T-Trak The N scale Pennsy Juniata Division 2.0 - TTrak!

[dem34]

Also a contributing factor as why early Conrail engines would look like they went through war like... weeks after getting painted.

[Dave V]

That is looking really sharp there Dave! Is that the same ballast Kato produces for their unitrack?

Nope, from Scenic Express.

Here's today's update... Adding in taller trees and line poles.

[randgust]

That looks right, speaking as a Pennsylvanian.

In this part of the world, it's either layers of green, open water, or exposed rocks.   If stuff can possibly grow on it, it's green.

[Dave V]

One of my issues with many of the T-Trak modules I see at the local show circuit is a lack of scenic texture and depth. I made my RGS layout a major exercise in achieving texture, and my previous Pennsy layout had plenty of depth (in the tree canopy at least). So this is what I'm trying to achieve here.

[randgust]

You need something in that that screams Pennsy.  It's still a little generic.

Signal bridge?   Position light signal?  MOW section shed?

One of the features I got a kick out of researching the PRR was the 'two mile' responsibility of the track crews back in the day, and designation on the track charts of even who they were so you you exactly who to complain to.   So every two miles there was apparently a section shed before mechanization of track maintenance started.   Hard to imagine today.  Where the term 'section gang' came from.

[Dave V]

Actually, one of the next modules will be an interlocking with position light signals. As for these modules, there will be a sign for US 22 along the road. However, all my modules will get Pennsy-style station signs for the fascia.

[wcfn100]

One of my issues with many of the T-Trak modules I see at the local show circuit is a lack of scenic texture and depth.

Aren’t they like 15 years old.  😀

Jason

[randgust]

There are several things that are 'assumed' to be Ttrak standards for modules that absolutely aren't.

First is the front edge, you can slope it down, add more stuff in front, whatever, particularly if you aren't trying to make a tight oval loop restricted to a table top.   

Second is the assumption that everything is done to flat track height.  Nope.  Bridges, high level embankments, etc. all good.   Ed has done great on that.   You've got some vertical distance to the 'real table' to play with, literally think out of the box.

Third is that the skyboard has to be standard height, remain removable, and not permanent.  Nope.  You can build right into it.  ANd it can be structural, too.

Fourth is that you can't ever go below table level.  Some of the most spectacular ones literally bridge chasms from table to table.  Can be done.

It's come a long way from the basic 11 3/4" single box.

And the final one is that once you're in your own 'modular world', as long as you come and go back to attachment and length standards, all bets are off.  Lee's Cumberland is another great example with the prototype S curves, so is Bruce Arbo's canyon modules.

Bruce was my inspiration to start up Ttrak with his Mother Road modules.  Forehead slap.

[MK]

Fourth is that you can't ever go below table level.  Some of the most spectacular ones literally bridge chasms from table to table.  Can be done.

It's come a long way from the basic 11 3/4" single box.

Yep!  At this year's Amherst/Springfield show we ran on a 65 ft basic oval T-Trak at the Mallary Building.  There was a module that bridges two tables with a deep chasm.  I don't have a direct picture of it but you can kind of see the gap (circled in red) between tables.



And here is one of my Japanese express passenger train running over it.

[Dave V]

My straight modules in the works will both have below-grade scenery, to include an 8-arch PRR-style stone bridge crossing the Juniata River and an interlocking with the track up on a double-track fill.

[Point353]

You need something in that that screams Pennsy.

A small structure, perhaps?

[Dave V]

I hadn’t planned on having structures on these two modules. Sometimes less is more.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I agree with Dr. HB. One of the things often sorely missing from modular layouts is negative space. These are GREAT for that.

Besides, more elements will draw attention to the streetcar radius curves we're stuck with using. From my perspective, corners are best when the eye quickly passes over them (at least for now).

[arbomambo]

No one is ‘stuck’ with street car radius curves…
Here, in the Southeastern Region, many of us (clubs and individuals) are building/have built larger radius corners/endcaps/junctions… mostly the 19” standard.

[Point353]

Besides, more elements will draw attention to the streetcar radius curves we're stuck with using. From my perspective, corners are best when the eye quickly passes over them (at least for now).

You're not necessarily "stuck" with using "streetcar radius" curves.
It depends upon how much table space is available for the layout.
T-Trak was originally planned to allow set up of an oval layout on a single-depth banquet table of the type you often see provided for dealers at train shows.
If the space allows, you could just as well arrange tables back-to-back (or in a circle) to accommodate (non-standard) corner modules using curves with larger radii.