I just completed my second n T-Track Module. As I said I really enjoy working on these modules and they are easy to do. I finished this one in a day and a half. I've attached some pictures of different views of the completed second Module. Also, Australian T-TRACK is a N Scale modular system. It is not a child (but its good for young people to do it with adult supervision) version for N Scale trains. It was started in Japan where space is at a premium and modelers wanted a module that could be carried on public transportation, T-Track is what they came up with. The US version I'm modeling is part of a local club using the Australian standards for N Scale T-TRAK. Here is a link to it, you can obtain further information there; http://t-trak.nscale.org.au/ See ya Ron I'll sweep away the clumps of ballast on the roadway
Wow. So much happening on such a small plot of land. That's definitely making the most of what space you have available.
I see T trak as the antithesis of Ntrak and find it more than odd that the Ntrak organization promotes both. But then Ntrak seems to want to accomodate everyone these days except those who stick to the classic Ntrak standards. Today in Ntrak the tail wags the dog. Anyway tight curves and sectional track is not what made N scale popular. Originally Ttrak was designed for traction operations but has now morphed into longer trains. It just seems to be a step backwards.
Nice module. The Ipswich Model Railway Club started using T-TRAK for train shows a couple of years ago because Ntrak is just too cumbersome to set up in comparison, we can set up the same size layout we used to have and be back at the motel watching videos when we would have still been leveling modules and finding joiner tracks that fit. We find, that coupled with DCC, T-TRAK has more operational variety and we can show that N scale in the 21st century is capable of more than running longer trains than anyone else round an three track mainline that was about its only selling point in the pre-dcc, pre-good running locos 1970's when Ntrak was born. You're not limited to the 315/282mm radius corners either by the way, I was planning a set of wider radius corners for the club before we had to vacate our club rooms with the objective over time of completely replacing our aging Ntrak modules.
I have to disagree. I don't think there is any one reason for N scale's popularity, but for many it's the ability to build more railroad in less space. Tight curves make that possible. As for sectional track, Unitrack is very popular. It's so popular that other companies have their own version of all in one sectional track. Your statement says that broad curves and flex track are what made N scale popular. If that's all that was available I wouldn't be in N scale. I don't have room for broad curves and much prefer the ease and ultra reliability of Unitrack over flex. Members at my club have started building T-Trak modules. It's opened up modular railroading to many that cannot store or transport an N-Track module. It seems to work for us and many other N scalers. In fact, it seems to be popular.
That's why our Ntrak club has shifted to oNetrak: less heavy, faster setups. My biggest concern with Ttrak is the track: in combination with the small size of the module, it still looks too toylike. I am not fond of the way Unitrack looks, and the track-to-scenery ratio is just so small that the tracks are visually too present.
Well that is your opinion but there is basically two reasons for the popularity of N scale and they are Ntrak and the Clinchfield RR project that was featured in Model Railroading[I/]. Neither use sectional track. Ntrak got not only N scale model RR but model RR in general out of the basements and out into the public. Modular layouts in all scales were based on the Ntrak basics. The Clinchfield showed the model RR'ing public just what could be done in N scale. T trak does none of that but is a revision to sectional track and tight curves. It is good for what it was origianlly intended and that was Traction, Trolleys and Trams,
I whole-heartedly agree with you Country Joe. I never wanted to build an N-Trak module and I've never heard of the Clinchfield RR Project and yet, I've always been an N-Scale fan. After 35 years of sitting on the sidelines acquiring items I finally STARTED model railroading when I first saw T-Trak. I like what Switchman has done with his two modules in what appears to be the span of two days.
And furthermore, I'm with Country Joe and Vic. I first heard of the Clinchfield wayyy after I got into N-scale (had my first N-scale trains when I was three years old... that was 40 years ago), and only learned of N-trak in the past 6-7 years (I was out of model railroading for a long time). We also had HO and O scale railroads at home when I grew up, but the N-scale just kept bringing me back. N-trak looked neat, but I only seriously considered it for anything about two months ago. Then I saw oNe-trak and T-trak. While I'm not a fan of the track, I like challenges and am very impressed with some of the results people have had blending and weathering them. And I also like the challenge of building something neat in that compact of a module space. Anyway, my two cents (after taxes...)
Which is why I do a few things- One is using standard track spacing instead of the alternate. Doing this creates a little more space for scenery and helps make track slightly less omni-present. I use cork roadbed and non-Unitrack wherever possible. But, it is not really that hard to dress up Unitrack with ballast and scenery along edges. Rails can be rusted easily, fast, with a paint pen and I have seen folks also tackle the remaining exposed ties/roadbed. The overall scene you create, structures and all takes eyes off track well enough, thus your end result is quite decent. I am no less happy with T-Trak than I was with my NTrak and oNeTrak days. Remember, you are not actually limited to any specific module size. Only track spacing. Length and width can vary. And some efforts are getting quite enlarged now. Regardless of how N scale burst into full bloom, really via NTrak and affordability via discount sellers, this evolution is yet another opportunity for people to become involved with the fun. That is all which truly matters. Boxcab E50 N scale since 1972.
You're pretty much doing what the Australian T-TRAK Guidelines say, the 'alternate standards' with their 33mm track spacing and 11" minimum radius are our standards. The corners can be disguised so the tracks don't look like they make a sharp 90 degree turn in the middle of no where, and although our standard module width is 300mm compared to the original standard of 210mm, an extra 60mm at the rear and 50mm at the front is allowed giving 410mm (just over 16"), but this is just to allow two modules to sit back to back on a table. My next module will be four standard modules long and 360mm wide and will have the mainlines curving across a valley on Kato viaduct track with a Japanese interurban line looping around the valley floor. To get the most out of T-TRAK you've got to think outside the box, the 'box' being the standard small module with the two pieces of Kato track butted up against each other at the front.
Yep T-TRAK got me in to building a layout, .... one module at a time. While a lot of my stuff is in the "square", I have managed to get outside of it for a couple of things, and I have learnt a lot about modeling whist doing it. I had looked at N-TRAK and Bend track previously but T-TRAK was the way to learn without costly mistakes and huge amounts of time. Now I have a layout at home and I have also displayed it this year, and have had fun with others at T-TRAK running days and supporting other clubs as well with my modules. I have learnt to touch up the kato track to blend in the the other ballast (not completed yet). I have used peco, atlas and kato track on my modules. AS Wesfalen says, one of the aspects of T-TRAK is doing outside the square and testing things.
Exactly!!!! It screams TOY!!!! You slap down some track and you're running trains. You could just as well set up a Monopoly game. Same thing. And those of you who say you never heard of the Clinchfield you should. Maybe if you did you would understand how and why we have come as far as we have. Ntrak was the spark that made an HO scale magazine start a N scale layout project that became The Clinchfield. That project railroad was the impetus for the blossoming of N scale in the '80's and early 90's when Atlas partnered with Kato and started producing good running locomotives, albeit with a few albatrosses like the original GP7 that was so badly panned that Atlas redid it correctly later on when they and Kato went separate paths. The Clinchfield project brought a lot of people into N scale and those people became the market that enabled Kato and Atlas and then LifeLike and Athearn, not to mention Intermountain and a slew of other new manufacturers to produce N scale products that you have today. Without Ntrak and the Clinchfield there would be no Unitrak and no Trak. There would be just Horribly Oversized. You stand on the shoulders of those who came before. Don't ever get so caught upon the here and now that you forget that.
Your red twisted widgets suck! Track to scenery ratios can easily be adjusted by the builder. Model railroading in any scale is a series of compromises. Some people put wire grab irons on their cars. Some people don't. Some people want room / house sized layouts. Others want tiny. Get this folks, there are people that feel all model railroading is boys playing with choo choo trains. Go figure. Casting aspersions in a non-constructive manner on any aspect of any endeavor is akin to shoveling sand against the tide. If you want to improve something I suggest / challenge you to make a positive list of suggestions and how to go about them. "Your red twisted widgets suck!" That is not helpful. "You could improve your red twisted widgets by mixing in other colors with a few stripes and maybe adjusting the sizes is a bit" is more productive.
In model railroading, they're ALL toys. No matter how sophisticated the effort or ego employed. From least expensive plastic, to finest brass, it is still just a toy. Those who dislike T-Trak, can do whatever they wish for their own endeavors. Those who go with T-Trak all have good enough reasons for making that choice. It is a hobby. It is for fun. And that level of fun is purely the choice of any individual. Everyone does not place the same value on the same things, or "to each, his own."
I agree that T-TRAK 'can' tend to look a bit toy like. But... a) That is the choice and/or ability of the builders, and b) I really believe that it is possible to achieve a result that would be generally regarded as 'less' toy like. A friend and I built and have been displaying a 'modified' T-TRAK exhibition layout that I believe addresses some of the items that you have raised, and we are actively working on some of the other concerns (notably the tight corners)... 'modified' T-TRAK modules at the Brisbane (Australia) AMRA Show by flash62_au, on Flickr A Video is here... http://youtu.be/W7sk5gXiHvI and a train cam ...http://youtu.be/bRdFntbm3fA I believe that the T-TRAK standard/guidelines are basis on which lot can be achieved. Yes, I agree that are All Toys. I know my work is still very toy like in comparison to master modelers. So I think it is just a matter of what we each want from the hobby and are capable of achieving at any given time. Peter
