 | | Re: Bridge status and ideas (for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) What low table are you refering to? (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | RE: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Bridge status and ideas (was Constructions for GEMTS 2001)
|
|
John Koob wrote in message ... (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
| |
| | Re: Layout possibility
|
|
Chris Gray wrote in message ... (...) I beg to differ. It looks clean and organized, especially the yard. I suggest that we go for a more polished look this time, rather than size or wackyness. (...) Do we have enough room near the yard for stacks (...) (23 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
