 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
