Eric220's Free-moN modules

[C855B]

There's some serious tower scene goodness in this latest version. I'd relocate signals to be in advance of the crossovers (more signals! yes!) and start sawin'. If you wanted to include signals on the scene without the wings, then put some dwarfs ahead of the derails.

[packers#1]

It's busy, but I think with the expanded area it will look natural and not silly, so go for it!

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I think that could work pretty well.
Especially if we could match alignment pins with both inside segment plates of the two angled segments so that they mate up in addition to align with straight module sides.

Some things to consider:




Yellow Circles:  It's easier fit motors / switch machines underneath if throwbars are kept away from being directly on the sides / ends.  But nothing insurmountable with careful placement and/or actuating cables/rods.

Blue Circle:  Single track mains are centered at the endplate, but here we have a potential double track that isn't centered.  Which means mating up to a double-track module would have a slight shift.  Not a problem, especially if you're going to make another module that extends the interchange that way.
Which would also solve:

Green Circle:  Your module is 18" wide.  Will a 24" module (red rectangle) be able to butt up on centers without banging into the angled section?  (Haven't done the math yet myself, so maybe it'll fit)
Again, not an issue if you're going to extend those sides yourself or use some else's 18"-or-narrower module there.

Brown Circle:  Rivers and bridges are groovy.  Not sure if you want to have water crossing over a section joint.  Or maybe you do.  Can always put a boat over the crack.  Or monster tentacles curling out.  Or just leave it.
One of the trade-offs of a modular layout is a bounty of beautiful butt-joint boundaries all over the place.

Module's coming along and, in pure Free-moN fashion, getting bigger and more numerous as you go 

[DKS]

A few more things to ponder.

First, a 24" module will indeed collide with the angled parts of this design. One thought here would be to build in small notches to accommodate them.

Second, you can eliminate the joint in the stream by having it cross under the track right at the module interface; thus, it enters the culvert on one unit, and exits on the other. Problem solved.

Third, I think there may be an issue with the arrangement of crossovers on the diagonal two-track line: they both run the same way. Would it not make more sense to reverse one?

Finally, I am still of the mind that it's too crowded. Since the wings now also have lots of "moving parts," what's a couple more? I believe the benefits of spreading things out far outweigh any possible liabilities. IHMO, YMMV, etc.



One other thought: the wings are only 32.5" long. You could lengthen them another foot and they'd still be shorter than the core module; they'd all pack together neatly, and you'd have loads more room for goodies...

[eric220]

I agree that the track arrangement needs to be tweaked. I've been thinking about moving the derails inside the "slip" tracks. That would require moving the turnouts further back, as DKS shows, which also moves the throwbars away from the joints. As for the crossovers, they are facing the same way because they are there to allow trains running right-hand to access the slip tracks to the single track main without backing. As for the alignment of the single track line on the right with the parallel interchange track, I've thought a lot about whether to leave the single track centered, or to center the two to the double track alignment. My plan is to use a "standard" single-to-double track module to bring them together. Given that, it would probably make sense to center the pair to the double track alignment. On the other hand, if I don't, it means offsetting the single-to-double module by a little over half an inch. Not exactly a crisis.

I had the same thought about the notches to allow for a 24" module to be connected. Aesthetically, I don't like it. For the SV Free-moN guys, how much trouble would it be if only 18" modules could connect? My understanding is that most of the modules are 18"(ish).

Methinks the culvert at the seam  is a stroke of genius. Nicely played, sir.

I can't wait to get home and play with the design!

[DKS]

Do all Free-moN modules need to be exactly X feet long? If not, the collision issue can be resolved by simply making the core module a few inches longer.

As for the crossovers, they are facing the same way because they are there to allow trains running right-hand to access the slip tracks to the single track main without backing.

Ah, makes sense.

[eric220]

As we go through this, I keep thinking about this cartoon:



Not exactly an illustration of requirements creep, but still it's what came to mind. I've been very tempted to expand this, or even make it more modules. Given that what I initially had in mind was a simple crossing, and I've now got a crossing with "slip" tracks (there's got to be a proper name for those, but all I can think of is the allusion to a slip switch) and a yard lead, I think I need to stop trying to add things. This needs to stay a relatively small secondary project and not take more time away from the empire than it already is. I do plan to add more modules in the future after I get through this one.

[eric220]

DKS - What radii curves are you using?  I expanded my cramped 15" radius curves to the Free-moN standard mainline 22" and came up with this (edit: that signal on the right should be at the base of the slip track turnout):



Also, the size of the expanded wings was deliberately selected to do this:



That way, the wings can be secured together and combined with the core module to form a protected shipping unit.

[DKS]

DKS - What radii curves are you using?

I'm not--the flex sections are "freeform" and have easements. The minimum radius calculates to be about 35" for the top right track; the bottom left is around 47".

So, here's something else to consider. Pare things back to your original concept (or thereabouts) with a simple interchange of a single track line crossing a double-track. Then, rotate the whole shebang so that the "normal" orientation utilizes the wings, and the core unit is on the angle. But, leave the track oriented the way it was, with the double-track main on the diagonal. Now, if you position the two tracks just right, you can connect a 24" single-track module to each end; they will need to be offset to align with the outside track, but that offset then avoids the collision with the wings. Meanwhile, single-track 18" units should connect centered on each end, to the other track. (Admittedly I have no idea how well double-track modules would line up.) You still need a pair of crossovers so that trains can pass straight through when two single-track modules are connected, but with everything mirrored, right-hand running trains can access the "slips" directly regardless of the crossovers' location or orientation.



Dunno, maybe it's all too wacky...

[Mark W]

Does it have to be a 45* crossing?  What angle would it take to give a slant, but clear the 2' end plates on center? 
That is so close to clearing, maybe 50-55* will do the trick.


Does the through way need to be perfectly straight on all legs?  Maybe you shift the crossing left a little and have the short leg curve away just enough to clear the end plate on that leg?

[DKS]

Does it have to be a 45* crossing?

Since the plan utilizes Atlas Code 55 45-degree crossings, it more or less has to. An oddball angle would require hand-laying the diamonds or curving the mainlines.

Does the through way need to be perfectly straight on all legs?  Maybe you shift the crossing left a little and have the short leg curve away just enough to clear the end plate on that leg?

I can't speak for Eric, but I would not envision the mainlines as being anything but straight, or very nearly so.

[eric220]

Before I spend any energy fixing the problem of connecting to a 24" module, I still want to hear from the SV Free-moN guys about just how big a problem it is. Are there so few 18" wide modules that this guy's current inability to connect with a 24" module is going to be a problem?

[railnerd]

Before I spend any energy fixing the problem of connecting to a 24" module, I still want to hear from the SV Free-moN guys about just how big a problem it is. Are there so few 18" wide modules that this guy's current inability to connect with a 24" module is going to be a problem?

Eric,

Most of our modules are 18" wide, and the 45º "filler" modules are all 12" wide. 

We do have some pretty cool 24" modules that would work well near that interchange— and the NLandPacific uses 24" wide modules exclusively.  We can probably make it work in practice, but it will limit what modules can be attached.

You can always fix this by creating an additional "extension" section as was suggested.  I made some super short modules (12" long, and 18" wide), and they were just too short to be useful.  I'd recommend making any "mini-mo" a bit longer than 12"— the clamping area and wiring just gets to be too cramped.

-Dave

[eric220]

At some point down the road, I do intend to build the double-to-single module that will be to the right to form the interchange track. As long as there's plenty of 18" wide modules in the collective that can be connected to it, I'm inclined to leave it as is.

[railnerd]

At some point down the road, I do intend to build the double-to-single module that will be to the right to form the interchange track. As long as there's plenty of 18" wide modules in the collective that can be connected to it, I'm inclined to leave it as is.

One point of caution: double track modules aren't officially part of the Free-moN standard, but MNFree-moN and NLandPacific have been using an adhoc recommended practice.

The double track at and endplate straddles the center line; your sketch appears to offset one of the sides. (track centerline is 0.5625" off the center either side of the endplate center, yielding a 1-1/8" spacing)

If you are working with MC, he can get you hooked up with the proper spacing jig and show you the tricks.

-Dave