Subject:
|
Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:26:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
643 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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
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 tables, etc. took (IIRC) five people nearly two hours. Eric
Kingsley came up with an alternate design that uses PVC pipe inserted into
pressure-fit rings on the underside of the tables.
We are also planning another modification which will adversely affect the
strength of the tabletops. We plan to drill four ~5/8" holes 10" in from
each corner of the tables for the purpose of feeding wires down to
transformers, RCXes, and battery boxes without having to run them all the
way to the edge of the layout.
We generally don't dance on our tables, although the old design was
certainly strong enough to support a single person if they were careful.
(We married folks are another story!) The new design is a bit less sturdy
in the lateral direction, but it should support our layout without any
problems. Especially once we bolt several tables together, as we always do
in our layouts.
Tonight is the big retrofit operation, so we'll post pictures soon, probably
tomorrow.
- Chris.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| (...) We went with folding legs we got from Rockler.com ((URL) , they bump the price up a little bit per table. But the time and space saving was worth the cost. Also we've been using spring loaded clamps to connect the tables together, this also is (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| Chris Phillips wrote in message ... (...) We (VLC) did this in a couple of places on our folding banquet tables at our shows this year and it made a big difference in looks - we do a lot of automation and previously the wires have been a real (...) (22 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains.org)
| | | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| (...) You guys may be doing something wrong. Since we use a mix of 30x30 and 30x60 we probably have somewhere near the same number of intertable seams that you do using 40x40s... and it would not take us anywhere NEAR 2 hours to make a table setup (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MichLUG Table Specs
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
