Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[jsoflo]

If space constraints and size become a problem, the horseshoe curve could be done as a "bump out" this is how we did "City Point" in the FEC, where the group of modules come out the front of the layout via a set of right angle curves, its a space saving way to create a "U" shape in your track plan.

[sd40-blue]

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.

Great idea, Ed! I would get on board with your idea as long as it is N-Trak based (pizza cutter compatible, spacing, etc....). I hope this keeps getting "talked through".

Where would you start to model the Allegheny Crossing? "Alto" to "C" or leave it up to the individual? Making a sub-division starting at Tyrone would work. Tyrone is ready made for a junction module!

 At one time, I had made plans for a set of modules to represent "Homer" to "Slope", including "Alto". The module set would have consisted of two six-footers with a two-footer at each end to set the tracks at the proper spacing. I'll have to look around to see if the drawings still exist.

[lashedup]

Hey Ed and Co.

I saw this thread and thought I'd throw out a couple of thoughts/ideas/talking. I think what Skibbe is indirectly shooting at is that what you are proposing is something a lot of us in Modutrak contemplated but never thought we'd be able to do and it turned out to be much easier than all of us thought...

1. Realistically how many people will be committed to this and can they deliver? This will largely determine your course of direction in terms of going your own way where you could build a hell of a fun project that is unique, runs proper equipment and tries to mimic the prototype *or* taking a route that has compromises so that your modules can fit in with an existing standard but offers more running opportunities.

2. If you have a group of 5-10 people and they all commit to a given module or section of modules you could end up with a hell of a stand-alone prototypical group of modules. Each person will actually get into the detailed research and have a plan and purpose leading to a common goal - this is incredibly motivating, especially if the group of people you are trying to tie together have like-minded ideas and standards coupled with the love of a given geographic area and the railroads that run on them.

3. What our group did was take some bits and pieces of standards from all sorts of modular layouts, think through how they might be improved or adapted to our ideal plan and go from there. We didn't want to deal with connecting tracks. We wanted a higher layout height to bring the layout and trains up where they really look good. We wanted closer track spacing. We wanted Code 55 track. We wanted easy and quick setup and teardown. We wanted scenery continuity so that everything looked like it was designed to be run together. We didn't want to see random equipment from different eras and roads running through a prototypical scene we built around a very specific area (i.e. if it was integrated into an NTRAK setup).

In the end we have a small group of people all working towards a common goal to build something different that models an area (Chicago/Milwaukee) where a LOT of different equipment converged. No, not everyone has the same skill sets and that's ok. We lean on each other and push each other to learn things. If it is too big of a pain or out of someone's given abilities, someone else that loves doing that task steps up. There are some amazing modelers on Railwire and a lot of you guys are modeling similar prototypes. Even if the era's don't match up completely, the prototype location *will* look right.

In the end you guys all know what you have to work with and the logistics involved. Like Mike said, our group officially goes to Trainfest in November and a local show at Harper College in March - two shows. In between everyone is hard at work plugging away at their modules. We added a couple of extra shows this past year that didn't tax things too much and when the NMRA Show comes to Milwaukee in 2010 we plan to be there as well.

If there is anything we can do to help you guys sort through something like this let us know and we'll pitch in. It isn't that Mike and I are trying to push our Modutrak thing on anyone, but more than we're really encouraging you guys to explore doing something unique.

- jamie

[160pennsy]

Some additional food for thought if you want to move away from N-TRAK specs. - The Sipping & Switching Society of NC. This HO modular club in North Carolina has a VERY interesting solution to the bridge/connecting track drawback of N-TRAK, with their - Flush End Track standards & template. Their "waffle frame" modules also keeps the weight down but gives a strong rigid framework that can stand up to the rough handling during transport, show setup & teardown.

http://s-ss3.home.mindspring.com/

[John]

I personally wouldn't go for the concept if it had to be 100% NTRAK compatible.

[John Drye]

Folks;

I'm a little late arriving at this Déjà Vu moment. As Bernie noted, some of us in Northern Virginia NTRAK started up this track a while back and got as far as designing some modules. Bernie came up with a great design for the summit and I got as far as building a small-scale model of a three-module Horseshoe Curve.

Despite the fact that I'm focused on Works to Johnstown in my basement, I could find some time to jump in, once we settle on the design parameters.

I’m willing to go along with the consensus, but I think the advantages of NTRAK outweigh the drawbacks. Most significant is that NTRAK-compatible modules are likely to see more use than the once or twice a year full setups. After all, we in this to run trains, right? I’d like to see all four tracks because I’m more of a PRR than CR modeler.  Prototypical track spacing makes sense, especially if the group ends up with multiple-module sets.

Great idea; can’t wait to hear more.

John Drye

[Nato]

  I posted this the other night, got a message saying check my post that other posts had come in while typing this, I sent it ,but it didn't go through so here it is again. Speaking from expierence N Quack (Trak) isn't the way to go. The old Utah N Rail Modelers group started out as a N Trak group U.S. scenes with matching scenery at ends quickly got discarded. We used the optional Mountain Division Green Line Track so we had to be in layouts at shows with this. The two intresting things we did do was follow our trains around fron the inside pit usuing corded throttles with long cords, watch out for tangles, and built a dispatchers pannel in center of pit so blocks could be assigned ,usuing cheap AM Radio Headsets. Our layout was at the first N Scale convention in Golden ,Colorado and recieved quite a write up in the N Trak news letter because of those features. Our layout was part of an even bigger Mountain Division layout at the National N.M.R.A. Show in Eugene, Oregon and others had to use our throttle system and dispatching (they either loved or hated it).Later in late 1980's early 1990's we became a slimmed down group through member atrition, move aways etc. We adopted a new standard ,two track main line,with optional branch track at back, code 55 track, this was ME track pre Atlas Days, code 40 could be used for sidings ME switches or home made switches on branch trackage. We grandfathered in the best of the old N Trak modules with transition sections to join the new parts including carefully made track to join the 55 track to Code 80. We then became a sectional layout, but were stuck with each section old or new having to be in a specific location. See the cover story Rail Model Journal February 1995 for photos of this layout. We soon found out that a fixed size limited our being at some shows we could not  go smaller or bigger. The current Wasatch N Scale group reorganized with slightly fewer members has taken a new approach, be flexible. Modules use code 55 track Atlas or ME, Atlas switches or home built in yards or branches. The track spacing of our two main tracks is N Track so with a transition of some sort we could join, but who would want to. My advice if you are a stand alone layout have the ability to change size or shape to fit in different spaces at shows, the organizers dictate where you go unless you put on  the show.Have extra corners both inside and outside, we also have two end loops which have proven very useful. Don't use the Peco rail in a slot track, but real code 55 if you are planning quality modeling and scenes, but do each module so it could be left out if you had to have a smaller layout, but the overall scene would still look good. If I lived East of the Missippi or Missouri Rivers I would join this project. Nate Goodman (Nato). Salt Lake, Utah.

[wm3798]

John,
Can we slap together a quick poll to see A) who's serious about participating in this project, and B) should N Trak dictate the standards or what...?

One last gob of lobbying.  This is the Railwire, where things like quality and prototype fidelity seem to matter a little more than on some other boards.  If this is to be a Railwire driven project, I think that should be reflected in the standards adopted...

Lee

[davefoxx]

I personally wouldn't go for the concept if it had to be 100% NTRAK compatible.

I would be willing to contribute a four- or six-foot module, if somebody gave me an idea of what portion I was designated to build and supplied me with information on the location.  Heck, a project such as this is perfect for my new space limitations and it would give me something to photograph.

However, like John, I'm not really interested in building something to NTRAK standards, because my trains are afraid of heights and don't like that code 80 stuff.  ;D

Dave

[sizemore]

I'm in for a 4 foot module using Code 55. I am not in for following NTrack to a T using Code 80.

The S.

[One of One-Sixty]

I have been watching this thread very carefully, and I think it is a good idea.  I must say never having been about of a MR club or organization, my views maybe skewed.

At this point of time, I am in the process of designing a modular system for Unitrack users, that want to take their modules beyond what T-Trak offers.  I have been taking a little bit from N-Trak, N-Cat and some other modular systems and incorporating them into my new modular system.

I will say this, if this is suppose to go as plan, I think that you should not adhere strictly to N-Trak standards.  Excuse my ignorance, but when was the last time the rules and standards have been updated?  From what I have seen it really has not changed much since 73.  Nowadays we have stronger motive power than they did back then and less of the limitations then there use to be.

If this is going to be done properly, I say be like the Borg and adapt other standards and make it into your own.  If that is not an option, use Horsehoe Curve as a corner module this way it is still possible to capture the essence of it while adhering to N-Trak Standards.  

If it was me, I would build "The Curve" with grade as a corner module, with transition modules that has 2 bypass tracks that would duck behind "The Curve". This way if there are complaints, about the grade, all the trains can run on the bypass tracks, and you can still and experience "The Curve".

Another option would be to build "The Curve" as a branch off of the mainline and just run your trains up "The Curve".

[NorfolkSouthern9708]

I have to go with A.) Lee. I have a set M-E Code 55 flex track that needs to be used.

[jsoflo]

It seems as though there are a lot of Conrail modelers out in the mid-Atlantic region, with enough members and enough interest it seems a modular club could be started using its own standards that are very similar to N Trak (such as module height, length, wiring, module debth, leg adjustability, backdrops and curve radius), the easy things to change from the standard are track type and number of tracks and spacing, turnout size and setback. With even say, 20 members you could have a number of yearly gatherings, and for those who need more an N Trak standard module could easily be used to join that persons "spur line" off the main rectangle when allowed.

I think the other thread about updating N trak has been interesting and some of what was said is very true, in the FEC club we carry extra corner modules to deal with room size and shape, and all corners are reverse wiring capable. Further, "bump outs," and off-set modules reduce the "straight-line effect" as do "S" curves within some modules, visual interest adds a lot to the layout from these techniques and the standards that were adopted have been easy to work within.

I keep responding because I am fascinated by the possibilities of this project, (I wish I was closer, I would participate!) I really think you have the potential to do something very special in N scale here based on a very special region of the country. There are many Conrail modelers, and if word was to spread it would seem to me that you have the potential for a sizeable club modular layout. I believe your track issues can be easily resolved, it is the grade issue that is going to require serious brainstorming. Ultimately the answer may be to make the graded areas of the layout bypassable if necessary by using generic club joiner modules-- anytime there is insufficient grade module commitment you could cut the grade modules out and join the flats. Keep your idea alive, its a good one.
my best,
Jan

[Ian MacMillan]

In all honesty I am very interested in this project as I had a large Pittsburgh Line layout back in 2003. I am however not too keen on the NTRAK idea. There is NTRAK group here in the NE states but I want nothing to do with them. However I do know that others in the other states are big NTRAK members.

If it had to be 100% NTRAK I would say that I would most likely be out. I would prefer creating our own set of standards much like Modutrak. Actually I want to start a Modutrak standard based group in the NE States to help push N scale modeling further. Hell who knows, maybe if we go the Modutrak "standard" we can help that standard grow more and other groups across the country may start.

I could really care less if my modules are used 3 times, let alone 1 time a year as I have a large layout at home to work on. But I do want to see a really cool large Pittsburgh line.

Can I call dibs on ALTO to just east of the Museum!??!??!?!!!!!!

[wm3798]

As this idea germinates, I think the center of gravity is pulling toward a more proto-oriented set of standards.

I think this will work fine.  The WMRHS has sponsored an HO modular group constructing several sections of the WM.  It has grown to become one of the larger modular HO layouts that appears at Timonium and other places.  They've included iconic scenes such as Maryland Junction, Salisbury Viaduct and Gettysburg.  They do use standards that are shared by other groups, but the prototype rules the day on most aspects.

I agree also that should be looked at more as a PRR/PC/Conrail/NS modeling project than as an N trak project.  I can understand if it works out that grades aren't practical, but in my mind's eye, I see that being a pivotal feature of the layout.  The main obstacle would more likely be the need for a well-honed attention span among the helper crews than physically joining the modules.  But what an awesome showcase for N scale, and what a great demonstration of mountain railroading it would be!

Lee