Subject:
|
Re: Train Tables
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:05:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
664 times
|
| |
|
|
Tom Cook designed them, but I can clarify some things here...
David Eaton wrote:
> 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)
Still compatible is important!
> 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.
I actually don't think of them as light, but i'm a wuss - and it scares
me that your tables are heavier! Tom could tell you what width wood and
such he used.
> 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)
25 tables, yes, they go up fast, down too.
> 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...
big clips, they look like jumper cable clips.
> 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...
let's not talk about that :) the green looks better than wood colored,
but it's a bad green, and was supposed to be a lot closer to LEGO green
than it was.
> 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.
To clairify here... some of our layouts put the tables 2 deep in
sections - that's when we can't reach... kind of pain to have to throw a
point 80" away. The height isn't as a big deal... it's a thing for the
kids, not for us.
> 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...
the 3 x 3 is good because it would fit with the 4 x 4 (we could have
some stick out, or could match them up accordingly)... we're not ready
for any more tables, so i don't know when/if we'd ever do that... or if
we'd replace *gasp* the old ones... i'd feel sad if we ever got rid of
these... it'd be a huge waste.
> Anyway, some things to keep in mind if we ever decide to add new tables or
> want to revamp the old ones...
I think Tom's got some info, i'll forward your message to him, i'm sure
he doesn't read this list :)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
