Author Topic: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules  (Read 21596 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 17859
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2123
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #15 on: July 10, 2009, 01:00:11 PM »
0
Stash it under the door Tim!

sizemore

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Respect: +31
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #16 on: July 10, 2009, 01:01:50 PM »
0
Stash it under the door Tim!

There is already a bunch of 5h!+ under there dated sometime between 1940 and 1945.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 17859
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2123
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #17 on: July 10, 2009, 01:14:52 PM »
0
Ah. Then stash it on its end!

There's always room...

Anyway, I've started the web presence: http://milepost242.blogspot.com/

Lots more to come.

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3897
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +138
    • Modutrak
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2009, 01:24:17 PM »
0
Before adopting NTRAK specs, think about where you're going with this whole deal.  If the goal is to match prototype scenes, then you're likely going to want to put them in geographic order all the time... so maybe you don't need to force a standard interface at every module joint, just enough so that if someone can't make a show and you have to leave one town out of the layout, you're OK.  Plus, I don't know how your local NTRAK group sets up, but if you end up having 50+ feet of Conrail, will they have room for you or will you then set-up separately anyway?

And if separate, isn't it worth raising the height of the layout to the 53" range, matching the prototype track spacing, and allowing the use of Atlas Cd 55?  And with a potential 4 track mainline, end loops start looking mighty good, so you don't have to close off the oval, and you can free form the scenes to match prototype curves...

Some food for thought...

Also got lots of thoughts on wiring when you get to that point.   :)
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

asciibaron

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3101
  • Respect: 0
    • Steve's Happy Fun Time IntarWebs
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2009, 01:30:57 PM »
0
i already have the 3 track plant for MG... just need to remove the sidings and redo the scenery.  it shouldn't be that difficult to make it MG with a new mountain and an MG tower



Quote from: Chris333
How long will it be before they show us how to add DCC to a tree?

sizemore

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Respect: +31
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #20 on: July 10, 2009, 01:32:51 PM »
0
Ah. Then stash it on its end!

There's always room...

Anyway, I've started the web presence: http://milepost242.blogspot.com/

Lots more to come.

I might be able swing something that's maybe 3ft. tall at most. Would you be using C55 flex?

NorfolkSouthern9708

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: -1
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #21 on: July 10, 2009, 01:43:03 PM »
0
I'd like to help, but I'm not the greatest scenic guy. And were would we meet for this?

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 17859
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2123
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #22 on: July 10, 2009, 01:46:11 PM »
0
Well, the idea was to do it to NTRAK specs for the flexibility, and so that it all still works if it's together or not. This means that even if the owners are separated geographically most of the time, everyone still has stuff that works.

As much as it pains me, I'd say we're stuck using C80, since it's the spec. I don't want to deviate too far from that, because established frameworks are really handy.

And Steve, we'd need to replace the switches too.

AlkemScaleModels

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1176
  • Helps build strong models 8 ways
  • Respect: +24
    • Alkem Scale Models
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #23 on: July 10, 2009, 01:53:18 PM »
0
Well, the idea was to do it to NTRAK specs for the flexibility, and so that it all still works if it's together or not. This means that even if the owners are separated geographically most of the time, everyone still has stuff that works.

As much as it pains me, I'd say we're stuck using C80, since it's the spec. I don't want to deviate too far from that, because established frameworks are really handy.

And Steve, we'd need to replace the switches too.

You can use cd 55 on the interior of the module and have code 80 at the end tracks. If you build dedicated sets, you can have long expanses of cd 55. I do this with all my modules.

The track plan I drew up a few years ago meets NTRAK specs, but has 4 Tracks, is quite curvy and not rectangular looking. I'll look for it tonight. 

When we did this (built a modular subdivision) for the C&O Mountain Sub and New River Sub we used to have communal work sessions. That way the modules had a unified look and style.

AlkemScaleModels

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1176
  • Helps build strong models 8 ways
  • Respect: +24
    • Alkem Scale Models
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #24 on: July 10, 2009, 01:58:50 PM »
0
Before adopting NTRAK specs, think about where you're going with this whole deal.  If the goal is to match prototype scenes, then you're likely going to want to put them in geographic order all the time... so maybe you don't need to force a standard interface at every module joint, just enough so that if someone can't make a show and you have to leave one town out of the layout, you're OK.  Plus, I don't know how your local NTRAK group sets up, but if you end up having 50+ feet of Conrail, will they have room for you or will you then set-up separately anyway?

And if separate, isn't it worth raising the height of the layout to the 53" range, matching the prototype track spacing, and allowing the use of Atlas Cd 55?  And with a potential 4 track mainline, end loops start looking mighty good, so you don't have to close off the oval, and you can free form the scenes to match prototype curves...

Some food for thought...

Also got lots of thoughts on wiring when you get to that point.   :)

Some good points.

Fitting a large subdivision into a normal NTRAK layout can be tricky. Especially if you want to include a grade.  That's why we usually waited for big shows where we had room when we were doing the C&O New Rver Mtn Sub.  With the NTRAK junction modules, it's not too hard to fit a separate subdivision into a large NTRAk set-up.

If the design includes end loops, the subdivision can stand on its own.  A layout with a grade is better suited to lend loops vice a loop anyway. 


wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13097
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +1326
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #25 on: July 10, 2009, 02:02:31 PM »
0
Let's get past the talking stage before you put it on the air, there slice.
Nothing worse than a moldy website with nothing to update.

Oh, and we will be doing code 55, right?

Captain Slow
Route of the Alpha Jets

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

sirenwerks

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5221
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +150
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #26 on: July 10, 2009, 02:06:34 PM »
0
Quote
And lol @ Bryan... I'm hoping the peer pressure will make me get crap done!

As long as it doesn't involve trees, you'll probably be okay. You baled on that one.
Now seeking Pacific NW N scalers to create a Modutrak-style modular club featuring NP's shared mainline between Seattle and Portland. PM me if interested.

Ed Kapuscinski

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 17859
  • Has a degree in American History & Culture.
  • Respect: +2123
    • Conrail 1285
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2009, 02:07:42 PM »
0
Nope, C80.

And I want to put a site together to put together the info to enlist others.

NorfolkSouthern9708

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 209
  • Respect: -1
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2009, 02:13:23 PM »
0
I don't even know were to model, and I live near the ex PRR Middle Division  :'(. I have no idea what we'd do for the code 80 turnouts. We don't have any NTRAK clubs around here anyway. So, what to do, what to do?

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13097
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +1326
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules
« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2009, 02:26:54 PM »
0
My vote is to follow the Skibbe/Bernie method...  Design it as a closed loop layout, with end loop returns.  I don't see how you can make the track spacing standard N trak, and have it "feel right"...  I love Todd Treaster's layout, but I can't get past the visual of the evenly spaced track.  1-2-*-4... it's the only way it will be 100% recognizable.  (Not to mention the c80 track, the very thought of which makes me cringe...)

If we do the proper track spacing, and there is a need to insert an individual section into an standard Ntrak run, the owner can build two 12" transitions that ease the track back up to 80, and the spacing back to standard.

Regarding the grade, It would be awesome to have the first group of modules from say, Alto to the brick yard be at standard height (what is that, 42"?) then have a group that really goes up, then have Gallitzen to Cresson at 53", then gradually drop back down to Johnstown.  The first and last groups can be designed to be level, but with adequate leveling bolts to increase the grade when the group is used together.

If we opt for C-55, I would go with Micro Engineering track to avoid a lot of whining about flanges.  But again, if the goal is to do this regionally where the rig is a closed loop, what the hey?  Go with Atlas and good wheels.

Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net