolhuysen" <moom@nospamchello.nl> wrote in message
news:G9DpBp.JHv@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a "Dog • Bone"
> > > configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a length of staight • track)
> > > with some sort of RCX style control to work the switches and power going
> > > through the loops. • [snip]
> > I'm working on that very thing for the new GMLTC layout. I've got it • pieced
> > together (no pun intended!) in my head, it's just a matter of programming
> > the RCX and give it a whirl. If I'm thinking of everything correctly, • it's
> > a simpler solution than you might think!
>
> After I had build my first reversing loop, I discovered it was possible to
> operate such a loop without te need for setting the switch. Ofcourse this
> requires that you always run through the loop in the same direction, but • you
> probably want to do this anyway to keep the automated control simple.
>
> In the original version of the reverse loop, the "inside leg" rail between
> the switch and the isolated section was unpowered until you operated the • switch.
> To avoid this problem, make only three isolation points instead of four. • The
> omission of the 4th isolation point on the "inside leg" rail near the • switch
> allows this leg to recieve current comming from the isolated section.
> The train "klicks" trough the switch without any effort (it's pushing the
> springy points open)
> This setup works very smoothly, it has been tested rigorously on our club
> meetings, by children operating it for 5 hours constantly. Now, even when
> the train is running, you're able to reverse polarity on the main track,
> just as long as the motor is within the isolated section. This should be
> feasable with an automated control also.
>
> Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Sonnich Jensen writes:
>
> SRC <LEGOArches@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G9sIqE.35@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.trains, James Brown writes:
> > > In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.trains, John Gerlach writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.trains, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > > > > I think it would be nice if we could run trains on a layout in a
> > > > > > "Dog Bone" configuration (I.E. 2 reversing loops connected by a
> > > > > > length of staight track) with some sort of RCX style control to
> > > > > > work the switches and power going through the loops.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This would allow us to do a very long and narrow layout as
> > > > > > opposed to the more traditional square/rectangle with a loop of track.
There is no rule to say that a dog bone style layout should be in the shape
of a dog-bone! A far more common MR arrangement is to run the centre double
track section around a room or double back over itself at a higher level.
You get more running track within a given space yet it still provides you
with the most appealing aspect of this design, that the trains appear to be
going somewhere and then returning (rather than 'chasing their tails').
My favoured solution is to hide the end loops in tunnels so that
dissapearing trains can stop and be held out of sight, maybe allowing
another train to emerge via an automatically controlled passing loop.
Automatic signals can be made to operate at the entrance to the tunnel using
mechanically triggered switches or signals as the trains are passing. I have
set up a few experiments on this basis and it is possible for a train
leaving the tunnel (ie the last point at which the tracks are parellel) on
the 'down' line to trigger a 'line clear' signal on the adjacent 'up' line
using nothing more than simple mechanical levers. In reality the adjacent
'up' track is the same as the 'down' track only several sections to the rear.
Maybe someone has tried a similar thing with colour light signals on track
circuits?
Jon
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steve Chapple writes:
> Having spent a great deal of time on the Supertrain layout, this is
> something I'm very interested in. A couple of 100' long straight
> segments with a town and one end and an industrial area at the other
> was what comprised our "main loop". I've described the layout as
> three (interconnected) loops, but that's because of how I define "dog
> bone". Is it defined simply by how it looks? Doesn't the track
> geometry come into play? The first one is what we had at Supertrain,
> but I'd only (for sure) call the third one a dog-bone, as it's the only
> one that actually loops back on itself. I might call the second one a
> dog-bone because the cross-overs _do_ cause it to cross back onto
> itself, albeit very briefly and not in the same was as the switches.
>
> Here are three layout diagrams:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36350
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36349
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36351
> Which one(s) would be defined as dog bones and why?
The definition of a "dogbone" is an oval that has been pinched in the middle
so that the two sides of it are close enough together that they look like
double track... then stretched to quite a bit longer. That's the key idea...
it could have been an oval except it got squished and stretched.
A "folded dogbone" is when you take that doubletrack and send it all over
everywhich way. As a poster elsewhere alludes, one thing to do with the
loops is hide them in tunnels (sometimes stacking them on top of each other)
My biggest HO layout was a folded dogbone with one of the reversing loops at
the very bottom inside a tunnel. It was double tracked once you got inside
the tunnel so you could stage a train (or two, it was a big loop).
Thus the answer to your question is "none" since you did not show the other
end of the trackage. It is possible that Dog2 is one, if those two sets of
doubletracks meet somewhere. Dog3 is not since it's single track once you
get out of the reversing loop. Dog1 I dunno.
But the main thing here is not to get too hung up on the terms (except as a
way to keep things clear amongst ourselves). Your layout should be designed
to maximise operating potential... not to conform to some idealised labeling
scheme.
++Lar
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Thus the answer to your question is "none" since you did not show the other
> end of the trackage. It is possible that Dog2 is one, if those two sets of
> doubletracks meet somewhere. Dog3 is not since it's single track once you
> get out of the reversing loop. Dog1 I dunno.
Assuming there's another end, I would say that Dog1 is a valid end of a
folded dogbone. If you unfold the loop, it's just a dogbone where the
double track comes out of the center of the loop instead of at one edge.
Of course like Larry says, the technical name for your track arrangement
is much less interesting than actually getting a good track arrangement.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Thus the answer to your question is "none" since you did not show the other
> > end of the trackage. It is possible that Dog2 is one, if those two sets of
> > doubletracks meet somewhere. Dog3 is not since it's single track once you
> > get out of the reversing loop. Dog1 I dunno.
>
> Assuming there's another end, I would say that Dog1 is a valid end of a
> folded dogbone. If you unfold the loop, it's just a dogbone where the
> double track comes out of the center of the loop instead of at one edge.
Yes, I agree. Realised it after i posted but got sucked into something else.
> Of course like Larry says, the technical name for your track arrangement
> is much less interesting than actually getting a good track arrangement.
And what makes an interesting/convenient arrangment for a show may well be
very different from what makes an interesting arrangement for a home layout.
At a show you want to have trains to run. Lots of them. So the trackage has
to be continuous, and you need convenient staging tracks (with room for
ready made trains) and a fiddle yard where you can remove and add stuff, all
set up for easy access and quick changes. And you HAVE to do continuous
loops, not point to point. Turning trains around by doing a runaround is not
that exciting for crowds and rather error prone. So dogbones or simple ovals
really shine in this application.
On a home layout what you should focus on depends on what you like. If you
like to just see trains run, some of the same characteristics apply. But if
you go for realistic operation, you may well WANT point to point, lots of
tricky switching problems, etc. Me, I like to see stuff run but also like
the operational aspects. (although it's harder with LEGO trains since we
don't have good uncouplers) So my layout when i get around to building one
will be a dogbone but will also have switching areas and engine service
facilities.
++Lar
|
|
| |
For the benefit of the "What might be a good track layout" discussion and
for sharing track ideas amongst eachother, I reccomend the use of the "Train
Depot Track Designer", a great Windows program by Matthew Bates for drawing
Lego track layouts on your computer. It can be downloaded at this adres:
http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/td.htm
Greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> On a home layout what you should focus on depends on what you like. If you
> like to just see trains run, some of the same characteristics apply. But if
> you go for realistic operation, you may well WANT point to point, lots of
> tricky switching problems, etc. Me, I like to see stuff run but also like
> the operational aspects. (although it's harder with LEGO trains since we
> don't have good uncouplers) So my layout when i get around to building one
> will be a dogbone but will also have switching areas and engine service
> facilities.
Absolutely. My aborted HO layout had an oval of track with a switchback
line climbing a mountain (it was developed for a 5'x9.5' space in my
apartment, so a dogbone type design just wasn't going to work, but I
worked out a pretty nice scheme which had a town at one end of the
layout, with the line running around the front of the layout, then back
into the corner, from whence the switchback started. From there, the
track also continued behind the scenes back into the town to complete
the oval.
With currently a 4'x6' table for my LEGO train layout, all I have is two
nested ovals and a couple spurs. I've been trying to conceive of table
arrangements so that I can still have space for a bed yet can get much
more space. I've got some thoughts for an around the room layout which
would have a bridge over the aisle to complete one circuit, and then it
would probably have another smaller circuit, and then it would have room
for a bunch of sidings and spurs (where a "bunch" is a modest
number...). The problem is doing the carpentry to make the necessary
tables. Perhaps I could sweet talk the fellow whose shop we are using to
build the tables for shows into letting me build my tables also. PNLTC
tables won't quite cut it because I'll need some 5" or 10" wide shelves
to connect things, and the main table kind of will need a cutout to fit
my bed. I could probably manage a setup using 4 2.5'x5' PNLTC tables
basically wrapped around the room, but then I would definitely only have
one continuous loop and wouldn't have that much room for spurs (thought
the total area would be twice my current space).
Of course what I really need to do is stop buying LEGO and go out and
buy a house and then be able to consign the master bedroom completely to
a layout (or if I'm real lucky, get a place with a family room or a
finished basement or useable attic).
Hmm, I just had a thought for somewhat better switching operation for a
home layout... One could probably fairly easily craft a box for a Kadee
coupler which could be screwed onto the hole used for the magnet holder.
This would allow trains to be fairly quickly converted between Kadee and
magnet couplers. Once could sacrifice some tiles to glue Kadee
uncoupling ramps onto to be attached to the LEGO track.
Of course I don't really mind the thought of HOG uncoupling. It just
means that you have to make all the track reasonably accessible, but
heck, real railroads pretty much rely on manual uncoupling... A LEGO
layout will also be a lot more friendly to being reached into to
uncouple cars. The big problem is getting enough space to have an
interesting switching layout. I'd love to see a LEGO layout which could
comfortably keep three operators busy.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Manfred Moolhuysen writes:
> For the benefit of the "What might be a good track layout" discussion and
> for sharing track ideas amongst eachother, I reccomend the use of the "Train
> Depot Track Designer", a great Windows program by Matthew Bates for drawing
> Lego track layouts on your computer. It can be downloaded at this adres:
>
> http://www.ngltc.org/train_depot/td.htm
I couldn't agree more. (1)
This program is invaluable. Saves a lot of wear and tear on the knees when
setting up fun layouts for the kids, saves a lot of redface at shows when
things don't line up right.
Highly recommended. (2)
Note that SRC's pics he posted asking "which of these is a dogbone" were
done with Track Designer.
1 - well, maybe a little more, but not MUCH more :-)... cf. the "couldn't
care less" language rant
2 - and Hats Off to James T for hosting it since Matt B has exited active
development. But don't let that scare you, it's very functional and stable
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> Hmm, I just had a thought for somewhat better switching operation
> for a home layout... One could probably fairly easily craft a box
> for a Kadee coupler which could be screwed onto the hole used for
> the magnet holder. This would allow trains to be fairly quickly
> converted between Kadee and magnet couplers. Once could sacrifice
> some tiles to glue Kadee uncoupling ramps onto to be attached to
> the LEGO track.
Stop with the good ideas - I already spend too much time tinkering. 8-)
> Of course I don't really mind the thought of HOG uncoupling.
HOG - Hand's On Grabbing???
> I'd love to see a LEGO layout which could
> comfortably keep three operators busy.
You mean like something like this? (Supertrain2001 layout) :-)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=29134
SRC
StRuCtures
L#765
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.trains, Steve Chapple writes:
>
> > Having spent a great deal of time on the Supertrain layout, this is
> > something I'm very interested in. A couple of 100' long straight
> > segments with a town and one end and an industrial area at the other
> > was what comprised our "main loop". I've described the layout as
> > three (interconnected) loops, but that's because of how I define "dog
> > bone". Is it defined simply by how it looks? Doesn't the track
> > geometry come into play? The first one is what we had at Supertrain,
> > but I'd only (for sure) call the third one a dog-bone, as it's the only
> > one that actually loops back on itself. I might call the second one a
> > dog-bone because the cross-overs _do_ cause it to cross back onto
> > itself, albeit very briefly and not in the same was as the switches.
> >
> > Here are three layout diagrams:
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36350
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36349
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=36351
>
> > Which one(s) would be defined as dog bones and why?
>
> The definition of a "dogbone" is an oval that has been pinched in the
> middle so that the two sides of it are close enough together that they
> look like double track... then stretched to quite a bit longer.
> That's the key idea... ...an oval except it got squished and stretched.
Ah - OK Then would this be a single or double dog-bone?
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=37504
|
|
| |
SRC wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> > Hmm, I just had a thought for somewhat better switching operation
> > for a home layout... One could probably fairly easily craft a box
> > for a Kadee coupler which could be screwed onto the hole used for
> > the magnet holder. This would allow trains to be fairly quickly
> > converted between Kadee and magnet couplers. Once could sacrifice
> > some tiles to glue Kadee uncoupling ramps onto to be attached to
> > the LEGO track.
>
> Stop with the good ideas - I already spend too much time tinkering. 8-)
Hey, I just want some one else to go through the work of trying it
out...
> > Of course I don't really mind the thought of HOG uncoupling.
>
> HOG - Hand's On Grabbing???
Hand of God.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Steve Chapple writes:
> Ah - OK Then would this be a single or double dog-bone?
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=37504
Two completely separate dogbones that just happen to lie next to each other.
A double dogbone would be if the whole dogbone was double track, I think.
That means including the end loops... one nested inside the other
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Frank Filz writes:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Of course I don't really mind the thought of HOG uncoupling. It just
> means that you have to make all the track reasonably accessible, but
> heck, real railroads pretty much rely on manual uncoupling... A LEGO
> layout will also be a lot more friendly to being reached into to
> uncouple cars. The big problem is getting enough space to have an
> interesting switching layout. I'd love to see a LEGO layout which could
> comfortably keep three operators busy.
I was thinking about this a few days ago (the whole auto vs HOG thing), so I
wandered over to where I could sit in my car & watch some of the on-site
rail ops at work for lunch.(1) Coupling/uncoupling - manual.
Loading/unloading - all connections manual. Switching - manual. Car
placement (on scales, or into a car wash or whatever) - eyeballed.
Typically, 3 or more crew (visible) involved in every operation,
communicating over radio, and doing everything by hand.
After seeing that, I'm much less worried about automating a layout (for home
or shows)... Doing it by hand is prototypical.(2)
James
1: But don't worry, I'm not into trains. Honest. I'm still a hard-core
castle guy. Just don't ask me what I've been spending my LEGO budget on
lately....
2: Even if the hand is question is way out of scale. <grin>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> 2 - and Hats Off to James T for hosting it since Matt B has exited active
> development. But don't let that scare you, it's very functional and stable
So is there any active development? I for one would like to see a Linux
version, and would be able to provide some help in porting it. Is that a
possibility?
ROSCO
|
|
|
