N Trak is arguably one of the reasons that N scale has seen so many advances in the areas of locomotive quality, rolling stock detail, and structure offerings by major manufacturers. It has allowed the scale to really blossom, even for those of us with little or no space available for a layout. Add to this the social aspect of working on and running a modular layout, and you can really see what an invaluable tool N Trak has been over the years.
However, N Trak standards were written 30 some-odd years ago, and include a lot of limitations that might have made sense then, but which now may be holding back some modelers from participating. With the advancements in reliable locomotives, better looking track products, and advanced electronics, could it be that N trak’s approach is getting a little dusty?
For instance, with the improvements to locomotive design and reliability, is it necessary to require no grades?
With the advent of reliable RP-25 wheelsets, is it necessary to continue to use track that is woefully out of scale and unrealistic?
Can reliable module joints be achieved without the often clunky and always obvious joiner tracks?
When you consider that most N trakers have one or two modules to update, would things like more prototypical double track mains with 1.25" spacing be a big deal to upgrade?
I think the efforts of Bernie Kempinski, Mike Skibbe and others have demonstrated that solidly built, reliable modules can be built with all of the above features.
I’m interested in hearing what you think about N trak standards.
Let me first say that I don’t do N-Trak. Now, let me state why.
I do model in N scale, but as you pointed out, being forced to use out of scale rail, when better products are available, is kind of a mystery to me. I understand that Atlas code 80 has some advantages, cost being one of the highest. Today though, pizza cutters aren’t necessary for reliable operation. That opens up a lot more possibilities. Peco code 55 would be high on the list due to it’s large selection and rugged nature, though cost would increase. Atlas code 55 would probably not work due to it’s intolerence of larger flanges which older loco’s would be the hardest to correct. Kato would be OK, but it has a cost association to it, as well as the fact that it’s not much more realistic looking in many respects then the Atlas code 80. In the end, maybe Atlas code 65 might be the best choice once there’s more selection.
Rapido couplers are not the best looking couplers out there, though they are reliable. Micro-Trains have been around a long time though, they work well, and they look pretty good too. This was a big detraction in my book, and one of the main reasons that I elected to bypass N-Trak.
Lastly, I can understand the grades issue. Not everyones loco’s have the same abilities, and part of the draw to N-Trak is that you can build a module and run WAY longer trains when connected to other modules then you ever could on a small private layout. If you live in cramped quarters, but love big time modern RRing with it’s huge trains, this is where N-Trak really shines! To add grades would undoubtably detract from this major selling point. What I could understand it if modules could be built with a flat grade as manditory, and a set of standards developed to make a graded line in addition. It might be something like the graded line has to be so many inches from the back ed
Some guys from I think Dayton have a grade, but it’s a secondary to the mainline. Also in points, a four track main. NAd they are N trak, not Freemo There’s two reversing loop flyovers, that on small scale shows they use as a flying loop. In the big shows, ANd I mean BIG setups like GTE, they’re more for ,ooks, and I think they connect’em to a mill or something. PC, You seen them and know who I’m talking about?
He’s right though, you add a grade and the long trains struggle.
My modular planning and building experience has been in HO and HOn3. And the only modular standards I have ever considered were/are Free-mo and NC SSSS.
Grades are a problem for any modular system. If one permits a grade at the module joints, one now has considerably more interface options to consider and allow for in the rules. And if the grades are not perfectly matched at the module joints, there is now a vertical kink(s) in the rails at the joint. If grades are restricted to be within a module and not cross the module boundary, then the practical limitation on module lengths to keep them transportable keeps the run short enough that the practical rise and fall within a module at a practical grade is pretty useless. Remember, that unless different module heights are acceptable you must not only rise, but fall back to base elevation within the same module. Free-mo tries to allow for grades by mandating the possibility of 3/4" pads under the legs to mate at the next module. But I have never seen a setup where there was an actual rise in elevation from one module to the next.
Which brings us back to the permitting of grades across the module joints. The only practical way I see to have grades is for a single builder to provide multiple modules, with the grades entirely contained - both rise and fall - within the single builder’s module set. Otherwise, as I mentioned already, matching grades in addition to track alignment during setup would become a nightmare.
European Fremo runs track right to the module edge, as does NC SSS. The advantages of the joiner tracks - or joiner rails in the case of Free-mo are that 1) any misalignme
I run Free-Mo in HO and I do know that other scales have adopted the basic standard, obviously massaged for teh particular scale.
As far as the grade question goes, if someone would build a module that has a grade starting within the module itself, then you could have a grade acrross the joints. The grade would have to be carefully calculated so that teh next module may be 1/2 higher than the normal standard height (50" Free-Mo) at one end and 3/4 to 1" higher at the other with each module after that maintaining the same rise in elevation. At the summit, another special module could be built either to keep the height for a few modules before heading down (thus requiring a downgrade match for the summit) or simply making the summit in one module. There would have to be the final module where the downgrade levels out to the standard. So in 3-4 speical modules, one could have a grade. The summit module could even have a bridge going over another track really opening up the operation.
The key is the first module and getting the vertical curve and the grade right.
I think the best bet to improving on the N-Trak standard is to either embrace an existing alternative or create a new one. Seems to me that trying to change/modify the existing standards would be like trying to amend the Constitution. [xx(]
There are already a number of alternatives out there:
Code 40 (.040") is about 115lb rail. You would need code 36 (.036") for 100lb rail and code 30 (.030") for 75lb rail. I would think most manufactorers aren’t going to worry about a .004" or .010" height difference just to have a more prototypical looking rail. Not to mention at 1/32" there would either be no spike detial or have to come out with like an RP-15 wheel. That sounds a little dangerous…
Dude. You need to learn a lot more before you give out advice on topics like this – it’s no help to people if you just make stuff up that sounds good.
There’s no such thing as an “RP-15 wheel”. “RP-25” isn’t a dimension. It refers to a specific Recommended Practice from the NMRA that describes a recommended contour for wheels.
RP-12 refers to turnouts, for example. RP-15 has to do with rail, but nothing at all to do with wheels.
Current rules call for code 80 rail, thats it. The point the OP was trying to make was that there is more prototypical rail out there then the currently accepted code 80, so why not use it?
I don’t have a good answer for the rail size. I’ve chafed at the restrictions in Free-mo HO and HOn3 on rail sizes, but in the end the standard is the standard.
If you don’t like the standard, but can make your interface modifications work with the standard, then it becomes the run chief’s or the setup chief’s call as to whether your modules are allowed to play. If enough “non-standard” modules start showing up, the governing standard is eased or a splinter group is formed. In the meantime, there WILL be hard feelings if either 1) all rolling stock brought to the meet won’t work right across YOUR non-conforming module(s), or 2) the run chief tells you your module set can’t play and you get left out of a setup.
With the case of rail size, it is fairly easy to make the transition to smaller rail within a module, either after or right after the fitter tracks. But the confrontation is set up with existing module owners with deep-flanged rolling stock and/or existing module owners who plain just don’t like or want the smaller rail for whatever reason.
And therein lies the problem Fred. As I pointed out earlier, any changes are going to be hard because once you set up a “standard”, revamping it messes with those who are currently playing by the rules. The only way to pull it off with splintering the group is to do it over time and allow for a transition period somehow.
People, for the most part, tend to be resistant to change. The older someone is, generally, the more resistant they are. Change is hard, and often brings uncertainty, whereas staying the same is often a safe bet. For change to work, it needs to be recognized as a “need” by the majority.
Maybe the way to approach this is to point out the “need” to get away from N scale being viewed as a toy or novelty scale, and not an operators or modelers scale.
Before anyone gets on their soapbox, hear me out.
In the past, I don’t think anyone would argue with the fact that N scale has been viewed from early on as a less then realistic modelers scale, right? I mean, our loco’s had two speeds…light speed, and stopped, with not much in between. Our Rapido couplers worked, but the are grossly out of scale, don’t look at all like the prototype, allow the cars to be spaced too far apart for any semblance of realism, and they aren’t able to be completely hands free automated well. We had flanges on our wheels that near doubled the overall diameter of the wheel, and the detail levels of our models lacked much sophistication. Add to all of that, many of our cars and loco’s (especially steam) were mere caracatures of actual prototypes, often not even being plausable (I still have a Minitrix 2-10-0 that the steam pipes don’t even come close to the chests, and thats the way they were made for a decade or more!).
In my opinion, NTRAK is fine for what it is, leave it be. (Not that I can imagine NTRAK would ever entertain making such a change anyway, so it’s a purely conjectural discussion in the first place)
Most existing modules would never be rebuilt, no matter what happened with the standard. Existing N Trak clubs do a fantastic job of introducing the scale and the hobby at shows and elsewhere. and that’s an important role.
There are a number of other modular standards that already exist that one can build to if the Code 80 and/or 3-track mainline offends one’s sensibilties. Freemo-N already specifies a one-track mainline and Code 55 rail. What else would one want?
A few HO bigots will always find things to crtiticize about N scale, just as a few O scale bigots did about HO when it was new. Changing NTRAK standards wouldn’t change human nature, IMHO.
Okay, I’m going to ask a question here, and it’s either going to sound stupid or tangible. What is N-Trak really doing, anyway?
All I ever see it and hear of it is at train shows, where the only purpose is running. Even on the super monstrosicty Dayton brought, something of 40’ by 20’ at one point, with 2 crew areas kinda laid out in a tilted 8, they just ran, the little switching there was was simply to get the train on the track. I see the industries, but there’s really no operation to it. Are there more groups trying to N-Track ops sessons that I don’t know about? Or is it possibly time to retire Ntrak to a shows thing and another group needs to be setup for trying to do operations?
And as for more protoypical track, with all the choices, how hard is it on a train to be constantly changing rail heights? It’s not a big issue in HO, but it does occasionally throw someone off the tracks to go from the 100s to an 83 or 55. With the smaller engines, does Physics hurt any more?
One of the other problems that modular groups face is diversification of standads and thus depleting available members to put togther layouts. If 20 people have NTrak modules and 5-6 leave to explore a more prototypical standard, it takes away from the original group. HO scale is facing the same issue, fewer and fewer people are building and running “NMRA Standard” modules making it harder to have a setup at shows. It often causes some ill feelings and continues the us versus them within the same scale let alone the differences between the scales. With everyone competing for members and the cost/effort of building modules, people are going to be upset when they commit to one only to have folks migrate to others thus decreasing the possibility of having a decent setup.
For Fred
I understand the concern with, as you call it, restrictvie nature of HO Free-Mo. It seems most of the issues have been with folks still wanting to run code 100 track (c83 in maximum allowed anywhere) versus, what I believe is your direction, of smaller rail sizes being allowed on the main. The problem is that we all run different railroads, different eras and different locations.
There is no single standard that will ever meet all the needs.
Making it possible for thousands of people to enjoy N scale model railroading by building modules independently and then working together to run trains on those modules for the enjoyment of themselves and spectators.
Other than that, not much.
And what have you contributed recently to the hobby?
By the way, some NTRAK groups I know of have their own operating sessions (not at public shows).
I was using my preference for earlier eras and smaller rail as an example for what you said - diversification of standards causes dilution of effort and more importantly (IMHO), hard feelings, usually on both sides. Which is why if I am not willing to comply with a given standard, I will simply stay on the sidelines.
Free-mo is probably the least restrictive standard possible to meet the needs of the vast majority. Still, the focus and practice of Free-mo HO is in creating realistic, operations-centric layouts based on transition era or later.
One of the apparent problems of modular standards - really the poi
You hit the nail on the head. No one really “owns” the standard even though they all have a person or group responsible for their creation. That’s why I think it is often easier to develop an off-shoot of the original or create a whole new standard in hopes of attracting people with similar likes.