Module Standard Poll

Module standard to use for TT scale.

Current NMRA standard with small updates as defined in "Hmmm.." topic.
2
13%
Single main standard of the AKTT type (refer to "LINKS" for AKTT).
5
33%
New "TT Nut" standard defined by us here.
8
53%
 
Total votes : 15

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby BTTB Fan » Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:14 pm

Since the standard document in the TT Module Standard thread seems to be temprarily unavailable and the thread is 220 posts long, I am going to mention that the connector issue has been addressed - we settled on Anderson Powerpoles. Good idea on using rail pieces to connect the modules. I am still not sold on height increase though.
Alexei
User avatar
BTTB Fan
 
Posts: 677
Images: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:01 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby Bill Dixon » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:17 am

Since the standard document in the TT Module Standard thread seems to be temprarily unavailable and the thread is 220 posts long, I am going to mention that the connector issue has been addressed - we settled on Anderson Powerpoles.


A good choice. Our group moved to Anderson Power Poles when the corrosion issue in the Cinch Jones connectors showed up.

I am still not sold on height increase though.

Your back will thank you in not too many years. I stood up once too often too soon under the 40" high duck unders. Not a fun thing to do.

Bill Dixon
Regards
Bill Dixon
TT-Tracks
North Vancouver, BC
Bill Dixon
 
Posts: 1303
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: North Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby ConducTTor » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:24 pm

Bill Dixon wrote:Your back will thank you in not too many years. I stood up once too often too soon under the 40" high duck unders. Not a fun thing to do.

Bill Dixon


Hey Bill, I'll save you roughly 40 pages of reading between two topics. We came to the conclusion that the 40" height specified in the current NMRA standard is ok for us. The reason being is that the likelyhood that many of us will be at a show at the same time is small. So, the standard we developed allows for a loop that isn't a doughnut. So, no duck-under. This is the very basic layout defined here: tt-nut-module-standards-t202.html

Image
My website: http://www.ttnut.com
It's the website you're already on. But if you want to be even more on it, click the link.
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8639
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby AstroGoat760 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:00 pm

From tt-nut-module-standards-t202.html
ConducTTor wrote:We're thinking of retiring the TT Nut module standards since they're not quite complete and no one is currently using them. I would like to have SOMETHING as a standard but maybe we're not at that point in our growth yet. So the question is: use the AKTT standrads, the FKTT standards, or nothing - let's see what people actually produce in real life and maybe create some standard around it. Or maybe there is some other standard we should look at (the NMRA)?


What about the 180 degree module that I built in 2010? Or am I "no one"? :lol:
Course Set, Speed - Maximum Warp, PUNCH IT!
User avatar
AstroGoat760
 
Posts: 3929
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota, USA

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby ConducTTor » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:16 pm

AngrySailor302 wrote:From tt-nut-module-standards-t202.html
ConducTTor wrote:We're thinking of retiring the TT Nut module standards since they're not quite complete and no one is currently using them. I would like to have SOMETHING as a standard but maybe we're not at that point in our growth yet. So the question is: use the AKTT standrads, the FKTT standards, or nothing - let's see what people actually produce in real life and maybe create some standard around it. Or maybe there is some other standard we should look at (the NMRA)?


What about the 180 degree module that I built in 2010? Or am I "no one"? :lol:


I meant "no one" in terms of "we're meeting and putting our modules together". I don't think any 2 members have ever met and joined their layouts/modules.
My website: http://www.ttnut.com
It's the website you're already on. But if you want to be even more on it, click the link.
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8639
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby AstroGoat760 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:19 pm

ConducTTor wrote:
AngrySailor302 wrote:From tt-nut-module-standards-t202.html
ConducTTor wrote:We're thinking of retiring the TT Nut module standards since they're not quite complete and no one is currently using them. I would like to have SOMETHING as a standard but maybe we're not at that point in our growth yet. So the question is: use the AKTT standrads, the FKTT standards, or nothing - let's see what people actually produce in real life and maybe create some standard around it. Or maybe there is some other standard we should look at (the NMRA)?


What about the 180 degree module that I built in 2010? Or am I "no one"? :lol:


I meant "no one" in terms of "we're meeting and putting our modules together". I don't think any 2 members have ever met and joined their layouts/modules.


In so far as fully functioning modules, I think you are right. Technically the 4'x2' module we built is CaTT's and the 4'x6' is mine, and they have been joined for testing purposes, but not with running trains on them.

That leads to a question: has more than 2 TTnut members been in the same place at the same time, and discussing TT scale?
Course Set, Speed - Maximum Warp, PUNCH IT!
User avatar
AstroGoat760
 
Posts: 3929
Images: 0
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota, USA

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby Marquette » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:43 pm

AngrySailor302 wrote:That leads to a question: has more than 2 TTnut members been in the same place at the same time, and discussing TT scale?


Multiple times!

Though I can't recall, I think the show before last (last spring?) was the first time we had modules made by different people to the TT-Trak standards?
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2132
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby dileTTante » Sat Feb 09, 2013 12:17 am

In Vancouver we have represented TT scale at six model train shows. At one show we were just two, at another show we were six people modeling TT scale. A year ago, as Marquette said, Bill Dixon had his TT Tracks modular layout at the show and I brought an additional module to join to his layout. Hopefully this will happen again in March. I favour TT Tracks because the modules are easy to make and transport and not expensive. A different kind of module might be better for other reasons but I saw no agreement about it here.
dileTTante
 
Posts: 822
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:37 am
Location: Vancouver British Columbia

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby ConducTTor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:15 am

Great feedback. Please keep it coming.
My website: http://www.ttnut.com
It's the website you're already on. But if you want to be even more on it, click the link.
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8639
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Module Standard Poll

Postby ConducTTor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:17 am

CSD wrote:Sorry, Boss, but I have to comment on the poll. There are 2 options missing 1) none of the above and 2) I'm never going to build one. Additionally, AKTT and FKTT have standards for double track modules.


It's very weird but I posted the message in the standards sticky but it's appearing here :think:

So I didn't mean for there to be a poll - I just wanted some feedback from everyone.
My website: http://www.ttnut.com
It's the website you're already on. But if you want to be even more on it, click the link.
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8639
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron