Subject:
|
Re: BayLUG/LTC Meeting Agenda and Modules Proposals/ideas
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.us.ca.sf
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Feb 2000 18:44:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
Mark Benz <mbenz@broadvision.com> wrote in message
news:000201bf718c$63282a40$14b66ed1@broadvision.com...
> Hi All,
>
> I guess a big question is how many people are "in" or interested in both
> clubs. I would expect a lot of, if not complete overlap. I am also • concerned
> that if we do not have a significant amount of "open to the public" time • the
> Library may frown. While they have closed meetings there from time to • time,
> their experience with us to date is excellent and is not in that mode. I
> don't see why this meeting cannot be the kickoff of the train club, as a
> spin-off or SIG from the "core" group as a "Train" themed meeting etc.
I would suggest perhaps an hour or two of open "show time" to simulate
having an actual train show going, except that we only have a few hours and
a lot to discuss, as this is our first meeting. We could hash out some of
the details while the train display is running for walk-ins. They would be
a distration to our meeting, but as it is on a Sunday, traffic will be
minimal, which makes it a little easier to deal with.
>
> We should also think about when the next meeting(s) of one or both groups • is
> and book the room SOON.
Agreed. For the train layouts, I would prefer the Fukaya room, as it is
considerably closer for me, very large, has a lot of tables and we can set
up next to the window for a nice display.
> It would be nice to do as much planning/proposing up front to minimize the
> "meeting" time of the meet, and maximize the "fun". So please read on..
I will type up a sheet for the agenda. It would help if people propose
items to discuss beforehand so that we may all have some time to think about
them before we show up there.
>
> Proposed Agenda:
> 12:45 be there, ready to set up.
>
> 1:00 Get/arrange tables for meet. Who wants to plan the table "layout"? • (3x3
> table square, dog bone, etc?) Do we use parts of the table layout • discussed
> months ago? It didn't really plan on a large train set up.
>
> 1:20 Meeting
> Org. Structure
> Module Standards
> Meetings Schedule
> NMRA Show Involvement
> Bull Session/Set up
> OTHER ITEMS?????
>
> 2:30 - 4:30 Open to the Public
> Parts Pile
> Train Ops
> Displays, Any particular theme? (other than trains)
> Trades, etc.
>
> 4:30 Clean up
>
> 5 - 11PM PARTY AT ZONKERS!! :-D
>
> Also, before we get involved in design, it appears there an assumption • that
> these will be for 9 volt trains. While I'm fine with that, I just wanted • to
> state it and have heads nodding, etc...
> Are people planning to bring any older train stuff?
The layout will be completely 9Volt, but if people want to have independant
smaller loops on their own modules that run 4.5V or 12V, that is fine with
me. I do not really have a lot of older train stuff to bring. The only one
I know of that has older train stuff is Derrick Bulkley. By the way, has
anybody heard from him in a while? I think he has been out of the loop (no
pun intended) on this thing.
>
> Longer term planning:
>
> Do we want to have stand-alone, self contained modules, use available
> tables, use tables with layout boards on top, or combinations???
I am personally making GMLTC style modules with monstrous numbers of basic
bricks. I am assuming most other people in the club will not want to make
that style of module, so we will need to keep mine together and run
transition modules between my section and the rest. I have already
purchased or have on order 300 of the bulk tubs, so I am kind of past the
point of no return. That is enough tubs to make 6 modules, more or less and
about 25-30% of my final layout, depending on how I set it up in my garage.
>
> About modules, I have the standards for the South Bay Modular RR, an HO
> modular club I was in LA, somewhere at home I can share if I can find • them.
> We had tracks set at 4, 6, 8 and 26" from the front of the modules, with • the
> 4 and 26 as optional. Obviously this spacing is too close for Lego track.
> All modules were in even numbers of feet long, and depth was usually 30 or
> 36". The rail height was 48" off the floor. Members could build
> multiple-module yards, etc, that were internally compatible and met the • club
> standards at the ends.
This is one of the reasons I want to run 45" deep on the modules - it
constrains us too much to have only 30". I think that people should have
modular sections, where they should meet the module standards at the
beginning and end of their section, but interior joins of modules in a
"section" are free to be routed anywhere the owner deems best. This is
better, since even a 60" run of a module doesn't allow much in the way of
flexibility on tracks moving in and out.
>
> Modules were built of 1x3 or 1x4s with thin plywood/foam scenery. Legs • were
> 2x2s or larger with t-nut leveling legs. Electrical was homebuilt, and is
> now called DCC command control. Standard multi-lug connectors were used, • and
> either C or spring clamps to hold the modules together when operating.
>
> I have no idea if there is a module design from other areas like PNWLTC or
> ??? It would be good to be compatible, but I would guess inter-club meets
> would be very rare, with only an occasional "interloper" from a • neighboring
> club attending. So we could pretty much set the spacing we want, but • should
> consider at least inter-track consistency, like is PNWLTC spacing 6 inches
> between or what? I also liked the fact that there was a "branchline" near
> the rear at 26". How about 6, 10 and 26" (or 24") from the front?
>
> Comments please.
>
> Mark
The track positions should be measured in studs, I would guess, for ease and
it cuts down on converting back and forth, assuming we use baseplates or
bricks for the bottoms of our modules. GMLTC uses a 4 stud border on the
outside, then a track, then 2 studs, then another track. I think that the 4
stud border is chosen for us, based on the geometry of the curved track. At
that border, the tracks break on the module breaks. I feel that there
should be 8 studs between the two tracks, as it both allows modified points
(cut and glue, I know, but they should have been made like this to begin
with) to pass a train from track one to track two. It also cuts down on
collisions on curves, which might become an issue if 8-wides are going to be
run on the layout. I can go over all our options at the meeting and show
people what I am thinking, which makes more sense when you see it, but that
takes time and we only have 4 hours there, unless we all go to dinner
afterwards and continue discussions that don't require visuals.
Mike Poindexter
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
