 | | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Legomodular standards
|
|
(...) (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?
|
|
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?
|
|
(...) 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?
|
|
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?
|
|
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)
|
