Ntrak specs, and the deliberate ignoring of them.

[Hiroe]

I talked with Jim FitzGerald about their ideas.  He was not against NTRAK evolving, but he didn't want a revolution that made existing modules obsolete. Their ideas pushed the envelope too much.

Therein lies the issue: If all heritage modules are to remain forever compliant, then Ntrak will always be limited by them.

Here's what I've gotten done so far: A pair of 5' by 18" module frames, waffle style. The one on the right is still in the assembly box, and is built with NO screws or other hardware. The one on the left was built prior to the construction of said assembly box; and still needs the luan top trimmed with a router.

[highway70]

Therein lies the issue: If all heritage modules are to remain forever compliant, then Ntrak will always be limited by them.

True, but any moduler system must inherently be limited.  Still NTRAK did evolve:  Mountain Division, NCAT, and in particular multi-section modules (especially those which got away from the rectilinear table and standard corner formats).  There have also been spinoffs of other modular systems.

[C855B]

Waffle box frame using 2" lauan stringers. Gosh - that's a great approach to lightweight design. I have an all-foam NTrak 2x4 design on the bench right now as test mule for a much bigger project. Just the leg pockets and the end boards are wood. It's coming in right around six pounds. I'll upload pix when enough of it is together, it's in clamps right now waiting for one of the glue-ups to cure.

I agree on the "constrained by heritage" issue. But in Jim FitzGerald's defense, I guess, is that the specs have been revised just enough to address the more serious of the complaints, such as parallel 3-track mains exclusively and Code 55. The problem as I see it is some clubs have taken it on themselves to thump the older or oldest standards without accommodation to what has evolved, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, going off in some completely incompatible direction.

Speaking of alternative standards, remember the German fellow a couple or three years ago who was thumping "AmericaN"? Not only was it a physical interchange standard (nearly identical to Free-moN, I think), but it also imposed some manner of Teutonic operating doctrine, too. Wowser.

One thing, however, that has seriously impressed - and puzzled - me every time I have gone to a show where there is a layout or layouts using other standards, including oNeTrak extensions... every single one consists of unfinished modules. Every Single One. Even at the Louisville NSC convention, for all its glory as the "largest", with juried selection of participating modules, the oNeTrak loop was a plywood prairie. The problem as I have witnessed so far is these alternatives are generally one or two guys "with a better idea" who are overwhelmed, doing the best they can to get something to where they can at least run a train on it. Then it's time to take a break, we'll do the scenery later. The roundtuit is never forthcoming, or so it seems. 

[Zox]

One thing, however, that has seriously impressed - and puzzled - me every time I have gone to a show where there is a layout or layouts using other standards, including oNeTrak extensions... every single one consists of unfinished modules. Every Single One. Even at the Louisville NSC convention, for all its glory as the "largest", with juried selection of participating modules, the oNeTrak loop was a plywood prairie.

If you say that all these non-NTrak layouts contain unfinished modules, well of course. If you don't have any new modules being built, your group is dead and you might as well fold your tents. This applies to NTrak as well.

If you say that all of them consist solely of "plywood prairie," I beg to differ :

[highway70]

I agree on the "constrained by heritage" issue. But in Jim FitzGerald's defense, I guess, is that the specs have been revised just enough to address the more serious of the complaints, such as parallel 3-track mains exclusively and Code 55. The problem as I see it is some clubs have taken it on themselves to thump the older or oldest standards without accommodation to what has evolved, or throwing the baby out with the bathwater, going off in some completely incompatible direction.

I have not involved with NTRAK in many years, so do not know what has been going on.  When I did participate I felt that some people went overboard demanding compliance to what they interpeted as the standard.  However I found Jim to be very tolerent.  In one show I was set up next to a module that had 18" radius S curves on the main lines.  It was allowed to remain in the layout although the owner was asked to rebuild it before  participating in the future.  In another show there was a module with handlaid code 70 rail beyond the standard ends.  It worked and the switches were more reliable than the standard Pecos. However, Jim did hope that it would not encourage  less capable builders to try it on their modules.

When I showed up with my multi-section module, some thought I was violating the standards.  Jim didn't.  He publised my plan in the NTRAK plan book and in his column in  N Scale Magazine.  Better more inovative multi-section modules have since been done by others.

[Hiroe]

True, but any modular system must inherently be limited.  Still NTRAK did evolve:  Mountain Division, NCAT, and in particular multi-section modules (especially those which got away from the rectilinear table and standard corner formats).

Having 'grown up' as a modeler through membership in one of the Ntrak clubs that pioneered such ideas as end loops and junction modules, I'd like to think I learned those lessons well.

Waffle box frame using 2" lauan stringers. Gosh - that's a great approach to lightweight design.

Also realize that all the luan you see there is a mix of 2.5mm and 3mm birch grades. This stuff is a wonder to work with; and the one in the assembly jig went together in about two hours, including cutting time. The next one I build won't have the 1x2" dimensional hardwood pieces either; as they had originally been included as a way to screw the sides and deck together. With all the glue holding everything, they're not really necessary. The legs, I'm building out of 1" conduit, and they will screw into 5/16" t-nuts that will be trapped in some frame blocks (not yet installed). For storage and transport, I plan to install broom-handle clips into the interior of the sides to hold the legs.

I will be building fully-enclosed coffins for these using similar design techniques. Experience has taught that the modules getting wrecked are always the ones *not* in coffins.

I have an all-foam NTrak 2x4 design on the bench right now as test mule for a much bigger project. Just the leg pockets and the end boards are wood. It's coming in right around six pounds. I'll upload pix when enough of it is together, it's in clamps right now waiting for one of the glue-ups to cure.

How have you solved the issue of attaching the wood parts to the foam with sufficient structural reliability to handle years worth of setups, teardowns, and related abuse?

Speaking of alternative standards, remember the German fellow a couple or three years ago who was thumping "AmericaN"? Not only was it a physical interchange standard (nearly identical to Free-moN, I think), but it also imposed some manner of Teutonic operating doctrine, too. Wowser.

Not familiar with him, or his agenda. What was it about?

One thing, however, that has seriously impressed - and puzzled - me every time I have gone to a show where there is a layout or layouts using other standards, including oNeTrak extensions... every single one consists of unfinished modules. Every Single One. Even at the Louisville NSC convention, for all its glory as the "largest", with juried selection of participating modules, the oNeTrak loop was a plywood prairie. The problem as I have witnessed so far is these alternatives are generally one or two guys "with a better idea" who are overwhelmed, doing the best they can to get something to where they can at least run a train on it. Then it's time to take a break, we'll do the scenery later. The roundtuit is never forthcoming, or so it seems. 

Arguments about anecdotal evidence and the data points inferred aside; I do see your meaning. The counter to this is to specifically build out each module to completion (or as close as possible) before moving on to the next. In my case, it this means that it'll be a year or two before I have sufficient straights+curves to assemble a complete running loop, so be it. (With the equipment I want to run, end loops of radius sufficient to handle the body-mount couplers would be too large for me to transport on my own, so I am willing to deal with the old fortress ntrak issue for now. Hopefully I will eventually be able to garner enough interest in the idea to get some help, at which point we could consider building such end loops.)

Incidentally, I do carry an actual Round Tuit on me at all times. It's quite useful for dealing with procrastinators.

I have not involved with NTRAK in many years, so do not know what has been going on.  When I did participate I felt that some people went overboard demanding compliance to what they interpeted as the standard.  However I found Jim to be very tolerant.
When I showed up with my multi-section module, some thought I was violating the standards.  Jim didn't. 

Not to be rude, but I've found that most of those who take that attitude are complete blowhards. I'm sure I'll run afoul of their hard-and-fast-to-the-standards position, but I really don't care. I'm not in this hobby to satisfy them.

Jim on the other hand is good people, if seemingly a bit overwhelmed with just how big Ntrak has gotten.

[C855B]

How have you solved the issue of attaching the wood parts to the foam with sufficient structural reliability to handle years worth of setups, teardowns, and related abuse?

I have had excellent results adhering dissimilar materials - even wood to plexiglas - with polyurethane glues such as Gorilla Glue. This test module, however, will also have a tempered hardboard front and back to make sure the ends stay pulled together and don't delaminate, plus the hardboard will protect the foam. Also, we have a couple of modules in our club that have used 3/4" foam for coffins for several years, and the track record has been pretty good.

As far as "handling" goes, I'm the one who owns the box truck. Most of the time I'm the handler, like it or not. So I determine which modules get the TLC.

Not familiar with him, or his agenda. What was it about?

This fellow was going from forum to forum on some manner of "promotional tour". Several folks tried to tell him that what he was offering was a twist on an existing standard (Free-moN), but that apparently didn't matter. Haven't seen anything about it since. The biggest mistake he made was calling it "AmericaN"... just try to Google that.

Arguments about anecdotal evidence and the data points inferred aside; I do see your meaning. ...

Yes, lousy data points, but what I had noticed in the mental summary struck me as peculiar, a "Huh!" moment. Given my particular show experiences (Midwestern cities), it goes back to something I said earlier about having a critical mass of interested folks to make a different standard work. If it's just you and a buddy, you've got a big effort ahead of you. Embryonic standards in denser population areas stand a better chance of getting traction.

A Free-moN layout I saw at an N-Scale Weekend in Columbus a couple of years back was actually a worthy effort, as the scenery base was at least in three dimensions. No scenery materials or buildings yet, and the 10x20 layout had no loop provisions, just terminus-to-terminus. I really wanted to talk to the guy who brought it, but he wasn't there tending the layout during my time at the show.

[highway70]

 I'm sure I'll run afoul of their hard-and-fast-to-the-standards position, but I really don't care. I'm not in this hobby to satisfy them.

If people didn't push the limits there would be no progress. Where some go wrong is the don't know both what was done before and why. Knowing why is as important as knowing what .  You appear to be very aware. and ultimately, its better to be happy with what you do than trying to please others.  Go for it.

[lashedup]

One thing, however, that has seriously impressed - and puzzled - me every time I have gone to a show where there is a layout or layouts using other standards, including oNeTrak extensions... every single one consists of unfinished modules. Every Single One. Even at the Louisville NSC convention, for all its glory as the "largest", with juried selection of participating modules, the oNeTrak loop was a plywood prairie. The problem as I have witnessed so far is these alternatives are generally one or two guys "with a better idea" who are overwhelmed, doing the best they can to get something to where they can at least run a train on it. Then it's time to take a break, we'll do the scenery later. The roundtuit is never forthcoming, or so it seems. 

Have you seen the modutrak setup? No plywood prairie.

Although, you have to start somewhere and decide at what point you want to attend a show and let people know what you're working on. We were lucky that a fair number of modules were built and sceniced fairly quickly. We also didn't go to our first show with the idea of a large setup, but rather a smaller one to showcase a few of the things we were working on that were far enough along to gather some interest and feedback. The fact that we don't have much in the way of urban/city scenery (yet) has made things a LOT easier to hit the ground running. Sometimes our most simple modules that depict generic midwest farmlands get the most attention and comments.

So I wouldn't discourage a new modular group from displaying their current progress (and I don't think that's what you were saying either), particularly if you're looking to recruit others to help out. However if you are trying to strive for a higher level of modeling across all the modules, then you have to be pretty selective in who gets involved in the group *or* know ahead of time who some of the better local modelers are and approach them.

-jamie

[seusscaboose]

the comment about a 3/4 inch pink foam coffin is interesting...

i might look into that....

after all.. we're not trying to build the titanic...  we're trying to keep weather off of it (for the most part).

of course, it may or may not impact the "stackability" of modules in the trnasport vehicle (or storage location), but in my personal situation, that's not an issue.

i susually use 1/4 inch plywood.. maybe 1/2...

the 3/4 inch foam migh lighten the load a a little up the staircase and out to the van



thanks

[Sokramiketes]

Therein lies the issue: If all heritage modules are to remain forever compliant, then Ntrak will always be limited by them.

Here's what I've gotten done so far: A pair of 5' by 18" module frames, waffle style. The one on the right is still in the assembly box, and is built with NO screws or other hardware. The one on the left was built prior to the construction of said assembly box; and still needs the luan top trimmed with a router.

So the plywood top on these two modules is 1/8" thick luan?  Might I suggest bumping the top up to 1/4" Baltic Birch Plywood?  With 1/4" you don't need the waffle construction underneath, expecially if you then use spline roadbed construction under the track. 

Here's a little animation of the Modutrak standard 5' x 18" module construction:

/>
I also tried the waffle style construction on a test module but decided it was a lot of work with no appreciable weight savings over the ultimate Modutrak design. 

[Hiroe]

So the plywood top on these two modules is 1/8" thick luan?  Might I suggest bumping the top up to 1/4" Baltic Birch Plywood?  With 1/4" you don't need the waffle construction underneath, especially if you then use spline roadbed construction under the track. 

It's actually the 3mm birch, same as what I use in the waffle parts. I'd rather not get into using three different thicknesses of luan in a given module build. Also, while putting the spline under the track is a good way to add strength, it does have a direct effect on the depth to modules being stored/transported; thanks to the fact that I'll be installing catenary towers along the mainline. Assembling the half-depth waffle on the bottom of the deck gives similar strength, without adding 2" to every coffin height. Multiply that by enough modules, and it makes enough of a difference that I can get an extra module in the van.

Here's a little animation of the Modutrak standard 5' x 18" module construction:

/>

Now, that's a useful little video. I might steal those leg pockets.

I also tried the waffle style construction on a test module but decided it was a lot of work with no appreciable weight savings over the ultimate Modutrak design. 

Considering all the precut holes, I would imagine so. Did it give the module additional rigidity? (I would think it does.)

[C855B]

the comment about a 3/4 inch pink foam coffin is interesting...

Biggest issue with the foam coffins is corner and edge protection. Find something at the DIY big-box like plastic drywall corner protectors and glue 'em down with the foam-compatible Liquid Nails, or Gorilla Glue. My experimental module uses Gator Board for the top, which is super-light like foamcore but is a couple of orders of magnitude stronger, so I'm thinking about Gator Board for the coffin, too. However, it's a little expensive ($60/4x8) to use that way if I were doing a bunch of 'em.

[Sokramiketes]

It's actually the 3mm birch, same as what I use in the waffle parts. I'd rather not get into using three different thicknesses of luan in a given module build. Also, while putting the spline under the track is a good way to add strength, it does have a direct effect on the depth to modules being stored/transported; thanks to the fact that I'll be installing catenary towers along the mainline. Assembling the half-depth waffle on the bottom of the deck gives similar strength, without adding 2" to every coffin height. Multiply that by enough modules, and it makes enough of a difference that I can get an extra module in the van.

But if you don't elevate the track above the plywood top then how are you going to model ditches, underpasses, streams, etc?  The spline allows 2" of convenient foam height to carve for these scenic features below standard track level.  Otherwise there's a risk of the plywood plains appearing again. 

[Hiroe]

I have had excellent results adhering dissimilar materials - even wood to plexiglas - with polyurethane glues such as Gorilla Glue. This test module, however, will also have a tempered hardboard front and back to make sure the ends stay pulled together and don't delaminate, plus the hardboard will protect the foam. Also, we have a couple of modules in our club that have used 3/4" foam for coffins for several years, and the track record has been pretty good.
As far as "handling" goes, I'm the one who owns the box truck. Most of the time I'm the handler, like it or not. So I determine which modules get the TLC.

Hm. Sounds intriguing; but having the working cat presents several concerns with that. Anchoring the towers in the foam module for one; and worries that should someone drop something, the towers would punch through the foam coffin (and get wrecked in the process) for another.

This fellow was going from forum to forum on some manner of "promotional tour". Several folks tried to tell him that what he was offering was a twist on an existing standard (Free-moN), but that apparently didn't matter. Haven't seen anything about it since. The biggest mistake he made was calling it "AmericaN"... just try to Google that.

Interesting. Well, some mild digging results:
http://www.fremo-net.eu/168.html?&L=6
http://www.fremo-net.eu/uploads/media/americaN-standard_01.pdf

I must admit that I like the looks of how they handle track ends at the module joints. Not having to waste time with joiner tracks has appeal.

Given my particular show experiences (Midwestern cities), it goes back to something I said earlier about having a critical mass of interested folks to make a different standard work. If it's just you and a buddy, you've got a big effort ahead of you. Embryonic standards in denser population areas stand a better chance of getting traction.

That is indeed the hope. Considering that I could sell this to EPTC with relative ease as a standard for Heavy Electric corridor modules, there's some possibility of growth.

But if you don't elevate the track above the plywood top then how are you going to model ditches, underpasses, streams, etc?  The spline allows 2" of convenient foam height to carve for these scenic features below standard track level.  Otherwise there's a risk of the plywood plains appearing again. 

It largely depends on the areas modeled. If need be, I can recess the lower scenery right into the frame; but I'll address that on a per-module basis.

As for risk of Plywood Plains: I'm of the mind that a module isn't show-ready until the majority of the scenery has been done. But remember: I run my equipment off the wire. Without wire, the equipment won't run. So each module has to be completed to at *least* the catenary stage before I'll include it in a setup. And typically the wire is one of the last things to be installed on any given module.