T-Trak What would keep you from building a TTRAK module?

[wm3798]

What constraints?

[randgust]

I've had an issue with conventional T-trak on a number of fronts and defied those for years:

1)  I don't like Kato Unitrak other than the genius end connectors.   So everything in the middle is transitioned to Peco C55, properly ballasted, or C80 stuff if I need the switch geometry, like my West Hickory module with the Peco SL tight switches.  I'll use a 'fixed' Kato switch if that's what it takes to give me the end connector feature, but only then and only after fixing the chronic point-pick glitch.

2)  I don't like plastic ballast or the track appearance.   So I paint the end adapter pieces by hand to match the rest of the track.  I use conventional cork off the transition, with Peco C55 everywhere I can.  Industrial track, sidings, yards, down to plywood level using conventional track, track centers, etc.   Mains only have to conform at the ends.

3)   I'm modeling a single track PRR main.  So the inner track for Ttrak is a cinder-ballasted siding appearance, outer track is limestone/granite ballasted.   And, I've developed single-track 'split modules' where back-to-back single track modules occupy the same width as a normal one, then revert back to normal T-trak.   And I paint the track, ties, everything.   

4)   I'm modeling a line that closely followed a river, so that front edge gets cut right down to the bottom edge, and drainage goes underneath.  The basic 'table mount' becomes a piece of 3/4" plywood with everything built ABOVE it rather than the original box approach.

5)   I've settled on a 10" skyboard that is permanently mounted, with photo backdrops, scenery etc.

6)    For transport, I developed screw-on plywood end panels, and one module (with the skyboard) FLIPS on top of the other upside down to form a case that is still easy to handle, with handles on the end panels.   I cut holes in the end panels to clear the Unitrak connectors, leave them on.

7)    I use one of the double-track short pieces of Kato Unitrak as a rail gauge to make sure everything is spaced and square at the ends as it should be.   Never had connection problems.

8.)   I needed an Nn3 test track for my Climax kits, so I found I could jam a Rokuhan 4 1/2" radius oval on a T-trak triple footprint and make it fit.  It's been a complete success; it's not sceniced, but it is running, so you can do a Z loop on a T-trak footprint and I've done it.  I even added a dual gauge siding and switch.  And it worked.   Which got me dabbling in Nn3.

9)  That front edge is unexplored territory.   You can do a lot more there, just make it detachable.   On the meets I've been at, there was ample table room to support 'stuff' up front, so don't consider that front edge as completely out of bounds from a design standpoint.

I now have two doubles, two single-track triples, two double-track triples, and this year, converted all the 'off module' connectors on the Hickory Valley logging modules to Kato track connectors so 'in theory' I could plug them into a T-trak system.   That's coming.

Ttrak has really energized my modeling and is also incredibly inexpensive to do, but mostly because I have my father's wood shop equipment and I've never even considered buying a conventional 'box' module kit.   I've been able to do some fairly accurate historic scene modeling in T-trak, Lee Weldon and I are definitely on the same wavelength and have mutually altered our design ideas, his Cumberland stuff is just outstanding, as my goal has been recreating historic locations and scenes as well.   And Bruce Arbo is the one that got me motivated to begin with looking at his ATSF modules, standards, and resources.

The 'ultimate module' I keep studying is doing Bob Knight's brass Canyon Diablo bridge as a T-trak module, but the logistics and cost are just mind blowing, and I'd have to relocate a wall in my basement to pull it off.   Still haven't rejected it though.

 

[Dave V]

Good stuff, Randy!

I've decided to start with a conventional, double-length "negative space" module just to get a feel for the format. We'll see what happens next! But yeah, love the idea of using Peco 55. I think that's also a great way to emphasize sidings versus mains as well.

As someone who went from completely ambivalent to T-Trak to enthralled by it in a matter of days (I'm fickle like that apparently!), I'm envisioning a T-Trak based layout that involves scenic central PA running (like the PRR Middle Division but tow tracks, or probably more like the Buffalo Line) on one side, and urban/industrial on the other. The industrial bits could certainly be enhanced with Peco 55.

The "scenery below grade" is also really important to me too... The PRR was perhaps best known for its engineering, which meant high fills and stone arch bridges.

On my RGS layout, I still feel like I don't have enough "below grade."

[randgust]

This is probably the easiest way to explain my oddball concept... this is my latest single-track triple, which is back to back to my other one (Hickory Bridge).   This is "Thompson", which is on the Allegheny River between R. Thompson and Thompson Island, right across from the house I grew up in.   I fished off those rocks on the left.   I remember the trains running up the river here.

Note it's built on 3/4" plywood base with roadbed ABOVE, which lets me have embankments, culverts, and the signature PRR concrete bridges.  And in PA, everything seems to be built in a drainage valley, the hills are steep, and on top, it's a plateau.   I shot the actual location and made a photo backdrop on the skyboard.

Front edge comes down to the river.  I didn't pour the water until 2023, this was at Altoona in 2022.

It's Peco C55 ballasted, on cork, with only short Kato adapters on the end.

There's a toggle switch on the back to set the track to either red line or yellow line, so it can be in front or in back.



Link:  http://www.randgust.com/Thompson%202022%20Altoona.jpg

Yes, that's Lee Weldon's Cumberland in front.

[wm3798]

Enjoy doing your practice "box" module, but I also endorse the non-standard flat base for the reasons Randy espouses.

The brilliance of your original JD was the scenery and details that occurred below grade.  The pictures around the Spruce scene belied the size and simplicity of the layout.  I tried to emulate that with my Hi Rail river scenes, with varying degrees of success.

Like Cumberland before it, my Twin Bridges module is set so most of the action is not at track level.  Also, after seeing a couple of TTrak installations, I realized that you can cheat your lower scenery profile out toward the edge of the table by as much as 4 to 6 inches, allowing you to push the standard track alignment back into the scene a little bit, and still have the module squarely on the table.  I'm tinkering with some ideas that will expand on that expansion on my next module project.



Lee

[Dave V]

The box kit I ordered has a 1" fill so there will be scenery below grade.

[conrail98]

...

The modules are set up to run either as the yard attached to my layout, where all of the polarity is consistent over the whole track plan, or as part of a modular set up, where the B-W-W-B wiring scheme is set up by throwing a slide switch.  In that instance, the crossover becomes locked, and the siding at the front is used for the outer Red line, and the rest of the yard can be worked from the yellow line.



It should work with either DCC or DC, or the split where a DC loop uses the inner track and DCC uses the outer (as long as the crossover isn't thrown to confuse the issue)

The siding on the red line causes the front edge of the module to creep out an inch or so, with track 2 being the Red main, and track 3 being the Yellow main, where the Bachmann Chessie train set is parked.  I still have to add the leveling screws and tidy up the wiring.

The upper level yard will only be used as part of the home layout, so I'm considering making that a simple removable shelf that can stay home, then creating a scenic "costume" to put on the back of the modules when deployed in a larger set up.

Lee

Is that yard 3 doubles roughly with the slight extension in front for that siding? Looking a dipping into T-Trak and going through this and other threads and chatting with Ed, just trying to get a sense of size of some of these modules. A double or set of doubles seems to be the normal everyone here doing "representative" modeling is using. Thanks,

Phil

[wm3798]

It's three doubles and a single, but they're screwed together more or less as one unit.  Here's some detail views.






http://



The little nub is tacked on the end to extend the runaround lead and the yard tracks.  It can be detached to add more modules.

Lee

[packers#1]

For me, it’s an issue of time and where it’s spent. Right now I’ve been playing around with switching layout designs and finally have settled on something, but given the limited time I have right now with everything I have going on any hobby time is best spent focusing on that portion. But my interests don’t really lie in double track racetracks and going to shows, so Ttrack doesn’t really appeal to me. One of my favorite aspects of the hobby is freight car weathering, and grain cars and these Indiana layouts are really something inspiring, so I’d like to explore a small town grain elevator next, and that’s tough to do in T-track but relatively easy in Free-mo, which is a medium I want to explore, along with HO scale. Plus I can then make a Free-moN module for an interchange yard for the switching layout afterwards.

Necro-bumping this thread to admit my own stupidity. A double module would be perfect for modeling an end of line grain elevator town. I really enjoy weathering covered hoppers (perfect for a grain elevator since that’s what’s used to serve them), would love to build an elevator kit (already have an idea in mind), enjoy the switching process itself (single elevator would be mostly swapping cuts), want to model an RS11 (won’t fit in my primary HO scale theme but fits a granger line well), and could be a fun way overall to enjoy the hobby too. Gonna have to let this one gestate but it might be time to explore this as well.

[randgust]

Remember that while the sky boards can be removable, they don't have to be.   No rule on that.   I make mine 10" high and permanently attach them, using photo backdrops and taking the scenery right into them.   If you are doing a grain elevator, and have a normal depth of more or less a foot, the effectiveness of the backdrop is critical.  Bruce Arbo convinced me of that, he is dead-flat on the Mother Road and the backdrops seal the deal.

  I also have a transport system that takes two doubles, or two triples, and flips one upside down over the other with removable plywood ends with carrying handles.  The backdrop panels then form a protective box that way.  I drill holes in the ends to fit the Kato rail joiners and protect them as well.   It's held up over time.

Also remember that side tracks to not have to be Kato.  They do not have to be at the same level.  They can be 'down in the dirt' leaving the main line high.   One of my initial features was that it's not a two track main line, it's a one-track ballasted main with a cinder ballasted siding.  What a huge difference in appearance.   My spurs can be dirt ballasted and weed-grown.  McCabe is Nn3 with some dual gauge.

There are no Kato cops enforcing anything, but if you have a poorly constructed main line that is off geometry and derails everything, yeah, that's a problem.  But if you don't get banned with some of the fantasy scenic features I've seen, track is the least of your worries.

[packers#1]

Yeah the thought is very much a double or triple with a switch spliced in for a Peco code 55 siding; everything would be very deferred maintenance in the 80’s looking so lots of oil stains and low scrub in the middle of the rails. Either the Japanese spacing or painted concrete, whatever looks the better of the two (I have some concrete pieces that I can play with). For when it’s not at a show or if showing it off as itself, there could be two end “modules” that are to the Ttrak standard at the one end that tie the two mains in as a main and a passing track. Then there could potentially be another triple that would be most of an interchange yard with another Ttrak on one end module to tie the mains in with a diamond and the back end of the interchange yard. The other end would do the same, go to one, with possibly a single or double length single track section or two corners that only use one track of the two on the home module. Call the home layout additions the “haffa” modules. If I did a full backdrop with the front shadow box for lights I could have something on top of the light box showing how they could be a small home layout.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Also remember that side tracks to not have to be Kato.

***** dawg, even the MAIN tracks don't need to be Kato. Ahem: https://conrail1285.com/hacked-unitrack/

[mmyers]

Mostly lack of time for me. I still have a few Shapemaster modules in the storage bin. Moved them from the old house to the new house last year.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Mostly lack of time for me. I still have a few Shapemaster modules in the storage bin. Moved them from the old house to the new house last year.

Whoa! Those are a blast from the past. Neat concept. It's a shame they folded.

[Radisson.mcguire]

For me it's the lack of prototype operation. It's just a square in the end and your so limited to what you can do unlike free moN or even a home layout.