Conrail's Allegheny Crossing as NTRAK Modules

[Ed Kapuscinski]

OK, so it looks like you all want to shy away from NTRAK, even though I SWEAR that by making it compatible we'll actually reap many rewards, maybe we should do it to something that's actually reasonably compatible.

I agree, the grades would be fun, but I really think that they'll be impractical (unless we create them using leveling screws).

I think one of the things that everyone has been focusing on is the simple appearance, and when it comes to doing a display layout like this, there are many, many, things aside from the appearance that are important.

Phil mentioned that this is like defending an application development framework, and he's right.

I would gladly trade off the perfect track spacing to be able to participate in the large NTRAK shows. Sure, it means that the all blue boxcar special might roll through, but think about the number of people that will see our sheer awesomeness first hand. Megalomaniacal? Maybe a little, but you can't say that's not a little fun.

[Ian MacMillan]

I still say we honestly should go the Modutrac route or something similar, and push the scale. Take a look at FEMO, they are starting to explode across the world by saying no to the NMRA HO module standard. It doesnt have to have grades, but Atlas C55 and proto spacing is a must

We can never really move N scale forward if we SETTLE on an antiquated standard for a set of modules that is designed to push the skills and standards of N. Its basically like buying an HDTV and then using Composite cables to hook up your HD cable box to it.

I really want to be involved in this project, but for my own self aggravation I cant if it uses Ntrak.

Ed look at it this way, why be one of the normal when we can pioneer the modular N world? Think about the number of people that will see our sheer awesomeness first hand and say, wow we could start a modular group like that.

[wm3798]

Agreed, Ian.  I'm not interested in being one of the many...  I want this to be a pioneering project.  I agree there's more to it than the appearance, but in the end, the appearance is the first impression.  Again, we have a reputation building here on this site, and it doesn't involve settling for less.  N Trak might be the easy way, but it wouldn't be the Cowboy Way... (Thanks, Ranger Doug!).

I also dispute the need to participate en-mass with other N trak set ups.  I mean, realistically, how many are there?

Plus, I think it won't be a big deal to work in a grade.  If the core group in the mid-Atlantic area support the section between the Brickyard and say, Cresson, then if someone can't make it, it shouldn't be too big a deal for someone else to pick up the module.  And really, the most important modules would be the transition from flat to 1%.  If the others follow a steady 1%, then you can pull one of the less critical pieces and still have a 1% grade, albeit shorter.  If the leg lengths are adjustable, as Mike described for Modutrak, then if a piece is missing, the next higher section just drops down a notch.  I think it can all be easily engineered.

Also, I think it would be a damn dramatic and impressive display to have Alto at 42", then a climb up to 50" or 54", then back to 48" at Cresson.  East of Alto could be flat, and Cresson to Johnstown can be flat, the key is the adjustable legs, and return loops at each end that allow the layout to stand alone.

Or how about this...  Build the return loops into a single corner unit one low and one high.  Not a helix, but the same kind of cabinet with two decks, so the run can be set up in the traditional square set up, but with the trains pulling the climb, lots of helper madness, screaming diesel sound, and a walk-n alcove with the Curve...  Oh man...  I'm drooling now...

Think of it as being inspired more by the Clinchfield than by N trak, and you'll begin to catch the vibe.

Lee

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Ok, let's bring this back a little here.

I still think we can achieve what we want and still be compatible.

I REALLY think the built in grades will be trouble. This is years (27) of portable model railroad experience talking here. There is enough variance in the systems already. Adding more complexity will be troublesome. Mark my words.

I think we should look towards being moderately compatible. Being part of those large setups is NOT something I would want to miss, and, quite frankly, I want to be able to work with the existing groups that I am a member of with this. That'll make getting started much easier.

So how about this. Instead of maintaining strict adherence to the standards, lets work from the BANTRAK onetrak standards. They're close enough, there's a good bit of leeway, and I think they are the smart place to start. They use C55, DCC, all the goodies we want. The only thing we'd be missing is the third track (no problem, one of my modules already has one), and the spacing. But those are much easier to work with.

What say you to this?
http://bantrak.net/?q=node/14

[John]

I was going to suggest using the BANTRAK 1T standard also. It is pretty flexible .. As far as the grade goes, the only place you really need to simulate it is around the curve .. the rest of the area seems pretty "flat" from a big picture perspective . .. so around the curve, you have a mountain in the back, and the drop off in front of the reservoir .. do a module set there that is lower in base height .. and bring the track in from the edge .. of course,  this should be a "set" where one person does the module leading up to the curve on both sides, and the curve itself ..

[keystonecrossings]

Many years ago we started a similar project in HO, called PRRMO (PRR Modular Operations, or something like that). The hardest part was agreeing on standards. A few test modules were built, but it never went further.

What I would like to share is how we planned to handle grades. The plan was for 4 foot modules. We wanted to keep the frame fully square. So the plan was to have one end of the frame be 1 inch higher than the other. This would build 1" of grade into the module over its 4 feet of length.

Every module had its connections placed via a template. By doing this, even if some modules were absent from a meet, the grade was consistent, as were the connections, so modules were interchangeable... as long as you had a method of adjusting the height of the legs. If I recall, we were looking at some arrangement that included angle irons that could be adjusted in 1 inch increments.

The end modules of the system -- Altoona and Cresson in your case, not only broke the grade and leveled it out, but also included adjustments to the track profile that brought it into standard specs (NTRAK in your case).

The only remaining issue with NTRAK is that you are only discussing one side of the mountain, so you have a height problem with NTRAK. Perhaps a portable helix????

If you did the west slope, perhaps we could re-purpose my Sherman's Creek bridge!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've never really meant to limit it to the east slope, it's just what I'm more familiar with.

In fact, I have no issue with stuff east of Altoona (I know someone has a bridge section floating around somewhere), or west of Johnstown.

I'm all about the "big picture" on this one.

[davefoxx]

Ed,

I know that you have much more experience with modular layouts than I do (I have none), but I think I must take Lee's side on this one with regard to the issue of grades.  There has got to be a way to make it work, and, if so, mountain railroading, to me, is about as exciting as railroading gets.  My realization occurred after I railfanned Saluda in April 1994 and watched two brand new SD70s tripling the hill (I've even got the unedited American Altavista footage that we shot that day).  So, again, I'm all for the grades and adding helpers to get 'em over the hill.  DCC will make this loads of fun.

DFF

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'm not saying we can't do grades with it, but I AM saying that we shouldn't be making them built in.

Because they'll be fun for the first show, then we'll all be pissed when our stuff stops working, and we'll just give up.

I think flexibility is incredibly important here.

[AlkemScaleModels]

Ok, let's bring this back a little here.

I still think we can achieve what we want and still be compatible.

I REALLY think the built in grades will be trouble. This is years (27) of portable model railroad experience talking here. There is enough variance in the systems already. Adding more complexity will be troublesome. Mark my words.

I think we should look towards being moderately compatible. Being part of those large setups is NOT something I would want to miss, and, quite frankly, I want to be able to work with the existing groups that I am a member of with this. That'll make getting started much easier.

So how about this. Instead of maintaining strict adherence to the standards, lets work from the BANTRAK onetrak standards. They're close enough, there's a good bit of leeway, and I think they are the smart place to start. They use C55, DCC, all the goodies we want. The only thing we'd be missing is the third track (no problem, one of my modules already has one), and the spacing. But those are much easier to work with.

What say you to this?
http://bantrak.net/?q=node/14

I didn't know you guys had a published standard. Seems like a good idea.  Will you update the BOG standard for the Pittsburgh division?

As an aside -  I wonder if I can drag my C&O oNeTRAK Mtn sub oNeTRAK modules out to one of your oNeTRAK set-ups at some point?

[Ed Kapuscinski]

You better believe you can!

Our next show is in the fall, and I think we'll actually be hurting for real estate. Got a drawing of the whole thing? I'm sure we can try and work it in.

BANTRAK is having a meeting this weekend too, I think I'll bring it up (although I'm sure it'll be read here first).

[inkaneer]

I think you guys are thinking too small here.  Take this scenario which most of you seem to favor.

You build the curve with a grade and non Ntrak standards.

Okay how about the rest of the layout?  All you have is a big diorama with one end higher than the other. So you need another grade to bring the track back down to meet the lower end of the curve.  So you will need twice the number of modules to do that.  Okay you need to connect to something to run trains.  What?  Can't be Ntrak because you are not Ntrak compliant.  Okay either you build additional modules to complete the layout or you add transition modules so you are Ntrak compliant.  Either way you are able to complete the layout and maybe add a yard to help in operations.  Okay how are you going to transport all these modules and what happens if one module with part of the grade or an Ntrak transition module is a no show?   How many people who own individual modules are going to be able to attend a given event for this layout to be built and operated.  With Ntrak its a simple matter of plugging in another module but you can't do that because of the grade.  The complexity of this thing tells me it ain't going to work. 

[AlkemScaleModels]

You better believe you can!

Our next show is in the fall, and I think we'll actually be hurting for real estate. Got a drawing of the whole thing? I'm sure we can try and work it in.

BANTRAK is having a meeting this weekend too, I think I'll bring it up (although I'm sure it'll be read here first).

My section is 13 feet long with a one foot offset. The track plan was in NSR last summer, but I can send you a image when I get to my home computer.

[keystonecrossings]

I think the grades are mandatory.

Ed, you don't know the west slope? Neither did I until about five years ago. Now I actually like the west slope better!

The east slope is just so recognized for the Horseshoe Curve, but the west slope has a ton of appeal and opportunity. At the foot of the west slope is the South Fork Branch, which was the source of unbelievable amounts of coal that went over the mountain.

If you start at Cresson as a flat series of 2-3 modules and build down both sides in even numbers, you can either meet up end-to-end or else have conversion modules to a standard NTRAK module.

Keep in mind, both AR and MG tower kits are available! 

[keystonecrossings]

Okay how are you going to transport all these modules and what happens if one module with part of the grade or an Ntrak transition module is a no show?   How many people who own individual modules are going to be able to attend a given event for this layout to be built and operated.  With Ntrak its a simple matter of plugging in another module but you can't do that because of the grade. 

See my earlier post about the PRRMO. If each module is built to consistent specs, and has a standard grade, then you can assemble them in any order as long as you have the same number on either side of the summit.