oNeTrack versus T-Track versus FreemoN

[rhiadon]

I'm wanting to start building some module to some standard. I like aspects of all three of the standards I mentioned.

oNeTrack has a single track main which seems more realistic for most of the US
T-Track uses Unitrack at least for the edge connectors, which in my opinion is brilliant
FreemoN is more free form which I don't necessarily need.

I think what I really want is a combination of oNeTrack and T-Track where there's a single track main using the Unitrack for the edge connections. Does anyone know of such a standard?

Sure I could just modify T-Trak since it's my module and do what I want and just pick one of the two lines that are standard, but I'm curious if someone is already doing such a thing and I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Any thoughts?

Kris

[JMaurer1]

New wheel invented...as you already said you can just modify your T track to do this but I think the basic problem is bigger than just this.

Personally, there are too many 'standards' out right now and all three (four if you include N Trak) need to get together and come up with one standard that works for all of them. We are taking a rather shallow pond and diluting it even more by having four 'standards'. Our club models N Trak, but we use Alt Blue usually so instead of triple track main line, it's a dual track main in the front and a single main in the back. This looks SO MUCH BETTER than the triple track (IMHO). We can also run at least one train per main (usually two since we are all DCC) so there is plenty of action happening at shows. Using snap track to connect the modules, however, sucks so we are starting to use the Free Mon 'standard' of running the track to the end of the module and soldering it to screws to keep it aligned (with some modules still using the snap track). There are other things that I really like about the other standards (like increased module heights) as well as things I don't like (main problem with single track main is usually only one train can run at a time and usually nobody has a module long enough for a passing siding) but I still think that they can all live together in harmony if they were all standardized. Can't we all just get along?

Oops, starting to sound like a rant and I'm side tracking the thread (isn't side tracking the same as switching?). I guess what I'm trying to say is instead of another NEW standard, we need to combine what we have and take the best of all of them to create a SINGLE standard. Just my $.02s.

 

[rhiadon]

I guess I should elaborate a little more. I never know what information to include or not.

I don't have any plans to inter-operate with other modules. My reason for wanting a standard is that I have less things to worry about. It gives me restrictions to work within. I also want to build modules, because then it's easier to deal with the layout and it's not permanent. Building individual modules gives me something to finish in a reasonable time. This is based on the One Module Approach from Model Railroad Hobbyist. The idea appeals to me for that very reason, get something done. But I don't want to just freeform it. I want rules. But the different sets of rules don't fit 100% with what I want to do.

So yes, I think you may be right, new wheel invented. Just use T-Track and pick one of the two tracks.

One other thing I completely forgot to mention and definitely should have was I want to use code 55. This means making my own Unitrack with code 55 for the edge connections. With these two pretty major differences, I'm likely just on my own.

[peteski]

I guess I should elaborate a little more. I never know what information to include or not.

I don't have any plans to inter-operate with other modules. My reason for wanting a standard is that I have less things to worry about. It gives me restrictions to work within. I also want to build modules, because then it's easier to deal with the layout and it's not permanent. Building individual modules gives me something to finish in a reasonable time. This is based on the One Module Approach from Model Railroad Hobbyist. The idea appeals to me for that very reason, get something done. But I don't want to just freeform it. I want rules. But the different sets of rules don't fit 100% with what I want to do.

Well then - if it is your own private standard then you can design it any way you please. No restrictions, no other standards to adhere to. Make it what you think will work for you the best. But having said that, since you layout will be portable it might make sense to make it compatible with one or more of the existing standards. That way you will have the ability to connect your modules with modules from outside clubs. That way you can display them at shows, etc.

But you can still create and use your own standard and just make adapter module(s) which will interface your modules to whatever standard connection you put on the other end of the adapter module

[rhiadon]

Peteski, yeah, obviously I can just do whatever I want. I was wondering if anyone had already blazed this trail, as in they created a one track version of T-Track so I could just follow that. People on here know way more about this stuff than I do, so I was hoping someone would know of such a standard.

[leedabsme74]

Reading your posts tells me you don't know where to start and hope a standard will help you through the initial planning stages.  I suggest you look at the One-Trak standards that are available from the N-Trak website.  See, One-trak is compatible with N-Trak.  Their standards cover the size and shape of the modules, the track connections and the electrical side of wiring modules.  Everything you need is right there.  All you then need to do is a track layout plan where you can use single main line, add in some passing sidings, sidings to industries, and yards.  Configure this to fit the space you have for your layout and begin construction.  Hope I interpreted your needs correctly and my suggestions help.  Ask more questions if you have any.

David Lee
Indianapolis, IN

[robert3985]

This is an excellent question the OP has posed, and it deserves a serious response...which means a LONG response, so here goes...

I'm wanting to start building some module to some standard. I like aspects of all three of the standards I mentioned.

oNeTrack has a single track main which seems more realistic for most of the US
T-Track uses Unitrack at least for the edge connectors, which in my opinion is brilliant
FreemoN is more free form which I don't necessarily need.

I think what I really want is a combination of oNeTrack and T-Track where there's a single track main using the Unitrack for the edge connections. Does anyone know of such a standard?

Sure I could just modify T-Trak since it's my module and do what I want and just pick one of the two lines that are standard, but I'm curious if someone is already doing such a thing and I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Any thoughts?

Kris

Kris,

I was an avid Ntrakker for many years, but always fudged the standards to meet my own desires.  The club I was in finally voted to ditch Ntrak standards and settle on our own, and then after a decade or so , decided to disband due to personality problems among the ranks. 

I decided to establish my own standards for a portable, sectional layout that I could easily disassemble and move if my residence changed or I decided to go to shows.  Since the layout was to be set up in my layout room the vast majority of time, I decided to make my standards "fine" enough to satisfy myself and other experienced model railroaders who would be operating on it rather than build it with specifications that made it easy for short people (children) to see.

Another model railroader whose main focus was Nn3, but who wanted to run his standard gauge roster decided to build a 30' section that would buckle up to mine, so we put our heads together and came up with some "standards" that after building the modules and displaying our setup at shows, has led us to believe we made the correct choices.

Here are some of the more general spec's for our portable layout in no particular order of importance:
(1) The layout is to be "sectional" with each section's dimensions generally being 6' long. 
(2) "Modular" ends will be 3' deep, but fascias will be free-form and "flowing" in some places being narrower or wider than 3' depending on aesthetics, scenery depth, and track plan.
(3) Distance from railhead to floor will be 52" (which was determined by raising and lowering a finished section to see what we, and a number of operators liked the best.  52" height was the 100% preference).
(4) A removable skyboard 18" high is mandatory (with a few exceptions) and the rear of all skyboards shall be painted the same color as the layout fascia.
(5) Micro Engineering Code 55 flex and/or hand-laid PCB Code 40 trackage for standard gauge mainlines, sidings, spurs, and branchlines.
(6) Micro Engineering Code 55 #6 DCC-friendly turnouts and DCC-friendly hand-laid turnouts where appropriate.
(7) All turnouts shall be actuated by Circuitron Tortoise switch motors.
( 8 ) All turnout frogs shall be live.
(9) Track ends shall be even with section ends and module ends, with no connecting tracks.
(10) Benchwork shall be twin L-girder wood trusses with 3/4" plywood ends, folding legs w/height adjustable coasters, splined Masonite subroadbed supported by risers with common hardware on ALL modules/sections and only NEW lumber to be used. Yards & large industrial area subroadbed will be 1/2" plywood.
(11) Each 6' section/module shall have a minimum of 2 swing-arm lamps with 100W incandescent equivalent 6500K LED bulbs.
(12) DCC wireless operation using Digitrax
(13) Main power buses will be 12ga premium copper/lo-ox/fine strand red/black zip, with color coded Anderson Power Poles between sections/modules.
(14) Secondary power buses will be 14ga premium copper/lo-ox/fine strand red and black wire. 
(15) Feeders will be a maximum of 6" long, 22ga solid core red or black wire.
(16) Feeders will be soldered to each and every piece of rail near its center.
(17) 3M IDC (suitcase connectors) will be used for track power wire connections except between feeders and track which will be soldered.
(18) DC wiring will be provided on an individual module/section basis for accessories and switch motor power.
(19) All toggle switches for throwing turnouts shall be center-off.
(20) Mainline track centerline radius will be 24" minimum.
(21) Branchline track centerline radius will be 18" minimum.
(22) Industrial track centerline radius will be 16" minimum.
(23) All mainline curves will be appropriately superelevated.

We also settled on a common sky color and a common fascia color as well as a common attachment method and color for the layout's cloth skirt.

We also settled on several aspects of the portable layout that we were interested in:
(1) Operation will be from the front of the layout.
(2) An exclusion zone provided by a brightly colored rope supported by steel stanchions will be present at every public setup.
(3) The layout will consists of Layout Design Elements (LDE's) of at least 12' derived from prototype scenes from several western railroads which interchanged in Ogden and/or Salt Lake City Utah in the 1950's era.
(4) Maximum train length will be 9'7" (A Big Boy, 30 to 35 cars and a caboose)
(5) Passing Sidings will be at least 10' long between clearance locations.
(6) Scenes will blend into each other from a scenic standpoint with no scenic dividers.
(7) All track will be painted, ballasted realistically and weathered appropriately.
( 8 ) Low-profile flanges will be standard on all rolling stock, and on all motive power if possible.
(9) All motive power wheelsets will be as exactly gauged to NMRA specs as possible before being allowed to run on the layout.

We decided on double-track operation, with prototype specific passing sidings (i.e. Union Pacific's characteristic center sidings) with track centers at modular interfaces being 1.5", which is the scale distance between U.P.'s double tracked mainline in Weber and Echo Canyons between Wahsatch and Ogden.  Minimum track center distance at other positions not at the modular interface is 1".

Photo (1) - Non-standard (odd-sized) corner adapter section showing basic benchwork, fascia, skyboard and well-braced folding legs:


One of the really nice things about having 6' or shorter sections/modules is when you need to work underneath them, you can disconnect them from the rest of the layout and position them on a table for easy and comfortable access to whatever part of them you need to work on. The following photo illustrates that fact as well as showing the DCC wiring.

Photo (2) - Echo Yard section with folding legs removed when I was converting it to my DCC wiring standards...clamped to a 6' folding-leg table for easy access:


Because there are no connecting tracks, the modular/section interfaces are much less obvious.  However, to prevent damage to the tracks when transporting, end-protectors made from various lengths of pine 1X4's need to be screwed to the module/section ends when they are not clamped up to one another.  I mark the screw holes and number each end-protector so they are easy to put back on at shows or when breaking down to transport to shows.

Also, each lattice leg brace has the identical distance between mounting holes so they are all interchangeable.  Although ugly, I've found that yardsticks available at The Home Depot are much cheaper than lattice material and are of equal quality.  Since the layout, when set up has a cloth skirt, the yardstick markings and "The Home Depot" lettering won't be seen.

Photo (3) - Layout set up at the Evanston Roundhouse Festival a couple of years ago showing my Echo/Park City Yard and Echo Canyon LDE with my son Benjamin chatting with an interested onlooker:


Photo (4) - Another view of our portable layout showing my friend Gregg Cudworth's D&RGW LDE:


At this time, when we are set up at shows, the layout is a display layout.  As it grows, we intend to have operating sessions at shows when other modelers who may decide to adopt our standards for allowing building a decent at-home layout that is portable and portions of which can be taken to shows.

I just completed a move to a new home, and moving my layout was a breeze with the assistance of my son Benjamin.  We broke it down and moved it 17 miles in less than half a day.  However, it is not yet set up in its new home, but when I unpack all the boxes occupying the train room at this moment, setting it up will only take about three hours for both of us.

Photo (5) - Echo Engine Refueling Facility and Park City Yard...an 18' LDE:


Photo (6) - Echo West End photo illustrating what the 3' layout depth achieves as to scenery-to-track ratio in N-scale:


Photo (7) - Echo Curve photo illustrating what a little superelevation and broad curves on mainline trackage will do for a more realistic appearance of your model trains:


Although this is a simplified overview of MY modular/sectional standards, it illustrates the possible complexity of attempting to establish new standards.  There are simply a LOT of things to think about.  However, you can pick and choose between what you like and what you don't like among the modular standards already established which can greatly cut down on the time involved if you were to develop your own.  I did this with most of my DCC wiring standards, using Ntrak show experience and their DCC standards as a good starting point for my own.  I also liked their 24" minimum mainline radius as well as the fortuitously correct for me mainline center to center track spacing.

Since the purpose of my own modular/sectional standards was not to make it easy for someone to build modules to my standards, but to allow standardization and a quality foundation for creating a more realistic "home-style" portable layout, I only chose from existing modular standards those which I had experience with and liked or had experimented with.  For instance, I don't like not having a skyboard as is FreeMo's modular standard, so I made a nice, tall one mandatory for me.  I also HATED Ntrak's (or anybody else's) joiner tracks protocol, which creates a really ugly, problem causing solution to poor workmanship...so, I eliminated them, and haven't had any problems whatsoever doing so.

Hopefully, this long post will assist you in determining more precisely what you may want to do and achieve when adopting your own modular/sectional standards.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Ken Ford]

I'm wanting to start building some module to some standard. I like aspects of all three of the standards I mentioned.

oNeTrack has a single track main which seems more realistic for most of the US
T-Track uses Unitrack at least for the edge connectors, which in my opinion is brilliant
FreemoN is more free form which I don't necessarily need.

I think what I really want is a combination of oNeTrack and T-Track where there's a single track main using the Unitrack for the edge connections. Does anyone know of such a standard?

Sure I could just modify T-Trak since it's my module and do what I want and just pick one of the two lines that are standard, but I'm curious if someone is already doing such a thing and I don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Any thoughts?

Kris

The local T-Trak group has been doing single track alternate modules that work really well.  There are a few photos here:

Edit - direct link to the member building single track modules:  http://ttrak.wikidot.com/robert-myers

[sirenwerks]

A curious discussion, considering I just started soliciting for interest online to create a Modutrak-style group to model the Seattle to Portland shared line.

[C855B]

Cutting to the chase, each of the "standards" you mention have different purposes and features, to solve differing needs:

oNeTrak's raison d'être is maximum compatibility with N-Trak. It is little more than N-Trak with a single line, carrying forward legacy features you may or may not want such as connector tracks, Code 80 interchange, 40" height, and electrical standards that have morphed over time. I personally would not pursue this design model unless you are seeking compatibility with one of the few clubs adopting this "branchline" standard.

T-Trak is targeted towards table-top setup (hence the "T") with no integrated legs supporting the benchwork. Aside from table-top and very small module units, the main feature is standardizing track system around Kato Unitrack. The reason for T-Trak is interoperability with other T-Trak users in a format that gets you running your own module - again, within a club - with minimum work. While you are not limited to the "minimum" module, and there are some great T-Trak modules shown on TRW and elsewhere, it is ostensibly a get-your-feet-wet format, with the unspoken inference that anything you do is not necessarily going to be something you can build on for something bigger and better once you advance.

FreemoN is the N scale extension of the HO Freemo format, and ditches most of the compromises that come with N-Trak legacy formats. If I were in your shoes, especially without a current need for maximum compatibility with outside groups, this is where I would start.

FWIW, and YMMV.

[randgust]

OK, well, for my own interests, I started out with a model I really wanted to do - West Hickory Bridge.  That's single track.



I'd already built a T-trak module (triple) of the junction at West Hickory.   Original intent was to come off the FRONT, for my own uses, with a bridge module.

When I got into it, I decided that as long as I was making a long, single-track bridge module, I may as well make it the same T-trak triple dimensions for length, connectors, etc.   I settled on an 8-inch width plus skyboard, with the track centered.  There's a long construction thread on this already.

I also needed another module on the T-trak West Hickory Junction module to close the interchange track, made a double.   Then made a REAL discovery.   On a double, I could divert the inner main to swing BEHIND and end up completely behind the skyboard on the single-track bridge.   It's more or less a 'splitter' pushing the inner track behind a single-track module in the front.....

I built a second single-track module triple to get across, and then a second double splitter going the other way.     So, in a way, what I've stumbled on is a way to take T-trak an convert to a single-track mode on both ends.  And it all fits in the T-trak footprint.   It uses a Kato #4 turnout and stays consistent with 19" radius curves.

Here's an overhead view of the bridge module (just the piers visible, the triple module BEHIND it for the second single track, and the splitter module on one end.   



I'll have five of these modules at Altoona in various stages of construction.    I'm not sure if I've developed an eagle or a dodo bird here, but I've got a very flexible collection of modules now and ways to get in and out of single-track mode.

Also, FWIW, the only place I use Kato connectors is on the edges - I convert everything in the middle to Peco C55 wherever I can.  That's really evident on the West Hickory module that is weathered and ballasted.

What's attracted me to T-trak is both the geometry and the portability - I really can't handle a 4' module.   A 36" T-trak is a lot more manageable.   I have neither a bigger truck or a trailer to haul around anything bigger.   And, the number of accurate modules that have main-line triple track are pretty limited, even on what I'm doing with 2-track T-track is generally a main and a 'siding' in cinders.

The geometry of West Hickory is set up to be a conventional triple, connect with my 'splitter', connect with my bridge to go out at a 90-degree angle to single grack, or be a splitter on its own to the rear track.    And this was also a real place with this geometry copied from the 1917 valuation map.



After I got into it, and saw a bunch of T-trak designs, I decided there was a lot more to it than I originally imagined.   And, I don't belong to a club so much of my interest is in recreating historically accurate areas rather than random models.   

[brill27mcb]

I'm a proponent of T-Trak, but there are some considerations. Unless you make longer (2x, 3x, etc.) modules, you are pretty much limited to a straight main line. Because the modules sit on tabletops, that too constrains the layout shape and design. Another is that the scenery is pretty much behind the track(s), with only a narrow foreground.

My understanding is that the general "standard" for single-track T-Trak is to use the location of the front track (of the 2) for a single track stretch.

Rich K.

[rhiadon]

Thank you all for the information. This has been very helpful. randgust, your post about the bridge was actually what triggered these thoughts in my mind. You were doing something that appeared to be at least based on single track T-Track but I could find no information on such a creature.

I think after looking at all of the options that everyone's info has led me to, I'm most drawn to the interconnection of FreeMoN with the butt connectors but using a backdrop.

See? Each of the standards has thing I just don't like.

I'll build two Single FreeMoN modules (sort of) and see how it works.

[mr_mike_m]

Jumping in a little late to the discussion.... and wanted to put in a plug for T-TRAK.
T-TRAK is "flexible" by stretching the perceived limits, like Randgust. (His Hickory Creek modules are awesome in person!)


Check out some of "John G's" modules from Washington state-  I use these for inspiration.

http://ttrak.wikidot.com/port-village-set
http://ttrak.wikidot.com/port-village-left
http://ttrak.wikidot.com/port-village-right

And here's his layout - all T-TRAK compatible.

http://ttrak.wdfiles.com/local--files/john-g/ttrak-layout-7.jpg


Like Randgust, I use Kato connectors on the ends and flex track "in the middle" on most of my modules.

Don't get me wrong - I would LOVE to build some Freemo modules (MC Fujiwara and friends do some AWESOME modelling). Two things stopping me. No one else reasonably close-by to connect / display / run with, and I don't have the space to transport a single 4 foot module (and I'm getting old and don't want to lift stuff!). The way the T-TRAK works out, I routinely pack and transport 8-10 feet worth of T-TRAK modules and display in Altoona, Springfield MA, and around northern NJ.

Some guys in my club (me included) are also thinking about putting together some single track T-TRAK modules to be able to do some minor OPS at shows where we display.