Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[wm3798]

But Eddy boy, we don't have to create a whole new wheel.  99% of the N track standard works, and doesn't need to be changed.  What we need to adapt is exactly three things.  Track (atlas 55 seems to be the choice) Track Spacing (to reflect our chosen prototype) and grades, again, to meet the needs of modeling a specific prototype.

Track:  No brainer.  Just use the track we wish to use.  I'm for the flush cut track joint preferred by Modutrack, but I could work with a spacer if need be.  I've seen clever tricks like gluing the spacer track to a strip of styrene so ballast can be applied to lessen the visual fart these things usually create.

Track Spacing:  Again, no brainer.  I doubt I would ever display my modules outside the group, so I can make mine fit without worrying about other set ups.  But if I wanted to "store" it at the club, I would build two transition modules that would allow for the connection to N trak.  This is a "to each his own scenario," in my mind.

Grades:  Trickier to interface with other systems, but as Jerry has described, not impossible.  For mine, I'd simply provide a "floating" surface that can be positioned on the flat, or propped up for the grade.  If we all use the same ruler and follow a simple protocol, I don't see that being a big issue.

Everything else can be follow the leader.

You computer guys need to spend more time building things you can actually see... it's not as hard as you think!

Lee

[Ian MacMillan]

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.

Like I said yesterday, if we go OneTrak that I can deal with as it has the C55 standard to go along with it. However they only way we could do NTRAK is if it acts as a spin off their main layout. At this time ATLAS C55 is a no no, we may be a catalyst for the change with the whole group, but that is gonna take a bit for the whole NTRAK world to catch on to that.  We can be one and not the other. We pick NTRAK, OneTrak or create our own.  I looked at the Bantrak oNeTRAK last night and I can see that working well what we are looking for. It is still a compromise in some spots, but its better than the other as I dont think the NTRAK normal standard will work well for us at all.

Myself I am very impressed with the ModUTrak "standard" but I could see that easily adapted to oNeTRAK.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok, so here's the final call, and what we should do.

Use the BANTRAK Onetrak standard for track and electrical.

No grades built into the modules. - They can be added easily by shimming/adjusting the leveling bolts, but can't be "removed" if built into the module. This will prevent many potential operating headaches, while still giving us the ability to go for broke when we have the chance. This is speaking from lots of experience. Building the grades in will be NOTHING but trouble. I can assure this.

Track spacing - Use the BANTRAK spec for the two "far" spaced tracks, and place the close track at a 1" spacing. This won't be perfectly prototypical, but will provide the correct effect AND will allow us interoperability.

Joiner tracks - Use the BANTRAK spec. Removable joiner tracks, while a bit of a pain, are an essential part. The modutrak guys have gotten lucky, but I don't trust luck. These are a good way to make up for unevenness, incorrect setbacks, electrical isolation, etc... as I said, this is years of experience speaking here.

[wm3798]

You're a girl... ;D

Cassandra... with no grade... sheesh.  I'm in.

Lee

[Ian MacMillan]

I'm IN. I call Alto and the Amtrak station

[Ed Kapuscinski]

So let it be blogged, so let it be done: http://milepost242.blogspot.com/2009/07/standards.html

Now, here's the next controversial thing.

I think that we should request that for each "scene" you do, you should also make a "filler" module.

Want to do the brickyard? Make a second frame and do the stretch past the signals too. Doing Cresson? Do the stretch to the east too.

I believe that it is wholly important that we keep the "scene" to "no scene" ratio up here. This will allow us to run decent sized trains, (because it'll look really dumb with the power at the curve and the helpers in Cresson), and nobody ever wants to do the "boring" parts. This way we all share the pain.

We're also going to need corners.

[wm3798]

Does my two-part Cassandra count as a filler?  Or should I figure on 2' in each direction to get the joints in compliance?

Lee

[Ian MacMillan]

No love for Ian on the standards page!!!!!! I'm OUT!

LOL

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Does my two-part Cassandra count as a filler?  Or should I figure on 2' in each direction to get the joints in compliance?

Lee

Ideally in addition to the 8' of "scene", you'd do 8' of "nothing", like the stretch to the east or west.

It could be super simple too. I'm not even thinking the "nothing" modules need to be wider than 12". They really are just filler.

[AlkemScaleModels]

Does my two-part Cassandra count as a filler?  Or should I figure on 2' in each direction to get the joints in compliance?

Lee

Ideally in addition to the 8' of "scene", you'd do 8' of "nothing", like the stretch to the east or west.

It could be super simple too. I'm not even thinking the "nothing" modules need to be wider than 12". They really are just filler.

Modules about nothing - this is starting to sound like Seinfeld!

[Dave V]

I wish I had half a chance in hell of being a part of this...  Until I'm only ONE day's drive from the rest of you I'll have to drool from the corn belt.  Now, once I get a better idea of where I'm going next I could start work on some modules (if it's close)...  By then you may be ready for Johnstown or Huntingdon!

[Ian MacMillan]

Does my two-part Cassandra count as a filler?  Or should I figure on 2' in each direction to get the joints in compliance?

Lee

Ideally in addition to the 8' of "scene", you'd do 8' of "nothing", like the stretch to the east or west.

It could be super simple too. I'm not even thinking the "nothing" modules need to be wider than 12". They really are just filler.

Modules about nothing - this is starting to sound like Seinfeld!

So who decides which modules are sponge worthy?

[asciibaron]

we need a list of modules to build and who will be doing them.

simply calling out of the dark is silly - it needs to be an organized effort.  who is building teh yard?

[Sokramiketes]

The modutrak guys have gotten lucky, but I don't trust luck. These are a good way to make up for unevenness, incorrect setbacks, electrical isolation, etc... as I said, this is years of experience speaking here.

Oh man, lucky... I'm insulted!   

[davefoxx]

Somebody will need to assign me a module and provide some information (e.g., photos), because I am not familiar with the rail line.  But, I do want to be a part of this.

Thanks,
DFF