Eric220's Free-moN modules

[conrail98]

Phil - That's some awesome PRR style inspiration there. I don't think it translates very well to a single module, but there are elements from the second diagram there that I've been pondering.

What are the dimensions of the modules supposed to be? I'm modeling the Ft. Wayne Line part of Alliance in about a 1'x9' section so it should be doable on the 2' width of Free-moN,

Phil

[C855B]

The SP / ATSF crossing at Colton, CA had interchanges both sides....

http://goo.gl/maps/soHov

In theory. The connector in the northwest was removed a long while ago, and IIRC it was then rebuilt in the '90s mostly as a convenience for dealing with issues in Cajon, not interchange. Also, there was another track in the northeast corner (you can see the shadow in the satellite pic) which was used for SP/ATSF interchange in the pre-West Colton days. The UP local used the southeast connector as an interchange to SP.

I don't live there any more, but do know that this crossing is being (or has been) grade-separated, with both connectors likely gone now simply due to the real estate needed by the separation.

The last local tower control panel (up to 1980) is behind Frank's left elbow, and the only connector on the panel is for the southeast track the UP used. This particular arrangement is what I based my suggestion on, although we have a couple of similar interchange arrangements near where I live now, with a single connector track with space for a few cars.

[eric220]

What are the dimensions of the modules supposed to be? I'm modeling the Ft. Wayne Line part of Alliance in about a 1'x9' section so it should be doable on the 2' width of Free-moN,

Phil

My module is 18" x 48" with the crossing in the center.

[railnerd]

OK, here are my thoughts as far as setup goes.  I think a lot of people are envisioning this:

Yes, that works, and is the most likely scenario for a crossing module like you are designing.

In terms of the "double interchange," I may be thinking "too western." Crazy all ways interchanges were all over the place on the heavily tracked northeast.

I had in mind something like this:

Sorry to sound like "Davey-downer", but these configurations will NOT happen in practice in a Free-mo setup of any kind— unless you are building ALL the modules.  Free-mo is not regularly shaped modules. The only reason our local anarcho-collective have any modules which are the same size at all is that we mass produced a metric crap ton of 45º curved modules.

The most important thing is to get something built, otherwise MC will harass you to no end. 

-Dave

BTW: I am partial to a double-track version of "Alliance," as you can probably tell. 

[M.C. Fujiwara]

First I'd like to shout out the yard west of the interchange cited as fun-module city: http://goo.gl/maps/vuEq0

As for Eric's layout thoughts, I thought he broke it down rather nicely:

This is the most practical (set-up wise), as it's basically two layouts crossing each other at one point.
If he includes interchanges (or even just one) then trains can move from one branch to the other.
Otherwise it's look both ways before you cross the street.

This one is very, very tricky, as it involves having modules built to very specific lengths and very specific angles.
While we try to get accurate angles and lengths, the reality is that it doesn't happen that often.
We have 29 deg. modules 75" long and 23 7/8"-long modules at 43 to 46 deg. angles.
And some of that is just twerk over time.

Over distance it makes a difference.

The only way you could insure that kind of golden triangle in the drawing is to make all the connecting modules yourself:



to ensure meet up.

Other possible configurations include MC's "crossing over ourselves":

Was thinking this on the right side, and which could happen if "good" 45's make the curve and specially fitted straight sections take up the slack to make the loop.

The good thing about Free-moN is that there's lots of "slop" when setting up, so a little gap can be muscled into alignment.
But not recommended.

And two lines fed from a common staging yard:

Given that I'm building a wye insert for Effett yard to lead to Staging Yard O' Necessity, we might be able to try this out sooner than later!

Of course, we'd need some single-to-double and more double sections made with the real track gauge.
And then we'd get super quads from all the power squats ducking under the modules 

Actually, the simple interchange that Mike (C855B) drew in might be the most effective.
Allows it to be a crossing, interchange or wye all without looking like a freeway cloverleaf 

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Ha!
Love how Dave F. and I post basically the same thing at the same time.

It's like we're Twins, except he's Arnold while I'm Danny DeVito. 

[eric220]

The irregular angle and length of Free-moN certainly makes the pretzel configurations a challenge, if possible at all. I'm considering a lot of things with the track plan on this module, including if it might be better to switch the double track line to a single track for better flexibility. Perhaps the giant double slip configuration might be best.

[M.C. Fujiwara]

The irregular angle and length of Free-moN certainly makes the pretzel configurations a challenge, if possible at all. I'm considering a lot of things with the track plan on this module, including if it might be better to switch the double track line to a single track for better flexibility. Perhaps the giant double slip configuration might be best.

A single slip works the same, just involves more moves (and some crossovers on the double down the line).
Which works just fine.
Don't worry about flexibility: make the scene you want to make.

[eric220]

Played around with some flex track on a pink canvas:



I have to say, now that I see it, the simple crossing looks pretty dang attractive.  That said, I'm still messing around with some interchange ideas.  Here's the full "double slip" with a yard:



The idea here is that a double-to-single module would be hooked up to the right to provide the yard lead.  That's about as much yard as I could squeak out.  The number of yard tracks is dictated by the space required for the ladder.  A couple of things are becoming clear:

• My desire to keep the wings simple (no turnouts, signals, moving parts, just track) is severely limiting the possibilities.
• I've got about a pound and a half worth of model railroad space, and that yard is at least five or six pounds.
• Free-moN modules are like potato chips... Having one makes you want more...

[railnerd]

Free-moN modules are like potato chips... Having one makes you want more...

Free-moN quote of the day.  MC will definitely agree here— soon he's going to have to find some more cash to buy an Escalade to replace the Rav4.

[packers#1]

I'm digging the simplified look honestly; your next project could be a cutoff designed to provide the connections you would get with the interchange track, and you could maybe have the tower and an MoW siding by the tower on the diamonds

Heck, then a wreck train could shuttle back and forth between that siding and the shoofly

[eric220]

I've been doing some more playing.  As I said before, the simple version has some serious attraction, but I also see the obvious benefits of the double-slip design.  Hence this:



I still like the idea of an interchange yard.  Also, if this is the arrangement that is likely to be used:



The second railroad would be the double tracked one.  If these were operated as two semi-autonomous railroads, or even divisions or lines, the second one would need a yard too.  A little playing around came up with this, heavily inspired by Alliance:



I'm not totally sold on the design, but I like where it's going.  Of course, it condemns me to building at least two more modules.

[Specter3]

Condemns.... Now that is funny.

Remember: you can get a decent 2000 or so suburban for about $2k. They will haul lots of modules. And the difference in cost between that and the Escalade Railnerd mentioned earlier will buy a lot of gas. I have had two burbs now and they are pretty easy to work on, will haul everything you can stuff in it, and if you get a white one and throw a yellow beacon on it you can go anywhere you want and no one will ever ask you what you are doing. A white burb with yellow lights is Obi Wan saying "this guy belongs here" to everyone.

[railnerd]

Eric,

Had some extra time after lunch to think about this some more. Thinking about "Rule 251" double track traffic flow and being able to get keep traffic moving while a local is switching the interchange.

There are a few crossovers that need to be added to get trains to and from "right hand running" on the double track.

I came up with the following doodle:



By adding more modules "in the middle," you can add more tracks to the interchange.  Adding more tracks definitely would require adding some form of drill track.

NOTE: I did not include signals or derails in this diagram and this is NOT a scale drawing.

-Dave

[eric220]

Dave, there's a critical distinction between your diagram and mine. The single and double track lines are switched. In my version, trains moving from the single track line to the double are deposited onto the right hand track. The crossovers would simply allow trains from the double track line to use the interchange without backing. You've given me another idea, because the more I think about it, the more I'm interested in keeping it simple.