The Modular Bug is Buzzing in my Ear

[Nilmadic]

Two problems:
1. Given the current design, I have no idea where I'd slip it in.
2. My mainline is double track and Free-moN is single.

Might be worth looking into, though.

We actually have a double track standard with some alignment jigs for track laying. 

[eric220]

Interesting, and interesting that you dug this thread up.  I've been kicking around another idea, along the lines of a simple module.  It's a chance for me to experiment on a smaller scale with some of the things I want to do on the big layout.  Stand by.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Standing by!

(And eating a cheezesteak or two while waiting  )

[eric220]

Here's the idea.  It's a 45° crossover.



The breaks in the track are derails made out of #5's.  The yellow flags are semaphore signals.  The two "wings" allow for connection of modules off of the single track line.  I don't know how difficult it would be to connect one of the "Y" modules up so that there is a functional branch that splits from and then crosses over the main on this module, but it would be really cool.  The idea would be that the derails are connected such that they only allow passage on one line at a time.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Wow.
We have enough problems with trains derailing without "derails" and you want to put them in??

And the derail aspect could add a level of "doomsday" to ops (as if we don't have enough issues paying attention  ).

But a very cool idea and a compact, "easy" module to build (until you want to program all the tracks & turnouts for derails & power cuts, etc.)
(But Dave F the Arduino / Signal master could help with that)

I know we have a few wyes that could theoretically get the interchange going.
Murph's double track splits left and Nils' new single one splits right so that should do it   
But easy to make a couple of wye modules, both single & double track.

At the very least, your planned module will force everyone to actually pay attention to the trains!
For which I applaud you, sir!

[eric220]

Ops interest is what I'm going for. The idea would be to have it function like a turnout. The derails would be open for one route and closed for the other. Operators would simply toggle back and forth. If it's done right, there shouldn't be any "programming" involved. And no power cuts either. That negates the purpose if the signals.  The "clear" route would simply be determined by the polarity of the current going to the tortoises controlling the derails and semaphores.

[Nilmadic]

...and interesting that you dug this thread up.

What can I say, when there is no more fun stuff to look at on page 1 of Layout Engineering or N Scale I go diggin thru the archives. Free-moN stuff just catches my eye.

I think that would be a really cool module. I would say that as long as you work at a 45 Degree angle where modules join, we have a chance of connecting a branch line that crosses. My interchange splits off at 45 degrees.

And the derail aspect could add a level of "doomsday" to ops (as if we don't have enough issues paying attention  ).

This from a guy who is planning a swing bridge, that is normally OPEN, with no dead track in front of it. 

[railnerd]

But a very cool idea and a compact, "easy" module to build (until you want to program all the tracks & turnouts for derails & power cuts, etc.)
(But Dave F the Arduino / Signal master could help with that)

Looks very cool.  The nice thing is that the "signals" will function nicely even if they are adjacent to other tracks.

-Dave

[eric220]

I played around a bit with the design, including extending it out to the proper length.  The main double-track module works out at 38.5".  I also worked in a creek, with need for a few culverts.   



I'm curious about the circled derail.  As shown, it would tend to throw a signal-overrunning train into the tower.  If installed as a right-hand turnout, it would tend to throw a signal-overrunning train into the opposing mains, which would defeat the purpose of having derails.  With the orientation of the double-track derails, there doesn't seem to be a safe place to put the towers.  Thoughts?

PS - Question for the Silicon Valley Free-MoN guys.  How far apart are the center lines on your double-track standard?

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I say leave it as is and throw some sandbags in front of the tower 

The double main "standard" is, I believe, 1 1/8" track centers.
There are some milled steel jigs floating around, one of which might make an appearance at Iron Horse this week.
(Dave F & Eric E have them, dunno who else)

Worse comes to worse: just tack the end rails as close as possible to 1 1/8" on the last pc board tie, and then re-solder when jig / module becomes available.
Woot!

[eric220]

I say leave it as is and throw some sandbags in front of the tower 

Actually not a bad idea. Maybe something more like dirt berms than sand bags, but I like the thought.

[railnerd]

PS - Question for the Silicon Valley Free-MoN guys.  How far apart are the center lines on your double-track standard?

Yup 1-1/8" (1.125") track centers.  We have a few jigs that make lining the track up work well.  The folks in the NLandPacific group actually had the jigs made, so NLandPacific, MN Free-moN, and Silicon Valley Free-moN all use this spacing.  Here is a picture of the jig:



-Dave

[Philip H]

maybe I spent too much time in the sun today (!) but how does that thing work?

[railnerd]

The picture is flipped up on end, which probably makes it a bit confusing.

The centerline is marked on the end (that top slot in the picture) matches the centerline on the module endplate, those two longer slots accept the the "inner" rails of the double track mainlines.  The front of the jig actually sits down flat on the two inner rails of the double track.

-Dave

[Philip H]

gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification.