 | | Re: GATS size —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) It looks like you are suggesting 3 tables deep, and I am wondering if that will give rise to some of the same issues or not. What do folks think? It may be better to have a narrower layout with more space in the center for a work area even if (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: GATS size —Steve Ringe
|
| | | | (...) is (...) few (...) I think if we keep the train yard at 2 tables deep that will allow us easy acces to the switches, etc. I also think that we could use areas at 3 tables wide for the airport and town. Thats what I was thinking with that (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: GATS size —Chris Leach
|
| | | | (...) Kinda what i was thinking.I wasn't sure until you just posted how big you train yard was and how many tables you would need.I think a mix if we can would work. (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: GATS size —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 3 is just very wide. You can't hand people stuff like flyers across 3 tables, and you can't reach the interior, so anything that's 3 tables wide would need not to have track in the middle of it in case of a derailment... that's my opinion. (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: GATS size —Chris Leach
|
| | | | (...) As for flyers yes i see that is a long way to reach.That is why we always will need people on the outside talking to people and keeping our future AFOLs from grabbing etc. (...) Larry of course you are right about not having easy access in the (...) (23 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.org.us.michlug)
|
| | | | |
