 | | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
I would venture to say that 45" x 60" would be better. The reason there is that even though you lose 5" on the length, you keep the modules in increments of lg. gray baseplates. That is important if you want to allow another group to slip module (...) (27 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
The tables used by the NGLTC where built using the original standards published by the PNLTC. They are a bit narrower (to fit the mini van) but are the same height and use the same basic principle of connecting together. Only one table of the entire (...) (27 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
(...) If we just use the grey baseplates, 45x60 or 45x75 would make the most sense. But, our trailer is 76 inches wide, with a door 72 inches wide. With the 65 inch length, we can put the racks into the trailer sideways, and still have enough room (...) (27 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
Somehow, 65" doesn't sound right to me. Whole baseplates would be best, no? If you are going to go that long, why not bump up to 80" so that you can use standard hollow core doors for table tops. It would be an inexpensive solution... Build On! John (...) (27 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
| |
| | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
|
(...) Short answer: No standard Long answer: There is no standards making body. But there were defacto standards... There WERE two standards, sort of. PNLTC and other "non legomodular" clubs seemed to be working to one module standard. At least (...) (27 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
