The On30 conspiracy

Discussion in 'On30 Forum' started by sumpter250, Aug 26, 2002.

  1. farmer ron

    farmer ron Member

    Cat: NEVER give up !!! Good idea of On30trk, sounds great, I am interested in switching to On30, modular of course, due to do not need so much and larger scale, but thats another story. Standards are essential if you want the On30trk to proceed on the same lines as N-trak and be as successful in having a person from anywhere being able to attach their module and have it compabltable.
    Dammed what anyone else thinks, it is my layout and equipment, I try the best that I can and if someone does not like what I do then don't come over. Yes, I am very open to constructive opinions and suggestions. I am not interested in associating to anyone who just wants to run down other people for whatever reason, this hobby does not need these type of people.
    Of course On3 is more popular, look how long it has been around, For what ever my opinions worth On30 is catching up quickly and will surpas On3 in sales very quickly.
    I have a few cars and am thinking of doing up a module, what do you think the standards for sizes be, same as N-trak, 2 by 4,6,8 ft ?? How about depth 24 or 30 inches ?? Single line, at present ??

    Great ideas Catt, keep them comming..

    Just one persons opinion... Ron..
  2. Catt

    Catt Guest

    The only problem with the NMRA standards is just that. Nobody else is using them each group more or less has their own standards which is the point I'm trying to get through someone's head.

    Myself I see the modules as being a minimum of 24" wide and 48" long.The On30 group prides themselves on not having any set standards but I think when it comes to modules we are making a mistake.I will probly build my own modules with two tracks just to have display space for my locos and cars.Actually 72" would be more like the ideal length except most people don't have enough vehicle to haul something that long.

    Hopefully when the Great Lakes Conspiracy has its first meeting next month we can establish modules specs that will allow us to join at least one or more On30 groups.
  3. pcentral

    pcentral Member

    Hey Catt,
    I thought I would add my 2 bits. I have an O gauge modular layout that measures 12' by 28' when set up full size. I built it using Tinplate Trackers standards( and a little freelancing to fit my needs), the O gauge equivalent to Ntrak. If I ever want to use my modules with TT's, I can with a little adjustments. I think there should be a group to step up and take the lead in this matter. Using Ntrak to establish On30 standards seems a little off to me.
    I think it was a quick fix to the no standards problem. If nothing else people can always make small transition modules to be compatible with the standards. Also, 1 by 4 pine is fine for module framing, I run heavy old Lionel engines on mine with no problem. On the module length, 4 foot is just right. If you want different lengths do as TT recommends, build a equal module to balance out the layout. All of this is just my opinion (from building and traveling with modules in several scales for about 10 years). Last but not least, Everyone remember this is just a hobby and have fun.
  4. Catt

    Catt Guest

    The use of NTRAK standards to establish On30 modular standards on my part is simply to set up some guide lines for a starting pointMany of the NTRAK standards could be used as published, (module construction standards)track spacing and curve minimums of couse would not apply.

    Once there is a standard width,height,length (in multiples of 2' for the square circle) then you can establish track setback from the front ,number of tracks (1,2 ,or more?) How close to the ends of the module do you want the track to come,what track is acceptable PECO,Micro-Engineering, ordinary HO track(nothing wrong with that)Minimum turnout size,crossovers allowed? Type of wiring to use ,type of connectors,minimum size wire used.I think the most important thing about the track should be the code and I firmly believe it should be code 100. Why? Because it is readily available fairly inexpencive and companies like ATLAS make all klinds of turnouts and fitter pieces in code 100.

    By the way for those that don't know code 100 measures 4 3/4" tall in O scale .Rail that small is definately light duty.:D

    Hmmm,sure seem to spend a lot of time on this soapbox lately :D
  5. farmer ron

    farmer ron Member

    I think the standards for the size of each module should be the same as N-track: 2 X 2,4,6,8 orwhat every you want to build and can carry and put up yourself with minimal assistance, of course in incriments of 2ft. If someone brought a cross over section 2 x 2 very plain but with a cross over that would be fine, it could be placed anywhere that was convienient. It would be nice to have a two track systen so two units could be run at once, the outer track should be aprox 6 inches back from the front, I hate to see things on the floor. With the second track three or so inches back fron that. As far as rail, code 100 for both tracks, if a participant wants to use standard code 100 flex track so be it, looks good and keeps costs down. Myself I do a lot of handlaying of my track, I have a jig that on one edge is standard spacing for ho mainline track and on the other edge is spacing for sidings, which is about set at every second tie missing, I will be useing this on my module. If a person wanted to they could cut every second tie out of the code 100 flex track. If you have and spur track you can use the same thing or code 83 rail. For switches, min #6 in cross overs, for those into spur track maybe #4 as they are not going to be used very often, in shows it is mainly strait running.
    For wiring I would like to see the main wire be household wire, you can have plugs at each end and every one make a bouble ended plug cord ( out of extention cord) to connect to the adjacent module, effective and inexpensive. No expensive plugs and wiring, easy to use and work with.
    Just a few suggestions..Ron..
  6. TinGoat

    TinGoat Ignorant know it all

    Sorry Catt and every one else too...

    That was your last nerve, and I was standing on it. :( :( :( :( :(

    I didn't know that any standard existed for modules at all, until someone else showed them to me.

    When I got my hand on them, I got a little over zelous... (Big Under statement.)

    I have taken the NMRA Module Standard and Recommended Practices and edited out all of the non On30 information. It is in HTML format for posting on the internet.

    If anyone is interested, I could e-mail them a copy.

    When I was enquiring about the Standards and how they were developed, I was told that the connector plugs that they recommend are no longer available.

    It was pointed out that the Standards as they exist now, are out of date, but no one has made an effort as of yet to up date them.

    If we share around the information. Maybe we could make some suggestions to upgrade them.

    The On30 Conspiracy is a SIG (Special Interest Group) and there are enough people involved in it to be recognised and respected by the NMRA.

    I know that I really should join the On30 Conspiracy, but I sometimes have trouble keeping on top of one forum. To juggle two forums might be beyond me... :(

    I really feel passionate about getting started with On30 Modules and I just don't want to screw up and have a module that isn't compatable with any one elses.

    Again, I'm sorry if I P-Oed anyone..

    Take care and have a great weekend.
  7. 60103

    60103 Pooh Bah

    I'm not in the conspiracy but I'll share a different one with you.
    About 25 years ago, there was a small modular group in comprtition with N-trak called Interrail (I think). They had a different approach to modules as they wanted operation instead of tail-chasing. They defined the module standards only in the spacing of tracks at the edge of the moule and that the track had to be at right angle to the edge. They allowed various shapes -- there were two hexagonal ones -- and the layouts tended to sprawl. The inter-module connections were designed so that modules could be reversed without special jumpers.
    They disappeared a few years later.
    (One of the hex modules had a wye on it; the other had two interlaced wyes.)
  8. Catt

    Catt Guest

    I remember Interrail or what ever it was called.25 years is a long time to remember a name especially if it does'nt exist anymore.If memory serves me right (that 25 year thing again :D ) The origonal concept for NTRAK was two mainlines with the branchline set for switching till somebody got the brite idea that people at trainshows don't want to see trains operated they just want to see them run.I always figured that who ever came up with that idea was smokin' some good s**t.
  9. TinGoat

    TinGoat Ignorant know it all

    Resistance was futile....

    I've gone over to the On30 Consiracy and Joined up....
  10. Catt

    Catt Guest

    We are the On30 Conspiracy.You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. We are the On30 Conspiracy.....
    :D :D :D :D :D
  11. Mike R

    Mike R Member

    Is part of the Conspiracy to conceal that using HO gauge track in 48:1 scale is really On31, or as close as you can get to it? JUST KIDDING folks....don't want to cause a "Code 100" alert out there.
    However, keep something in mind....once upon a time, there was only LGB in the so-called "G Gauge"...very little attention was paid to the fact that the track gauge was actually #1, but the trains, instead of being made 32:1, were made larger, to represent narrow gauge METER width, which came out at about 22.5:1....everyone who jumped into the big stuff then made their own scale to fit the gauge, so you had, and still have, models in no scale at all [Lionel toys] , plus 29:1 scale, 24:1, 22.5:1, and finally Bachmann's 20.3:1 which represents true scale with the #1 gauge track being 3 ft. narrow gauge.Trouble is, few of the accessories on the market are not 20.3:1 , in fact I think none of them are.
    You probably won't have the same problems, but the gent who wants coupler height and size standards is quite right to do so.If this scale & gauge combination continues to grow in popularity,there will need to be standards to compare new products against.
    ie]: you'll need wheel standards too, because it's inevitable that one or more bottom feeding [ should I say opportunistic ?] manufacturer / distributor WILL produce junk toy "On30" rolling stock with Mehano or other trainset type wheels, just because they will almost run on HO track.

    Good luck with your so-called "conspiracy" and hope your inevitable Secret Handshake resembles a knuckle coupler, not an X2f.
    regards / Mike

    rgds/ Mike
  12. Catt

    Catt Guest

    Getting 850 plus On30 nuts to agree on anything is impossible :( Hell there are less than 40 in the On30 module group and they can't agree on any thing either.:D :D :D
  13. Lighthorseman

    Lighthorseman Active Member

    Sorry, Catt...I cannot agree with you on that. :D :D
  14. TinGoat

    TinGoat Ignorant know it all

    We all agree....

    To Disagree....

    So long as you do it my way....

    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

    Should we put this to a vote?!

    Hey Catt, some of us agree and the rest are wrong. :p :p

    There's 51 members of the On30 Modules group at last count.
  15. Catt

    Catt Guest

    Ron,I'm gonna call it quits.These guys and their 15" wide modules can have at it.I want mine to be stable and you can't do it that narrow.I'll stick with 24" width and let them bump them they will remain standing. :D
  16. TinGoat

    TinGoat Ignorant know it all

    Don't let them get you down....

    I wouldn't worry..... I have been advocating that the module interface width be considered a Recommended Practice and not a Standard. I have also been pushing that the module interface width be variable. I would set a minimum and maximum width for the single track module interface.

    The minimum width would be 12". (Because that is about as narrow as you could go and still hope for any stability.)

    The Maximum width would be 30". (Because it allows for extra sidings and curved trackage plus lots of scenery.)

    The Recommended width would be 15". (To follow the Free-mo/NBR&N Standards.)

    The Preferred width would be 24". (Same as the 30" width, but takes efficient use of common building materials in to consideration.)

    This is all with the idea that the modules would be rectangular to keep construction easy for newbies.

    For more advanced woodworking skills. The interface width really doesn't matter because you can curve and shape your modules to be wider and/or narrower than the interface.
    There are polls running on the On30 Module Forum regarding module interface width for single track modules.

    So far, the 24" wide interface is winning.
  17. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    On30 diorama progress

    I finally got around to diong some work on the On30 diorama. I like using aluminum gutter screen as a scenery base. It's strong, light weight, and can be reformed in place, to achieve the desired contour.

    Attached Files:

  18. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    here's the left hand side.

    Attached Files:

  19. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    The gutter screen is then covered with Woodland scenics Plaster Cloth.

    Attached Files:

  20. sumpter250

    sumpter250 multiscale modelbuilder

    When the plaster cloth dries thoroughly, I "paint" on two coats of thinned plaster.

    Attached Files:

Share This Page