Eric220's Free-moN modules

[railnerd]

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.

Glad my diversion gave you some new ideas.

Heh, I hadn't noticed I managed to flip the whole configuration. 

I'm actually fond of the plan I drew up...  if only I had room for more of modules... 

-Dave

[Mark W]

...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...

Challenge accepted!! 

I'm sure you could get things pretty close enough so that all you'd need is about 2' worth of 'variable adapter' module. 

I'm imagining two halves of a variable adapter module with fascia connected to the end plates with hinges.  You can then clamp the fascia together at various lengths to form various angles of one end plate in relation to the other, whichever is necessary to align the gap.  Once the shape is clamped, cookie cutter that shape from a bit of foam and lay that in (you'll have 'shelves" on the inside of the endplates however many inches down to match the thickness of the foam so that it can just rest in there).
Then you just have someone do a quick and dirty job of laying track (I know how scary that sounds, but I do know it's possible, especially with MC in da house.) and maybe just paint it a base color and sprinkle a bit of ground foam and voilà!, insta-adapter module.




Now of course, just like any well thought out theory, this likely all goes right out the window once you attempt to put it into practice. 

[railnerd]

Elasti-modules *could* actually work— but we'd need Atlas to start making Code 55 flex again 

[M.C. Fujiwara]

Make the top and roadbed out of Nerf and it'll just squish along with the shape.
Make the Nerf with ground foam and static grass already on it, and instant zip (or squish) texturing!
Dense enough Nerf and you don't even need a support underneath: just tack flex track to roadbed with velcro.
Poof!

It might be easier just to clamp an accordion / squeezebox to ends of the modules that almost make it:



and then lay track over the curve of the instrument.
Pre-fab benchwork!
[heck, pre-Fab 4 benchwork!]

 

[That reminds me: What's the difference between an onion and an accordion?  No one cries when an accordion is cut in half.  ]


Now back to Eric's module and his interchange music.

[chicken45]

...I don't get it. Where are the other three tracks for the main? 

[eric220]

...I don't get it. Where are the other three tracks for the main? 

You force me to drop the bomb... These modules are not based on the PRR. ::ducks::

With that said, here's my thought:



If used as a cosmetic crossing without the wings, the interchange track becomes a drop off point. If used it's a functional interchange, the interchange track becomes the drill track for the yard.

[chicken45]

At least put in an oversized ALTO tower in there!

[railnerd]

looking good.

[DKS]

If I may make an observation, it seems a bit "cramped"; I'd recommend spreading things out as far as practical so that the curves are more relaxed.



I also wonder about the need to make the "wings" removable; what would be the consequences of making them permanent parts of the module? It would make for a more complete scene regardless of whether or not anything is connected to them, and eliminate six track joints and the associated alignment issues.

[conrail98]

Dave, I like that plan but I believe there is a Free-moN requirement of 4" of straight track at module edges that are to connect with the other modules not part of a contained grouping. That may be why the curves are tighter,

Phil

[eric220]

I was wondering if DKS was going to show up here.     The primary reason for making the wings detachable is for shape efficiency.  Having a permanent X shape is not only harder to store, load, and tetris other pieces to, it's also much more unwieldy to move from storage in the basement to the garage.  I also like the idea of having a clean rectangular module, or even a 45° wye, if the full crossing is not going to be needed for a particular show.

The main reason for the "crampiness" is that I really want to keep all the moving pieces (turnouts, signals, derails) related to the crossing on the main module so that it's self-contained.  I'm not sure if there's really any logic to this argument, but it just seems like a good idea.  Also, if I keep the crossing to the main module, I should still have room for crossovers on the wings to allow direct access from the double track to the singe track without backing, if I decide that I want them. I know that seems contradictory, but I think of the crossovers as separate entities from the crossing that can be "self-contained" within the wings.

Also, as a design note, unless Atlas releases more track, I'm looking at using #7's here.  I have some extras for this project, but I don't have any extra #10's.

[DKS]

Well, I don't know what track planning software you're using, but AnyRail tells me this cannot be built using #7s with all of the switches on the main module.

Here's what happens:



You can just about squash it all together assuming you use a #5 and a curved switch:

[eric220]

I'll admit that I'm using the same drawing software that I've been using all along, and I may be a little optimistic on what I can fit in on the top with a #7 on the main butted into a curved turnout.  That said, I'm not entirely happy with this design, and I'll probably go back and tweak it again.  Specifically, with this design (which was an attempt to minimize track), the yard lead shares track with the crossing track.  If a train wants to move to/from the double track to single track on the top of the crossing, the yard crews have to clear the lead.

[DKS]

I'll admit that I'm using the same drawing software that I've been using all along, and I may be a little optimistic on what I can fit in on the top with a #7 on the main butted into a curved turnout.

Sorry, but it ain't gonna fly with a #7 and a curved...

I should still have room for crossovers on the wings to allow direct access from the double track to the singe track without backing...

Not even close. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but...

[M.C. Fujiwara]

There's no reason why the wings need to detach - except for space considerations while traveling.
Was thinking of making the wings permanent as well.
Then the second module that flips over and is end-plated can be a rectangle or have a wing or two of its own.

As long as the X module (with wings) fits in the car!

The 4" of straight pertains to the main, so the straight through section of a turnout can be part of those 4" while the diverging route (now not main) can start closer to the endplate.
However in Eric's case the diverging's part of another main, so 4" is a good idea.

Also, double-track modules have the double track centered.

Personally, I'd say keep it simple:



Two #7's and two crossings and tah-dah.

Depending which module comes next, there might be 2-3 passing sidings on the neighboring one which could act as simple interchange yard.
Or I could handlay a nice #8 curved turnout for you to lead into a dedicated yard on the next ("mirror") module: