 | | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | I have been envisioning a different idea. Start at, for example, 4 bricks + 1 plate at the audience side of the module. Run 1-2 main lines there. At the back of the module, run 1-2 main lines at an elevation of 22 bricks +1 plate. That leaves 18 (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard —John Gerlach
|
| | | | (...) I agree completely. That's why we try to do that exact thing on our 'common' sections - the sections that *always* line up next to each other. Building vertical is good - it adds a lot of interest and visual appeal... JohnG, GMLTC (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Proposed 'Legomodule' standard —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Terminology alert. I'd tend to call sections that are designed never to mate with anything else something other than "common", They're more or less unique, since the interface across the module boundary is non standard and unique to that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
