Subject:
|
Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:43:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, James Trobaugh writes:
>
> The designs look good. Why did you feel the need to make them heavier than
> previously designed tables? Have you experience an issue with tables not
> holding up to the weight of the layout? We have actually been trying to make
> our tables even lighter for simple ease of setup. Of course we don't have
> club members wanting to walk on our tables either.
I was one of the people advocating much lighter tables, mind you.
But since we tend to do these really BIG layouts (in many cases, 90" from
the outer table edge to the inner central space for many many feet) it gets
hard to do the setup of the central part without actually putting at least
kids, if not adults, onto the table tops to do the work. That requires strength.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| (...) NELUG is actually re-designing our tables for faster setup/breakdown at the expense of strength. We use mostly 40" square tables with a few half-width tables here and there. Our last layout was about 10' x 20' and just bolting legs onto (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| The designs look good. Why did you feel the need to make them heavier than previously designed tables? Have you experience an issue with tables not holding up to the weight of the layout? We have actually been trying to make our tables even lighter (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
10 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
|
|
|
|
