No. T-TRAK is sort of NTRAK-lite. The basic T-TRAK module is about 1/4 the size of a basic NTRAK module and is designed to be set up on a table. T-TRAK uses Kato Unitrack, instead of the Atlas or Peco code 80 nominally specified for NTRAK. See the info here: http://www.ntrak.org/index.htm http://www.ntrak.org/Documents/NTrakFlyer08.pdf http://www.t-trak.org/index.html http://www.t-trak.org/T-TRAKdata,1.9.pdf
In a real sense, Ntrak is the "daddy" and ttrak the "son." A little further into the history goes to ttrak's roots in Japanese modelling, with a lot of the early stuf focused on trams (hence the t). Not interchangable, and ttrak is quicker (for an individual module) is designed to be simpler electrically and is much better for us space-challenged apatment dwellers. Going strictly by the published standards, ntrak does better in the area of curve radius.
The basic T-Trak module is 1/8th the size of an N-Trak module, being only 12 -1/8" X 8-1/4". Most people build them in multiples of two to four feet in length and 14-3/8" deep. They sit on tables and have no legs. the Unijoiners hold the modules together tightly. The basic corners are 14-3/8" square. There are two different track spacings with 33mm being better for long equipment especially on the curves. I mix in Atlax flex track and Peco switches with 62mm Unitrack at the joining edges on most of my modules.
T-trak was originally designed in Japan where space is at a premium. The basic T-trak module could fit on a person's lap and taken to a set up. It was also originally designed using Kato and or Tomix track segments for trolleys or traction with lots of street running.
This is the Australian T-TRAK site, http://t-trak.nscale.org.au/home and Guidelines, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4h...zLWIzMzYtMDMzMDU1MzI4MTEy/edit?pli=1&hl=en_GB There is also a T-TRAK Facebook page if you're into that site. My club switched from N-TRAK, which we were in since it started in Australia (we still have the first Australian N-TRAK corner module) because it was easier to set up, build and transport. We now set up T-TRAK layouts as big as any we used to do with N-TRAK. Don't shy away from T-TRAK because of the size of the modules, it's amazing what you can do when you think outside the box, so to speak. Our latest projects are single track modules for branch lines and I am installing working signals on my modules.
I have working signals on several of my T-Trak modules. They are all wired the same so they can be placed anywhere in the layout. One tip, mount the signal controls on the back of the Skyboard, not underneath the modules so you can troubleshoot them during a show without having to remove the module.
I am using the SIGM20 signal controller from CML Electronics http://www.cmlelectronics.co.uk/ind...cts/sigm20-automatic-signal-controller-detail which works with Digitrax DCC and connects to the loconet. Now I have finished testing that the concept works the SIGM20 and Digitrax BDL168 detector boards will be mounted in a toolbox connected to the rear of the modules with signals by plug in cables, the modules will have dummy plugs to bypass the BDL168 and make them into standard wired modules if the signals are not in use. The object is that by placing four or five modules around the layout the entire mainline will have automatic block signals.
Ntrak modules. I ran the blue line behind the skyboard so it looks like I've got a double track mainline for 12 feet. I used ME code 70 track instead of Atlas code 80, which made a huge difference in adding to the prototypical look. This is a real place called Wilhemina Pass on the UP between Devils Slide and Heneffer Utah. Do this with T-Trak. Although small and portable, they deny one of the main advantages of N-scale, which is a marvelous scenery-to-track-ratio, and force smaller scenes, smaller radii and the use of toy-like trak...excuse me..track. I doubt these engines would even run on T-Trak modules. But, whatever turns yer crank... Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
While some people vigorously push their closer to scale size rail and tie spacing agenda, in over 30 years of participating in NTRAK, I’ve never heard anyone comment that these modules would look so much better if only the track was code 55, code 40, etc. Clearly, the vast majority of observers seem to be focusing on the trains and the scenery – rather than on the track, in and of itself. Bachmann quotes a minimum radius of 11.25” for its DD40AX loco. Basic T-TRAK corners use 8.5” radius curves. However, there is also an alternate spec for corners using 11.1” and 12.4” radius curves. Furthermore, some have constructed corner modules using the superelevated curve track sections, which are available in radii up to 17.6”/18.9”. In addition, the T-TRAK standard has variations which include double width and double depth modules to accommodate more elaborate scenery. Likewise, as with NTRAK, nothing really prevents you from creating a series of modules, designed to be used together as a set, which meet the interface standards only at their far ends.
Like I said, 'Think outside the box". They are great for taking to train shows and everyone doesn't have 12 feet to play around with just for one stretch of main line.
I moved to T-Trak, due to health issues. Building another layout isn't in the cards at present, and the way things are going, will never again happen. I chose T-Trak, knowing the fun and camaraderie experienced in NTrak days. This has been just fine for me.
Wll to add some balance to the thread, I abhor T-trak. Really. Let's face it, the worst part of N trak is putting in the joiner tracks between modules. Every four feet you need 12 rail joiners for three pieces of set track. Now I know T-trak uses the Kato expanding joiner track and it also mandates only two mainline tracks so that saves some time. But the modules are only two feet in length. Still, setting up a T-trak layout probably is a lot faster than a similar size Ntrak layout. I am currently working on an idea that if successful, will make installing those joiner tracks a lot easier and faster. Still needs testing but I just located a supply of a critical part of the system so we will see how it goes. But back to T-trak vs Ntrak. I am a strong advocate of using six foot long Ntrak modules if at all possible. Two six foot long modules are the same length as three standard four foot modules but needing only one set of joiner tracks instead of two. Also 2 six foot modules will fit in the back of a minivan or an SUV for transport. It is even better if one's club has a trailer. Our club purchased a 14foot long trailer so we can haul a lot of layout. That trailer saves us a lot of time in setting up and tear down because everything is contained in the trailer. We don't have to load it before a show and unload it after. We just hook it up and go. P.S. The trailer also saves us money on storage. The lowest price we found for a storage locker 5'x10' in size was $50 per month. Our trailer is 5'x14' and storing it at the same storage facility costs us only $25.00 per month.
You can use this is you want to, but I do not recall any mandated application. None of my modules use it. Of those I have seen in person or elsewhere, none used it.
I used Atlas re-railer sections to make my own expanding track to join modules together. I need to make more but they sure speed up layout setup.
I am going to the Greenberg show in Edison NJ tomorrow and will see my first NTrak setup, I do not know if they will have any TTrak setups but it will be interesting to see them. From what I have read, they both have strengths and weaknesses but regardless, those involved seem to have a lot of fun so more power to them.
I couldn't have said it any better. While I prefer code 55 and smaller(I want to hand lay code 40 for my sidings) on my HOME modular layout(3-4' sections), we do have NTrak and T-Trak at our club when we travel to shows. If someone sees either of our layouts and gets involved in the hobby either at their home or in a club, that's a win for all of us.
