| |
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 with the modules rattling around inside the trailer.
(That is how we lost the second layout, score one for the potholes.) If there
was another group that had the intention of building lego modules nearby that
would be great. But I have yet to see another Lego layout at the shows we can
get too, much less a modular layout. The people in Minneapolis who are prone
to build their own modules are free to do so. But the ones I know that have
enough bricks seem more interested in playing with Conan's. <grin>
The standards can be set by the people who need them, but it seems a little
early in the game to set standards for a modular system for two clubs that
will likely never have a joint display. If such a display were to happen,
well, it's lego. We could build in a bridge solution to make the gap. That
is the beauty of the medium.
okay, I'm done until tonight now. :-)
-john
In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 2 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (24 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. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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. (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
