Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[Ian MacMillan]

I like where this is going now!

I think I could go along with the Bantrak oNeTrak standard with Atlas C55 and what not.

And when it comes down to being able to tack onto larger layouts...taking this from MY experience in modular clubs, is sometimes it is better to be in your own "smaller" club at a show and not with everyone else.  I mean come on, I wouldn't want my Alto modules tacked next to a circus module (which is one of the reasons I am not in the HO modular club now and am working on my own 24' HO show layout.

And with reverse loops for either end with adjustable legs you could make any configuration of the crossing, be it 24 modules or 4, and have a good show piece.

[inkaneer]

Okay how are you going to transport all these modules and what happens if one module with part of the grade or an Ntrak transition module is a no show?   How many people who own individual modules are going to be able to attend a given event for this layout to be built and operated.  With Ntrak its a simple matter of plugging in another module but you can't do that because of the grade. 

See my earlier post about the PRRMO. If each module is built to consistent specs, and has a standard grade, then you can assemble them in any order as long as you have the same number on either side of the summit.

I saw it.   but what happens if the missing module is the middle of the curve itself?  These guys are talking about actually modeling the curve and building a facimilie of it.  So the modules are all dedicated modules and you can't just take one out.

[Ian MacMillan]

Okay how are you going to transport all these modules and what happens if one module with part of the grade or an Ntrak transition module is a no show?   How many people who own individual modules are going to be able to attend a given event for this layout to be built and operated.  With Ntrak its a simple matter of plugging in another module but you can't do that because of the grade. 

See my earlier post about the PRRMO. If each module is built to consistent specs, and has a standard grade, then you can assemble them in any order as long as you have the same number on either side of the summit.

I saw it.   but what happens if the missing module is the middle of the curve itself?  These guys are talking about actually modeling the curve and building a facimilie of it.  So the modules are all dedicated modules and you can't just take one out.

Doing it Jerrys way you could...you would just have a J and not a U. It would work, just not look like HSC for that display.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I think it would be important for whoever owns HSC to own ALL of it, from the signal to the ledge.

I'm thinking what we're going to need are a series of "scene" modules, separated by a number of "trees" ones to break them up.

[jsoflo]

I think it would be important for whoever owns HSC to own ALL of it, from the signal to the ledge.

I'm thinking what we're going to need are a series of "scene" modules, separated by a number of "trees" ones to break them up.

"Generic" modules, great idea, they fill gaps based on absentees, room configuration and other "problems," as for module issues, you get 15 people doing a pair of 4' modules each and you are already at 120' of modules, and a pair of 4' modules is not particularly hard to transport (we build end carry boards and stack them for hauling). Several dedicated people put together a 3rd module and you are inching towards 200'. two or three meets a year especially with everyone within a half day's drive and we can usually find folks who share a rented u-haul trailer or van and bring along other folks modules who could not make it. I think you'll get the interest and probably get a dedicated bunch pretty quick

[Ed Kapuscinski]

So I think I figured out how to deal with the track spacing thing tonight.

The BANTRAK onetrak standard for track spacing is the NTRAK 1.5" for compatibility sake. Extrapolating that out to the full 1-2- -4 spacing, we'd use up a lot of space. But what if we used that for the 2- -4 part?

See:


The Red Yellow and Blue are regular NTRAK spacing, the green would be my suggestion for where to put the additional track if using the onetrak spec, and making the red and yellow the two through mains carried over from the spec.

[Zox]

The Red Yellow and Blue are regular NTRAK spacing, the green would be my suggestion for where to put the additional track if using the onetrak spec, and making the red and yellow the two through mains carried over from the spec.

Wouldn't that put the yellow and green tracks only 0.75" apart? That's way too tight--only 10 feet in scale. Lots of equipment is 10.5 feet wide...

...unless I'm misunderstanding the diagram, which is quite possible.

[POVC]

As an aside -  I wonder if I can drag my C&O oNeTRAK Mtn sub oNeTRAK modules out to one of your oNeTRAK set-ups at some point?

Bernie, I know there are a bunch of us who would love to do this, the only question is going to be timing...

Our next show is in the fall, and I think we'll actually be hurting for real estate. Got a drawing of the whole thing? I'm sure we can try and work it in.

BANTRAK is having a meeting this weekend too, I think I'll bring it up (although I'm sure it'll be read here first).

Hurting for real estate?  I really don't know where Ed gets this stuff...

I am the coordinator for the October Show, and I haven't yet decided whether we will have a OneTrak loop in October yet.  Ntrak is going to have priority at the October Show, since its the "trial run" for the Christmas Show at the B&O, and whether we do OneTrak will be largely dependant on the response I get to the "call for modules" when I put it out for this show (which I probably won't do till after Bedford).  I'm assuming we have our normal 50' x 50' space, and I have to allow space for sales tables.  Plus I want to do "something different" since we've run the same L-shaped layout with a OneTrak branch at the last 4 Scale shows...

If it's not October, the next opportunities are the February and April Scale shows, which are quite a ways off.  Or we could try and work out something else...

Tim

[Hiroe]

So I think I figured out how to deal with the track spacing thing tonight.

The BANTRAK onetrak standard for track spacing is the NTRAK 1.5" for compatibility sake. Extrapolating that out to the full 1-2- -4 spacing, we'd use up a lot of space. But what if we used that for the 2- -4 part?

See:


The Red Yellow and Blue are regular NTRAK spacing, the green would be my suggestion for where to put the additional track if using the onetrak spec, and making the red and yellow the two through mains carried over from the spec.

So that leaves your spacing between yellow, green, and blue as 3/4" each? Why not just leave red and blue at standard Ntrak location, and space Yellow and Green at 1" between them? (so it would be RED-1"-GRN-1"-YEL-1"-BLU ) Then to drop in with a regular Ntrak layout, you only need a custom joiner made up from an 18"R atlas snap track, cut in half with half reversed, to shift the Yellow 1/2" backwards. (each module builder *could* build a pair of 12" adaptor modules if desired, but it's not actually necessary.) People could even build their modules as the 3-track version if desired, leaving a 2" space where the Green track would be.

I'd also label the Green track as Brown or Orange to differentiate from the established Ntrak Green line, but that's just personal opinion.

--Drew

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I really just picked green because it was between yellow and blue...

I don't think we need to go 50% between the two, but adjust the spacing so that it gives the correct illusion.

[POVC]

I've watched this thread the last couple of days with great amusement, mainly because it reminds me of what I went through when I was trying to coordinate the initial efforts of the BANTRAK OneTrak group.    Trying to get model railroaders to reach a concensus on anything is a lot like herding cats, only more challenging!  

My opinion is that initially there is only one question you have to answer: Do you want to make these modules Ntrak compliant or not?  You guys have spent a lot of time talking about a "middle ground", or being semi-compliant, and I really think that is a false choice; I think it's black or white, either you are or you aren't.

If you chose to be Ntrak compliant, that means Code 80 rail, 1.5" track spacing and no grades.

If you chose not to be, then you can do whatever you want - Atlas Code 55, 1.25" track spacing, grades, etc.

The major advantage to being Ntrak compliant, as several have pointed out, is that the modules can be used, either individually or in sets, as part of any Ntrak layout.

The major advantage of setting your own standard is that you can get a more prototypical look using the finer (Code 55) rail, closer track spacing, and grades.

If you chose to develop your own standard, the BANTRAK OneTrak standards might be a place to start, since we had to wrestle with a lot of the same choices.

I'm throwing out this advice for free as someone who has been through it, and doesn't have a dog in the hunt (I'm not planning on participating anytime soon, I have too much to do as it is...).

Good luck...

Tim

[conrail98]

I've been watching this thread too and here are my thoughts on the idea/concept. I love it, Ed will probably hook me into it somehow, someway (I think it's a veiled attempt to get more Conrail N-scalers, but that's just my opinion,  ;D), but I would be more than will to do a part. Second, I saw the WM layout at Timmonium in January and thought it was awesome and kinda thought why more historical societies don't have something like that. As for Ntrak vs. own module system, I vote for own. I think we'd be better served designing a system that works for functionality, consistency, and representation of the prototype. I'm a firm believer in main down the middle and the one thing I've never really like about Ntrak is how close the tracks are to the front edge.  I think to be representative of the line, you'd have to include some grade, but again, I'd consider something representative of the prototype, like a .75% to 1% max. One could build legs that have "pin" holes spced at .1% intervals if one side is to be higher than the other. Set a minimum and maximum height, and you could build tongue/groove or some other kind of joining system for module benchwork to legs making it height adjustable on each end, kinda like seats/backs on weight equipment.

[asciibaron]

no one has brought up the following:

1. yard - there will have to be somewhere to assemble/disassemble and stage trains - and it would have to be HUGE.
2. infrastructure - it would make sense to have it DCC - what flavor, who buys the system?  who has the trailer with the extension cords, solder iron, bar stools, and slushie machine.
3. it would have to become a club to keep from having too many leaders - maybe umbrella'd under the CRHS?
4. say 20 modules get built - how do we get invited to a show to set them up?
5. who gets to pick what modules get built?  i'd love to do MG, and it appears so would Ed.

if it's going to be a standalone affair, there is a ton of infrastructure that needs to be sorted.  raise your hand if you want to haul atrailer all over the place and store the crap in your garage.

-steve

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Thank you for saying that all Steve.

Those are some of the reasons why I think a stand-alone thing is a bad idea. Aside from my own personal reasons.

[Hiroe]

I really just picked green because it was between yellow and blue...

I don't think we need to go 50% between the two, but adjust the spacing so that it gives the correct illusion.

Okay, so..... that still doesn't change the fact that 3/4" between mains is not sufficient. 1" is tight, but works out to 13'4" center-to-center track spacing, which is actually prototypical.

By that logic, with a 4-track mainline (with or without track 3) works out to 3" center-to-center on the outermost tracks. Red-yellow-blue are spaced 3" across the group. What's wrong with moving the yellow (and green) to equal spacing?

I'm a firm believer in main down the middle and the one thing I've never really like about Ntrak is how close the tracks are to the front edge.  I think to be representative of the line, you'd have to include some grade, but again, I'd consider something representative of the prototype, like a .75% to 1% max. One could build legs that have "pin" holes spced at .1% intervals if one side is to be higher than the other. Set a minimum and maximum height, and you could build tongue/groove or some other kind of joining system for module benchwork to legs making it height adjustable on each end, kinda like seats/backs on weight equipment.

Okay, this. So Much This. Having height-adjustable legs with the adjustment set at known intervals of grade for module length is a *really* good idea. That way, you can set up the layout either flat or with partial or full grade, depending on the local show conditions/ demands. Also, i love the idea of putting the mains in the center of the module, so you can balance the scenery on each side.

For yards, and/or a junction to connect this line to a larger Ntrak layout, i've got access to a 6-track staging yard (about 30' long), and i own a complex 6' radius triple Y junction set with matching curves.

--Drew