 | | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) Right. And to make it work, it's not required that every group conform to some rigid standard (ala N-trak), although that gives you the most flexibility. *all* that is required is that a few modules from each layout can somehow interface, not (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Sounds good to me. You must have posted this while I was working on my own (somewhat more formally worded version) of the same. Pretty fast - do you do this for a living or something? ;) (...) Pick a name, start a mailing list. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: I<whatever>LTC summary
|
|
(...) That was one of the topics we talked and dreamed about at the 'summit' in New York - how "awesome" it would be to have a show where two or three (or more!) different LTCs could display. (Either separately or as one huge combined layout.) Can (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | The formation of an ILTCO
|
|
There has been much discussion by groups wondering whether or not affiliation to this org would be beneficial or not. So I think that it would be helpful to discuss such a group's charter. I see 2 benefits: The first would relate directly to train (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | I*LTC charter
|
|
A lot of the bouncing around has been of what I*LTC would be/do/want/need/whatever. Here's a proposal, in an attempt to move things forward a bit more quickly. Obviously, this should/will need tweaking; it's based on what I've seen bandied about, (...) (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
