| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Martin writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> > > Anyway no need to repeat what is on the website here. If you have a question
> > > for us we will be glad to try and answer your questions.
> > >
> > > http://www.nelug.org/greenberg1200/
>
>
> > I'm curious about how you came to decide to use 4 wide tables and what
> > problems you ran into.
>
> Well I can think of a couple reasons why we went with 4 wide tables
> (40.25"x40.25").
>
> 1. It was more economical. If we were to do 3bp x 6bp you only get one table
> out of a 4'x8' sheet. This way you get 2 tables per sheet.
That seemed a bit of a waste to me as well.
> 2. We liked the flexibility of 4 deep as opposed to 3 deep.
Actually this was the main reason for me. While designing my layout (in
TD), most sections had 3 and 4 tracks side by side. It just didn't leave
much room for roads and buildings.
> I can't think of any problems we ran into other than we had Home Depot cut the
> tables and they are about 1/8" short in one direction and 1/8" long in the
> other. Not something a little fudging doesn't take care of though.
I had mine cut at the store (Lowe's) as well. Amazingly, they got it right.
A good thing too since I've got 16 sections instead of 4. If they had been
off, that would have been a lot of fudging to do. I think I might try 4x8
though for my next extension.
> One advantage to 3bp x 6bp tables however is that they fit 48x48 baseplates in
> a 2bp x 4bp setup. That was one factor we were willing to give up for the
> advantages listed above.
Actually, you can still do that. You would just have a border of 32x32
baseplates on 3 sides.
Regards,
Steve Martin
martinsa@mail.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
