 | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | (...) 14 tables, each 40" x 65" (128 studs x 208 studs). Total layout dimensions should be 672 studs x 1040 studs. Low end will have tracks at 8 (10?) bricks above the baseplate, high end will have tracks at 20 bricks above the baseplate. Tentative (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke
|
| | | | | (...) But that means you cant do any small layout by leaving away some middle sections, right? Or do you have some kind of big plates to be put under the lower modules? Are the points of giving track from one edge of a module to the next always the (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Daniel Siskind
|
| | | | | | (...) The idea brought forward so far is to have the modules at the high end of the set up to be built on adjustable table legs, where it can be continually raised up a few notches each time a new segment is added to from the low end. Dan (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | GMLTC Storm Watch 2000 —John Kelly
|
| | | | | Mayor Quimby Mobilizes Town Guard, Calls Emergency Session of Members Storm Watch 2000 (GMLTC Press, Legopolis) Meteorologists at the national weather service have declared Legopolis to be smack within the predicted landfall of Hurricane Neal, now (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Matthews
|
| | | | | Somehow, 65" doesn't sound right to me. Whole baseplates would be best, no? If you are going to go that long, why not bump up to 80" so that you can use standard hollow core doors for table tops. It would be an inexpensive solution... Build On! John (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | (...) If we just use the grey baseplates, 45x60 or 45x75 would make the most sense. But, our trailer is 76 inches wide, with a door 72 inches wide. With the 65 inch length, we can put the racks into the trailer sideways, and still have enough room (...) (25 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | I would venture to say that 45" x 60" would be better. The reason there is that even though you lose 5" on the length, you keep the modules in increments of lg. gray baseplates. That is important if you want to allow another group to slip module (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes: <snip> (...) <snip> Serious question: How likely is it that we'll ever be at a show where we need to think of "compatible modules"? The closest other train club (so far) to us is where? Georgia? PNTLC? We (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Charles Eric McCarthy
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) "ever"? Sooner or later, there will be a big North American Lego train show with lots of clubs attending. I bet it happens in less than ten years. When that happens, everyone who builds to 60" instead of 65" will be happy they did so. /Eric (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ah, who cares what gauge we make our railroad? No one else is ever going to build a railroad within 100 miles of us, so the fact that we're incompatible with everyone else doesn't matter. - president of a forgotten railroad, ca. 1835... (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Daniel Siskind
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The compatability issue is actually a moot point at the moment for the new GMLTC layout for a couple of reasons: 1.) GMLTC is switching to 8x44 stud rolling stock which will most likely be large to fit around corners, tunnels, bridges, towns (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.trains, Daniel Siskind writes: I draw on my 30 years of MR experience in my reply to Dan... (...) GMLTC (...) No it isn't and I will refute your reasons point by point. (...) I've been advocating larger clearances for some time now. Other (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Matthews
|
| | | | | | John Gerlach <john.gerlach@bestbu...ospam.com> wrote in message news:FruKv4.CA0@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) You need a bigger trailer! heehee :) I would seriously consider sticking with modules of standard baseplates, I know it is none of my (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | Methinks it would be easier in the long run to widen your trailer, or buy a new one, to run 45x60, rather than the totally oddball 40x65. ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | (...) Monitary donations will be expected / accepted then... Oh yea, we'll also need a bigger truck to *pull* this trailer - it's almost too much for the vehicle we've got now. So, if anyone wants to come up with $20,000 to $25,000 for our (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Consider 40 by 60 then. That's a nice round module size, it's 2x4 of the big grey 48x48 baseplates with one row of the smaller 32x32 baseplates (in the middle?) I just have to reiterate (and I'll be making the point again on the call) 65 is an (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | John Gerlach <john.gerlach@bestbu...ospam.com> wrote in message news:FrvorK.DuA@lugnet.com... (...) a (...) transportation (...) Listen to this one: Rent a U-Haul. You can get them fairly cheap and only need them for the shows. Then you can take as (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | OK, I think we're letting ourselves be worked up more than we should. I know it's true for me, I just had a rather heated offline exchange with John G, which is rather odd, he doesn't usually get excited, I must really be getting under his collar. (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Kelly
|
| | | | | | | I don't know that you can strip away the trucks, trailers and paying for stuff. Fact of the matter is that 65" works better for the trailer. I doubt that we will really have more of a problem with people wanting to attach to our layout than we will (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | | john kelly <jkelly69@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:Frvws2.LtC@lugnet.com... (...) doubt (...) to (...) trailer. Well, you could always secure your rack with either a spacer or lock the wheels. I would suggest that straps could hold it to a (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.trains, Mike Poindexter writes: <snip> (...) <snip> DVD vs. DIVX was not about 'standards', it was about profits. CC bought the sales pitch from the lawyers that they would make more money on DIVX than they could on DVD. DIVX players could (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Legomodular standards —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) (broken out for emphasis) (...) Whew... Fortunately, that's not what's being advocated. Track spacing and height need not be the same for all modules. Only for a few. And you've already said you're picking a standard size in the length/width (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | | | I think we are on the same track here. I am doing that as well. One option that I think all involved would want is that you can have a "section" comprised of X modules where nothing matches the module standards where they break up EXCEPT where the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was trying to get people to calm down from throwing out ideas like "well, just buy a new trailer" or "just rent a Ryder, never mind that you use the trailer for storage between shows", which are not particularly helpful suggestions. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Gerlach
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Again: Trailer is 76 inches wide. Trailer door is 72 inches wide. Between the wheelwells trailer is around 74 inches wide. We need to be able to get the racks into the trailer, and rotate them so they fit in 'cross ways'. This also gives us a (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —John Kelly
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I agree with that completely. :-) <Snip> (...) at (...) I agree with this too!!! wow. My thought on this is to incorporate some technic pegs in the wall of the section that can take any bridging strucuture that snaps on. So that if there were (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | | | | | John Kelly <jkelly69@skypoint.com> wrote in message news:Frw3yx.ELK@lugnet.com... (...) points (...) be (...) else's (...) strucuture (...) time a (...) span (...) Also leave some rows of technic bricks so that the bridge could use longer axles for (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Brian Williams
|
| | | | | | | Well, this is turning-out to be a long thread so I think I'll add my 2 cents. I'm a big supporter of modular standards. But practically speaking, it isn't likely that Conan's GMLTC modules are going to be run with many other-standard modules in the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke
|
| | | | | | Dear all, I'm impressed by the big amount of posts concerning module standards! And all this just because I started a little question in the beginning of this thread.... But to define standards seems to be a serious problem of all train clubs and I (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: New LEGO train realism? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) My point exactly. But it should be pointed out that the trailer can't practically be widened, it's an enclosed trailer and the walls are part of the structure and tied into the frame. Buying a new one would mean Conan would have bought 3 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| | | | |
