A Double T-TRAK Module - Summerhill, Pennsylvania

[davefoxx]

As noted elsewhere in the threads of this forum, I have a double T-TRAK module that I started several years ago.  The module is built, the track is laid, the wiring (what little is required) is finished, and the ties are painted.  So, it’s ready to go, and it’s a clean slate.  With a possible T-TRAK event in the pre-planning stage for next summer in Strasburg, Pennsylvania, that might be the inspiration that I need to finally do something with this module.

Originally, the plan was to model Ashland, Virginia, with the unique RF&P-style street running, but I no longer want to put all of the effort required into scratchbuilding a lot of structures that would be uber-fragile on a portable module that could be man-handled by others during a show.  Besides, Ashland might be better served by two or three double modules.  One module probably won’t do it justice.

So, what else could fit well on a double module?  Then, it hit me.  I have a pleasant memory* of railfanning with the Conrail goons eight or ten years ago along NS’s Middle Division, and one of our stops was in Summerhill, Pennsylvania.  The winding Main Street and the cool highway overpass in Summerhill might fit perfect on a double module.  See?



Obviously, the third track must be omitted, but I’ll need that valuable real estate to squeeze in the approach to the bridge anyway.  Perhaps, the row of buildings on the other side of the highway approach could be done with flats against the backdrop.  Less construction and minimizes fragility, too.  Thoughts?

By the way, here’s a picture that I took from the overpass:



DFF

*As an aside, I caught NS SD70 No. 2502 as a trailing unit in Summerhill on that trip, which was not the first time that I saw this locomotive in person.  I first saw it on a railfanning trip to Saluda, North Carolina, in April 1994 when it was practically new.  We chased it and sister No. 2523 down the grade in the morning and, on their return from Spartanburg, South Carolina, up and down the grade in the afternoon when those SDs tripled the hill before returning to Asheville, N.C.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Oh *****, I love it!

And why ignore the third track?

I'm actually planning on doing a model of Alto tower and plan on including the other tracks as dummies. You could do the same thing here.

[davefoxx]

Oh *****, I love it!

And why ignore the third track?

I'm actually planning on doing a model of Alto tower and plan on including the other tracks as dummies. You could do the same thing here.

Only because I think I’ll need that space for the sweeping radius of the road on the other side of the bridge.  I’m not ruling the third track out until I actually lay it all out, but, if I have to choose, I’d rather have a realistic radius curve for that road than a dummy track.  Just like model bridges that defy the laws of physics is a pet peeve of mine, so is the geometry of roads and streets that ask too much of scale vehicles.

Besides, three tracks is so NTRAK. 

Thanks,
DFF

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Only because I think I’ll need that space for the sweeping radius of the road on the other side of the bridge.  I’m not ruling the third track out until I actually lay it all out, but, if I have to choose, I’d rather have a realistic radius curve for that road than a dummy track.  Just like model bridges that defy the laws of physics is a pet peeve of mine, so is the geometry of roads and streets that ask too much of scale vehicles.

Besides, three tracks is so NTRAK. 

Thanks,
DFF

Haha, ironic, isn't it? lol.

Makes total sense. It's gonna be awesome no matter what.

Are you going to do the extended height PL signals?

[davefoxx]

Are you going to do the extended height PL signals?

I would love to, if I could pull that off.  CPLs are my favorite.  Since it’s just a T-TRAK module and not part of a functional layout, it would probably work best to just have an optic sensor near the overhead PL bridge that trips to red when the light is broken and just resets through yellow and back to green on a timer.

DFF

[crrcoal]

https://www.yeltonmodels.com/product-page/alto-tower-n-scale
They had these at Altoona. Very nice models. All ya gotta do is paint em.

Oh *****, I love it!

And why ignore the third track?

I'm actually planning on doing a model of Alto tower and plan on including the other tracks as dummies. You could do the same thing here.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

https://www.yeltonmodels.com/product-page/alto-tower-n-scale
They had these at Altoona. Very nice models. All ya gotta do is paint em.

That's what I got that inspired the project.

I wonder how many other Alto modules we'll see next year, lol.

[jpec]

True, but the spacing is more prototypical...

JP
Besides, three tracks is so NTRAK. 

Thanks,
DFF

[davefoxx]

I think I have the geometry of Summerhill figured out on the double module.  Obviously, things are selectively compressed, but, for the most part, I have streets and sidewalks angled similarly to the prototype.  I printed out a screenshot from Google Maps to do this.  The approach to the overpass may be steeper than I prefer, but that depends on the clearance necessary for the tracks under the bridge.  What’s the N scale minimum clearance permissible by T-TRAK, measuring from the top of the railhead?





I have more room for the houses along the backdrop than I expected, which will look better than merely flats.  But, I wouldn’t mind giving a little more room to the width of Bridge Street and its parking next to the Main Street ramp.  None of the structures roughed in are to scale.  They’re merely placeholders.

DFF

[mkearns]

I found a vertical clearance recommendation of 1.75" (45mm) on page 22 of this document, which appears to be TTRAK standards from a club in Florida and republished on NMRA website:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/t-trak_documentation-september_19_2019_final.pdf

I don't have my NMRA clearance gauge handy, but this previous post suggest it has 22' scale feet of clearance (1.65" or 42mm)
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=57948.0

I also read somewhere that a Kato unijoiner remover tool can also be used as a clearance gauge. Not sure of its height but I'll try to measure one this evening.

[basementcalling]

I think I have the geometry of Summerhill figured out on the double module.  Obviously, things are selectively compressed, but, for the most part, I have streets and sidewalks angled similarly to the prototype.  I printed out a screenshot from Google Maps to do this.  The approach to the overpass may be steeper than I prefer, but that depends on the clearance necessary for the tracks under the bridge.  What’s the N scale minimum clearance permissible by T-TRAK, measuring from the top of the railhead?





I have more room for the houses along the backdrop than I expected, which will look better than merely flats.  But, I wouldn’t mind giving a little more room to the width of Bridge Street and its parking next to the Main Street ramp.  None of the structures roughed in are to scale.  They’re merely placeholders.

DFF

Looks like the third track would fit, although it might have to be 33mm from the inside track and not slightly more. To my eye in the overheads, it looks like it's spaced wider than the double track main. Awful nice of the Pennsy to perfectly space things for a double wide module scene.

[davefoxx]

I’m sure there were four tracks in PRR’s days.  One of the middle tracks was removed at some point.  I’m designing this module to fit a third track, but on the same spacing as the double-track.  I can’t waste valuable space for a four-track main.  Whether I actually install the third track is TBD.

DFF

[chessie system fan]

That third track looks conveniently spaced to be a siding using Kato #6s, which have a wider track spacing.

But a third track would shift all of the buildings to be flats.

[davefoxx]

I found a vertical clearance recommendation of 1.75" (45mm) on page 22 of this document, which appears to be TTRAK standards from a club in Florida and republished on NMRA website:
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/t-trak_documentation-september_19_2019_final.pdf

I don't have my NMRA clearance gauge handy, but this previous post suggest it has 22' scale feet of clearance (1.65" or 42mm)
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=57948.0

I also read somewhere that a Kato unijoiner remover tool can also be used as a clearance gauge. Not sure of its height but I'll try to measure one this evening.

Thank you for this information.  I have an N scale NMRA gauge, but, when I held that up, it looked really tall.  I’ll measure it later.  I can also build up the surrounding terrain easily by a 1/2” without any issue to the overall look.

DFF

[mkearns]

I have an N scale NMRA gauge, but, when I held that up, it looked really tall.  I’ll measure it later.  I can also build up the surrounding terrain easily by a 1/2” without any issue to the overall look.

You're welcome. I'm still kinda new around here and not familiar with what equipment you normally run. But with TTRAK at the show I suppose there could be autoracks, double stacks, or Amtrak Superliners coming across your module. I don't run any of that stuff and couldn't tell you how tall those models are.

Which is to say, maybe that's why the clearance gauge looks so tall. Hopefully it doesn't mess up your plans.