T-TRAK Game Changer

[dem34]

This sort of brings to mind what I've been working on after a talk with Steve R on FB about a month ago.
But also philosophy of scale and rendering based on tools used. I think on their own they look good and undoubtedly work well. But I don't think the settings he used and how he scaled things work with FDM printing.
Will get pics posted later on my version.

[dem34]

By using a version of monotonic top fill and slightly larger than scale ties this in my opinion looks more to scale to my eyes from most distances and keeps a somewhat squared profile. And the fill pattern looks like woodgrain after a gentle drybrushing.
The slight bonus is that it makes the recycled code 80 rail look more scale. I basically started doing this as a budget friendly way to use up the endless boxes of wayward old N scale Snap track for TTrak Module building.

[randgust]

I've been building all my Ttrak modules with Kato connectors on the minimum ends and immediately transitioning to Peco C55 over cork so that everything can be easily painted and ballasted, and I've never had anyone even notice tie size and spacing.   I get a few forehead slaps when people see it because they assume that it 'has' to be done in Kato track or it's not legal.   That's just one of many theoretical crimes I've committed on Ttrak.   Ties and rails are all painted, everything is ballasted, everything works.   I'm not a big fan of Kato switches, too much stuff 'inside' that can get fouled up with ballast, Peco is much, much easier to install and maintain.

But this is good, I like the idea that it's designed to be ballasted, because ballasting and painting Kato stuff is a bear.  I've done it....John Sing is an expert. I hate doing it.    Now I really like Peco C55 but I've had no qualms about transitioning to both Atlas sectional C80 when I must have a perfect tight radius curve (not kinked), or special crossings.   I can live with C80 if I can ballast it easily.   

One of the big gaps is those wide curves.   I want a superelevated set that has wood ties, and could be ballasted.   That would sure get my attention. 

[John]

I've been building all my Ttrak modules with Kato connectors on the minimum ends and immediately transitioning to Peco C55 over cork so that everything can be easily painted and ballasted, and I've never had anyone even notice tie size and spacing.   I get a few forehead slaps when people see it because they assume that it 'has' to be done in Kato track or it's not legal.   That's just one of many theoretical crimes I've committed on Ttrak. 

I've been amused by modular standards since NTrak started many moons ago .. we have a group of like minded people that spend a lot of time and effort to develop them, write rules, evangelize, come up with verification schemes and multi-media to promote them.  For them, there shall be no deviations.   Then comes along a another group that look at the "rules" and scratch their heads, contemplate the meaning of the universe, and ask the question .. "why?" .. there is a potential better way and go forth and try it  .. that's how innovation happens

[dem34]

I've been amused by modular standards since NTrak started many moons ago .. we have a group of like minded people that spend a lot of time and effort to develop them, write rules, evangelize, come up with verification schemes and multi-media to promote them.  For them, there shall be no deviations.   Then comes along a another group that look at the "rules" and scratch their heads, contemplate the meaning of the universe, and ask the question .. "why?" .. there is a potential better way and go forth and try it  .. that's how innovation happens

Yeah whenever we do this there is always somebody who puts a hand up and goes "ERM ASHKUALLY" and then I have to show in the original standards that as written the ends just need to meet double track with Kato connectors. And then theres a whole section outlining the best practices for non standard modules length and width and how all track is acceptable in the middle as long as its not Atlas Code 55.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Yeah whenever we do this there is always somebody who puts a hand up and goes "ERM ASHKUALLY" and then I have to show in the original standards that as written the ends just need to meet double track with Kato connectors. And then theres a whole section outlining the best practices for non standard modules length and width and how all track is acceptable in the middle as long as its not Atlas Code 55.

The folks who do that are actually doing you a huge favor: they're giving you a heads up that you DON'T want to be a member of that group.

[wm3798]

I look at "standards" as more of an average to assure a basic level of performance.  I never delved into N Trak because I always thought the 3 track standard was unimaginative and unrealistic, although it allows for three trains to run the loops.  I have seen some brilliant modules that deviate from the norms... somewhat... The Kentucky group that sets up at NSW every year, f'rinstance. 

But it's the structure and size of the N Trak modules that are now the non-starter.  What those poor souls endure to set up and take down their exhibits exhausts me just to walk past it.

As for scenery, with its bite size dominoes, I find TTrak far more flexible than N trak.  As long as the track connection lands at the right elevation and alignment, all bets are off.  Sure, the straights are straight, but align 2 or three doubles, and you can do some pretty neat stuff in between those Unijoiners.

Lee

[arbomambo]

I look at "standards" as more of an average to assure a basic level of performance.  I never delved into N Trak because I always thought the 3 track standard was unimaginative and unrealistic, although it allows for three trains to run the loops.  I have seen some brilliant modules that deviate from the norms... somewhat... The Kentucky group that sets up at NSW every year, f'rinstance. 

But it's the structure and size of the N Trak modules that are now the non-starter.  What those poor souls endure to set up and take down their exhibits exhausts me just to walk past it.

As for scenery, with its bite size dominoes, I find TTrak far more flexible than N trak.  As long as the track connection lands at the right elevation and alignment, all bets are off.  Sure, the straights are straight, but align 2 or three doubles, and you can do some pretty neat stuff in between those Unijoiners.

Lee

Exactly this!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I look at "standards" as more of an average to assure a basic level of performance.  I never delved into N Trak because I always thought the 3 track standard was unimaginative and unrealistic, although it allows for three trains to run the loops.  I have seen some brilliant modules that deviate from the norms... somewhat... The Kentucky group that sets up at NSW every year, f'rinstance. 

But it's the structure and size of the N Trak modules that are now the non-starter.  What those poor souls endure to set up and take down their exhibits exhausts me just to walk past it.

As a 44 year old dude who has grown up with NTRAK. This 100%.

As for scenery, with its bite size dominoes, I find TTrak far more flexible than N trak.  As long as the track connection lands at the right elevation and alignment, all bets are off.  Sure, the straights are straight, but align 2 or three doubles, and you can do some pretty neat stuff in between those Unijoiners.

Lee

Also, bingo!