Subject:
|
after action report
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.nalug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:00:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1193 times
|
| |
|
|
Clearly this discussion belongs here, so…
Michel wrote:
I thought that it would probably be the best time to comment on what went
well, what was forgotten, and what needs to be changed next time. My wife
has been very receptive to the idea of another show in Edmonton next year!
Just as long as I don't have to build more tables. It really took the fun
out of the preparations to make tables for most of the last month before
the show.
Good things about the show.
1. Your help, without it there would have been no way I could have
managed, thanks again.
2. Rope barriers are absolutely needed.
3. Two days is lots, set up time was adequate.
4. At least two independent loops of train track, even better if they
are connected to allow more complicated switching.
5. The monorail.
Areas to improve:
1. More space in the middle for the operator(s)
2. A bar stool for the operator(s).
3. More stable and more visible bases for the posts for the rope barriers.
4. A children’s play area.
5. More mechanization, to pique the adult interest.
6. More handouts, and box to hold them on the edge of the display.
7. Bring more 9V connectors, and track connectors.
8. Bring regular masking tape in addition to the duct tape and less
sticky green tape.
9. A cross over track, with safeties to prevent crashes.
10. Entire layout accessible to 8 wides.
11. Prepare earlier.
12. More and/or larger sidings.
Ideas for next layout:
I have 5 30.5x30.5 inch tables, and 5 30.5x61 inch tables, including the
special table with the pit for the elevator. I also have a special 30.5x30.5
table, designed as a port, it is dropped 8 inches from the current table
height, and will have its surface painted blue. Room for several boats, and
cranes on 2 or three sides, as one side is open. Another 30.5x61 table is for
the roundhouse and turntable pit, I don't think it will make the next show.
I will have to assemble enough legs for these extra tables, wood already cut,
so not a big deal. I want to repaint the legs, since they have discolored.
First decision, is do we lay the tables two deep, or stick to mostly one deep.
Narrower allows easier access to the layout from either inside or out.
Narrower also means we can have a larger footprint to the layout and longer
runs. Wider means we could easily fit 3 independent loops plus the monorail,
as well as a more prototypical wide switching yard.
[play table]
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
[ ][ ][s][ ][ ]
[ ] b [ ]
This is one possible, each [ ] represents a 30.5x30.5 section. The [s]
is the special port table, and the b is empty span for several bridges.
I would probably offset the [s] table down 1/3 of a table, to allow maybe
another bridge to the top of the [s] table. Offsetting the lower central
portion [ ][s][ ] and [ ] b [ ] upward one third of a table into the "u"
shape of the other tables would also allow a bit more flexibility for the
port and access to the bridge area.
In planning, I find the use of 15 squares is easier, obviously 10 of the
squares will be replaced by 5 of the rectangular tables in the final layout!
It may not work this time, but eventually it would be nice to have one of the
vertical sides with steam engines and old fashioned cars, with old western
town and related structures, and the parallel vertical side, more modern with
the monorail and diesels, and modern buildings.
The play table would be lower, with gutters around the outside, with 3 ovals
of track each with a regulator modified to limit maximum speed. Johns nice
NALUG sign could sit on the edge of the short table (represented by the
underline) leaning and supported by the edge of the larger layout. Acting
as a barrier to hands reaching the layout, and as a wall to prevent crashes
into the kids area!
Please add any comments into the appropriate sections.
Thanks again.
Michel
Chris wrote:
> I thought that it would probably be the best time to comment on what
> went well, what was forgotten, and what needs to be changed next time.
> My wife has been very receptive to the idea of another show in Edmonton
> next year! Just as long as I don't have to build more tables. It
> really took the fun out of the preparations to make tables for most of
> the last month before the show.
More tables than we had would be good, but if you already have them, or
essentially, then that shouldn't be a problem. If push comes to shove,
I'm sure they could be done elsewhere. They layout *could* fit in my
living room, but it would be pretty awkward!
> Good things about the show.
> 1. Your help, without it there would have been no way I could have
> managed, thanks again.
> 2. Rope barriers are absolutely needed.
> 3. Two days is lots, set up time was adequate.
> 4. At least two independent loops of train track, even better if they
> are connected to allow more complicated switching.
> 5. The monorail.
Agreed to all. I think the sheer variety of trains available was also
quite good - it gave people something else to see if they came back
another time. I noted that on several occasions the working crossing
gate and lights were hits with the younger set, and even with adults.
Sadly, running trains around fast was also an attention getter!
> Areas to improve:
> 1. More space in the middle for the operator(s)
Agreed.
> 2. A bar stool for the operator(s).
Perhaps even outside, too?
> 3. More stable and more visible bases for the posts for the rope barriers.
Definitely. Perhaps simply having them higher. A suggestion I heard was
to use barbell weights. A pain to lug around, but less moveable.
> 4. A children’s play area.
I am (strongly) opposed to this, for a variety of reasons.
> 5. More mechanization, to pique the adult interest.
Agreed. I think more variety would be good too. Here I'm thinking more
of the static scenery and structures than the rolling stock, which is
already quite varied. James' buildings were an excellent start - I'd
like to see an entire town. Your suggestion of a western area makes
some sense, too. With space, time and ambition, I could make something
out of my Technic control center that does something useful. I had
thoughts in that direction for a mine, but I didn't have the time, and
their wasn't the space anyway.
> 6. More handouts, and box to hold them on the edge of the display.
Definitely. I don't think we should have any handouts that are just Lugnet.
We should have combined ones that clearly explain who we and Lugnet are,
and what the relationship is. We definitely need our contact info.
> 7. Bring more 9V connectors, and track connectors.
> 8. Bring regular masking tape in addition to the duct tape and less
> sticky green tape.
> 9. A cross over track, with safeties to prevent crashes.
> 10. Entire layout accessible to 8 wides.
> 11. Prepare earlier.
> 12. More and/or larger sidings.
Definitely. Having been a fan of model railroading in my younger years,
I'd like to see much more regular switching and much less "five finger
switcher" activities. It takes longer, but I think the true railroad
folks at the show would appreciate it a lot.
> Ideas for next layout:
Sounds good to me.
One suggestion: perhaps one end of the layout could be the full 61 inches.
That way, we could have a significant area just for structures that the
trains mostly run through. There could be one or two switches servicing
them near the edges, but none in the out-of-reach interior space. The
show is a train show, but if you look at other layouts, you see that they
have incorporated a lot of different things into the train activity. We
could do the same.
-Chris G.
John wrote:
> 4. At least two independent loops of train track, even better if
> they are connected to allow more complicated switching.
It was good to have two loops plus a monorail. This way, when one
loop was inactive, there were still two other loops running to
attract interest.
> Areas to improve:
> 1. More space in the middle for the operator(s)
> 2. A bar stool for the operator(s).
> 3. More stable and more visible bases for the posts for the rope barriers.
Perhaps sandbags could help to keep the bases stationary.
> 4. A children’s play area.
Hmm. Depends on what is a "play area":
- if it is a building area, then there could be chaos.
Not enthusiastic about this.
- if it is a low table with one or two small loops with one
or two controllers positioned far enough away (e.g. 2'?),
this would be better. Kids could operate the train(s),
but not build them. Thoughts?
In either case, if the play area were in front of our layout,
it would be constantly crowded with parents and kids. If
possible, have it off to one side, blocking the real layout
as little as possible:
[play][][][][][]
[area][] []
[][][][][]
> 5. More mechanization, to pique the adult interest.
Shamelessly, I ask: Any room for a Technic crane? :-]
It would only need 3"x3" on a table and would be high enough
not to interfere with anything else.
Now, this is Technic scale of course. The only way that it
would fit is that we have a small area off to one side reserved
for (stationary?) 14-wides. Our own Mr. Eight-wide could build
a bigger red engine. How about it Kevin? :-]
John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: after action report
|
| (...) Good to hear - remember your family is more important than any amount of LEGO. Spend time with them rather than us whenver they want to. That said, have you mentioned the Feb.17&18 2001 Calgary show? I was thinking that if you couldn't make (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.org.ca.nalug)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
