T-Trak T-TRAK question... #4s and crossovers on the main?

[arbomambo]

I think you need to stop obsessing about what's "legal" in T-TRAK.

I've never seen anyone going around issuing citations.

In fact, I just recently put on a show that had modules that had, gasp, ATLAS CODE 55 TRACK.

I guess the N-Rail undercover agents didn't make it to MARPM.

There is no such thing and not even a suggestion of T-TRAK or NEail types poo-pooing any T-TRAK concept that thinks outside of the box. In fact, quite the opposite.
Faaar more gatekeeping on this forum.
I’m definitely one of the ‘outside’ the box thinkers AND doers with T-TRAK, and I encourage that kind of thinking.

The discussion about the recommended standard of the use of Kato number 6s on the main (when one must use Kato - I like using Peco number 6s on the main too) is because of the issues with using a short radius turnout off of the main. It’s simple train dynamics.

Dave, I wasn’t intending to be cryptic. The standards document, under the “non standard” module section, which you read, stares that IF number 4s are used on a module (they mean anywhere on a module) they should be tweaked for performance and reliability due their reputation for issues.
The following section, which discusses “Track Standards” is where they specifically recommend the use of number 6s on the mains, rather than number 4s.
Nothing precludes one from using larger turnouts even.
And, if you never intend to involve any of your modules in a community setup, then it doesn’t matter anyway.
I’ve seen number 4s on the mains, tweaked and optimized, and they’ve presented no issues with trains running straight through on the mains… the only issues have been when they’ve been thrown for the diverging route as crossovers and present issues due to simple geometry and train dynamics (long equipment with body mounted couplers, backing movements through them, etc.).

If you can, you want to be that guy who has modules in a setup, that never present problems with anyone’s equipment; as opposed to being’ that guy’ whose modules prevents the reliable running of all trains across the layout.
Number 4s on the mains increase the potential for issues and that’s why the standards state what they do.

[Dave V]

Yeah. If they're causing problems, definitely do it. But I wouldn't worry about the "legality" of them. T-TRAK is, after all, based on the 33mm geometry that those #4s slot into (while, weirdly, the #6s don't).

They haven't caused operational issues yet, but like I said, that slide switch right up against the platform is a hassle. And visually it's not working for me.

[arbomambo]

They haven't caused operational issues yet, but like I said, that slide switch right up against the platform is a hassle. And visually it's not working for me.

I know exactly what you mean about that slide switch

[Dave V]

Thanks, Bruce.

The crossovers at LEWIS Interlocking should be sufficient for most things I'd want to do. Not ideal for switching Huntingdon, but again, there's "should be able to" versus "what Dave will actually do" regarding that interchange, which will largely just be a visual thing rather than an operational thing.

The number 4s don't look amazing either. Setting aside the shorter radius, they have a bunch of wonky contours in the ballast profile that are not easy to hide.

I really wish Kato did a good #6 that maintained the 33 mm track spacing. I know I could use the new single crossovers here if I really wanted to, but I don't want to mix-and-match tie spacing on the same module. I'd still want to relocate the crossover to someplace other than in front of the depot.

[arbomambo]

Thanks, Bruce.

The crossovers at LEWIS Interlocking should be sufficient for most things I'd want to do. Not ideal for switching Huntingdon, but again, there's "should be able to" versus "what Dave will actually do" regarding that interchange, which will largely just be a visual thing rather than an operational thing.

The number 4s don't look amazing either. Setting aside the shorter radius, they have a bunch of wonky contours in the ballast profile that are not easy to hide.

I really wish Kato did a good #6 that maintained the 33 mm track spacing. I know I could use the new single crossovers here if I really wanted to, but I don't want to mix-and-match tie spacing on the same module. I'd still want to relocate the crossover to someplace other than in front of the depot.

That’s a long time wish and a regular request for Kato.
We just end up custom cutting the turnouts to produce crossovers with the 33mm spacing. It’s really not difficult to cut Kato Unitrack to custom length.

[Dave V]

That’s a long time wish and a regular request for Kato.
We just end up custom cutting the turnouts to produce crossovers with the 33mm spacing. It’s really not difficult to cut Kato Unitrack to custom length.

Yeah, that's a good option going forward. For now I think I don't really need crossovers at Huntingdon, but in the future, I'll keep that in mind!

[crrcoal]

Are you guys talking about the 20-230 and 20-231 crossovers? Or the stand alone #4's?

[Dave V]

Are you guys talking about the 20-230 and 20-231 crossovers? Or the stand alone #4's?

Stand-alone #4s.