| |
john kelly <jkelly69@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:Frvws2.LtC@lugnet.com...
> 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.
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 couple of hooks that
could be put on the side of the trailer, but I have never seen your 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.
Although I agree that you could just make a transition module, I must say
that the time to set standards is when there are only 2 clubs instead of 20.
I couldn't convince people here to run 8 wide because they already had a lot
of 6 wide stock they didn't want to convert. Imagine how hard it will be
when 10 different module formats exist and nobody wants to rebuild. NOW IS
THE TIME! You are rebuilding yours. I am starting to put together mine. I
have enough new tubs to keep me sorting for 3 weeks. After that, I must
start building or I won't get finished in time for the NMRA. I have been
holding back on building while the BayLTC was forming to set up some
standards. We have come down to a committee of 3 to set up standards, but
being the headstrong person I am, I feel like it is going to be done my way,
with some possible concessions here or there to make everyone else happy.
Now I could just say, hey, BayLTC is good to go and lets do this how I want.
That would be great until I move to Memphis and take my Lego with me or
Conan moves to Las Vegas and suddenly, we are closer. Or maybe a group in
Denver forms and think they can make some conventions with both of us. But
the real reason we should set standards is not because of a known meeting
date in the future - it is because of the ones we don't know about.
How many problems could have been avoided if people could just agree to a
standard from the beginning? They did that with DVD, until Circuit City
decided to make DIVX. Stupid looking back on it, but they thought it was
more important than having a standard. You know how much work rebuilding
the layout will be. You don't want to do it again, do you? I don't.
I realize that it is Conan's layout and his say is final. It is also my
layout and my say is final. It would be nice if we could agree on a little
compatibility. How many people are sick of things not being compatible? We
have the LePaNDat project going on trying to get a standard nomenclature for
Lego parts. People understand that this is necessary. I have seen people
complain because they can't get 12V track anymore. The new trains are not
compatible with the onld ones. There were some trade-offs there that caused
some problems and also gave some benefits.
What benefits do we incur by having Conan's layout not compatible with mine?
I could have just started making mine my way and had it just how I wanted -
except that I want mine to be able to join with Conan's. There were some
major issues I had with his layout, but it is looking like most are going to
change and become like I wanted anyway, as they seemed to me to be the
natural choices. I would hate to see 90% of the differences disappear and
still be incompatible because we wanted to each hold on to our 10% of
differing opinions.
I know that 60" vs. 65" is an easy debate to win, but it is not about
winning a debate. (Unless it is 6 vs 8 wide <g,d&r>) This is about making
some compromises to make sure that everyone can do what they want on their
train layouts without excluding others from participating. It is not about
how often GMLTC and BayLTC are going to show together. It is about having a
standard set for all the (legomodular) train clubs to follow. I realize
that we could rebuild in the future, as Brian Williams says, but I do not
have 10+ people in my home town helping me. Sure, there are the BayLUG
guys, but they are 200 miles away. For the most part, I am doing this
alone. I don't have the stamina to build this layout twice. I want to do
it right the first time. I have drawn diagrams and pictures for at least 4
months on possible ways to set it up. The more though I and other put into
the layout standards, the better they will be.
There really isn't anyone else who has this style of module outside of the
Conan and myself, but I can almost guarentee that people will continue to
consider them. I would not be surprised if another legomodular builder pops
up in the next year. I know that a year ago, it was widely believed that
nobody else could build these style of modules because nobody had a
collection like Conan's backing their group. Well, that is not turning out
to be true, as I already have enough bricks in my garage and storage room to
complete 12 modules and that number keeps growing. Perhaps I will be the
only other person who steps up the the plate, but I doubt it. We have had,
what, 5 new train clubs pop up in the last year (NGLTC, FGLTC, GFLTC, BayLTC
and WAMALUG) and more seem to be coming in the future. How can anyone say
for certain that there will be no other clubs in their area, when it is
readily apparent that the ball is just starting to roll?
Mike Poindexter
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
