Subject:
|
Club Table Standards was Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:56:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10 times
|
| |
|
|
The NGLTC is also looking at the folding buffet style (or church tables)
legs, I don't care what the cost is as long as it keeps me from spending
most of my set up bolting tables legs together, and it will make for more
room in the van. Currently the van is maxed out. The only issue with the
bolt on legs is that I might have to retire some of my older tables. The
first ones I made used interior door skins as the tops, very thin but also
very very light. Now I've switched over to 3/8" particle board, very heavy
but less chance of warping.
Along with legs, I'm working on a way to bold wheels on to one of the tables
and make it into a "cart" to carry the other tables. Its a pain to carry all
those tables in when the show doesn't have "drive in" capabilities.
I also like the idea of running the layout from the outside, most shows I
have been placing the controls in a location discreetly on the outside. Also
being tall (6'5") I never seem to have a problem reaching over two tables,
but some of the other club members are not as "vertically advantaged".. ha!
jt
Ben Fleskes wrote in message ...
> The PNLTC standard has been good to us. Transporting the legs, as James • brings
> up, is a drawback, but they can be easily made with a minimal amount of
> materials beyond the scrap from the table top. And they are very sturdy.
> I've sat on the tables before and they hold me just fine [1]
>
> We are converting many of our tables to add fold down buffet style table
> legs. They do not add anything to the thickness of the table and height • can
> be easily modified by adding a piece of PVC tubing to the bottom of the • leg.
> (Thanks to Will Chapman for the idea). The legs will cost you $10-$30 per • set
> so they cost a little bit, but they do speed setup and take a lot of bulk • out
> of the materials required for a show. (I wouldn't sit on these type of • table
> legs)
>
> Another factor to consider when discussing the width of the module. We
> frequently double stack our modules side by side giving us a 60" wide
> surface. It's nice to have the extra space, but it comes at a cost. It • can
> become very difficult to reach the inside of the table. Now I'm tall [2] • so I
> do not have much of a problem, but others do. Simply one other thing to
> consider.
>
> Also, a wider module seperates you from the public more and makes it more
> difficult to talk to them. This is one of my favorite aspects of being at • a
> show. We are actually considering eliminating the space inside the layout • and
> working it only from the outside, with an operator area stanchioned off. • But
> we have a lot of flexability with our modules, so we'll likely try lots of
> things over the coming years.
>
> Simply providing a few things for others to think about. I'm not • advocating
> for a right way or even a better way, simply putting out things for people • to
> consider that haven't been brought up before.
>
> Ben Fleskes
> PNLTC
>
> [1] I weigh about 260lbs.
> [2] 6'5" with long arms.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New LEGO train realism?
|
| The PNLTC standard has been good to us. Transporting the legs, as James brings up, is a drawback, but they can be easily made with a minimal amount of materials beyond the scrap from the table top. And they are very sturdy. I've sat on the tables (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.trains.org)
|
84 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
|
|
|
|
