Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[Dave V]

The plan has merit...  I saw my named dropped back on page 1.  I don't see myself participating for several reasons.  The main reason is time; I'm on the hook to lead this year's Air Force Weather Agency charity raffle model railroad construction.  I did manage to convince them to let me do an N scale plan this year (it's been traditionally the mindless HO 4x8).  On top of that I've started work on my own yard extension for the Juniata Division.  Also working on a manuscript to publish part of my dissertation.  Those three things could easily be trumped if I had a reasonable chance of meeting up my module with the rest of you in the next few years, but that chance seems remote from the cornfields of Nebraska.

I don't do the local NTrak group because they enforce locale and era.  Good policy; it ensures reasonable continuity and plausibility.  In fact, I prefer that to the hodgepodge of alien landings and wild-west-next-to-downtown-Chicago-next-to-Maine-seaport NTrak scene...  BUT, the local guys do UP/BNSF and predecessors from the 80s onward.  Totally not my bag, baby...

[Zox]

See my defense of the NTRAK idea: http://milepost242.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-ntrak.html

I think the biggest issue with making this idea NTrak-compatible is that the NTrak standards do not permit any grade, at all, on the main lines. It's not a matter of coming back to 40 inches from the floor by the end of the module set. If you aren't constantly 40 inches from the floor, you aren't NTrak compliant.

As someone else pointed out, a flat Horseshoe Curve is going to be seriously compromised in terms of appearance regardless of what rail code or mainline spacing is used. Motes and beams...

[Dave V]

May I also don my obstructionist hat and remind all that your average NTrak train is chock-full of pizza cutters.  In order for this set of modules to be accepted into a larger NTrak layout, it will require all trains to have low-profile wheels.

[rswinnerton]

Maybe the thing to do is use the Ntrak standards as a guide rather than the Bible. Because the "layout" is being built for a specific place, why not change things to suit? For example, Ntrak calls for code 80, but why not use 55? There's no reason not to. Maybe make transition pieces to connect to Ntrak, but I think turning loops/storage tracks at either end of a long scene would be better than Ntrak (this coming from an HO scaler). I think I could be convinced to build a scene, Gallitzin maybe? of course if I do that, ill have to buy some CR equipment to go with it, etc....

[wm3798]

Plus Russ has a big truck to tote the layout around in! ;D

Again I say...  Engineer it as a ground breaking stand-alone, and let N Trak pound sand!

Lee

[mmyers]

NMRA gauge says they are OK - did the NMRA gauge say the people with problems were OK?  and don't forget, Martin said they were ok - that's like getting the Pope's blessing

Dominus Vobiscum

[asciibaron]

Dominus Vobiscum

see, i told you so.

[James Costello]

Again I say...  Engineer it as a ground breaking stand-alone, and let N Trak pound sand!
Lee

I agree.... Work out what you want your layout / group to accomplish and choose / modify a standard to suit.

Would you even consider NTrak if your prototype wasn't triple track? 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I came up with the idea because it fits in easily with the rest of my commitments. I don't have the personal modeling bandwidth to absorb ANOTHER organization, and I don't want to give up my NTRAK affiliations, so for me, on a personal level, if it's not all able to work with an NTRAK layout, I'm probably not even going to get started.

[AlkemScaleModels]

I came up with the idea because it fits in easily with the rest of my commitments. I don't have the personal modeling bandwidth to absorb ANOTHER organization, and I don't want to give up my NTRAK affiliations, so for me, on a personal level, if it's not all able to work with an NTRAK layout, I'm probably not even going to get started.

 Attached is a copy of a NTRAK modular design I drew in 1999 for a NTRAK modular subdivision of the PRR Horseshoe Curve subdivision. I could not find the original Illustrator file, but I do have a paper copy of it.



Link to full size version

http://image55.webshots.com/555/6/68/67/2383668670061289802Qxslio_fs.jpg



The rest of the subdivision from Altoona to Allegrippus was designed by John and Matt. I have a copy of it, but really should check with them before publishing it. We seriously thought about doing this, but ended up not pulling the trigger as we moved on to other projects. But the idea is a good one.

I think this shows that one can do a very accurate model of the area and still remain within NTRAK design standards. If I were doing it, I would use ME code 55 track with Peco code 55 on the ends for NTRAK compatibility. The grades can be added with shims, paint cans or other temporary lift.

I like the idea of return loops, but they can be big modules.  

This design basically has  NTRAK standards interfaces every two modules or so, except the Gallitzin-Tunnelhill-Slide that  is a big module set that is 6 pieces. But it is no bigger than my portion of the former Quinnimont-Prince-Laurel Creek module set I displayed at the big Chantilly Show in 2006 or so. Can't remember the year exactly.

[jsoflo]

While I am far too distant to participate with a module I do think this is a great idea. It is also a good idea to make something that can interchange with standard N Trak or One Trak or other standard type modules since get togethers will be limited otherwise. I can offer our experience from the FEC One-trak group, where we get together at most 3 times per year, and this year will be down to one club meet at the convention. We use a standard one-trak spec as a guide but than modified it. There are modules that must always be joined together, which does make it hard when a neighbor module can't make it so we have a couple of 2' standard joiner modules, that way if we need to "re-standardize" the track we can insert the 2' module to re-establish the standard. The critical matter is making the modules generically joinable, this is where there must be a hard standard, in our club it is a 4" set-back from the front of the module and a 2.5" set-back from the module end where the module meets other modules. Inside of those ends there is considerable freedom to get away from the one-trak standard as long as the outisde ends re-establish the standard. We use Peco code 55, which will join with Atlas code 80 without issue (atlas code 80 snap track makes an easy joiner track.) within (inside) the modules we often butt the track and use wood dowels to make a permanant alignment getting rid of the need for joiner track on the inside joints.

I thought it was BANTRAK that used N trak standards but had spur lines that ran off using one-trak, effectively joining the two by using a standard N trak module with a turnout onto the one- trak line coming off at an angle, a great idea I have been trying to get the FEC club to explore in another fashion. You could build a smaller standard N trak module with this concept and than build out your line on this "spur," at conrail meets the module would fit directly, at N  Trak meets you could attach and than use your modules as a spur and even create a small 2' re-joiner module that could be attached at the far end to reestablish contact with an N trak module. There is flexibility that can be had while still using a set of standards, and I agree that using standards already established is very very helpful.

The next thing we did on our website is create a list of modules by location. If you wanted to build a module of the Ft. Lauderdale intermodal yard, as I did, I would go to the database and see if it had been claimed, if not, I would claim it on the database and submit the plan to the director for approval, once approvedit is built and added in. You can see people who have claimed locations up and down the east coast of Florida they have built or plan to build, this way you have quality control, interchange control, and get all your best locations modeled. We do the same thing with locomotives. So you could create a database by location with "Altoona" Horseshoe curve," Harrisburg Enola yard etc. and have people sign up to build them. As long as the outside edges of the modules were standard they could mate to anything and to some degree grades can be accomodated by heavily adjustable legs.  Most of us integrate our modules into our home layouts (which are usually non-standardized) without any problem due to the standardized outer edges or joiner modules to re-standardize them. You can create your curves and add visual interest by offsetting the interior of the modules (see the Palm Bay FEC modulkes as an example)

I'd love to see this happen, its actually very similar to what we are doing in the FEC with the added trouble of grades (not much in the way of elevation here). It can work easier than you think, especially if you are not absolutely committed to inserting yourself as part of an "outside" N Trak mainline, make it a spur or an enclosed area and you are set!
my best,
Jan

[shark_jj]

It has been quite a while since I posted (that's a story for another day), however, this thread caught my eye since I have now built two layouts featuring the Horseshoe Curve.  The layout that Ed is envisioning has some exciting possiblities.  The key is to remain true to the vision. 

The Vision:  The PRR/Conrail/NS crossing of the Alleghenies.  A 1.8% grade, a sweeping Curve, significant mountains for the east, helper service, and a 3 or 4 track mainline. 

If you adhere to this vision, the whole arguement about Ntrak falls by the wayside except for the extreme ends of the modular layout where transition modules would get you back to Ntrak standards.  I simply don't see a method where you could have Ntrak standards at the end of each individual module and remain true to The Vision.

Due to the geographic dispersion of the potential modellers, you have to accept that this layout would only be assembled for special events/occasions where everyone could get together.  It might be possible to divide the layout into several sections where one section with transition modules could be displayed without the other sections being there.  For example if you look at the plan put forward for Gallitizin, if modellers in a specific geographic area built this section, it could be used/shown without the others.  Similarly the Curve could be built by one or more modellers living close to one another and with transition modules could be used separately. 

You are also pretty well committed to also doing the west slope so that you could bring the grade back down to the standard level for attachment to other Ntrak modules. 

I trust these comments are helpful since they are being put forward in a postive way.

[inkaneer]

Guys, I did a lot of study into Horseshoe Curve as about 6-7 years ago I built the Ntrak modules to model it.  In doing so I had to consider a number of factors and as a result had to compromise on some things due to overriding constraints.  The biggest of these was the fact everything had to fit in the back of a Ford Windstar minivan for transport.   The other overriding factor was conformity to Ntrak standards.  My track plan would be true to scale but would contain no gradient.   I would have loved to model it with the grade but this was not going to be just a big diorama and I needed the Ntrak connection to complete the loop in order to run trains.   One of the biggest challenges at the time was trying to determine the radii of the curves.  There are two different radii curves that comprise the actual horseshoe. The southern curve is sharper than the northern one.  I calculated that had I put in the grade the uphill side of the curve would be about 9+ inches higher than the downhill side at the ends of the modules.   I modeled it in the PRR era so I used four tracks with Peco C55 turnouts at the end modules to switch between tracks 2 & 3.  I also planned it with 1.5 inch Ntrak spacing but since the modules are dedicated 1.25" spacing is doable and with the really broad curves [for N Gauge] of about 45+- inches I don't think parallel track interference would be an issue.   My models were designed so the module front edge is lower than the track so to give the impression that this thing was actually cut into the side of the mountains, which it was.  My modules were of the curve itself and were in the shape of a giant "U" and occupies a floor space area 12 feet by 12 feet.
  
My modules have never seen the light of day.  They have sat in my basement semi built for 6 years.  At the time I was building them we lost a lot of our club's trasportation ability due to several factors which all came together in sort of a "perfect storm" scenario.  My van was needed to haul the club corners to and from setups so my modules were never completed.  The plan is to complete them and hope our transportation issues are eventually solved.

Originally I envisioned people being able to walk into the middle of the curve to about when the visitor's center is.  However, usable space there is only 4 feet wide. So I nixed that idea.  Actually I think it is better for one to stand back on the outside of the modules and watch the trains as they go away from the viewer into the curve then come back towards the viewer.  I don't think the lack of a grade will detract from the scene and with a little prior planning it is possible to build it keeping the track level but putting the scenery on a grade, sort of forced perspective.  I never comtemplated doing that myself as my artistic abilities are challenged enough as it is.

One more thing, all of the research materials I have indicate it was track #2 that was removed not #3.  Track #2 is the second track as measured from the inside of the curve.  Track 3 and 4 are at the outside near the face of what is left of Kittanning Point.

Good luck on your endeavors. I think a model of the Curve, with or without the gradient,  would be a real crowd pleaser at any train show.

[Hiroe]

NTRAK clubs already have infrastructure: stanchions, DCC systems, carpeting, chairs, etc... If you ditch NTRAK, you lose that stuff and have to start from scratch.
Trust me, there's lot of "little things" that make doing shows MUCH easier, that being part of a larger framework gets you.

That big box of heavy C Clamps, we're working on eliminating that with our articulated clamping legs.  The carpeting I presume is for protecting the floors from leveling feet?  We moved the leg adjustment higher up the leg and have a plain 2x2 contact area so we don't need floor protection at shows that require it. Actually, we're lazy too so we did away with connecting tracks too.  Nobody ever wanted to install the things, and they take too long.  

Granted, it's nice to plan not to need all the extra junk, but it *does* come in handy for those oddball situations that we always ended up with at least once per show.

Articulated clamping legs? Tell me more.

Carpeting is more for protecting operator feet from the floor than it is about protecting the floor from the module feet. Standing on tiled or concrete floors all day is a significant contributor to fatigue.

Connecting tracks: So what did you do instead? Do you just run the track clear up to the edge of the module, and butt them together East-Penn style?

I think the biggest issue with making this idea NTrak-compatible is that the NTrak standards do not permit any grade, at all, on the main lines. It's not a matter of coming back to 40 inches from the floor by the end of the module set. If you aren't constantly 40 inches from the floor, you aren't NTrak compliant.

Maybe the thing to do is use the Ntrak standards as a guide rather than the Bible. Because the "layout" is being built for a specific place, why not change things to suit? For example, Ntrak calls for code 80, but why not use 55? There's no reason not to.

This. So much this. I myself am currently planning to build a 3-module set to model Bell/Holly flyover on the NEC (which can be seen along 495 in Wilmington) and i plan to do just that. Using the Ntrak "rules" as guidelines is usually sufficient enough to allow use in the layout anyway, regardless of grade/spacing/rail code. In order to properly model the flyover, i need to elevate the front track (red) up enough to jump over the next two (yellow and blue), which themselves move forward one track placement each (to red and yellow), so the upper track can drop back down into the third position (blue). If i played by the hard-and-fast rules, this would be completely out of the question.

That said, the important part of having grades is that at the far end of the group, you need some way to bring the elevated routes back down to the standard track/module height.

[mmyers]

My modules have never seen the light of day.  They have sat in my basement semi built for 6 years.

My Harpers Ferry set saw the light of day when I moved them to a new storage location. Some day...