 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
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
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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:
| | | | | | |
