Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[asciibaron]

simply moving one side up or down might make an easy grade, but what about all the trees leaning to the right?  what about the flat surface on the end of the module that is now an angle preventing a flush, tight connection with the adjoining modules?  adding a grade to a module by leg adjustment is foolish.  all grades must be part of the module design.

i also think a dispatcher would be needed if there will be return loops on the ends.  you have to do it right and simply turning 3 onto 1 and revere looping the middle track just won't work.  not for the volume of traffic you will want.  plus, TV-2 needs to pass the coal drag on the hill.

[shark_jj]

Gentleman, someone needs to take the bull by the horns and create a poll/questionaire which identifies who exactly is interested in this project and what the project exactly will be.  As a Horseshoe Curve modeller I was quite taken by Lee's comments in regards to pushing the envelope of N Scale.  It seems you have two choices.  One:  create a landmark modular layout that will raise the bar for the future, or Two:  create a good quality layout that will be compatible with one of the existing standards.  Once you make that decision all of the other things will fall into place including who is going to participate.  If I lived in the U.S. I would vote for option One since my modelling time is valuable and if I wanted to do a model of MG I could do it in one or two 4 foot modules put some proto pictures on the front of the modules and take them to an Ntrak gathering.  I would also suggest as a longtime PRR/Conrail modeller and as someone who has built two Horseshoe Curves and who has visited the area for almost 40 straight years, you need to decide on a specific year/era to model.  The trackwork and interlockings were constantly being changed and upgraded and research becomes simpler if you decide your are doing 1962, 1982, or 2002.  

With regard to modules not showing up for a show, here is an option.  I along with 4 other N scalers decided we would build an HO modular layout based on Bayview Jct. in Hamilton and we decided to make it a unique, high quality, stand alone layout.  Like the Horseshoe Curve you cannot afford to be missing one of the modules that make up the Bayview Wye which is the centrepiece of the layout.  We decided that the layout needed to be stored in one place but none of us had the room.  The solution was to buy a trailer that would haul all of the modules and to store the trailer when we are not showing the layout.  Great idea you say if we had that kind of money.  Well we didn't.  What we did was run a convention, start a train show, and used the monies we made from these to buy the trailer and the money from the show will pay the ongoing cost of storage.  Individual modules are taken home by members to be worked on.  This solution may not work for this group, but my point is that there are solutions to the problem of having all of the modules of a unique layout show up at a show.  

[Hiroe]

After some discussion with ed, i think there's a specific point that some people seem to have missed.

By keeping some basic ability to fit/adapt to the established Ntrak standard, we can actually save ourselves a lot of work.

For example, should we decide to set up the entire line as an extra loop off the ntrak spine, i've already got a 6-foot radius junction module set. Normally it looks something like this, but being sectional with matching curves, it can be set up any number of ways.

Additionally, there are several tennis-racket-style return loops that belong to a local club (which Sean, Ed, and I all have been members of) that could be used at each end of the layout. These racket loops have quite a bit of flexibility built in at the throats, so you can loop a train to return on several of the other tracks. (example photo of the throat end can be seen here, with Sean shown operating.)

Clamping modules together where one has a vertical lift to it and the other sits flat is as simple as inserting a few strips of cardstock at the bottom or top edge of the clamp seam. Might cause some minor difference in joiner-track length, but that's not difficult to adjust for. Trees? Most of them being deciduous, they won't look too bad even if the module is adjusted for grade.

--Drew

[wm3798]

Don't be silly.  Everyone knows trees don't lean ;D

P. Bunyan

[keystonecrossings]

Don't be silly.  Everyone knows trees don't lean ;D

In case it wasn't clear... the modules I mentioned had bottoms parallel to the floor. The lower edges of the ends were also parallel to the floor. One end was one inch taller (say 5" vs. 4"). That provided the grade.

All four legs were adjustable in one inch increments (in addition to the standard adjustment for an uneven floor).

[Ian MacMillan]

After some discussion with ed, i think there's a specific point that some people seem to have missed.

I don't think anyone posting in this thread has missed that point. The point most of us are trying to make is be a leader, not a lemming. Sometimes you need to go outside the norm in order to push something and come up with a "better" standard.

For me, I'm just saying that if we do NTRAK I am definitely out. My personal tastes do not approve of NTRAK with what we have available for us today. NTRAK is fine for a lot of people, as shown by the large groups, but not for me. For me personally, if we are going to do an awesome show of skills in modeling a specific line, then I want the same standards to apply to trackwork, etc, and NTRAK does not do that. There is a reason that I am no longer in the HO modular group up here, and have not joined the Northeast NTRAK group.

I know I live in the Northeast and its no biggie if Im in as most of you are down in the MD area, but at 3 good shows a year I could see myself showing up.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

For me, I'm just saying that if we do NTRAK I am definitely out. My personal tastes do not approve of NTRAK with what we have available for us today.

What specific things about the NTRAK standard are there that preclude your involvement?

[wm3798]

Like this...  A uniform grade built in to the table top, but all else being equal.  A telescoping leg with 1" increments allows for additional height without sacrificing the level of the platform...

Drawback: can't be married in as a flat module...  Although some clever engineer might figure out a way to make the sub roadbed adjustable to meet that need should it arise...

Lee

[wm3798]

I think I can interpret Ian's concerns by applying my own...  For N trak, compatibility trumps appearance.  For us the reverse is true.

Lee

[conrail98]

After a side bar with Ed, I understand now why he has pushed Ntrak. Essentially, if we didn't adhere to those standards, we'd be developing and maintaining our own, needing coordination/committees/a process of changing the spec, etc. I had compared it to software development and frameworks, and it is very similar. When someone creates a new framework there are these issues that pop-up:

1. Questions on why would develop something new, framework X already solves that problem
2. Providing enough documentation that others can review, test, and provide feedback
3. Enough acceptance of the framework that it doesn't become just another piece of unsupported code out in the nether regions of the particular technology.

I think we're faced with the same things here, or some of us are. I think question #1 above is evident with the comments both for and against Ntrak. Numbers 2 and 3 are the ones that if we were to go down the road of establishing a new one that would be the most work. Someone would have to devote time and effort into establishing the "framework" and all that that entails. Not listed above is also the requirement that this new modular framework should be interoperable with other modular frameworks so that these modules can see the light of day more than once/twice a year and can go to shows without worry of interoperability issues. My concerns with interoperability  revolve around connecting modules both physically and electrically. Transition modules would have to be part of any new modular system and then the question becomes are enough participants in this effort in the same geographical region where building a set of transition modules is not only feasible but practical.

[Ian MacMillan]

For me, I'm just saying that if we do NTRAK I am definitely out. My personal tastes do not approve of NTRAK with what we have available for us today.

What specific things about the NTRAK standard are there that preclude your involvement?

Track spacing, no use of ATLAS C55, clinch jones. Pretty much my top 3.

I understand your reasons for wanting NTRAK 100%, I just don't think we should go with it. I have seen the New River Gorge modules, so  I KNOW that a set of NTRAK modules can look great. I just think we should kick it up a notch, and not settle. Hell maybe we could get the ModuTrack "standard" or something similar to go widescale much like FREMO.

[asciibaron]

clinch jones

Anderson powerpoles have replaced/are replacing the Jones

[Ian MacMillan]

clinch jones

Anderson powerpoles have replaced/are replacing the Jones

OK, hasn't reached up here in both N or HO, but that is an easy enough change. The other 2 are pretty much holy cast in stone.

[wm3798]

Mine's done.  Y'all work around me...
(I'll provide the 12" boxes to turn the track back to parallel at the centerline of the module)

Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Well, Ian, you're right about the C55 thing. But, I think that if we built a big enough block of modules with it, it might be a catalyst for change. Additionally, I think that in my own experience, the infrastructure exists down here for a "Code 55 division". Right now it's all onetrak, but that doesn't mean it has to be.

And as far as track spacing, I think we can figure out a way around that, especially if we go with the looser BANTRAK Onetrak specs.

Phil has hit the nail ON THE HEAD about creating a new framework. I want no part in that.