PECO code 80 settrack compatible modules?

[mickster04]

Hey everyone,
I was looking at moving to modules for layout design. I am struggling to build a whole roundy layout and think I need to relay most of it.

I was thinking I might find myself more likely to make progress if I had smaller sections to work on. I could work on smaller parts of a larger layout but access and such are difficult.

I have done a fair amount of research into the module standards set out by the NMRA etc and they almost exclusively apply to Kato track. There is (in NZ) a nz120 version which uses code 55, I don't have any code 55, just lots of 80. I was wondering if there was any standard module design out there for use with setrack geometry? I was thinking this might make a very accessible standard for those wanting to use peco track, you can use setrack points (if you want) and should be very cheap as there are lots of sellers of peco 80 available. Has this ever been discussed?

I would happily start writing up some starting points, but I want to check I don't duplicate anyone else's work.

Thanks crew

Mike

[ntpntpntp]

The module standard I'm familiar with, N-Club International (Germany), simply specifies two tracks at the interface.  Within the module you can do what you like.   They specify code 55, but there's nothing to stop you using code 80 as long as you get the rail height above board level correct. 

http://www.n-club-international.de/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=1150&view=finish&cid=3&catid=2

As always, best practice is to use the largest radius points you can to ensure maximum compatibility.  If you use Setrack 9" radius points you may find some modern long locos won't like the curved route.

[mickster04]

Agreed about the radius. Some of the dimensions I was playing with were 2/3rd radius curves. The lent themselves very nicely to 700x350mm boards...

[mickster04]

And thanks for the link, I have had a look through.
With the setrack geometry I found 350mm blocks works the best for 3rd and 2nd radius curves... So I'll post up some images soon and the any-rail files associated.

[mickster04]

The only problem is that the distance from the edge to the outer line is 51.55 mm! very precise indeed :S Might be achievable with CAD help? or a jig? Not sure there is much I can do about this though? Haven't thought about track height etc, but figured a cork underlay might be suitable to help with the ballast shoulder?

Basic curve

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/short-curve.any

Single straight

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/single straight.any

Curve joined with a single straight

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/long-curve.any

Double length straight that enables sides to be switched (front to back etc). Requires flexi-track

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/Side-Switch-FT.any

Branch junction. requires 1st radius curves

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/Branch Junction.any

Another type of branch, only aligns with the outside line on a connecting block

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/BranchJunction2.any

Here is example of how several pieces can come together, with the bottom module having been developed

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/example module layout.any

And another with the long curves.

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/example module layout 2.any

How several modules combine in this example to create a return loop. All peices are 700/350 except for the 350/350 corner piece used.

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/return loop.any

[Newportnobby]

Here is example of how several pieces can come together, with the bottom module having been developed

https://www.mickster04.com/shares/example module layout.any

That's a very comprehensive investigation
All I can add is to beware placing the toe end of a point bang on the baseboard edge (see bottom left on the middle module) as it may prevent fitment of an underboard point motor

[ntpntpntp]

...beware placing the toe end of a point bang on the baseboard edge (see bottom left on the middle module) as it may prevent fitment of an underboard point motor

Agreed!  Try and give yourself at least 3cm clearance.  For example, at this join the double-slip naturally means that the point motor is about 3cm away from the end, but I moved the left hand point's toe inward a little (actually it ended moving in more than was strictly necessary, simply due to the rest of the pointwork formation).


The above is internal to my modules so doesn't follow the NCI interface standard (3rd and 4th tracks from the left are the through tracks). The NCI standard uses components from System Joerger (eg. ply end plates with brass location bushings) and a jig is available. I borrowed the jig years ago and copied it!

[mickster04]

That a very valuable observation! I guess the only reason I put them there was for access from both running lines to the sidings etc. I will have to review that one!