Subject:
|
Re: Train3 Updated Layout and Door Dimensions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:24:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
561 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang writes:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Jeff Elliott writes:
> > > -I measured the doors today at Lillian H Smith. The max width is 32". So
> > > if you use 1x2 framing around the modules for racking, you should be just
> > > okay. JeffE suggested bolting an N shape. Probably a good idea!
> >
> > Ummm, presumably, the MINIMUM width is 32"... ie, the narrowest
> > dimension we're forced to deal with. So I don't think putting 1x2s on
> > all 4 side will work at all:
>
> I meant maximium available width or maximum module width... But yeah,
> minimum width of the door would probably make more sense.
>
> > 30.75" (width of module)
> > + 2 x 0.75" (Thickness of 1x2)
> > = 32.25"
> >
> > And then there's the bolt heads. You'll have to leave two opposite
> > sides 1x2-free to get thru the door.
>
> Actually the modules are 30.25", so without bolt heads is 31.75. Plus I
> left some margin in there.
>
> Calum
Actually guys.....
The way that calum designed his racking system it WILL fit with no problems...
30.75" (width of module)
+ 1 x 0.75" (Thickness of 1x2)
= 31.5" + bolt head theckness...
(one because the 1 x 2 are off set, one in each corner, so all we would have
to do is bring the module in on a slight angle.....
Jeff VW
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Train3 Updated Layout and Door Dimensions
|
| (...) I meant maximium available width or maximum module width... But yeah, minimum width of the door would probably make more sense. (...) Actually the modules are 30.25", so without bolt heads is 31.75. Plus I left some margin in there. Calum (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
