The club didn't "deviate" from the NTRAK standard, we TRASHED it. I didn't save my last Ntrak module, I destroyed it since it did not fit into the new standards and doing so symbolized to the group that we were going our own way and not looking back. The only things we saved from Ntrak were the 1.5" between track centerlines, since UP's nominal prototype distance between tracks is 20' (1.5" in 1/160th scale), and the 24" mainline minimum radius. We trashed the 3 track mainlines, Atlas Code 80, RTR turnouts, joiner tracks, 4' long modules, low 42" railhead to floor height, dividers on the ends of modules, crude & flimsy tabletop benchwork, bad quality lamp cord main power buses, behind-the-skyboard operation, Cinch-Jones connectors, the whole "C-clamp based" attachment protocol and every other lowest-common-denominator standard designed to attract low-interest, low-experience neophytes and low skill level model railroaders. To be extra exclusive, we incorporated double track mainlines, real code 55 mainlines (Railcraft & Micro Engineering, Atlas 55 didn't exist then), handlaid code 40 branchlines and sidings, no joiner tracks, hand-laid turnouts, a 46" (later 52") railhead to floor height, clean, high-quality and modern wiring standards, spiral easements, superelevation, 30" widths, 6' minimum module/section lengths, 12' minimum LDE lengths, prototype inspired LDE's, open skyboards (no scenery dividers), contiguous scenery, common ballast type and color, painted and weathered track (no "raw" track allowed except during construction phases), sturdy open-benchwork (L-girder) with splined Masonite subroadbed, flowing (not flat) fascias, integral sturdy folding legs on every module/section, layout lighting on every module, passing sidings of at least 10' in length, operation from the front (we mix and talk with the onlookers while running trains with wireless throttles...Digitrax Radio DCC nowdays), maximum train length of 9', 7.5" (about 30 40' cars), and operating sessions during shows. We determined that interoperability with modelers in 1987 Outer Mongolia or Portland was one of the things we could sacrifice for a better looking, better operating and more reliable setup than Ntrak would "allow" us to do, so we completely apostatized sometime around 1992. After I won the MR photo contest with my non-standard Ntrak modules, I was approached by a few model railroad mags to write several articles. When my article for Railmodel Journal got published, and I explained why we had decided to go a different route than Ntrak, Jim Fitzgerald promptly and officially excommunicated us from the Ntrak ranks...which was, at best, redundant. When still invited to Ntrak setups, we were happy to just set up our big layout (app 35' X 45') by ourselves and miss being joined up to Spongebob Squarepants under the Sink (with a bridge going across it so trains could run), next to Jurassic Park with electrified fence, A T-Rex and stegosaurs, with an animated pterosaur circling the volcano, next to the Surface of the Moon module with historically correct LEM, flag, two astronauts, a UFO and alien invaders all next to that three-track mainline, next to the Barnum & Bailey three-ring-circus with especially nice calliope music playing at a realistic volume beside a really nice and very prototypical Hogwarts, set up next to the Southwestern LDE with cliff dwellings (still inhabited), a western town with gunslingers and stagecoaches with a really nice paleontological dig exposing a fossilized T-Rex (T-Rexes are popular!) all on the same 4' module, next to a very complete and accurate Rebel Base on Hoth, with Luke and Han (somewhere) all kinds of interstellar ships and two big Imperial Walkers...with a three track mainline running right down the middle. Ntrak...inclusive...that's for sure. Yup, I know that not every Ntrak module is fantasy, and there are many that quite remarkable. I just thought the above was funny...but also true. We were not interested in prosyletizing and to join up, you have to prove your intentions by your record of model contest wins and your progress on your home layout. New members who do not have a home layout can learn how to do what we do through regular clinics given to teach turnout building, benchwork construction or other "advanced" model railroad subjects. Also, since I have a complete woodworking shop, new members can build their modules/sections in my shop. They are also required to learn to use a CAD program and plan their modules/sections exactly. Cadrail is popular with us. So, even though we are "exclusive" we do include every opportunity for potential members and members to learn a lot about more advanced aspects of model railroading...and it's even "FUN" almost all the time as opposed to popularized, but spurious rumors. Basically the new standards support building big scenes for little trains rather than little scenes for little trains, and we do it the hard way. Some of us like that. We don't care about those who don't. If I were to adopt a modular standard other than my own, I would probably go with Free-MoN. The main thing I don't like about it is the complete lack of skyboards, which would disallow me building my prototypical canyon scenes...or at least forcing me to develop a new approach...maybe. In any case, we are not attracted to the huge get-together all buckled up together thing. We're okay with less than stadium filling setups. We'd rather be working on quality of modeling than sheer size and volume, although our setups are not tiny by any definition. Here's a look at my partner Gregg Cudworth's side of our smallest setup. I haven't shown this photo anywhere else yet. Gregg models a D&RGW inspired section of railroad and is an absolute master of realistically casting rocks using his own molds and finding the nuances in scenery color and texture that make a huge difference in realism. He's equally curmudgeonly as I am about not compromising his own excellence standards, but not as strict as I am about specific prototype stuff. I really don't think either his or mine could be built using existing published modular standards. So, we didn't. Cheerio! Bob Gilmore
Yes, lots but only of what I know is N-Trak because of the 3 tracks. Do folks want pics? I'll be happy to post though most would be redundant.
Of course no self-respecting UP modeler worth his salt would caught dead with a 3-track mainline. OTOH: http://up150.com/timeline/rail-construction-project
Hey Bob, get off your high horse. While you may take some delight in trashing Ntrak the fact remains that if it were not for Ntrak you, your club and probably most of us on this forum would be in HO. Let's face it Ntrak is your club's mother because without Ntrak your club would not exist. Not only did Ntrak give birth to your club but it is responsible for the growth of N scale market over the last 40+ years. So, like it or not, you and your club are enjoying the fruits of Ntrak. Seems to me that maybe you and your club should be a little more thankful for Ntrak's existence rather than slapping your mother around. By the way the same holds true for T-trak, Bend-trak, One-trak and all the other -traks.
2014 West Springfield Show Note - Nothing I say below is intended as criticism in any way. These are only my experiences which are affected by perceptual limitations including color, depth of field and tunnel vision. I have to add that I am impressed by how smoothly trains appeared to be running. friendly the club members were, and the overall presentation. You guys did a great job. Impressive Bridge Nice Transition to Curve: The gap in the backboards was a buzz kill but the sign 'floating' on them was a total distraction. Laura really liked the low relief theme of the scenes: Psychologically I did not like this with the 'bridge to nowhere' image. Technically - it was superb and I am impressed.
The GTE show last weekend had 2 Ttrak and one Onetrak layouts. Both were very well done. I've done the Ntrak/Ntrak2000 modules and club trailer with piles of modules. The idea of stacking up several modules and hauling them in and out on a light dolly has it's merits. And storage of 3-4 Ttrak modules will be easier than 3-4 Ntrak modules..
I am as well, Paul, and I am hearing the same from others who want it to stop. Three factors made N scale what it is today. Kadee, with their leap forward in quality, plus innovative coupler design. Discount sellers, led by Pete Postel on the east side, and Lee Elder out west. N-Trak, with it's enormous (FUN!) social impact for both modelers and the public. The friends I made in N-Trak, and the wonderful memories, outweigh anything else ever experienced during my decades in this hobby.
But that is in 1999...Bob clearly doesn't model that modern. My main issue with N trak, is the stupid Mt Line, which isn't required, but so many clubs are requiring it. Personally I think it takes too much away from scenic opportunities on a normal module. Or you have groups that use NTrak as a basis, then modify the standards to fit something else. The club here in Spokane uses Mt Line, however NTrak standards are at 3 1/8in, however these guys did 3, as its easier to stack a 2in and 1in to make 3. Another member and myself finally convinced many of the others that we need to trash some of the old modules, these being over 30 years old, made with 1/4" ply and sagging causing trains to uncouple constantly on these modules, or well between them. Prior to this, the fix on these modules was always relay the track...must be track work. As for Bob being on his "high horse," I see his point. If you are trying to make a sectional layout based on a particular area, 3 track mains are hard to find, 2 track mains are MUCH more common. There are many different standards for modules, NTrak is not the only one. NTrak is nice for many reasons, however it also has many down sides. I too agree its too low, others think its fine as it allows younger visitors to see it, however I feel parents should hold their kids up, that way both children young and old aren't as likely to reach out and try to touch/grab the layout or equipment. Some see code 80 track as a pro, others as a con, I prefer code 55, however code 80 is used because it allows anyone to run whatever equipment it is, which code 55 does not. Already mentioned by thoughts on the 3 track main, but I see it because at a show, people want to see trains run, not trains in sidings or only two trains total. Bob's issue with Cinch-Jones connectors and lamp cord is irrelevant as NTrak now uses Anderson Power Poles and 12 gauge zip wire.
Also, let us not forget the Clinchfield RR layout done in several installments by Model Railroader in 1978 (approx.). That project railroad opened the eyes of many people (mostly HO'ers) to the merits of N scale. I am fortunate to have a replica of that railroad in my basement. In fact the layout I have was advertised right here on Trainboard for someone to give it a home. It is in the process of being restored to its original design and I hope to bring it to shows in the future. In addition the involvement of Kato, first with Concor and then with Atlas in developing engines that looked as good as they pulled was another important step.
That's as you mention, a club choice. By no means an N-Trak mandate. I have seen many nicely done Mountain Division modules, such as those by Mount Rainier N Scale. This is very simple to overcome. One or two tracks can simply swing to the back side, behind and/or underneath scenery. There is no mandated track alignment, once you get inside the ends. True. Others in actual widespread use have already been mentioned in this topic. But the subject is N-Trak and T-Trak. It might be low by today's standards. Remember the original standards were established over forty years ago. For the most part have been solid since then. If it's time for a change, then lobby for a change. Individuals and clubs can use whatever height they choose. The problem thereafter is mating with any others following the set standards. Yes. That went away years ago. The idea was using supplies readily available for all, and it worked very nicely. Some groups have also experimented with Molex connectors.
I had the articles, and when the book came out, (1979), acquired that. Much shelf wear, and a lot of reading/thumbing through, plus loans to others, and I still have it. I believe the layout was inspired by the success of N-Trak modules.
However it is difficult to do in 4ft. For myself, I want to be able to set up the modules at home and use them as a switching layout. So to model a town or industrial part of town/city, this becomes difficult. And when you add in the Mt line, you lose even more real estate, as the Mt line is 4in from the back/back drop and the blue is at 17. So unless you swing the green to the back and other three to the front, you only have 11 inches to work with. I know a few years ago, there was a group who pushed to update the NTrak standards to what they called NTrak 2000, the red and yellow stayed in place, blue went to Alternate blue, so 10 in from the rear, along with using code 55 track. However then you are deviating from the established standards. And if you have current NTrak modules, you'll need to make new legs. Or figure a way to make extensions which can screw into the bottom. Some people don't like the every module or module set is a new scene, however I don't mind it as much, guess I can visually remove the modules on either side of the scene to see the scene modeled. Some members of the club here wanted to keep the old modules, as we had scenes that took 6 or 7 modules to do. I don't mind it, but I prefer having some modules with scenery, others with industry. Not a fan of the fantasy modules, but when each module is owned by an individual, its all that matters is what the owner wanted. Which was hard to get into some of the members at this last show, which was the first we set up with our "new" layout. "New" being we had all new corners, and 5 new straights, but used 7 old straights. Those of us that pushed for new wanted to see ALL new, as many of the older modules sag or are warped etc. But the issue I had with some members was they didn't understand that the modules I had, which were blank, as once we figured we're going from the old layout to new, we had about 2 months, so I go track down and wiring on three done. Scenery is my next goal. But we had a member going around "planting" trees on my bare modules, as he felt they were bare, until I had to talk with him multiple times to lay off, the modules are no longer "club" modules but owned and if the owner doesn't want trees, well no trees. As for myself, been looking at doing a Free-Mo/sectional layout. After the last show and someone destroying the framing of a module when they tried to shift the layout alone...the wife and I are looking at doing something smaller, that the two of us can handle and run at shows.
True. But using an N-Trak module in home layout is a secondary application. I was thinking more of the multiple module design. There have been many such built. One enduring example has been the "Sugar Land" module set built by Russell Straw. The N-Trak Newsletter has featured many home adaptations. Where non-standard modules were created, and a standard module was just a part of the whole. Here is just one such: http://www.ntrak.org/Newsletter/07-11-NDopt-NL.pdf Having a second set of legs you can substitute at home is not hard to do.
My club started out with N-TRAK, then adopted T-TRAK and we also have a Clinchfield layout that was given to us unfinished after languishing under its owners house for twenty years that we are slowly finishing off and bringing up to current standards, so we have a finger in all the pieces of the pie. I might point out that while we have switched primarily to T-TRAK we haven't totaly trashed N-TRAK either figuratively or literally as we have kept four corners and a handfull of the better modules. When we were fully into N-TRAK I had sets of longer legs to us on my modules at home and I am planing on building some chest height benches with storage underneath to bring my T-TRAK modules up to a more realistic viewing height when I have them set up at home.
Just to rile up the followers of that format here is a trailer load of N-TRAK modules ready to start their trip to the city dump.:crying:
