Floating Butts

[Mark W]

*giggles*


Ok, but no, really.  Let's talk Floating Butt Joints! 

At the show in North Platte this weekend, we had a very easy time setting up and aligning modules.  But there's always a couple joints that you can't get exactly right no matter how hard you try.

On the way home, I had an idea and tonight I got to build a quick proof of concept.  Introducing the Floating Butts!



Keep in mind, this is a quick and dirty proof of concept with cheap ply.


Down


Extreme tilt, just to show ability. 


Up




The condition is that this is only intended for extra fine tune adjustments in alignment in the range of half a millimeter or so.  You'll still want to get as close as possible with the floating butt centered, then you can make minor adjustment from there to avoid putting stress on rail, ballast, scenery.

Concealing the screws should be as simple as a plug cover thing end plate gaps will be no more distracting than the transition between modules. 

Thoughts?

I'm going to make this modification to the Holland Drive modules, which need a bit of end plate work already.

[tom mann]

I clicked for butts, instead I got joints.

This seems to be a great idea!

[Santa Fe Guy]

Mark what a neat Idea. We had all sorts of trouble with our Thompson River Canyon layout. We partly solved the issue by adding keys across the joining faces. On our Melb N Track modules we made round plugs that matched holes drilled with Forzner drill bits. These drill bits are what is used to mount kitchen cupboard hinges and the like and make a very neat hole.
I believe somebody makes brass fittings to solve this issue on modules now.

[jagged ben]

I'm thinking that if you turned the idea upside down so that the screws were accessible from underneath it would look better.  Maybe have a flexible scenic layer on top?  Of course that way it would be much easier to adjust with two people (screw guy underneath, spotter looking from the top).   

And I don't do Freemo (yet?) so you don't really have to listen to me.

[ednadolski]

Honestly I'm not sure I see the benefit.  The track on either side of the joint could end up being bent, or twisted, and/or dipped.  Plus you could still get kinks in the vertical plane.  Is this supposed to eliminate rail joiners?

Seems to me it would be easier (and more durable in the long run) to build something rigid and aligned on some kind of pins.  But I am not a module guy, so this is not something I've thought a lot about.

Ed

[sirenwerks]

Me thinks the damage you're relating to would be caused if there would be tension spread across a joint, but this design solidifies each side of the joint so there'd be no pulling on either side.

[Mark W]

The problem with alignment pins is that even if one person is measuring and installing them on every module, and even with a standard template, it's still extremely difficult to get them all perfect.  Add a dozen different people doing the measurements and you have a dozen minor variations and offsets.  Then once you have the pins installed, if a module does not line up, there's no more wiggle room for the any adjustment.  The idea of the floating butt will allow you to easily correct for that, complimenting the use of alignment pins. 

[mrhedley]

I'm wondering why you can't accomplish the same result by adjusting the cap screws on the base of the module legs?  Aren't these an N track standard?

[jagged ben]

I'm wondering why you can't accomplish the same result by adjusting the cap screws on the base of the module legs?  Aren't these an N track standard?

Free-mo N is its own standard not bound to anything N-track.  There are a couple competing websites with somewhat different, though largely compatible, versions of the standard.

With that said, butt joints aren't actually part of the published standards.

[mrhedley]

Thanks for the clarification Ben.  It's been a long time since I did the modular group thing.  I remember well the Ntrak standards for the adjustable legs using T nuts and cap screws, but there was at least one time when someone showed up with a module built with folding table legs with no means of adjustment.  Since no one brought any shims we had a b**ch of  time trying to get that thing to match up the rest of our modules.  And I also remember the ".255" dimension for the end of mainline tracks that was intended to fit the 5" straight track piece to splice the modules.  Some of the module builders weren't all that precise with their measurements and we'd always end up cutting flex track in places to fix the gap problems.  At first running modules was fun, but it got really tiresome having to deal with the less than standard modules and how some individuals did little to help set up and tear down but then commandeered the throttles for most of the show, so I just gave it up entirely.  If we had these kind of issues in spite of standards, I'm wondering what kind of problems the Free-mo people must have, unless the groups are working together.

[RBrodzinsky]

Great idea, Mark!  Clearly needs a bit more work for proper implementation, and I would be worried about twist in the track, but in most cases, the adjustments would be very fine. I'm just worried that people will start to use this as an "easy out" rather than taking the time to align and clamp the modules properly.

There are very few issues with matching up FreeMoN modules (single rail) between people / groups, since there are no rail joiners involved. The key part of the standard is making sure the rail is perpendicular to the end plate, and cut flush with the end plate's face.  But, there are always a few modules that can be problematic (not always the same ones, show to show) and a method for very minor tweaking would be welcome. 

[MVW]

I'm sorry, but every time I see this thread title, I can't help but think it's about a long-lost Mel Brooks movie.

"Floating Butts." Came out sometime between "Blazing Saddles" and "Spaceballs." 

Jim

[Mark W]

With that said, butt joints aren't actually part of the published standards.

The 2011 revision made them the official standard.
http://free-mon.wesleysteiner.com/FreemoNStandards.pdf

At the endplates the track shall be centered on the width, perpendicular to the end, straight and level
for at least 4 inches from the outside face of the endplate. Rail and track shall be cut flush with the
outside face of the endplate. Modules will connect at the end-plates by clamping securely so that
the rail-heads align without the use of rail joiners.

There are other 'unofficial' standards for things like double track spacing that the major groups have adopted. 

Great idea, Mark!  Clearly needs a bit more work for proper implementation, and I would be worried about twist in the track, but in most cases, the adjustments would be very fine. I'm just worried that people will start to use this as an "easy out" rather than taking the time to align and clamp the modules properly.

Yep, the key to it all is very fine tuning.  Anything more would disturb ballast.  I'm curious about further design modification where the floating block is flush with the endplate, but extends 2-3 inches inward.  I wonder if that will create a smoother easement and less stress when things are adjusted.  Also, on a proper installation if I make the block more of a tight fit, that would prevent adjustments more than, say, a millimeter or so.  I think that would be the happy median between tuning and cheating, as well as conceal things better.   

[Bendtracker1]

Mark I understand what you're trying to do.
But personally what I see is something that is trying to promote sloppy workmanship and also invites more slack attitude from anyone who build modules as they'll just figure:
"Why should I do any better, someone has made a crutch for me and my sloppiness".

If the person/modeler has an issue with building a quality module, then they should seek out assistance. If no assistance is available, then research the construction methods of other modelers/group to see how they maintained the quality standards during construction.


"Overview
Free-mo N attempts to raise-the-bar for N scale modular railroading by specifying standards for
bench work, track and digital control that promotes, and even forces, prototypical appearance and
operational characteristics. This document contains standards that must be followed to the letter
and recommendations, in italics, that have been gathered from various sources."

I don't recall the Silicon Valley guys having any issues or needing something like this?

[Mark W]

No matter how perfect the build quality, there are always external variables that affect the ability to align two modules PERFECTLY.  A feature that allows you to make extra fine adjustments after the modules are locked together will eliminate those variables and raise the bar in operational characteristics.

Go back and carefully watch Silicon Valley or N land Pacific's videos and you'll notice some of these joints with the half millimeter issue.  Trains still operate fine across those joints, but the noticeable jumps each car of the train makes across the joint can be distracting.  This is the issue the floating butt means to address.

A negative outlook sees this as a crutch that the lessor modeler would exploit, but so what?  If this allows more people to join the wonderfulness of Free-moN, even better!  A positive outlook see this as a tool that any modeler can use to their advantage.