Subject:
|
Re: Discussion of Train Table Sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Dec 2004 04:49:25 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.trains.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> We all know that different LTCs around the world have different sized
> tables. NILTC uses 40x30, GPLR uses 30x60, IndyLUG uses 40x80, NBLTC uses
> 25x50, etc. There are previous more general discussions of train tables,
> e.g.
> http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=19828&t=i&v=a
> I'm interested in the pros and cons of table top sizes in particular.
> I've thought about this a bit; I'm curious to see what I missed.
SCLTC builds its own tables from 0.240 inch thick melamine coated hardboard and
uses 1.910 inch diameter black ABS pipe for the legs. Both materials are cheap
and readily available. The drawback to the hardboard is that it is not
waterproof, but the ABS pipe solves all ground contact issues (we've been
flooded in tents, so think ahead!). The tables use the same hardboard for the
sides and a crosslapped mesh of supports that result in a very stiff and strong
table. Another benefit is that we use just about 100% of the material in each 49
inch x 97 inch sheet.
We build all our tables on LEGO metric dimensions. The tables are 6 bricks high.
Our original basic sizes were 192 studs x 96 studs and 96 studs x 96 studs. We
added tables that were 32 studs by 32, 96, and 192 studs. More recently, we
prefer 48 studs by 48, 96, and 192 studs. The advantages of 48 over 32 is that
48 can hold 2 parallel tracks in a 90 degree turn. We use these narrower tables
for running hidden tracks in tunnels and for lowering the cost of terraforming.
The basic 192 x 96 stud and 96 x 96 stud tables allow members to build at home
and transport ready to go assemblies. We built crates with sides made out of
uncut 4 x 8 sheets of plywood with a rectangular plug 1/3 the way through the
middle. This allows 96 x 96 tables at one end and 192 x 96 tables at the other
end. We are considering cutting the crates down to separate the two sections to
make them easier to handle. One very nice feature of the crates is that they
knock down flat for storage, although we have taken to using them to store MOCs
ready-to-go.
We have yet to encounter doorways that cannot handle 96 stud wide tables. Bigger
would be a problem in our home.
I don't see much benefit in having smaller tables other than supporting layout
geometries and terraforming. Club members do not bring preassembled modules on
the smaller tables. Members who don't use vans, trucks, or trailers generally
don't bring preassembled modules, so table size is not critical for them.
Our tables are designed to be stackable, using the same ABS pipe we use for the
legs. We have a lot of precut legs that provide a net height of 30 inches. plus
lots that add multiples of 10 bricks either when stacking tables or going direct
to the ground. We also made some adjustable legs for use on uneven ground.
Stackability helps when joinging ajacent tables of different top heights: we
simply stack a table of the lower height under the higher table which allows us
to bolt the tables together.
We bolt the tables together at holes located every 16 studs and centered
vertically. We went to considerable trouble to produce a jig to locate these
holes precisely.
With regard to table tolerances, we do our best to mill our material so that
it's dead on, but there are issues with humidity and temperature shrinkage and
expansion. (The ABS pipe is notorious: lay the pipe in the sun for a few moments
and a 10 footer will expand by several plate thicknesses!). Given a choice,
smaller is absolutely better than bigger for table top dimenions. If the table
is too small, you can always add shims made of paper, cardboard, or whatever (so
far, we have not had to do this). BUT, if the table is too big, you can be
stuck. For example, imagine a 192 stud long section with bridge hangars on each
end. If the table is too long, you can't attach the bridges! We ran into this
once and solved it by swapping out the table on site.
We recently discoverd a great way set the table thickness during construction.
When we built our current batch of 84 tables, we took them to a local cabinet
maker with a $100,000 wide belt sander. He dialed in 57.6 mm and ran all our
tables through (upside down, of course) making them all perfectly flat, smooth,
and exactly 6 studs high. We got charged the minimum fee of $60 per hour and
knew we got a bargain. To take advantage of this, of course, you should
deliberately make your tables a tad (1/2 to 1 mm) too high.
-Ted
SCLTC
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Discussion of Train Table Sizes
|
| I have always been incredibly impressed by SCLTC tables. Heck, I am always impressed by SCLTC layouts, too. All custom-built tables are impressive to some degree. Here at LUCNY, us crazy New Yorkers discuss building our own tables regularly, but (...) (20 years ago, 13-Dec-04, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Discussion of Train Table Sizes
|
| We all know that different LTCs around the world have different sized tables. NILTC uses 40x30, GPLR uses 30x60, IndyLUG uses 40x80, NBLTC uses 25x50, etc. There are previous more general discussions of train tables, e.g. (URL) interested in the (...) (20 years ago, 12-Dec-04, to lugnet.trains.org)
|
35 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
|
|
|
|
