Subject:
|
Re: Discussion of Train Table Sizes
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:59:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2396 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.
>
> The issues I see are:
>
> Cost
> ----
>
> The marginal cost (in both labor and materials) of increasing table size
> is very small. This is especially true when using folding legs, where
> much of the investment goes into the legs, which will be the same
> regardless of size. A 30x60 table with folding legs probably costs
> only a few dollars more than a 20x40 table with folding legs but has more
> than twice the area (or, it would cost twice as much to get the same
> amount of area using smaller tables).
>
> The major issue I don't take into account here is that the plywood usually
> used for table tops almost always comes in 4'x8' sheets. One such sheet
> would produce one 30x60 (and a 30x30) table top, but four 20x40 table
> tops. A table size chosen with the 4'x8' material limitation in mind
> could result in a lower material cost, especially if cheap legs are
> employed.
I sub-contracted this to a model railway board builder. The boards I have ATM
cost £26.80 each plus £9.90 per double leg, and I have 20 of each.
This came to £742, a considerable investment!
Add to this sneeze guards made from 14 pieces of Lexan sheet 300mm x 1200mm and
curtains and wires, this adds another £343.
I deliberately chose sturdy stuff to last a few years.
>
> Transport
> ---------
>
> Based on measurements (but not testing), a Buick Skylark or other smallish
> car could accommodate 20x40 tables on the back seat, stacked up with space
> for boxes. 30x60 tables would be much harder to fit, and would be at an
> angle that would leave little space for boxes. Basically, if members must
> transport their own tables, smaller tables can fit in more vehicles. If
> someone trades in his van for a compact, he may not be able to get his
> tables to shows. A geographically close (or close-knit) club can
> alleviate this by having members with vans and trucks collect and
> transport tables. If the club owns a trailer and tables are club-owned,
> transport problems go away (provided someone can tow the trailer. . .) and
> the only limit on table size is the size of the trailer.
Since I have 20 boards and 20 legs for a 16ft x 12ft layout, model railway clubs
pay for me to hire a van for the weekend. The whole setup can fit in a standard
Ford Transit van, though I prefer to use a long wheelbase one.
The boards will stack on the back seat of a Ford Mondeo, when I use 6 boards and
6 legs for a small layout.
> Handling
> --------
>
> I'm no he-man, but I have no trouble picking up, carrying, and setting up
> a 30x60 table. Carrying a 40x80 table I find much easier with a helper.
> I don't even want to think about trying to move a 40x80 table around my
> apartment. The larger the table, the harder it is to handle. On the
> other hand, smaller tables may mean twice as many trips to get the same
> total table area.
>
> This is especially acute during setup and teardown, when the tables must
> be tied to each other (usually with bolts). More tables leads directly to
> more work.
>
> Doors and elevators have special handling issues. Residential doorways
> tend to be a bit less than 30 inches wide. Commercial facilities tend to
> have doorways that are a bit more than 30 inches wide. Elevators are
> almost always wider still. If a model needs to be transported flat on a
> table, it needs to be able to get out of the LEGO room and into display
> facilities. Of more import to most people: tables can only be transported
> on a dolly if they will fit through building and elevator doors.
My boards are 1200mm x 600mm, forming a 4800mm x 3600mm layout with operating
space in the middle. Each board is easy to carry, indeed two boards face to
face can be carried by most people.
Model railway books advise that size should be limited by what you can easily
move around your home. I think 2'6" x 5' might be a practical limit for British
homes, especially those full of Lego!
> LEGO Compatibility
> ------------------
>
> The common baseplate sizes mean that dimensions that are multiples of 5
> inches work best. Gray baseplates work best with dimensions that are
> multiples of 15 inches (unless you are willing to cut baseplates), while
> roadplates (if you use roadplates) work best with dimensions that are
> multiples of 10 inches (unless, again, you are willing to cut baseplates).
> This makes 30x30 and 30x60 the most LEGO-compatible table sizes.
The layout I have now doesn't use baseplates over the whole area, but my plan is
to do so. I have calculated that using multiples of 16 studs from baseplates I
will add 4 studs at each end and 1 stud at each side if modules are mostly made
on 48x48 baseplates. This is easy enough to do, making the edge modules
slightly larger. A Technic beam on its side below 2x2 plates with connector peg
underneath gives the 1/2 plate height to match the baseplate thickness. I don't
like to cut baseplates.
> Flexibility
> -----------
>
> Rearrangement of tables into new configurations is challenging unless the
> tables are square or rectangular with lengths double or triple their
> widths. The only club of which I know that does not use such tables uses
> modules with predefined fronts, so they're not meant to be rearranged
> anyway.
>
> It can be convenient to drop or raise a table a few inches. That is easy
> when it's small. When the basic table size is large, half-size modules
> may be employed. This gets complicated if the basic module is 25, 35, or
> 45 inches on a side.
The boards I have now can be used in very many ways as they are modular and have
plenty of holes for joining in different configurations. I think every 6" is
possible with the system.
The height of the legs I deliberately chose as about 30" so that children can
see the trains - it's Lego after all, so it will naturally attract more interest
from the younger age group than finescale layouts of other scales.
In the long term I am considering whether to go for 30" x 60" board with
integral legs.
Mark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Discussion of Train Table Sizes
|
| (...) Sorry, two questions - First, model railway clubs pay you to hire a van? How does that work? Why would they pay you? Second, did you realize that while some enlightened Americans may have heard of a Ford Transit, they've probably never seen (...) (20 years ago, 16-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
|
|
|
|
