Subject:
|
Re: Train Tables
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:40:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
666 times
|
| |
|
|
Actually I have thought of about most of these redesigns. Many of them the
main differance in my mind is Cost. I think our tables everything included run
us under $15 per table. I think the folding legs cost about $16 per pair, or
$32 per table... Ouch!!!
Then the clips are another cost on top of that... Plus Paint... not to mention
the extra labor in creating the tables. All of those changes can be
retro-fitted into our tables without a lot of work however so if we want to do
it we just need to decide to pony up the cash and then have a retrofitting
party. (Right now I can create a table in about 1/2 hour plus travel time to
and from Home Depot, If that time increases I *will* need help)
As for the hieght, I specifically made our tables 29-30 inches because that is
1. Standard table hieght which increases the usefullness of the tables (I.E.
Brickwars).
2. I wanted the tables to be accessable for children unlike most standard
layouts at the shows.
As for the width.
1. If they lower the tables I think they will find they can reach across them
better.
2. Not everyone in our group is as short as Jorge. Most of us at most have to
streach a little to get to the middle.
3. These dimensions maximize the area of a 4'x8' piece of plywood.
4. I guess the SUV thing could become an issue but I am starting to think that
I don't know if we even want to expand the layout more then one more time. I
don't know what others think but I would rather we really work at building up
our current layout. Besides I don't want our train side to over run our other
talents. Don't get me wrong, I love the train shows but I would rather we
spread our focus and not narrow our focus to just trains and town. That said
one SUV ought to do it. Of course if some day I either don't have an SUV or
for some reason can't be at an event we have to have other options.
Anyway none of your ideas are bad ideas we just have to remember there is
another side to the coin. If cost isn't a factor and people want to do it then
lets talk and do it.
Eric Kingsley
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, David Eaton writes:
> I thought about bringing this up at the meeting, but maybe some other people
> out there have some thoughts on this too-- But I was thinking about
> redesigning any future tables (still compatible of course) after seeing
> WAMALUG's tables (I forget who designed them, though I know I was told at
> least twice)
>
> 1st off, the tables were really lightweight. I forget how heavy our tables
> are when fully assembled, but I could lift up a WAMALUG table with one hand
> without much trouble-- it also had a center support beam running underneath
> the top for easier 1-handed carrying.
>
> 2nd is the fact that the legs fold up inside the table instead of being
> attached upon arrival. This made it REALLY easy to assemble tables. We
> unfolded about 20? tables in only a couple minutes and had them ready to
> go-- plus we didn't need a socket wrench... (also probably would mean easier
> storage)
>
> The other thing they had was "clips" (which I never saw) that held the
> tables together, versus our actual bolting them together-- just another
> thing for a quickie setup...
>
> Oh yes, and the other kinda neat thing they did was paint the tabletops
> green so as to minimize the odd color patches between baseplates...
>
> As for disadvantages-- when talking to them, they said there were two things
> they would change: the height and the width. I think our tables are
> significantly shorter, but theirs were something like 3 feet high? I dunno.
> But it was such that little kids couldn't see over the top as they said.
>
> The 2nd thing they said they wanted to change was to make it a 3x3 baseplate
> dimention, rather than a 4x4, seeing as they had some problems reaching the
> middle with some of the larger buildings. I don't think we've really had
> this issue in the past-- but the other advantage they said it would have
> would be that they could fit in any-old-car, not just a van/SUV. Of course,
> neither of these have been problems for us yet, seeing as we don't have HUGE
> buildings, and the tables have always found a home in Eric's car which can
> easily fit the tables...
>
> Anyway, some things to keep in mind if we ever decide to add new tables or
> want to revamp the old ones...
>
> DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Train Tables
|
| (...) Ah yes.. I knew I must've been forgetting something :) Well perhaps just thoughts for later then... when/if we have money and when/if we feel the desire... Actually, they said one of the reasons they were the way they were was because often (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Train Tables
|
| I thought about bringing this up at the meeting, but maybe some other people out there have some thoughts on this too-- But I was thinking about redesigning any future tables (still compatible of course) after seeing WAMALUG's tables (I forget who (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jul-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
