[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Corners



The facia for the track can be 24" but the other side needs to be 26.5" going along the outside.  The long piece in the middle is the same as the other ones.  That is where I came up withthte 2.5 " from measuring the existing ones.
 
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:22:30 -0800 (PST) Edward Weltens <ed.weltens@sbcglobal.net> writes:
Steve,
 
I don't know.  I am wondering if the spec is wrong.
 
Ed

Steve Wise <swise@aoot.com> wrote:
Hey ed,

Did we just build them wrong or is the module specification document
wrong?

I'd rather just build new ones.


On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 13:39 -0800, Edward Weltens wrote:
> Scott,
>
> I think We should build new corners from scratch. I will donate the
> lumber and may be able to build (at least start them) them next
> weekend.
>
> If we modify the ones we have they will be heavier and probably not as
> strong.
>
> Anyone else have ideas?
>
> Scott A Smiley wrote:
> Yesterday Ed and I started on laying out the new track on to
> the new
&g! t; corner modules. Some interesting things came up.
>
> 1. We discovered that the wood frame and size is not the same
> as the
> other new corners. Some things just happen.
> 2. The units are essentially 2.5" short on both ends. 5" on
> one end may
> be able to accomplish the same effect but they would not be
> symmetrical.
> 3. The radii of the tracks would have to be shorter on all
> tracks to fit
> this shorter arc length available. The track in the D position
> for track
> 4 would not be 72". Track 1 would be less than 96". With the D
> position
> at 72", the rest of the diameters would be 80.5", 89", and
> 97.5". We
> only have the standard dia. of track to work with so compound
> curves were
> used on the previous new corners.
> 4. These modules as built will not nest with the others and be
> a 3rd
> size. This will create issues for transport in ! the trailer.
> The tracks
> can be damaged as we have seen with the old and new corners
> now if not
> precisely positioned and secured.
> 5. These corners will have to be placed across from each other
> in set up
> or the layout would not be square, and there would therefore
> be some
> points of intersection without a curve in the layout if they
> were not
> positioned correctly opposite each other.
> 6. The clearance between the tracks around the curves would be
> less than
> 4.25" in order to achieve the largest radii for each track and
> to use
> standard curve sections. The track is laid out on one new
> corner for all
> to see.
>
>
> Considering all of these factors, it is my recommendation that
> we modify
> the wood work of these new corners to extend each end by 2.5
> ". This
> would be done by removing some of the fac! ials and a portion of
> the deck
> and extend with new facias and deck. This would keep the
> center section
> of each corner as is. The deck would be in 3 pieces as in the
> other
> corners but with the bracing already installed, this will not
> be a
> problem. The width of the unit will be slightly less than the
> others but
> upon inspection of the others you can see that the width can
> be reduced
> and still accommodate the track plan and outside dimensions.
> As long as
> the corners are not transported on this one side, they will
> nest with the
> others.
>
> This really is a matter for the board to decide but since it
> has
> operational concerns that would impact all, I decided to write
> this to
> the entire membership so the board could hear input from the
> membership.
>
> Scott
> ------
> TTAT members reflector.
>
>
>
> http://www.texased.net/
------
TTAT members reflector.



http://www.texased.net/