just wondering what any american specs were for that. i happen to own a t-gauge train set, just purchased last year (2010) and id like some kind of modular system, thats portable to take. and i was wondering if anyone has any specs on such a system, yet.
ive emailed Lee Fitzgerald, and asked her to look into it, since shes the owner of the copyright for all other T-Trak specs out there (american).
and i was looking online for any info about any specs, and came across some from Australian...which led me here to this group.
i also own 2 T-Trak N scale modules at the moment, and will be building some z scale for myself, and was just interested in being able to show at our next december state train show (OKLAHOMA) a T- Trak module with an actual T-Gauge train running on it.
thanks for your time.
MICHELLE
Knowing the scale 1:??? would be a starting point. Next would be theand
normal track used. Before cutting any wood I would lay out various
combinations of track on sheets of paper. Use the largest curved track
sections available that will do a 180 on a standard folding table. Make
sure the curves match up with an turnouts or other special track
sections. Basically a corner is about 2 inches greater than the largest
radius curve track. Straight sections are multiples of available
straight track sections. Don't go too short or too long, use a multiple
that is easy to handle.
This should give you some starting information.
Michelle,
If you want to build an N Scale T-Trak module with a T Scale train running on it, don;t worry about T Scale specifications. I dont think you'd be building an entire T Scale layout on several modules, so the interface shouldn't matter at all.
Just my thought.
Mike
and
Michelle,and the message he was reffering to via the link provided:
this was discussed a while back on the list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/t-trak/message/3431 ) and there were two approaches, coming up with standards based on relative module and track sizes from other scales and from an aesthetics angle. I was taking the aesthetics angle. I had started fiddling with T scale when it first can out and really notices due to the tiny size that what worked for scenes, scenery, etc was very very different than N scale (folks comment on the difference between N scale and HO, the difference between N and T is huge compared to N and
HO).
I started playing with some mock ups of modules made from foam core and little blocks of wood for house and some clumps of lichen for
foliage and crumpled newspaper for hills. i come from an exhibit
design background so this is an old trick to play with ideas quickly.
sorry i should have taken pictures of them, but for this kind of
exercise photos dont convey the proper look/feel for what you are
looking for in this process (camera eye and your eye at 1:1 is usually
really different) so its actually not a great thing to even do while
you are doing it. you sometimes get the awesome photos that standing
there you never see. they do work well if you are doing the scale
model to model real world things quickly then taking macro shots is
great, but in this case we want to just look at the scale model and
will rarely get down to the macro level (especially with t scale!)
what i noticed is that the scenes seemed to look like they would
present best in two very different forms, either little tiny scenes at
60mm 90mm or at most 120mm (this was getting a bit too big) or larger scenes at like 280mm long. modules in between started to feel strange in their appearance. it also looked good to have long ribbon modules that were a single long scene in a thin strip. so its either the
really tiny or the grand stuff that seems to work the best with t
scale presentation on modules like this.
Also for some reason a single track looked a lot better than double
track. given that the t scale sets come with a reversing setup, doing
a point to point became something interesting to think about. this
would let you do all sorts of off set modules to wiggle the track
around, but not get you in trouble with meeting up properly at
corners. also t scale is small enough that on a table or two you can
just plunk a wandering point to point setup like this down the center
of the tables easily and give some distance from fingers as T scale
invites fingers very quickly! if im not right there when we run the t
scale at shows i have mine under a plastic picture frame lid to keep
fingers from toppling trains.
one other issue was module height. one big thing that the t scale
needs is a very thin frame edge. when this got past like 0.25" on
smaller modules it really wrecked the scene. its one of those picture
frame issues, do it right and the frame does what it should and it
goes away and focuses your eye even better on the picture/scene, do it
wrong and you are distracted by the frame and it can overpower/
outweight the picture/scene. with the tiny sizes in t scale things
have to be much more delicate than in other scales. this means that
there needs to be some sort of set back for anything deeper to keep a
nice thin clean edge on the modules, but leveling wiring and such may
need something set back and hidden. one thing that might work in t
scale would be to use one of the styrene foam boards as these are
really rigid. just cut up 0.25" material and then a strip of thin
styrene stock could get put around the edges as trim to cover the
foam. instead of leveling bolts in each module perhaps a small rail
system could be done to set the modules on and these rails have
leveling bolts. these rails would be set back a bit from the edge so
they would disappear some. then there would be space down the center of the rails under the modules to run rails. this way you level 4, 6, 8 modules at once. this is going to be a tricky part of modular t
scale as if you get into leveling every module individually you will
end up with a really huge base in t scale terms that may not be so
easy for the average modeler to engineer.
so my vision for what might work well with t scale modules was
something a bit more like bend trak or even a big more flexible than
that and thinking of more single line than double line. i know this is
not the ttrak format, but when i tried looking at a shrunken n scale
ttrak set up with t scale, it really looked quite odd and really was
not using the advantages of having a tiny scale.
I think the biggest problem is that there are not a huge number of t
scale modelers out there to begin with and then only a subset that
will want to do something modular. also from what i have heard from
the US t scale distributor, most of the t scale folks out there are
into doing their own interesting angles on using t scale, so im not
sure there are that many that current crowd that will want to
'standardize' a lot.
I think to get this started it would be best for someone really
interest like you to just experiment some and come up with what you
think works well and try it and show it off and that might get the
ball rolling with a lot of folks that are not yet into t scale, but
might get interested in modular t scale.
I would also play some and think outside of the ttrak standards as it
really is a very very different beast with 1/450 scale.
I have had on the list to do this myself, but have shelved t scale for
a while as i have other things that i need to work on first. My idea
was to perhaps create a mini city layout (like 2'x3') that had an
elevated subway line (i model japanese so this is easy) with larger
buildings from card stock models (there are lots of these out there
and cardstock with some minor relief details added works well in t
scale). then also have an express station on the layout that had
single or double track that went off thru some modules (maybe a long
ribbon module in here) that would be suburban to another station. then from that station have another set of modules (again maybe a long ribbon module in here) going off that would be single track rural
scenes that might end up at a small town on a larger module with a
small mountain or other grander scenery. the modules would have some offset to run the track around the module from the front to the middle to the back and some 30 and 45 degree modules to wander the modules around the tables and not have these huge long straight module runs. This to me looked to present a really interesting sort of wandering design to the over all setup. the cool thing with T scale is that you really do start to see the whole set up of a good number of modules that you dont see as much in N scale (only when you are looking at plan views do you see the over all shape, but the audience never really gets that looking at it). this larger over all layout shape
could be really cool as if it wanders around it sort of becomes a
puzzle piece and the minds eye then wants to fill in irregular missing
area, but if they are a very symmetrical missing are the minds eye
does not and actually flags that as being something not right and thus
you loose the mind giving you that perceived area scenery fill in and
the mind is focused on what is not there instead of what is. this has
been one of my problems with ttrak in that the nature of the modules
and geometry and such does not take advantage of the use of the minds eye filling in some of the details or missing space well.
anyhow i have not heard of anyone actively working on T scale
standards here in NA so i would say go for it. throw some ideas out
and get reactions, then just try what you think is best and see what
the reaction is. what ever you do will get a lot of happy eyeballs as
folks love to see the t scale stuff run and marvel at the tiny scale.
what ever you do even if its not what ultimately will be done will be
great research that should be done before a standard is set anyway.
setting standards like this w/o actually trying it in t scale would
really run the risk of not doing the right thing for t scale and thus
could sink the whole idea of this catching on...
cheers
jeff
T-Gauge T-Trak Standards
On Nov 22, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Joseph wrote:
> **** The 30's really open up the idea box for me more than 45's
> ever did. Maybe it's just me, but I see more possibilities with
> them then just 45 & 90 can give.
Yep, i think those would really be the ones to make it fun and different! flex track would really help with the meandering set of modules to provide even 15% modules that were very shallow curves andmore realistic radiuses.
Ok so after yapping so much about looking at T scale more in 3D to see what might look good i finally started to do that some today. I have a bunch of track and about 15 2 and 3 story buildings, some trees and wire overheads to play with. I also cut up a bunch of small wooden blocks and other small items around to serve as other structures and the pile of construction paper to get some rough scene color change and also cut up some foamcore pieces various sizes like 120mm, 180mm and 240mm square to see how modules might look. finally i did the Geary thing and crumpled some paper and scotch tape to try and simulate some mountains and other scenery.
I have been working in design long enough to know when i have this little nagging feeling about design that it means theres something there im not seeing yet and this is what has been with me since Tscale came out and i got mine. Heres what i think what it is.
The two things that seem to really look good in T scale is the very small and the bigger side. the in between just feels awkward and does not feel like it works with the scale. Heres why i think this might be:
The Very Small
The tiny module like example shown awhile back on 100mm square really
captures the small scene so well since T scale is so small that to actually see anything you really have to really focus in tightly. This means that your eye is focusing on a very small area, thus a micro scene like that works well. This was kind of what I think Lee was thinking in the original concept of N scale Ttrak.
The Big
Larger scenes in T scale work well since in one field of vision you can really have a whole large scene or even many. this is really potentially impressive to the viewer to feel like they are really looking at a real scene from a birds eye view. It is also possible to put the train and track in scale with the scenery since most of the times -- and even more even more so in most ttrak -- the scenery is compressed up against the track and train much more so than it would be in real life. A large T scale set up would allow for very realistic placement of scenery to tracks and you could do some very dramatic scenery that you rarely see in n scale model railroading in a very
small space! This could be very fun. I think also that the detailing of large scenery can be pretty simple and still look good as your eye will probably want to take in the bigger picture rather than try to focus on the fine details of the scenery. This falls into the perceived scenery realm where you add just enough detail and the mind fills in the rest. This will need some testing, but i think there is some great possibilities here with T scale that would take a huge amount more detailing, work and space to do.
The In-Between
This is where things get kinky for me. for some reason when you get
just beyond the very small micro scene but the module or focus area is
not larger from like 3' away thing just get awkward to make things look right. This is where i cant quite figure out what is going wrong, but i cant make it look right. i have about 15 of the T scale 2-3 story buildings and trying to use them to do a more intermediate sized module that would hold that much (more like 2-3x the area of a ttrak module) it just did not feel right as a module scene and i could not imagine just doing a bunch in a row that size would make it start to work somehow. I have a feeling it has something to do with what i put above that the with the tinyness of T Scale the eye is either really
drawn in tight or pulled back quite a bit.
The good news is that you can do either the tiny or the big real ly easy in T scale! a string of even very different T scale modules that were like 120mm sq could really be fun to go down the line with the eye, each being their own little jewel. Also the potential of doing more square modules seems to work well. when i started cutting back to more of a rectangular module shape on the small ones things fell apart some. Again i think this has to do with the fact that with small modules your eye really focuses in tight so a square module kind of fills in your focused field of view better. Because T Scale scenery is really close to the ground level (a 3 story building is 1" high) you
tend to see things more from a top down view, even at the same viewing
angle as an n scale module. So i can think that the square proportion
fills your field of vision well when focusing in tight on a small T scale module.
The last thing i took a look at was module height and elevation. once you go past like 1/4" on the module height for a 120mm the base ends up taking over and looking wayy clunky. also while one 1/4" base on the table does not look too bad a few modules there start to look flat and mush into the table, and your eye kind of focuses out on the larger surface away from the module. What does look nice is to just set them up on small blocks of wood like 1/4-1/2" thick. this makes the bases float very nicely and takes the eye off the table surface and onto the modules. it works best if the supports are not very visible so i think using little strips of wood inset from each end
would work well (and legs would stand out too much and start drawing
attention away from the modules as legs in this scale would probably
end up being much larger in proportion to the module than 1/4" bolts
are in nscale ttrak). this then allows for the equivalent of a potential drop for below grade scenery of at least 28'. the modules could float higher, but at 3/4" above the table they started feeling a tad high. if really deep modules were needed then i think just using a few sheets of black foamcore on the table to make a sub table elevated to the height you need for the more grade modules then a gap where you could have really deep modules for a gorge or something, then onto another foamcore subtable.
I did not get to trying to look at track placement for modules much yet, that will be next. My gut feeling is that track placement could work at any place in the module depth that makes the scene setting work. I also have the feeling that having a mixture of small modules with the track placement on each based on what is needed in each scene will work fine. Since a standard table will give you plenty of room to play with things can jut out or in with no problem. Again since T is so tiny i think your eyes will be forced to focus down on each little scene and you wont care as much if the track placement changes some from module to module. then when you focus back at the larger view the patchwork of modules i think will really help break up the problem that ttrak and ntrak have of the big ribbon (or loop) effect that can
really make the bigger picture blander.
What i am getting excited about with it is there may be a great way to mix the very small modules with some big scenery modules in a single table display to create an amazing picture that you just dont see in other scales. The viewer interaction would be very engaging also as you would be forced to zoom in and out at different points. when you can do this with the eye and keep it smooth but fun it really engages the viewer a lot more than when the view stays more static as you look at the layout/modules. The concept of the meandering point to point with areas of small modules interspersed between some big scenery modules is starting to feel like something that could really be fun.
I am going to take some 120mm squares of the good elmers black foamcore (seems to be the best stuff for not warping as much and is pretty tough stuff) and put them in the garage and a few places to see how much they might warp. I have noticed that smaller pieces of the good black foamcore i have had laying around the shop for a couple of years now have stayed virtually flat. might be that there is a critical span of the paper you need before it can exert enough pressure on the foam with a humidity change to pop it (in theory there should not be there much with paper doing the same pull on both sides sort of canceling each other out, but i expect they are not always
balanced on each side!) foamcore for Tscale is looking to maybe be a
great material for modules as its light and easy to work with. If warping is an issue a simple addition of a couple strips of wood along the bottom (to do the float thing) might cure this. the edges could be finished nicely with strips of 030 1/4" styrene to cover up the foam edge and further help prevent warping.
Anyhow, just throwing out these observations to see of others will see them or different things with the T scale. It has finally gotten me felling that T scale really has something different to offer model railroading other than just being tiny. i think it can create a small, modular layout well that and individual or group could do with a very different viewer engagement than N or other scales do. It also seems like T scale would lend itself to a much more flexible an loose set of modular standards than with other scale. It also seems very apparent that just scaling down what has been needed or done from N scale definitely is not the optimum for T scale to shine. There are big
challenges here that others have noted that everything is really tiny to work with and the dimensions of all the standard materials we work with and dimensions for the modules and support elements can really end up overwhelming the tiny scale. But with those challenges i think something really fun and creative can come out of this.
cheers,
jeff
No comments:
Post a Comment