Subject:
|
Re: Train layout ideas for future Ontario/Canada train shows
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.ca.on
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 May 2006 13:20:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.ca.on, James Powell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.loc.ca.on, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
| |
And for what its worth, I like going with the “Can-Brick” or
“CLBA” - Canadian LEGO Brick Association. Although since there are active
lugs in other provinces... maybe “OLBA” (you can even say it as a word,
giggle) Ontario Lego Brick Association would be better. In fact I would even
like to make up official train container cars once we decide, if that is
permissible to you.
|
CanBrick should not be taken by a single area club, IMO. (Victoria speaks
up!)
|
THe idea would be that anyone from Canada can use CanBrick :) It’s kinda a
‘catch all’ wehn multiple groups do a show and don’t want to be pegged as a
specific LUG.
| |
| |
One final thought for now... I like the addition to adding the curved
modules... but I do think if we go that route, we need one sole person
responsible for both mods, therefore if they dont show, we can go with the
straight route.
|
Not too important, as long as it is known in advance that the module is not
going to show up. It is perfectly possible to have a L shaped layout. Not
sure if any of you will remember seeing St Albans, a finescale OO layout, but
it reguarly showed as a L shape, even though now it is U shaped. (I think it
was easier to run as a L than a U, because I kept running into the other
operator...). The other thing is that if the baseplate level is used as 0,
then it will be easy enough to cobble together a curve module, literally on
the fly. (PNLTC stylin’)
James Powell
|
We did the same at rtlT1 and rtlT2. After that, it was into the integrated
layout.
Thanks for the info, James!
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
