Here's an example showing a CLACK550 module with a fork, with the new 15mm margin. Technically the straight is out of spec as it's 0.1mm short of flush. I'm optimistic it will work in practice as even the CLACK300 module has a longer overhang.

And there - here's a side-by-side of the OG CLACK300 design and the final version. As I said, I'll be putting glue down now I have the "dual-mode" track here - so this will become the official standard for interconnects! :)

Call me old-fashioned, but I would heed this 1956 advice regarding track connection.

Source: "101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders" by Linn H. Westcott

I am no expert on model railway modules, but it looks to me that the two rail guys cut their track where it crosses the edge of a module and electrically connect the tracks by connecting wires under the module. A Dremel would make short work of C-track - I used this approach on Nevw's layout for him many years ago.

Believe me, if you are fixing the track down you will need to dowel between modules. The MRR club I go to uses ones like these between modules to ensure minimal misalignment.

The only way to not use dowels is to not fix the track down, but relay it each time you put the modules up.

Did you already declare CLACK to be dead in below forum post?

https://jnsforum.com/com...-is-dead-long-live-luck/

Well, if you wanna quote things on JNSForum...



No-body showed any real interest on that site anyway; so it felt like a safer space to vent constructively since it's 99% N-Gauge 2-rail users. ;)

Plus - MUF was down so I couldn't post in here and I needed to raise a great big red flag about anyone building any modules to my specs which don't appear to work. (Edit: And were also wrong, since the "Standards" post hadn't been updated with the 15mm margin, the change in road width, the CLACK550 specs or the "If building a diorama without points, use 3-rail contact tracks" spec.)

That said, if the solution ends up being something that doesn't work for me (like cutting the track in half and using dowels) then there's no problem with other people pushing on with their own version. It's not like I trademarked it after all! It's not really a standard till somebody actually builds something anyway.



And xxup is the first person to actually explicitly affirm an interest!

For me the question is whether I'm missing something really obvious here. I sent this to c-trak.org last night:



When in doubt - ask the experts.

As far as I can see there's two outcomes.

1. MSCD get back to me and say "You're an idiot. You don't need to V-Shape the modules to separate them, just stick a screw right near the edge and you can pull them apart laterally - we've been doing this since 2017 and none of our connectors have broken yet." In which case I just need to stick a fixing screw on the outermost track pieces and CLACK continues as originally planned. I update JNSForum to change the title, remove all the strike-throughs (and patch the standard sheet with things like 15mm, LACK550, etc) and remove the LUCK conceptualising and we live happily ever after.
   
2. The above doesn't happen - we schism into a more complex connection system for 3-rail, and a Unitrack system based on 2-rail and I update JNSForum to divert 3-rail users to this thread or wherever you put your standards. And we set up an annual competition between CLACK2 and LUCK to see whose system has prettier modules.
   

Alsterstreek are you happier with that take?

Yeah, the plug and play thing is critical for me. If I have to do wiring between modules, I'm out. If I have to do woodworking, I'm out. Cutting and soldering track? Out! Because then all the advantages of this idea except "cheap baseboard" are gone.

So again, here's hoping I'm an idiot.

I am an avid user of C-track. Five years ago, I stopped fastening C-track segments with screws (or anything else) in all of my various projects, whether they were single-level, multi-level, or even room-filling layouts - all with minumum wiring. This has never caused any problems. Therefore, I would continue this practice on LACK boards (or tables) without hesitation. As you can see from my track designs, I am not a fan of strict C track geometry anyway, and I prefer diagonal lines to parallel ones.

Anyway, I am attracted to the LACK product line because it is offering inexpensive "carpentry-freedom" plus nice looks. Combined with C track anarchy (instead of strict module standards), it could allow me to live out my individualism.

Honestly same on both counts (screws and angles). If two screws on the board edges are a simple fix for CLACK? I don't see it as the end of the world - but I did glue-first. And I also prefer angled track to straight - but it's obviously difficult to achieve in a rectangular modular system unless your boards are big enough to A: tolerate the loss of scenic space and B: handle having an input curve and an output curve. Bonus, it allows you to make reversible modules - but it doesn't work with boards as small as 300x260 (and also, IKEA LACK shelves aren't really reversible!).





Again same. And I'm attracted to the C-Track line because it's a simple plug-and-play.

I'm very much reading from this that you're not interested in the original CLACK standard that's under re-evaluation - more the general concept of 'LACK as baseboard' that has been better demonstrated by people other than me! Is that right?

Of the "interest in CLACK modules" list we now have xxup and Jimmy T, both 3-rail?

I would even be considering combining LACK products—e.g., 26 cm boards with the 90 x 55 cm table—to create a reversing loop and similar"heretic" features.

Disadvantage of course is that it hasn't been made in 25 years, but as you say it's not exactly hard to get and you only really need edge pieces on larger boards as it can be adapted to C-TTrack or K-Track trivially. Three 90's and a 33.8 cover the simple diorama quite nicely, too.

Funnily enough, this idea led me to this page: https://www.marklin-user...Marklin-M-Track-5106-1-1

Which led me to the 1956 catalog, where one can find a picture of my Marklin cranes! I wonder if the designer all those years ago ever imagined that I'd be running it on 2-rail track. Or; perhaps more confusingly, that the thing would have an onboard supercomputer (by 1956 standards) that would let it be a fully operable crane that could pick things up, move them somewhere else in a layout and drop them off again without a single touch of a human hand!

Looking at this again, the geometry of the points works out too - you should be able to fit a short side-track off a set of points on a 300mm. Not big, but enough to hold a SWB wagon.

Honestly no notes on the idea. It actually looks a lot better than CLACK for 3-rail. Though - can I propose "MACK" instead of MLACK? MACK is a cute androgynous name, and MLACK makes me worry about swallowing my tongue. :P

I .......don't think you need to worry about that.



And so begins the great schism! As with CLACK and LUCK, your margin from the wall edge must be calculated from the curve radius on the 550mm table.

Margin without adding straights for M-R2 is about 95.5mm so if you wanted to do a 'centre-of-board' design, that's an option (just add a couple mm for overhangs on the corners - 98mm from wall should be good). If you'd rather stick wall-side like me:

If you put a 90 in there your track will only be 5.5mm from the wall. Bit shallow. A 45mm gets you to 50mm, and a 33.8mm gets you to about 16mm. Call it 18mm and you have clear overhangs on the corner module. You can do the fine maths yourselves - but as example modules - MLACK300 is 180+90+33.8 and MLACK550 is 33.8+45+R2-30+R2-30+R2-30+45+33.8

There's no way to do 77.5mm in M-Track; so you can't do first radius M-Track on a corner module.

What do you think?