Free Mo N or Ntrak. Seeking direction now for a project later.

[VonRyan]

"Lowest common denominator" is generally a code phrase for "not the way I would do it."

Ehhh, I get what your saying, but that doesn't do much to explain it.

-Cody F.

[Zox]

Ehhh, I get what your saying, but that doesn't do much to explain it.

-Cody F.

I expanded my previous message while you were posting this, so please take another look...

[VonRyan]

I expanded my previous message while you were posting this, so please take another look...

Now i see. I didn't recognize it because my club seems to be a bit of an oddity in that everything blends really well. Now we might not have exactly used the same stuff across all our modules (makes me cringe thinking about my "Slice of South Wales"), but they look like they go together whichever way we put them.

-Cody F.

[robert3985]

...and getting rid of Ntrak's "lowest common denominator" modeling, construction and operation philosophy. 

The "lowest common denominator" modeling, construction and operation philosophy is in quotes, which indicates it is what our club called it.  The definition is not "Not the way I'd do it" (Thank you Zox...haha...funny), but refers to Ntrak's easy solutions, easy construction techniques, and easy running (endless circles, round and round and round and...ad nauseum), at the expense of good solutions, good construction techniques and good running protocols.

I don't want to get into an Ntrak bash here, and like I posted in my quoted reply, Ntrak brought me back into model railroading after a 20 year hiatus, and I've adopted a few of their standards into my new modular standards...so not ALL of their standards are easy-at-the-expense-of-good.

If any of you don't understand what I mean, or can't see any "easy" solutions/standards at the expense of "good" solutions/standards in your experience with Ntrak,  then who am I to point them out?  Obviously, Ntrak is just exactly what you want, and that's a good thing.

So, the real point of this is (1) to 'splain what "lowest common denominator" meant in my post, and (2) suggest that if none of the present standards of any modular group meets your criteria, then...make your own standards, and run trains how YOU want, build scenery the way YOU want to.

You might make a couple of adapters if you want to set up with the modular group whose standards are the closest to yours, which attach to your ends and allow you to run with the group at shows.  I've done that with some of my old modules to adapt them to run in my new protocol.

Lots of solutions, and frankly, even though I suggested it, making up your own modular standards is a pain in the arse, and if you can find a modular standard and group that meets your ideas, then go for it.

[VonRyan]

(Snipped...)
The "lowest common denominator" modeling, construction and operation philosophy is in quotes, which indicates it is what our club called it.  The definition is not "Not the way I'd do it" (Thank you Zox...haha...funny), but refers to Ntrak's easy solutions, easy construction techniques, and easy running (endless circles, round and round and round and...ad nauseum), at the expense of good solutions, good construction techniques and good running protocols.
I don't want to get into an Ntrak bash here, and like I posted in my quoted reply, Ntrak brought me back into model railroading after a 20 year hiatus, and I've adopted a few of their standards into my new modular standards...so not ALL of their standards are easy-at-the-expense-of-good.
If any of you don't understand what I mean, or can't see any "easy" solutions/standards at the expense of "good" solutions/standards in your experience with Ntrak,  then who am I to point them out?  Obviously, Ntrak is just exactly what you want, and that's a good thing.

I don't see it because, at least in the club I belong to, I don't see it being used.
We sacrifice nothing in terms of running, construction, etc. since we'd rather run our trains that fiddle around with problems. And we normally don't run in "roundy-round" fashion except at smaller shows, but DCC allows us to do whatever we darn well please in any situation where we end up having a "tail-chaser" type layout. We normally tend to step up layouts that rely on our two reverse loops (called "Special Ends" due to their being a bit more than just reverse loops), which in conjunction with our yards, keeps operators with their trains, and when our CTC system is out in full force it even allows for a more railroad-like operating style to govern the layout.

-Cody F.

-Cody F.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've always loved the NJS CTC system.

I also miss DARN's similarly crazy loops.

[Matt Noel]

Here's a video taken by a guest at our annual open house show at my studio.  We're still n track, I say that loosely, but you can see how we have converted down to what we are calling 2 trak.  It's still a work in progress, and as for standards, they are only as good as the people willing to follow them.  Well enjoy the YouTube video, over all, the layout which is 100% DCC with 3 loops using AR reversing circuits, ran great.  The desert is mine, thank god my club is tolerant of that.

[Nato]

             What every happened to"Interrail" ? Saw their layout at the N.M..R.A. National Show in Eugene,Oregon in 1987. It was kind of a spaghetti mess of tracks,but very interesting,the only legacy are the kits for double stack well cars,which were quite nice ,but hard to build. I finally had a friend build mine late last year when he was building two sets of kits that he had obtained. I would eccho M.C.'s  suggestion, build it the way you really want. Nate Goodman (Nato).

[robert3985]

I don't see it because, at least in the club I belong to, I don't see it being used.
We sacrifice nothing in terms of running, construction, etc. since we'd rather run our trains that fiddle around with problems. And we normally don't run in "roundy-round" fashion except at smaller shows, but DCC allows us to do whatever we darn well please in any situation where we end up having a "tail-chaser" type layout. We normally tend to step up layouts that rely on our two reverse loops (called "Special Ends" due to their being a bit more than just reverse loops), which in conjunction with our yards, keeps operators with their trains, and when our CTC system is out in full force it even allows for a more railroad-like operating style to govern the layout.

-Cody F.

-Cody F.

Cody,

I did a lot of research into what standards to follow when I converted my modular layout to DCC.  After many evenings of sorting it all out, I decided that Ntrak's DCC standards were exactly what I needed, although the 12ga busses can be a point of argument with the electrical engineers amongst us.  I still went with 12ga. but I purchased excellent quality, pure, low-ox, fine wire, black and red speaker zip cord which I concluded would alleviate any significant signal distortions or loss in my setup.  I'm completely happy with the conversion.

I also stuck with the 1.5" center to center track spacing at the ends, although I run it as close as 1.125" where it's prototypically appropriate.  No probs with that.

To be positive, my modular standards start with a 6' X 3' standard module, constructed using L-girder construction with splined Masonite subroadbed supported by risers, integral folding legs, removable skyboards (no scenery dividers), 52" railhead to floor height, flowing, organic fascias, strictly DCC, Micro Engineering 55/40 flex (or hand-laid 40), hand-laid turnouts encouraged, otherwise Atlas 55 and ME 55 #6's only, 24" minimum mainline radius, eased curves and superelevated where possible, operated strictly from the front, Digitrax Radio DCC ONLY, grades allowed within dedicated modules comprising an LDE (Layout Design Element),  prototype derived scenes only, at least two 6,500K 26W CFL's in drafting lamps per module, and NO JOINER TRACKS.  Minimum 12' operational LDE's, minimum 6' scenic only LDE's.  Minimum nine-feet seven-and-one-half-inch passing sidings (30ea. 40' cars, one Big Boy and caboose), and functioning occupancy detectors and block signaling.  Provisions for computer control and CTC (via Loconet). Finally, standard fascia and skyboard colors.

Benchwork standards call for top-quality materials (no delaminated, warped scrap lumber from construction sites allowed), square drive grabber screws, all permanent joints glued and screwed with premium yellow wood glue.  Cost per 6' module is about $125 including wiring, hardware, and Styrofoam for scenery.

Standard setup is usually back-to-back, with a small crew lounge designed into one end at shows.

Final setup will be point to point with run-through for continuous running between op sessions.

You can figure out what isn't Ntrak.

Members number only seven at this point, with only three module owners, but, we've only been to two shows in 2012, and will hit two, maybe three this year.

[VonRyan]

Not quite sure what bus wire we use, but its fairly thick, and we're slowly but surely converting to Anderson Powerpoles.

As for shows, NJS had a good run last year, coming close to, if not at or exceeding, 15 shows.

I prefer joiner tracks rather than running rails to module's end simply because it allows for compensation if there is a slight discrepancy in alignment.
I'm not saying that they look better, as i do like the look of no joiner tracks, but I prefer to keep things simple where the whole "modular" principle is concerned.
Between dedicated module sets though, the elimination of joiner tracks is excellent, further conveying the idea of a complete scene.

As for code 80 verses whatever else, some NJS modules have ME code 70, which works fine with code 80, and there is at least one module with Peco code 55, which of course works fine with code 80 and 70.

We're certainly not a dyed-in-the-wool N-Trak club, but we do stick to the overall concept.

Oh, and our CTC system, without revealing too much, doesn't use the DCC system, but does use large stereo plugs/jacks and sectional control boxes.

-Cody F.

[wm3798]

Thanks for all the feedback on this.  Obviously there is some religious fervor going on out there.  I'm still thinking that OneTrack will be my best option as there is an active group in my hemisphere, and my ultimate goal would be to have transitions at each end back to single track, my modules forming a long enough passing siding to make it a useful addition to any display layout.  I just hope that the long inside corner turns out to be useful.  (without a skyboard standard, though, there's no reason it couldn't quickly become a long outside corner...)

Oh well.  Back to my scribblings...

Lee

[VonRyan]

Thanks for all the feedback on this.  Obviously there is some religious fervor going on out there.  I'm still thinking that OneTrack will be my best option as there is an active group in my hemisphere, and my ultimate goal would be to have transitions at each end back to single track, my modules forming a long enough passing siding to make it a useful addition to any display layout.  I just hope that the long inside corner turns out to be useful.  (without a skyboard standard, though, there's no reason it couldn't quickly become a long outside corner...)

Oh well.  Back to my scribblings...

Lee

Can't wait to see your progress. The overhead concept photos make for one promising module set.
Don't fret over the skyboards, you can always leave them out. It makes it like a more literal "slice" of an actual location.

-Cody F.

[wm3798]

Just opened an Engineering Report on the project.  Let's see how far this can go.  Thanks again!
Lee

[robert3985]

Not quite sure what bus wire we use, but its fairly thick, and we're slowly but surely converting to Anderson Powerpoles.

As for shows, NJS had a good run last year, coming close to, if not at or exceeding, 15 shows.

I prefer joiner tracks rather than running rails to module's end simply because it allows for compensation if there is a slight discrepancy in alignment.
I'm not saying that they look better, as i do like the look of no joiner tracks, but I prefer to keep things simple where the whole "modular" principle is concerned.
Between dedicated module sets though, the elimination of joiner tracks is excellent, further conveying the idea of a complete scene.

As for code 80 verses whatever else, some NJS modules have ME code 70, which works fine with code 80, and there is at least one module with Peco code 55, which of course works fine with code 80 and 70.

We're certainly not a dyed-in-the-wool N-Trak club, but we do stick to the overall concept.

Oh, and our CTC system, without revealing too much, doesn't use the DCC system, but does use large stereo plugs/jacks and sectional control boxes.

-Cody F.

Cody,

If you're Ntrak, then the busses are 12ga. as that's the requirement.

Anderson Powerpoles are GREAT, and way better than Cinch-Jones Connectors, even though the technology for both of them is roughly contiguous.

The truth is that joiner tracks, which at first may seem "simple" are not simple.  They are a royal pain in the butt.  Although I run my tracks flush with the module ends and glue them down permanently on my LDE's because they are always set up together (dedicated), on our common ends, the inside track is not glued down 5 to 6 inches back from the edge...so, at shows when we set up, we align the outside tracks at the module ends, then (if needed) we just bend the inside tracks a little to get them exactly aligned, and spike them down on the Midwest cork roadbed, which is ballasted on the sides, and painted on the top to match the ballast.  It takes only a fraction of the time Ntrakers take messing with joiner tracks, and additionally, track current is not carried by corroded and loose rail joiners, but through the rails connected to feeders like the rest of the layout. Also, the track is painted and weathered just like the rest of the trackage, so there's no transition from nicely weathered, painted track to raw plastic ties and unpainted rails with shiny rail joiners.  Doesn't look a little better, it looks exponentially better.

The Ntrak joiner track solution illustrates my point exactly.  Using joiner tracks is only "simple" because nobody thought of a more efficient, functionally better system, and Jim Fitzgerald evidently thought that the vast majority of model railroaders don't know how to read a tape measure, nor can they glue something down precisely...so...Ntrak has joiner tracks...the "simple" solution that really isn't simple at all and the source of the vast majority of running problems that the Ntrak design encourages.

My CTC system will be hooked up through Loconet, and be a simple, plug-in affair as CTC was used on only three sidings between Petersen and Wahsatch up Weber Canyon during my time period (1951 through 1956).  The rest of the rails, between Petersen and Altamont, were ABS until 1952, following a collision of the COSF and the COLA at Wyuta which happened because bad weather (blizzard conditions) made reading the signals impossible.  Following that, the signaling was ACS, which is essentially the same as ABS but with repeaters in the cabs. So, my ABS signalling scheme will operate prototypically, with sensors actuated by occupancy to control my signal lamps...without human intervention, just like it was in 1951 in Weber and Echo Canyons.

I don't have a problem with "revealing too much" as everything I do is open for perusal, criticism, improvement and adoption by any model railroader.  I'm puzzled as to why your club's CTC system specifics are being kept confidential????

Lee, I like your ideas and the LDE you'll be modeling.  I too can't wait to see what you choose to do in the end.  As to skyboards, some people like 'em, some people don't.  I'm one of the people who really like 'em, and I believe they add considerable depth to any scene.  They are restrictive by their very nature, but that's one of the principles of a boxed diorama, in use by many museums throughout the world.  On the other hand, no skyboards is also restrictive in that it limits a "realistic" view of modules to God's Eye views and realistic photography with portable backgrounds or setting up outside. Of course, there's always Photoshop.  I in no way think that eliminating them makes the scene more realistic.  In fact, I would argue just the opposite, which is the main reason I decided to incorporate them into my module design.  However, mine are removable, both for maintenance and transportation ease and if you decide to go with a club whose standards don't allow skyboards, simply removing them would help adapt your modules to their standards.

One thing I've done that is a little odd is to make my skyboards 8' long in my LDE's, which are comprised of 6' modules.  This offsets the skyboard seams from the module joints, which de-emphasizes them (and is another reason they're removable!)  Something to think about.

[mmyers]

and Jim Fitzgerald evidently thought that the vast majority of model railroaders don't know how to read a tape measure, nor can they glue something down precisely...

They can't and they don't. They can't use a gauge either. Wouldn't have 8 different lengths of 5 inch joiner tracks if they could. But spiking down a 6 inch section of loose track on a module? I wouldn't call that a better solution even if it does look better. It proves that even the best can't measure dead on. Heck, I can't walk on a job and start cutting perfect for another carpenter on the first day. Takes a few cuts to get our "eyes" in sync. Of course pros know which side of the line to cut and how thick a pencil lead is.

Martin Myers