Opinions about changing our NTRAK layout height

[rogergperkins]

When a layout for public viewing cannot be viewed comfortably by all who are interested, the project is off-track. Pun intended.
I agree strongly with Skipgear's comments that kids need to see these layouts to stimulate their interests in the hobby.
Maybe their love of trains will result in electing future legislators who can be convinced to revitalize the USA rail system.

[SkipGear]

Most of the guys in our club have home layouts so the point of our club is too show. We don't have ropes to keep people away. We usually have a small train running that we can hand to interested parties to let them drive. My now 9 year old son is the best ambasador as he has been running with the club since he was 5. We do use 6" high plexiglass shields on the front of the more detailed layouts. Our modules run the gambit from very basic to very detailed to make a point that anybody can be involved, no mater what their desire or skill level.

One member is currently building a module that, instead of a shield, will have a row of buildings as the guard for something diferent where the trains go behind somthing and aren't front and center. It will also have a working subway underneath with a viewing window to the platform.

[Sokramiketes]

Bob, you guys must be ripped.  That looks like one heavy module frame plus integral legs. 

[John]

NTRAK standards are like politics and religion ... 

[Denver Road Doug]

Has anyone else had this discussion? And how was it resolved?

I think to really provide good feedback we would need to know more about the history and your club and what your charter says, etc.  If the initial foundation was as a hard-core N-Trak club then I think you would need to stay true to spec.   If it was founded as an N-Trak club as a launching point that evolved to the point of N-Trak being an afterthought, then I would have a different take on it.

A good example of this is the "N-Trak" club I used to belong to.   They have modules that while technically were based on N-Trak spec and could be connected to the front 3 N-Trak tracks at the correct height, that's about where it ended.   I don't think they were ever really intended to be part of a larger N-Trak setup, and if they decided to change the height I doubt there would be any resistance, other than who was going to put the effort into making the change.   In fact, we did have a member requesting a "geezer gate" but there was just nobody willing to do the work in lieu of other task, plus there was *some* resistance since it would exponentially increase complexity of wiring, transportation, and setup time.  But as far as "holding true to the ideals of N-trak", that was never a consideration.

But I think if I had joined with the promise and expectations of N-trak adherence and then put a lot of effort into a module only to have them tell me, "meh, we decided to do something different"....well I would probably not like that too much.   So I can see that side of the coin too.

It seems that with your FreeMoN group that you've got a good opportunity to keep both groups happy....taller FreeMoN modules and shorter N-Trak modules.   Granted you cannot easily connect them at that point, but as time goes on I bet you'd see things move away from N-Trak anyway...if that's what the group wanted to do.

Same thing with the reasoning about accommodating children.  Don't do it for that reason unless that was your purpose to begin with, or unless your mandate has changed by appropriate voting.

[Specter3]

At the narrow gauge national convention last year almost all of the layouts and displays were higher. I think our Ntrak layout(it is our home turf and they had plenty of space) was the only low layout. Didnt hear any complaints from anyone concerning height. kids were held up or stepped up on stools and benches. But I guess those folks were accustomed to the height of that stuff.

[robert3985]

Bob, you guys must be ripped.  That looks like one heavy module frame plus integral legs. 

Skibbe...Hahaha...some of us are, but the modules are not heavy.  That photo is from an earlier design and the new standards don't use as much plywood.

However, the modules are not extraordinarily light either, but they're sturdy, stiff and "robust", and are designed to be easily transported by two normal adults.

I don't consider myself to be "ripped", but I don't have any trouble setting them up all by myself when I've got them in my train room fresh back from a show.

The premium pine L-girders and redwood balusters used on the legs is surprisingly light and nowadays we use 3/4" plywood only on the ends for strength, stiffness and durability at the stress point of where the clamps and big bolts are applied.

Here's a photo of an atypical "adapter" corner module that transitions from my buddy Gregg's older modules to my "standard" modules.  The fascia gets mostly cut away except for one big slice through a mountain where the curved twin Taggarts Tunnels on the UP pierce the jagged rocks.  No subroadbed has been applied yet in this photo but this gives you a better idea of the "airy" quality of the benchwork and folding legs:


New benchwork standards are basically just two premium pine L-girders with plywood ends.  The cross-bracing for attaching risers and for stiffness double as supports for the curved front fascia, but in 6' that's usually only from two to three redwood baluster cross-pieces.

I know you guys build 'em really simple and lightweight.  Ours are not so lightweight or simple, but the basic design has been in use now for nearly 20 years and works well for us, and is easy to use in atypical applications where an odd-sized irregular module is needed (because of modified legacy modules).

In the "old days" of Ntrak, the use of a lot of plaster in the scenery made some modules nearly unmanageable.  That's why I now use as little plaster as possible.  It wasn't the benchwork but the scenery materials that was the weight culprit. Hooray for extruded polystyrene!

One of the things I like about the setup is the solid-looking modules floating on dark cloth skirting above the floor.  The design demands that the legs are offset from the front fascia, so the skirting usually follows the legs, with the overhanging fascia curving above it.  We get lots of comments about how good it looks as opposed to other modular groups whose module fascias run straight and true parallel to equally straight mainlines or who choose to not have any skirting to conceal their module legs.

One of the things I learned designing displays for museums and industry is that the display looks much better to the eye if the front edge of the display is at an odd angle to the scenery behind it and isn't parallel with most of the track.  That's the main reason I attempt to make the fascias on my modules "flowing" rather than straight...even if just a small amount.

Here's a good example of that on Gregg's side of the layout.  Gregg happens to be an artist also and he likes really "flowing" curvy fascias as is pretty obvious here as well as the "floaty" effect:


Okay, that's probably enough "drift" for today...

[Sokramiketes]

We get away with a lot less modeling the Midwest, so I'm just giving you a hard time.  I've been exploring the best way to frame "mountain" modules as I explore the BNSF Columbia River Sub in Z scale.  I don't want to build a typical home layout, as modules are easier to work on.  But our design doesn't work too well for mountain scenery... at least not for hill sides that dip more than 2-4" below track level or track that changes elevation for that matter.  Going upwards with scenery is easy enough.

I may have to go back to L-girder and cookie cutter roadbed.  But it seems like there should be a lighter solution. 

[John]

I may have to go back to L-girder and cookie cutter roadbed.  But it seems like there should be a lighter solution.

Maybe foam laminated with luan ..

[robert3985]

We get away with a lot less modeling the Midwest, so I'm just giving you a hard time.  I've been exploring the best way to frame "mountain" modules as I explore the BNSF Columbia River Sub in Z scale.  I don't want to build a typical home layout, as modules are easier to work on.  But our design doesn't work too well for mountain scenery... at least not for hill sides that dip more than 2-4" below track level or track that changes elevation for that matter.  Going upwards with scenery is easy enough.

I may have to go back to L-girder and cookie cutter roadbed.  But it seems like there should be a lighter solution.

The BNSF on the north side of the Columbia is a pretty spectacular undertaking, and would lend itself very well to Z-scale considering the massive overpowering nature of the cliffs and river!  I grew up in that area and spent a lot of time on the Wallula Gap both on the water and hunting the wily Jackrabbit on the tops of the basalt cliffs.

Using modern materials is probably a good idea for any type of "girder" construction and I've thought lately that steel studs, used with a little creativity, might be an answer to both robust construction, light weight and safety from warpage, plus they're readily available and I'm assuming they're cheaper than premium pine. However, I'm a real traditionalist when it come to joinery and I can't see how joints that are simply screwed (with no glue) are a valid way to join materials. Maybe liquid nails would solve my problem, as it's pretty obvious that some wood parts will need to be attached to the steel.

Cookie cutter construction would only add weight if you used plywood, and I'm not a big proponent of extruded polystyrene for subroadbed or structural components (although DKS and others will disagree with me), so I'd suggest that for your mainline you use some type of splined subroadbed, the easiest, cheapest and strongest would be Masonite splines, and in Z-scale, wouldn't add much weight. You could probably use 3/4" tall 1/8" splines (or even a bit shorter)  using four or five splines (this is just off the top of my head) laminated together with yellow carpenter's glue.  My buddy Gregg Cudworth uses splined Masonite subroadbed on his Nn3 RGS filling up his basement in double-decked glory and swears by it as a very stable platform for his hand-laid code 30 trackage.

Just thinkin' 

[Big Train]

Thanks for the input...and keep them coming.

Denver Road Doug: we've never had a charter as to what the purpose of the club was no other than providing those of us without a home empire to run trains. A lot of trains. A lot of long, long trains.

I have been using NTRAK modules since 1980 and when a new club was formed in my area, I just transitioned those modules to the new club. That was the beauty of NTRAK standards. Simple.

When this "new" club formed in 1990, there was general frustration at the poor quality, almost toy-like modules we've seen at other NTRAK clubs we saw. It was decided, and quite rightly, to "raise the bar" for higher standards of scenery and operational reliability for N Scale at train shows. Things like ME Code 70 and 55 rail, scenery standards, etc. I have always maintained, even from my early days in N Scale, that we can achieve everything the HO people have been doing all along...super-detailing locomotives, the use of  fine scale trackage, extreme scratch building. In other words, everything you see in HO can be done in N Scale.

I think we caught that wave at the right time...Kato was starting to produce high quality, reliable locomotives. The momentum was gaining. That club fizzled out. The current group I'm with includes some survivors from the second club. So basically, the core group of this "newer" group has been working together, more or less, for more than 20 years.

Our thing still is to allow us to run trains because many of us still don't have home empires (I'm currently working on mine, though). And that has always been our informal mission statement: Let's clamp them together and have fun.

Say what you want about NTRAK, but until other modular standards became mainstream (about ten years ago?...at least in our area) NTRAK was the only way to go. And recently, a few of us have been having "impure thought" about modifying our modules to use only two mainlines and move the blue further back on the module. Three track mainlines aren't too common in Canada. So there is some desire for change.

I've had several fine scale modelling N Scalers  express interest in joining our club if we can progress beyond running a three track mains.

I guess some people just can't handle change, I dunno. But after seeing other modular layouts that have adopted a 52 inch mainline, it's hard not to be critical of a format that makes little sense now. There is no defence against the impact of a new idea.

Thanks, all!

[robert3985]

Thanks for the input...and keep them coming.

I have been using NTRAK modules since 1980 and when a new club was formed in my area, I just transitioned those modules to the new club. That was the beauty of NTRAK standards. Simple.

When this "new" club formed in 1990, there was general frustration at the poor quality, almost toy-like modules we've seen at other NTRAK clubs we saw. It was decided, and quite rightly, to "raise the bar" for higher standards of scenery and operational reliability for N Scale at train shows. Things like ME Code 70 and 55 rail, scenery standards, etc. I have always maintained, even from my early days in N Scale, that we can achieve everything the HO people have been doing all along...super-detailing locomotives, the use of  fine scale trackage, extreme scratch building. In other words, everything you see in HO can be done in N Scale.

I think we caught that wave at the right time...Kato was starting to produce high quality, reliable locomotives. The momentum was gaining. That club fizzled out. The current group I'm with includes some survivors from the second club. So basically, the core group of this "newer" group has been working together, more or less, for more than 20 years.

Our thing still is to allow us to run trains because many of us still don't have home empires (I'm currently working on mine, though). And that has always been our informal mission statement: Let's clamp them together and have fun.

Say what you want about NTRAK, but until other modular standards became mainstream (about ten years ago?...at least in our area) NTRAK was the only way to go. And recently, a few of us have been having "impure thought" about modifying our modules to use only two mainlines and move the blue further back on the module. Three track mainlines aren't too common in Canada. So there is some desire for change.

I've had several fine scale modelling N Scalers  express interest in joining our club if we can progress beyond running a three track mains.

I guess some people just can't handle change, I dunno. But after seeing other modular layouts that have adopted a 52 inch mainline, it's hard not to be critical of a format that makes little sense now. There is no defence against the impact of a new idea.

Thanks, all!

Yup, alternate universes DO exist!  This sounds nearly exactly like the contortions our Ntrak club went through in the early 80's, even the "fizzling" part.  We seldom joined up with other Ntrak groups and in Utah, the other Ntrak groups were far away....like hundreds of miles or more.

I never liked the three track mainlines or the mountain line, so I routed them to run on the backside of my modules, behind the skyboard, one on top of another.  That was a pretty good solution and still kept me Ntrak compliant.

I also used Railcraft code 70 for mainlines and code 55 for sidings and industrial branchlines and modeled prototype scenes.  The club made a pretty big splash when one of my photos of my Wilhemina Pass module won the MR photo contest in '94 and Robert Schleicher of Rail Model Journal decided to do several feature articles about our now non-Ntrak club.

Yup, I believe that nearly whatever can be done in HO can be done even better in N-scale (with a few limitations) as far as detailing and ops are concerned, and the scenery to track ratio is MUCH better in N. That attitude is pretty common here at TRW and is one of the reasons I'm here.

One solution to the "impure thought" of trashing Ntrak for us was to maintain limited Ntrak capability by constructing a three-tracks-into-two section on the ends of several modules at the ends of significant LDE's.  At that point, we had raised the height of the layout to 46" by using bolt-on leg extenders, but we had gotten rid of the scenery dividers and the trouble-causing joiner tracks and converted to code 55 for mainlines and hand-laid code 40 for sidings and branchlines (PCB hand-laid code 40 will allow pizza cutters to run without any problems). We also began running from the front rather than from over the skyboards...which was a big improvement, especially with the purchase of radio wireless DC throttles.

Then, the club fizzled...or rather disbanded because some of the key members decided to just up and quit for whatever reason.

There are now two groups who are remnants of the original club, one keeping the 46" height and the wireless DC throttles, but reverting back to joiner tracks...and my group, which has only the 1.5" center to center track spacing at the edges and Ntrak spec DCC wiring (Power Poles) in common with Ntrak.

Although Ntrak is what got me interested in model railroading again back in the early 80's and I had a lot of fun with it, I am very happy now that I am an apostate from it.  I make fun of it sometimes, but truth is, up to a certain point, it's a very good system for including every level of people who are interested in model railroading.  However, after a time, some model railroaders will decide they want more scale appearance, better operational ergonomics and want to step up.  That's when the hard decisions must be made to either stick with highly restrictive, low quality standards or jump off the deep end and go with what looks and operates better...but loses compatibility.

Good luck in the transition!  I'm very happy that part of my life is 12 years behind me. 

[ntrakia]

I am in favor of increased ntrak layout height--my home layout is 55''--n looks best at higher elevations.  I would hesitate to provide stools for viewing due to liability issues, thank the lawyers and human greed.  we have had a geezer gate for a number of years without any problems.  our small group is content to just let the trains run as we all have home layouts for operations if interested.  3 mainline tracks mean more trains running at any given time.  if you are coming to Bedford this weekend stop by and check out the cantington ntrak layout.

[Nato]

           One quick correction to Roberts post. The Wasatch N Scale club he refers to now runs both NCE DCC & DC by simply flipping a switch, and with the track divided into blocks using rotary switches both DC and DCC trains can be operated at the same time as long they stay in separate blocks. I have to agree that the change to a 46 height was radical at the time , but now I wish the height had been set even higher like Robert's smaller club has done. My home layout (photos posted here on TRW) unfortunately is at the old standard N Quack (Trak) height because four old N Trac  Modules have been incorporated into it. I was not thinking at the time or I would have replaced the legs with at least 46 or higher height ones  before the layout was built around them. Too much work to raise everything up now. Geez I hate the helicopter like views you are stuck with unless you sit in a chair or on a low stool to view at eye level. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[casmmr]

As a retired attorney, I can only advise everyone on this forum, DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FURNISH A STEP FOR CHILDREN TO VIEW YOUR LAYOUT.  A child misses a step and knocks out a tooth, and you have big trouble.  If you see a parent taking a chair for their child to stand on, get that chair ASAP.  I tell them that I am not going to be liable if their child falls off the chair so hand it over.  I have even told them I will call for the local police officer to get that chair.  A**hole to the parents, probably, but, I will not be sued for the loss of a tooth or any other body part/injury.  Raise your layout to where you like it, after all it is your world.  Sharing that world with the public is the reason for train shows.  As long as your world can be shared, no problem.  If people cannot view the layout, you should not be at the train show. later, Craig

PS, I have no inclination nor desire to look under the skirts of any NJS member.