| |
From what we talked about on our Tuesday meeting (mar 27), there are
definately some things we want to have on our layout, and I'd like to get
some people willing to commit to them. Not everything is fixed in stone
yet, but we can fix some stuff and work around it if we need to shift other
things.
Currently in the plan are:
Roundhouse & motorized turntable: Michel?
Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with had
one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an option,
and how soon would you need to have any elevating written in stone?
Mountain of some description: James
1 (double track) or 2 (single track) 30" bridges: ??
Motorized grain elevator: John?
It would be very cool if you could tweak this into a mostly-unsupervised
working state. Meaning that every once in a while we could dump grain in,
and otherwise just let people ooh and aah.
lotsa buildings and stuff, but they can wait for now.
James
|
|
| |
Hello Guys,
I WILL motorize the turntable before September, even if it kills me. The
roundhouse itself just needs a few finishing touches.
I still have my single wide 30 inch bridge, I could make it a bit longer and
keep it all black and grey, or quite a bit longer and add other colors. I
could probably make it double wide, not sure how sturdy that would be. I
have been playing around with fairly simple ZNAP bridges, and could easily
have a 30 inch one ready.
With respect to the grain elevator, I could donate some of the conveyor belt
pieces to be permanently superglued to the mailboxes, unless John comes up
with a better idea.
Michel
> From what we talked about on our Tuesday meeting (mar 27), there are
> definately some things we want to have on our layout, and I'd like to get
> some people willing to commit to them. Not everything is fixed in stone
> yet, but we can fix some stuff and work around it if we need to shift other
> things.
>
> Currently in the plan are:
>
> Roundhouse & motorized turntable: Michel?
>
> Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
> Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with had
> one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an option,
> and how soon would you need to have any elevating written in stone?
>
> Mountain of some description: James
>
> 1 (double track) or 2 (single track) 30" bridges: ??
>
> Motorized grain elevator: John?
> It would be very cool if you could tweak this into a mostly-unsupervised
> working state. Meaning that every once in a while we could dump grain in,
> and otherwise just let people ooh and aah.
>
> lotsa buildings and stuff, but they can wait for now.
>
> James
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote in message ...
> Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
> Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with had
> one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an • option,
> and how soon would you need to have any elevating written in stone?
We've already had an unsupported bridge spanning a gap in the tables,
and we've already had an arch. We have not had a true trestle bridge.
My suggestion would be a *supported* trestle bridge that is often seen
around Alberta. And when I say trestle, I mean black supports *under*
the track deck. The trestle supports could go half way down to the
floor or further. And there is no table beneath the bridge (maybe just
some boxes covered with tarp). Note that nothing is elevated here--
the track deck is level with the tables.
I'm thinking of something like the following, but on a smaller scale:
http://www.lethbridge.worldweb.com/PhotoGallery/Bridges/10-424.html
Opinions?
Do you have enough black beams for this, Steve? :-]
> Motorized grain elevator: John?
> It would be very cool if you could tweak this into a mostly-unsupervised
> working state. Meaning that every once in a while we could dump grain in,
> and otherwise just let people ooh and aah.
Yup, will try. Will test it thouroughly to see how long it can survive with
out choking. The new red inverted arches should solve most problems
nicely.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
Michel Magnan wrote in message ...
> With respect to the grain elevator, I could donate some of the conveyor • belt
> pieces to be permanently superglued to the mailboxes, unless John comes up
> with a better idea.
I hope I will not need this, but I'll let you know how it goes.
I'm not eager to use glue more due to the the difficulty of
acquiring lt grey mailboxes than losing a few links.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> James Brown wrote in message ...
> > Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
> > Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with
> > had one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an
> > option, and how soon would you need any elevating written in stone?
> We've already had an unsupported bridge spanning a gap in the tables,
> and we've already had an arch. We have not had a true trestle bridge.
My arch at Supertrain only appeared to be supporting the bridge deck.
I still have to finish it properly, and plan to for GEMTS2001. A trestle
bridge would be nice, but consumes a LOT of black beams. (I do have
enough to make a nice one, yes, but at the moment I'm not planning to
do so.) I am also hesitant to make a double-wide arch bridge spanning
a full 60cm for the same reason - expensive consumption of beams.
As you know, I want to offer my bridges for sale - to do so the pieces
typically need to be unused. In the case of "T1", I plan to auction the
actual first bridge. In theory a double-wide 60cm span bridge could be
sold too, but to whom? Another LTC? I believe there is a market for
LEGO bridges, but the larger and more specialized I get, the smaller
that market becomes. In the case of a custom bridge, the sale is made
before the bridge is, the market size is one, and all I do is design
and build it - no "marketing" hassles. This is the ideal situation - Eric
[ http://www.ericharshbarger.com/lego/ ] has it made! (The set:770
Rescue Set is one of my childhood sets too - I managed to get a second
one in very good condition with box from Matt Chiles.) Anyway - unless
someone wants to commission a bridge for GEMTS2001... 8-)
If I wasn't so strapped financially, I'd have a massive collection of
pieces for building various projects purely for fun - like James'
collection, only larger. :-) If things go according to plan, in a
few years I'll be in that situation, (and be able to make a "Supertrain
layout" purely from my own collection) but for now I gotta focus on
more weighty issues than LEGO.
However, I have come up with a layout and bridge design that will IMO be
quite impressive. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41923
Here is an image of the layout (James - I've e-mailed you the TDL.)
The reason you don't see track on a couple of the areas on the left is
because that's where they're inside the mountain(s). Imagine a mountain
valley - there's "water" flowing down from the twin peaks - the peaks are
several decimeters above table level, and the lowest part of the valley
(in the foreground - underneath the bridge) is several decimeters below
the table level, perhaps with/as a lake/river. In the foreground the
bridge arches over the valley, anchored to the valley "walls" ~15 bricks
below the level of the tables. In the background a short arch bridge
carries the train between the two tunnels. The stream is only a few
bricks below the tracks of the small background "upstream" bridge, but
two or three dozen bricks below the main bridge. It's hard for me to
describe textually, but trust me - with James and I cooperating it would
look great. I could do it myself if James lent me his "mountain brick
collection", but he would undoubtedly do a better job of the mountain
valley, and I expect he would _want_ to do it himself anyway.
Probably a lengthier answer than you were anticipating, but there ya go. :-)
TTYL
SRC
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Koob writes:
> > James Brown wrote in message ...
> > > Unsupported (as in, no table beneath) 60" double track bridge: Steve?
> > > Steve, some of the track designs that Michel was playing around with
> > > had one or both of the tracks on this bridge being elevated. Is that an
> > > option, and how soon would you need any elevating written in stone?
>
> > We've already had an unsupported bridge spanning a gap in the tables,
> > and we've already had an arch. We have not had a true trestle bridge.
>
> My arch at Supertrain only appeared to be supporting the bridge deck.
> I still have to finish it properly, and plan to for GEMTS2001.
We don't have the room at GEMTS to elevate track to the level required for
your arch bridge, not without dedicating a full *two thirds* of our space to
elevating the track, and consiquently obscuring at least 1/2 of our layout
behind elevation.
> A trestle bridge would be nice, but consumes a LOT of black beams. (I do have
> enough to make a nice one, yes, but at the moment I'm not planning to
> do so.)
OK. John, you're our next stop on the "heaps of technic" train, would you
be willing to tackle a short (30" or less) trestle bridge, possible a double
track bridge?
I am also hesitant to make a double-wide arch bridge spanning
> a full 60cm for the same reason - expensive consumption of beams.
Ok. This means we need to make 2 more table sets instead of 1 this summer,
but does give us that extra room for buildings & stuff.
> However, I have come up with a layout and bridge design that will IMO be
> quite impressive. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41923
The only problems I see with this are that 1) the roundhouse is in the wrong
place - it is in the middle of a 30x60 table, not the end, so the rail yard
would have to get shuffled around and 2) there's virtually no room for
buildings and town stuff. You need at least 2 baseplates wide to have
buildings and a street.
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> We don't have the room at GEMTS to elevate track to the
> level required for your arch bridge, not without dedicating a
> full *two thirds* of our space to elevating the track...
I agree there isn't enough room for elevation ramps. That's
why my mountain-valley-bridge suggestion has both tracks at
the level of the tables. The upper portion of the mountain peaks
are above track/table level, while most of the "two sections" is
below the level of the table-top. I can see it clearly in my head,
(and it's beautiful) but transferring that image is difficult. Imagine
the mountain sitting on a table only about a foot tall, or even on
the floor itself, with the peaks at least a foot above the table.
> > However, I have come up with a layout and bridge design that will IMO be
> > quite impressive. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=41923
> The only problems I see with this are that 1) the roundhouse is in the
> wrong place - it is in the middle of a 30x60 table, not the end, so the
> rail yard would have to get shuffled around and 2) there's virtually no
> room for buildings and town stuff. You need at least 2 baseplates
> wide to have buildings and a street.
It's just a starting point - That's why I sent you the file. I don't even know
if there are enough green tables available for it - that was to be one of my
first follow-up questions... :-)
SRC
L#765
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Steve Chapple writes:
> Imagine the mountain sitting on a table only about a foot tall, or even on
> the floor itself, with the peaks at least a foot above the table.
That calls for a lot of brick, probably more than I have. Verticle lift is
what requires the most volume of bricks, if you want it sturdy, and I was
fairly well tapped out with the Supertrain mountain at about 2 feet of lift.
I've got some ideas I'll try and post this week, but it will have to wait
until I've got time to play with Track Designer.
> It's just a starting point - That's why I sent you the file. I don't even
> know if there are enough green tables available for it - that was to be one
> of my first follow-up questions... :-)
Right now there aren't enough tables, period. We have 6 full sets, counting
the roundhouse and the blue-topped 30x30. The original plan with a 60" gap
in the tables called for 7 sets exactly, but now without that gap, we need
to have 8 sets.
James
|
|
| |
James Brown wrote in message ...
> OK. John, you're our next stop on the "heaps of technic" train, would you
> be willing to tackle a short (30" or less) trestle bridge, possible a • double
> track bridge?
I'd have enough to do a double track trestle, but 30"
is a bit short... Something longer would look better,
but would mean borrowing or acquiring some more
black beams.
More beams ... I like the sound of that.
In short, I'm willing.
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
John Koob wrote in message ...
> I'd have enough to do a double track trestle, but 30"
> is a bit short... Something longer would look better,
> but would mean borrowing or acquiring some more
> black beams.
Clarification - 30" is a bit short, but 60" is too long.
How long is the low table? Could we go for something
like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood constructed to raise
the apparent height of part of the low table?
--
John
(remove the obvious to reply)
|
|
| |
> John Koob wrote in message ...
> > I'd have enough to do a double track trestle, but 30"
> > is a bit short... Something longer would look better,
> > but would mean borrowing or acquiring some more
> > black beams.
>
> Clarification - 30" is a bit short, but 60" is too long.
> How long is the low table? Could we go for something
> like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood constructed to raise
> the apparent height of part of the low table?
We can vary the height on more than one table, that's no problem; all it
takes is more legs.
If we drop two tables, we can fill in some terrain on each side of the
lowered area with brick to make it look more "natural", which would give us
some flexability on the bridge length, too. I'll play with track designer a
bit tomorrow at work with this in mind.
James
|
|
| |
> How long is the low table?
What low table are you refering to?
> Could we go for something like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood
> constructed to raise the apparent height of part of the low table?
Ummm - That's what I'm suggesting. (My bridge is _exactly_ 45" in fact.)
By lowering "the table" 16 bricks, the bridge deck and track would be
level with the other tables, as Kevin pointed out quite some time ago.
My mountain/valley/tunnel idea is just a nice-all-LEGO-looking
implementation of the concept. It _would_ require lots of grey
bricks though; As James says - possibly more than he has...
SRC
L#765
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, James Brown writes:
> Right now there aren't enough tables, period. We have 6 full
> sets, counting the roundhouse and the blue-topped 30x30.
I seem to recall Michel saying at some point that the table count had
turned out to be inaccurate?? Six full sets as in six 30x60s and six
30x30s? That would mean then that two additional 30x60s (plus
something lower for the mountain/bridge section) would be needed?
SRC
L#765
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
The low table I made last year is one of the small 30.5x30.5 inch guys, it is
more like a canyon, with vertical walls on three sides and open on only one
side. The walls are there to attach to the adjacent tables with the usual
bolt holes. I think it is 19 bricks deep, enough to fit the large of the boats
with mast under my first bridge.
MIchel
> > How long is the low table?
>
> What low table are you refering to?
>
> > Could we go for something like a 45" bridge and have some box/wood
> > constructed to raise the apparent height of part of the low table?
>
> Ummm - That's what I'm suggesting. (My bridge is _exactly_ 45" in fact.)
> By lowering "the table" 16 bricks, the bridge deck and track would be
> level with the other tables, as Kevin pointed out quite some time ago.
> My mountain/valley/tunnel idea is just a nice-all-LEGO-looking
> implementation of the concept. It _would_ require lots of grey
> bricks though; As James says - possibly more than he has...
|
|
| |
The count is 6 large and 6 small, including the large table with the hole
for the round house, and the small table with the trench for the elevator
and the sunken small table originally for a small port.
Half the tables are still in Edmonton at my parents place.
Anyone interested in a work bee to build another 2 or 3 sets?
I could easily cut all the 1x2 needed on my table saw in St Paul, and bring
the small pieces to Edmonton. Someone there could get the plywood cut in
the 2 larger pieces from each sheet. Everyone who owns a drill would meet
in someones garage and we could build several sets in a day. Someone would
then have to paint them, a major pain, because the green needs 2 coats, plus
the primer. The legs are very labor intensive, and I still haven't finished
the legs from the tables I made last year. I believe that the PNLTC guys
have eliminated the attacheable legs, due to the long set up time. If we
could somehow use folding legs that would save a lot of time, both now and
in the future. Steve could you post to the IOLTC asking them about their
current table standards?
I don't have a problem making them by myself, but it is the storage issue
that is proving to be a major thorn in my wifes side. I would appreciate it
if someone would atleast offer to paint them, if I end up making another
couple of sets in St Paul. And someone needs to store them.
Michel
> > > Right now there aren't enough tables, period. We have 6 full
> > sets, counting the roundhouse and the blue-topped 30x30.
>
> I seem to recall Michel saying at some point that the table count had
> turned out to be inaccurate?? Six full sets as in six 30x60s and six
> 30x30s? That would mean then that two additional 30x60s (plus
> something lower for the mountain/bridge section) would be needed?
>
|
|
| |
As everyone knows, I don't have a garage. So, no carpentry
party at my place, unfortunately.
But I would be able and willing to do all of the painting.
Oh, does anyone have brushes I could borrow? :-]
John
Michel Magnan wrote in message ...
> The count is 6 large and 6 small, including the large table with the hole
> for the round house, and the small table with the trench for the elevator
> and the sunken small table originally for a small port.
> Half the tables are still in Edmonton at my parents place.
> Anyone interested in a work bee to build another 2 or 3 sets?
> I could easily cut all the 1x2 needed on my table saw in St Paul, and bring
> the small pieces to Edmonton. Someone there could get the plywood cut in
> the 2 larger pieces from each sheet. Everyone who owns a drill would meet
> in someones garage and we could build several sets in a day. Someone would
> then have to paint them, a major pain, because the green needs 2 coats, • plus
> the primer. The legs are very labor intensive, and I still haven't • finished
> the legs from the tables I made last year. I believe that the PNLTC guys
> have eliminated the attacheable legs, due to the long set up time. If we
> could somehow use folding legs that would save a lot of time, both now and
> in the future. Steve could you post to the IOLTC asking them about their
> current table standards?
> I don't have a problem making them by myself, but it is the storage issue
> that is proving to be a major thorn in my wifes side. I would appreciate • it
> if someone would atleast offer to paint them, if I end up making another
> couple of sets in St Paul. And someone needs to store them.
> Michel
>
> > > > Right now there aren't enough tables, period. We have 6 full
> > > sets, counting the roundhouse and the blue-topped 30x30.
> >
> > I seem to recall Michel saying at some point that the table count had
> > turned out to be inaccurate?? Six full sets as in six 30x60s and six
> > 30x30s? That would mean then that two additional 30x60s (plus
> > something lower for the mountain/bridge section) would be needed?
> >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> ...The ["standard" LEGO train table] legs are very labor intensive,
> and I still haven't finished the legs from the tables I made last year.
> I believe that the PNLTC guys have eliminated the attachable legs, due
> to the long set up time. If we could somehow use folding legs that would
> save a lot of time, both now and in the future. Steve could you post
> to the IOLTC asking them about their current table standards?
I did so, and John Neal started to reply, but then figured it would
be better to discuss it here so that others could contribute to - and
benefit from - the discussion. OK John - you have the floor... 8-)
SRC
L#765
StRuCtures
|
|
| |
Steve Chapple wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> > ...The ["standard" LEGO train table] legs are very labor intensive,
> > and I still haven't finished the legs from the tables I made last year.
> > I believe that the PNLTC guys have eliminated the attachable legs, due
> > to the long set up time. If we could somehow use folding legs that would
> > save a lot of time, both now and in the future. Steve could you post
> > to the IOLTC asking them about their current table standards?
>
> I did so, and John Neal started to reply, but then figured it would
> be better to discuss it here so that others could contribute to - and
> benefit from - the discussion. OK John - you have the floor... 8-)
Ahem, well, okay then:-)
First off, I will say that there is no current "standard". The GMLTC used
30"x45" tables for our last layout (actually just a skosh longer on each
dimension to avoid module buckling). This size is convenient because it is
the area of 6 large gray baseplates. For the legs we used regular ol' metal
folding ones you can buy at any Home Depot or such for about $12 (for a
pair). They are 30" high.
I think we used 1/2 thick plywood, but the tables were reinforced with a rim
of 2x4s underneath for added stremph. We ran them long ways. Here is a
schematic of the old layout:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2213
The flared-out modules were the last ones we built and where we got taste of
a deeper size with which to work. Our new layout was supposed to be the same
dimensions, only turned 90 degrees to make the depth be 45". In fact, we
even set some standards with the Mike Poindexter of the BayLTC.
Unfortunately, due to space limitations in our trailer, we had to alter our
dimensions. In order to maximize what space was available to us, we decided
to go with the tables being 40"x60" (long ways). Conan is having the frames
for these modules built from aluminum, so we are digressing away from any
sort of standard.
Having said all of that, I would say that if there were to be some standard,
I would recommend 30 x 45, and have the tables be 30" high. This is what I
use for my home layout. Personally, I used 3/4 plywood and no bracing. I
used high quality plywood (birch, I think), and had Home Depot cut them right
there. The other nice thing about 30 x 45 is that you get 3 tables out of 1
sheet of 4' x 8' with little waste. The folding legs screw in easily, and
you're good to go. 30 x 45 is easy to handle and maneuver, and can fit
through most doorways flat. I run mine 45" deep like the BayLTC layout does,
although I am only building up my modules 16 bricks, which is the minimum
I've found to allow for subway car clearance.
Uh, I guess I rambled on a little more than I had planned:-p Any other
thoughts about setting a standard for tables?
-John
> L#765
> StRuCtures
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Neal writes:
<snip>
> I think we used 1/2 thick plywood, but the tables were reinforced with a rim
> of 2x4s underneath for added stremph. We ran them long ways.
At first I tried to imagine a rim of LEGO 2x4s reinforcing the tables! :)
Build well,
Andreas Stabno
http://www.lugnet.com/~19/
|
|
| |
I agree that the folding legs are the way to go if you want to save space in
transporting them and setting up. I used the "conventional" bolt on legs for
a year and that was all I could take. I was tired of being the last group to
leave the train shows. So I converted our tables to use the folding table
legs:
http://www.ngltc.org/legooutlet2000/setup.jpg
I bought them online for $30 a pair, wasn't bad and they really seem to be
pretty sturdy.
jt
--
James J. Trobaugh
North Georgia LEGO Train Club
http://www.ngltc.org
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3AFA123D.6D7C5868@uswest.net...
>
>
> Steve Chapple wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, Michel Magnan writes:
> > > ...The ["standard" LEGO train table] legs are very labor intensive,
> > > and I still haven't finished the legs from the tables I made last year.
> > > I believe that the PNLTC guys have eliminated the attachable legs, due
> > > to the long set up time. If we could somehow use folding legs that • would
> > > save a lot of time, both now and in the future. Steve could you post
> > > to the IOLTC asking them about their current table standards?
> >
> > I did so, and John Neal started to reply, but then figured it would
> > be better to discuss it here so that others could contribute to - and
> > benefit from - the discussion. OK John - you have the floor... 8-)
>
> Ahem, well, okay then:-)
>
> First off, I will say that there is no current "standard". The GMLTC used
> 30"x45" tables for our last layout (actually just a skosh longer on each
> dimension to avoid module buckling). This size is convenient because it • is
> the area of 6 large gray baseplates. For the legs we used regular ol' • metal
> folding ones you can buy at any Home Depot or such for about $12 (for a
> pair). They are 30" high.
>
> I think we used 1/2 thick plywood, but the tables were reinforced with a • rim
> of 2x4s underneath for added stremph. We ran them long ways. Here is a
> schematic of the old layout:
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2213
> The flared-out modules were the last ones we built and where we got taste • of
> a deeper size with which to work. Our new layout was supposed to be the • same
> dimensions, only turned 90 degrees to make the depth be 45". In fact, we
> even set some standards with the Mike Poindexter of the BayLTC.
> Unfortunately, due to space limitations in our trailer, we had to alter • our
> dimensions. In order to maximize what space was available to us, we • decided
> to go with the tables being 40"x60" (long ways). Conan is having the • frames
> for these modules built from aluminum, so we are digressing away from any
> sort of standard.
>
> Having said all of that, I would say that if there were to be some • standard,
> I would recommend 30 x 45, and have the tables be 30" high. This is what • I
> use for my home layout. Personally, I used 3/4 plywood and no bracing. I
> used high quality plywood (birch, I think), and had Home Depot cut them • right
> there. The other nice thing about 30 x 45 is that you get 3 tables out of • 1
> sheet of 4' x 8' with little waste. The folding legs screw in easily, and
> you're good to go. 30 x 45 is easy to handle and maneuver, and can fit
> through most doorways flat. I run mine 45" deep like the BayLTC layout • does,
> although I am only building up my modules 16 bricks, which is the minimum
> I've found to allow for subway car clearance.
>
> Uh, I guess I rambled on a little more than I had planned:-p Any other
> thoughts about setting a standard for tables?
>
> -John
>
> > L#765
> > StRuCtures
>
|
|
| |
Andreas Stabno wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.nalug, John Neal writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think we used 1/2 thick plywood, but the tables were reinforced with a rim
> > of 2x4s underneath for added stremph. We ran them long ways.
>
> At first I tried to imagine a rim of LEGO 2x4s reinforcing the tables! :)
lol, Oops, I guess I should have been more careful with my wording-- that's
funny!
-John
> Build well,
>
> Andreas Stabno
> http://www.lugnet.com/~19/
|
|
| |
For the train clubs that use folding legs, I was wondering if you could answer
the following:
1. If you don't have enough Lego bricks to cover the entire surface of the
talbles, how do you hold the adjacent tables together?
2. Do you have a problem with keeping the tables at the same height, given
the varrying floring conditions at various venues?
3. Can you alter the height of the folding legs, the PNLTC refers to some
kind of "pipe sock" to do this. Anyone have any idea as to how this was
done?
Thanks for your time.
Michel Magnan
> I agree that the folding legs are the way to go if you want to save space in
> transporting them and setting up. I used the "conventional" bolt on legs for
> a year and that was all I could take. I was tired of being the last group to
> leave the train shows. So I converted our tables to use the folding table
> legs:
|
|
| |
1) We don't cover our tables with bricks (they are painted LEGO brick
green), we use spring loaded clamps to hold the tables together (they're
about a $1 a piece at Home Depot)
2)I always take a few pieces of cardboard with me to shim up the tables if
the floor isn't level, they work great and I just toss them after the show.
3) I believe the pipe they're referring to is just PVC pipe that fits over
the legs
Hope that helps,
jt
--
James J. Trobaugh
North Georgia LEGO Train Club
http://www.ngltc.org
Michel Magnan <m_magnan@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:GDI6pF.C0w@lugnet.com...
> For the train clubs that use folding legs, I was wondering if you could • answer
> the following:
> 1. If you don't have enough Lego bricks to cover the entire surface of the
> talbles, how do you hold the adjacent tables together?
> 2. Do you have a problem with keeping the tables at the same height, • given
> the varrying floring conditions at various venues?
> 3. Can you alter the height of the folding legs, the PNLTC refers to some
> kind of "pipe sock" to do this. Anyone have any idea as to how this was
> done?
> Thanks for your time.
> Michel Magnan
>
> > I agree that the folding legs are the way to go if you want to save space • in
> > transporting them and setting up. I used the "conventional" bolt on legs • for
> > a year and that was all I could take. I was tired of being the last group • to
> > leave the train shows. So I converted our tables to use the folding table
> > legs:
|
|
|
