| |
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.
Forget about trucks, trailers, paying for stuff, and all the rest. It's
divisive. No one knows or has internalised how much of Conan's LIFE has been
poured into this hobby, he's been exhibiting for 15 years, all out of his
pocket.
Here, in essence, stripping all the other stuff away, is what I propose:
- Module length be 60 inches. Width can be whatever it needs to be.
Rationale: 65 is not a very round number.
- Some small number of module boundaries (2, 4, certainly less than 1/2 of all
of them) be such that 2 (or maybe 3, GMLTC wants 3 mains) tracks are at a
known distance inward from the outside edge and a known distance from the
floor.
If GMLTC wants to set that distance/height, great. GMLTC is there first, so why
not. Track to track spacing should accomodate 8 wide by 44L rolling stock
throughout the layout
Rationale: Height from floor is what really matters, not how many bricks high
it is from the module bottom, since when you mate modules the thing that
matters is the total elevation. If tables underneath the modules happen to also
be the same height, that's nice, and then the brick height matters but I think
that's more than what is needed to ensure minimum compatability.
Having said that, and despite the fact that I plan to push for it, it's, in the
final analysis, Conan's decision. Thats the way GMLTC works. It's his stuff.
GMLTC is not a democracy. Stuff that other people donated doesn't mean they get
votes. It doesn't work that way. The rest of the club can come up with
consensus input to Conan, yes, but that's about it.
In the case of BAYLTC I suspect it's somewhat similar. Mike P put up all the
cash to buy the parts to make all the modules, of course Mike should have more
of a say than anybody else.
If GMLTC decides to go their own way instead of helping drive a legomodular
standard, that will be too bad and I'll be sorely disappointed, but again, it's
Conan's call. No one else has invested what he has in time and in materials.
As a reminder, this has nothing to do with the plywood guys like PNLTC and
NGLTC, this is about legomodular only.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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?
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
84 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
|
|
|
|
