New layout idea

[katoftw]

 

So all I need now is:-

 

S70 x17

S140 x3

S140-PC x10

S280 x21

S280-PC x40

C280-45 x6

C280-45-PC x10

C317-45 x13

C317-45-PC x 10

C280-15 x 5

C317-15 x5

P541 x12 - some left, some right

S72.5 x3

S33 x5

S18.5 x2

X72.5-15 x1

HC280-45 x1

HC317-45 x2

double portal x6

single portal x4

engine shed x1

140 blue double girder x2

140 red girder x2

280 red trust x1

280 yellow double truss x1

280 green double truss x2

560 green double arch truss x1

double power lines x34

triple power lines x6

quad power lines x4

 

It is only $270 in turnouts alone. haha

 

Copied from recent layout example on forums.

 

3000mm X 1200mm

 

Double line will be modern concrete ties and will be electrified.  A few S70 and C280-15 and C317-15 pieces will need to be painted grey to hide the wooden ties.

 

Single line will be wooden ties and no electrification.  DMUs and SLs only.

 

Unsure to use modern station or local station parts.  Still deciding.  Haven't decided on scenery roads and town.  Temple will be on top of one of the hilltops.

Edited June 8, 2015 by katoftw

[velotrain]

_{You have an Engine Shed, but no real place to store cars/trains needing an engine - unless you plan to do all of this in the passenger station itself, where there are two storage tracks for the single track line.  However, this doesn't give much flexibility for what you run on the high speed lines without physically removing and replacing trains.}

 

_{One obvious place to do this is between the double track and single track lines where they are parallel in the middle.  I'd suggest a ladder at each end for maximum flexibility.}

 

_{The more major problem is that the double track line that has a siding in the station is not connected to anything else on the layout, meaning that you can alternate between two trains running on it, but that is your only option.  The double crossover in the station allows you to move trains between the single track line / storage tracks, and one of the high speed tracks, but not the other one.  Perhaps add another crossover somewhere - I think single will do.}

[velotrain]

 

 

General notes -

 

You can either be running trains or composing / positioning trains, but not both at the same time.  However, this is not really different than the original plan.

 

Depending on the particular operation you're performing, it might be possible to have a second train running while composing / positioning trains.

 

By shifting the single track line, you should be able to get up to 5 tracks in the yard.

 

You might remove the outer (station) siding on the single track line, and consider moving the Engine Shed to the area NW of the yard, abutting the river.  This could also shift the double track line "south", creating additional space for the yard.

 

I shifted the tunnel entrance at 3 to allow longer yard tracks

 

You will need even more turnouts than you thought ;-)

 

 

Operation notes - "Inner" double track line is that on the inside (of the layout) at the station

 

 

Inner leaving yard:  exit at 2, crossover at 5

 

Inner entering yard:  crossover at 4, crossover at 1, enter at 3

 

Outer leaving yard:  exit at 3, crossover at 1

 

Outer entering yard:  enter at 2

 

 

Single track clockwise

 

Leaving yard:  exit at 3

 

Entering yard:  crossover at 1, enter at 2

 

 

Single track counter-clockwise

 

Leaving yard:  exit at 2, crossover at 1

 

Entering yard:  enter at 3

Edited June 9, 2015 by velotrain

[katoftw]

Thanks Charles.

 

No. 4 + 5 I had actually thought about already, and there is a variation of it in the original layout I copied.

 

No. 2 I had already played with the idea to create more storage.  Even a smaller 4 line, 2 one-sided platform station but it all takes up too much scenery space.  It gets too close to the rural line.  And then well, without a scenery block, it wont be rural.

 

Another option I have is to increase the layout depth by a foot.  Then some sections can be moved deeper but 140mm or 280mm.  Giving more room for scenery.  I'm trying not to go down this avenue if I have to.  4x10 feet is already a huge challenge for a modelling novice, so adding another 10 square feet could be suicide.  This option also allows 1 more line to be added in the lower yards.

Edited June 9, 2015 by katoftw

[velotrain]

Other thoughts

 

Crossover # 5 could optionally be on the bridge next to #2.

 

Crossover # 4 could optionally be at the very west end of the station trackage, just before the bridge, although that would likely reduce the siding length a bit, and you would also need to shift the double crossover closer to the platform.

 

These changes would allow all crossovers to be made near yard / station track, with very little wrong way running required.

 

 

Consider adding a small "country" station on the single track line near #5.  I realize that it's just a short distance from the big station, but the train will have passed through a tunnel in each direction.  You could even add a small siding here, so two short trains could pass, giving increased operational interest.

 

 

Consider moving the two tunnel entrances on the east end of the layout  a bit south, as I think it looks bad when there's a tunnel entrance just before another track passes overhead.  It makes it seem that the tunnel is not there because the landscape demands it, but because you don't want to put the upper track on a bridge.  You don't show any tunnel section on the double track loop here, but there should be one at least in the corner to be consistent with the lower tracks, perhaps even starting before you cross them - and making it less obvious that it's a tight radius loop.

[katoftw]

Consider adding a small "country" station on the single track line near #5.  I realize that it's just a short distance from the big station, but the train will have passed through a tunnel in each direction.  You could even add a small siding here, so two short trains could pass, giving increased operational interest.

Another excellent idea.  I had thought of this.  Something small but long enough to cater for 2 or 3 car DMU sets.

 

but once the bridge and 30 degrees of curve are in, there isn't much space left.  About 350-400mm of track.  And only 100-150mm of scenery space each side to play with.  But if I did deepen the layout as above.  The tracks would be slightly moved giving an extra 50-100mm of track and 70-140mm of scenery space.

 

All things lead to deepening the layout. Damn!

[katoftw]

This is the layout I copied:- https://german160.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/yuki-kazefuls-n-gauge-layout/

[cteno4]

Kato,

 

Is this the garage layout? Any chance of putting it on wheels so you can pull it out to work on the back side? Then not so horrible if a little deeper and you have the space. This is basically how my wood shop works here in our two car garage. I get one spot for the shop and the wife gets the other for the car she usually drives. Shop is tight in one car slot but I can work on little stuff. Big stuff and I pull the car out and expand into the other spot for a short span as I have everything big in the shop on wheels.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

[tossedman]

I've always liked that layout. He makes lots of videos on it. Here's the latest.

[velotrain]

That explains a lot - he has a yard and full engine service facilities on the front of the layout.  He also has crossovers between the tracks on the main line.  Notice that he doesn't run his trains at super-fast speeds - even the Shinkansen, so that helps stretch the layout.  I suspect part of the reason is the videos, so maybe he runs them at scale speed when he's not filming ;-)  That bus sure bumps around a lot on his gravel roads.  I'd say he's done a very good job overall in the space he has.

 

However, I don't like the placement of the tunnel portals on the right, for the reason I mentioned above.  I would move the upper track portal further back, so it doesn't look like all the tracks are converging just inside the mountain - even if on different levels.  There's a similar issue on the other end, where it looks like one double track line is entering the mountain and is about to collide with the other three tracks already in there.  I'd have those tracks enter at a more shallow angle, perhaps on a curved bridge, so it looks like they have their own separate route through the mountain.  The way he's done it, the curve effectively starts inside the mountain, so viewers aren't really aware of it, and it looks bad.  I think you could bring those lines more to the south, and give them a wider, more sweeping radius starting at the 30 degree bend as they approach the river.

 

> but once the bridge and 30 degrees of curve are in, there isn't much space left.

 

You could shorten that end of the bridge - maybe with a high bluff there?  I'd wrap the siding right around that curve.

 

> All things lead to deepening the layout. 

 

The biggest thing contributing to this is your own requirements for it.  If you want to run long trains in a reasonably realistic setting, then you need a certain size of layout.   If you can live with having only a limited number of trains on the layout at one time, then the current plan works - but you do need to add those crossovers.  If you want more trains without needing to manhandle them on and off the layout, then you need a yard or more sidings.

 

Based on your overall space, there's always the possibility of building the yard / engine facilities on a separate "module", and connecting it via the outer siding at the station, or wherever you choose.

[katoftw]

Kato,

 

Is this the garage layout? Any chance of putting it on wheels so you can pull it out to work on the back side? Then not so horrible if a little deeper and you have the space. This is basically how my wood shop works here in our two car garage. I get one spot for the shop and the wife gets the other for the car she usually drives. Shop is tight in one car slot but I can work on little stuff. Big stuff and I pull the car out and expand into the other spot for a short span as I have everything big in the shop on wheels.

 

Cheers,

 

Jeff

Yup that is pretty much how it will work in my garage.

 

The way he's done it, the curve effectively starts inside the mountain, so viewers aren't really aware of it, and it looks bad.  I think you could bring those lines more to the south, and give them a wider, more sweeping radius starting at the 30 degree bend as they approach the river.

 

> but once the bridge and 30 degrees of curve are in, there isn't much space left.

 

You could shorten that end of the bridge - maybe with a high bluff there?  I'd wrap the siding right around that curve.

I've used C541 curves on the rural line at the back to try and make larger sweeping curves.  All the other curves are C280 and C317.  And all the points are C541.

 

I didn't want a simple roundy roundy.  But with the space I have, I have to take a simple roundy roundy and change some element to try and make it not look like a simple roundy roundy.

 

The point of the gigantic cross over is to link the rural and one of the mainline together to make a massive figure of 8.  I know the whole thing from a operational point of view is a little off.  But I'm not a fan of having points in the middle of platforms.  Yeah it was the norm in the 40s/50/60s.  But being a somewhat modern layout, I'm not into it.  That is just me.

 

Gotta keep trialing.

[katoftw]

I think it would be better to lengthen the layout that widen it.  Lengthening always more area of the rural line to be out of a tunnel.  with a few east-west peices, the scenery spacing between lines can be larger.  More space for a better connecting yard to all 3 lines???  Can put crossovers on the main lines at either end of the platforms.

[velotrain]

> 4x10 feet is already a huge challenge for a modelling novice

 

I think your concerns over such a large layout being your first one are warranted, to the extent that I strongly recommend that it not be. 

 

I'd suggest you build a much smaller layout first, which will give you some practice at baseboard construction, laying track, wiring, scenery, and all the other components of building a model railroad.

 

Perhaps just a simple loop "for 2 or 3 car DMU sets".  You could have a double loop if you wanted, and even sidings at a station - but I wouldn't go beyond that.

 

I would take the small layout to some stage of completion - say similar to what you hope the big one will eventually look like, before you even think of starting the big one.

 

This will likely cause either of two events - convince you that you don't really want to build a big layout, or give you the confidence to do so.

 

Of course, you can keep drawing track plans in the meantime.

[katoftw]

So true Charles.  Good advice.

 

 

This is what happens when you at one foot of base.

 

Raised lines have 280mm increase.  Ground lines increased 280-350mm

 

Rural line now has an extra 210mm of track exposed.  Not need to decrease bridge size.

 

And now has a reversing loop and yard in the middle.  Damn you Charles for making me think complex! haha

 

Although yard does not have to be connected at each end making it a reversing loop.

Edited June 10, 2015 by katoftw

[velotrain]

So true Charles.  Good advice.

 

  Damn you Charles for making me think complex! 

 

I'm NOT trying to make you think complex, but I probably am trying to get you to think.

 

After all, you're going to invest a whole lot of money and time in this, so I want you to be as sure as possible that you'll continue to enjoy it through the whole process.  I believe a lot of that is thinking about what kind of operations you want, and if the trackplan will be able to support that - you wouldn't want to get bored with it halfway through.  

 

There's another thread on layout development and layout "lifespan" which you've likely seen.  One recurring comment there is that with each layout, not only do your skills get better with experience, but you get a better idea of what you really want.

 

I think the new design is more interesting and offers a lot more operational interest.  Since I gather almost all Japanese trains are bi-directional (very few stub terminals), I'm not sure how much a reversing loop helps, but I think you've integrated it well.

[velotrain]

OK - here are some graphics to support what I was saying about the tunnels.

If you think the other guy's tunnels are fine, then ignore this.

This is surely one of those areas that are a matter of personal taste.

To me these tunnel situations are the greatest negative aspect of the layout, and in each case there's an easy fix that has no downside that I'm aware of.

 

Ugly tunnel #1 - Problem:  The three tunnel portals being so close to each other not only looks unprototypical, but it also looks silly and suggests toy trains vs. a "serious" layout.

 

 

 

 

Suggested fix - moving all three tunnel portals as far away from the meeting point as possible, so the situation looks more plausible.

 

 

 

 

Ugly tunnel #2 - Problem:  The two tracks on the right, entering the mountain at the angle that they do, look like they're going to collide with the three tracks on the left.

 

 

 

 

Suggested fix - moving these tracks more into the corner with a wider radius curve allows them to enter the tunnel after the curve is almost complete, helping them appear to be parallel to the other tracks.

 

 

[velotrain]

Kato - Here are some comments on the "complex" plan, all related to getting trains off of / onto sidings / storage tracks and on / off the "correct" main line track.

 

First - I noticed on your plan that you have it labeled Tomix - what is this blasphemy?

We'll have to start calling you tomixftw  ;-)

 

However, if you have accepted that Tomix does offer a greater range of track elements, that opens up the possibility of using TCS to automate operation - should you want to.

 

 

 

 

I noticed that you brought the engine shed (#2) in from the corner, and am guessing this was due to the sidings being lengthened by the overall layout expansion.

 

I'm curious about the shed, and how you plan to use it?  Since it seems you're only interested in running trains and not shunting, I can't see you uncoupling engines and bringing them on shed.  I don't know if you're planning to have any freight at all, and I can only see this being used if you have diesel-hauled freight, as passenger trains will likely stay in their full consist when not running.

 

If you don't really need a shed, an alternate use for these tracks is DMU storage.  Moving the location back to the original position would give you two more tracks for storing longer trains.  I gather you already have a fair amount of trains, so you might start thinking about which ones you might want on the layout at the same time, and seeing how that corresponds to your siding lengths.

 

 

I've been looking at the reverse loop and just how those tracks might be used.  Currently, it will reverse a train (on the inner track) and send it back running the wrong direction on the same track - assuming you will be using left hand running.  These two tracks could also be seen as storage tracks, but in any event I think you would need even more turnouts to make them most effective.  It might be time to double your initial turnout budget!

 

(#1)  Since the loop is not currently served from the outer track of the double track line, and returns trains to the wrong track, I'd suggest a major change at the west end of the station.  Move the loop connection point a bit to the east, and use a double slip switch where it joins the inner main, which provides access (in both directions) to the outer main.  At the east end of the loop tracks (#4 - where they rejoin the main), install a crossover just after the bridge, which has a similar effect.  Trains entering the loop from the west can now leave on the correct track.

 

 

My last suggestion is a bit more radical, and is related to the double crossover and the storage tracks off the single track line (#3).  I know that double crossovers are a major element of Japanese railroads, but I'm not convinced that it really works in this location.  It serves as a connection between the outer main and the single track line, but what bothers me is that any trains transitioning from the main to the sidings need to make a full loop on the single track line before they can cross over.

 

Since the single track line will not be electrified, that means you cannot store any electrified train on these storage tracks.  I don't know if you had intended to only use these sidings for the single track line, but that's effectively what they are.  I'm actually wondering if there is any practical reason for any interface between these lines, as equipment from one can't run on the other, and vice-versa you don't want the DMU's slowing down the higher speed electric trains?  I realize that you want to portray both lines as part of the same overall system, but based on what I perceive as your operational preferences, I don't see any practical reason for the connection.

 

If you do wish to use these sidings for electrical trains, you will need to electrify the tracks and I'd suggest a change to the track arrangement - which unfortunately also shortens the siding length.  The basic issue is that electric trains need to proceed directly from these sidings to the double track main - without running on the non-electrified single track line.

 

To do this, replace the double crossover with a single crossover, and you need to move the western siding ladder eastward so that it's east of this crossover.  This might be another possible location for a double slip to save space.  You would also need a crossover at the east end, coming off the outer main so electrified trains can get directly into the sidings.

 

Note that this only works with clockwise running on the outer main, so any trains running in the other direction would need to make a loop on the "wrong" track before they could get to their proper track or into the sidings.

 

One possibility for avoiding this is to limit these sidings to non-electric stock.  However, that leaves precious little storage space for electric trains.  One option is to add another siding to the station, roughly where you have the "one-sided platform" text.  Combined with the reverse loop tracks, this gives you six "sidings" on the main, so you can have two running trains and four on sidings.

 

An option to all of this is simply to have a siding (or 2) for each of the mains in the station, and eliminate the reverse loop.  You won't have a true storage yard (if that's something you want), but it helps keep the layout narrow, with reasonable space for a scenic country area.  The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to keep all the electrified trains on the electrified side of the station area.  It means fewer turnouts required, and less complex operations.  You can have a crossover between the lines if there is some reason for it - including you wanting a double crossover somewhere.

[katoftw]

 

Went back to a 4x10 base.  Additional express line through the station.  Just gives an extra option to run different trains.  One of the express lines long enough for 10 cars, so might use a EL freight train on this line.  

 

Platforms are 1260 in length.  Enough for 8 car consists.

 

Renamed the shed to stop any confusion about its role.

 

The large crossover will stay.  As posted earlier, it serves a purpose of creating a larger figure of 8 using the outer mainline and rural line combined.  Most likely will only be used for SL excursion trains.  And this is very common in Japan today.

 

Taken note of what you said about the portals.  Never really worried me.  But now the notion is in my head.  Changes have been made.

 

North-east upper loop around, not sure if I will make that a tunnel like the copied layout.  It is a 54cm space inside the loop, and taller scenery Items may be enough to hide the loop around.  Temple + grounds?  Small onsen town?

Edited June 11, 2015 by katoftw

[JR 500系]

This is turning to be an interesting thread and has some very good ideas to incorporate into mine too. Makes me wanna re-think my layout plan ~  :)

[velotrain]

Kato - after my last post I went back and looked at the German layout, and realized that he segregates the electrified lines.  None of the yard / engine service area is electrified.  I may be wrong in calling it a yard, as he uses a lot of real estate for steam engine service.

 

 

However, he only has the one station siding to store extra fast trains, so don't understand that. Perhaps the answer is that his top interest is shooting and editing videos, so he doesn't mind physically swapping trains for that.

 

 

You're back to no track connecting the two high speed lines, but that's fine if you're just going to alternate between two trains each on the outer and inner tracks.

 

 

I had forgotten you mentioning the figure 8 running.

 

 

> "And this is very common in Japan today."

 

 

Are you saying that proto Japanese trains run figure 8 loops?

 

 

I trust these would only be diesel and steam hauled, so you're not running electrified trains on a loop with no overhead power.

 

 

You're going to redesign this many times before you actually build it.

 

 

If possible for you, one thing that helps is to operate on other people's layouts (not necessarily Japanese - is there a club near you?), as it helps develop your ideas about what you like - and don't.  A club would also help you learn the various skills required to build a layout.

 

 

I'm mostly encouraging you to consider how you're actually going to run the trains, so that the layout works for you after it's built.

 

 

Some of this - like the tunnel portals, may well be things that I'm conscious of, but that don't bother other people.  You're free to ignore everything I say, as I'm just trying to give you another perspective.

 

 

 

I suspect that many people build layouts from published plans, but then later realize it isn't what they really wanted, so start on a new layout almost right away.  That's what I'm trying to help you avoid.

 

[katoftw]

>>> I had forgotten you mentioning the figure 8 running.

> "And this is very common in Japan today."

Are you saying that proto Japanese trains run figure 8 loops?

 

I don't know if you are being facetious or not?  You omitted the part where I typed that excursion trains run on rural and mainlines.  Sure proto trains don't run figure of 8 loops.  But then how many layouts you see are proto?  A see many loops in layouts.

 

>>> I trust these would only be diesel and steam hauled, so you're not running electrified trains on a loop with no overhead power.

 

Correct as per posted earlier.

 

>>> If possible for you, one thing that helps is to operate on other people's layouts (not necessarily Japanese - is there a club near you?), as it helps develop your ideas about what you like - and don't.  A club would also help you learn the various skills required to build a layout.

 

I'm mostly encouraging you to consider how you're actually going to run the trains, so that the layout works for you after it's built.

 

Yup already do that.  The club close by had T-Trak and permanent layouts.  Mainly in north American styling with 150-200cm long freight consists.

 

>>> I suspect that many people build layouts from published plans, but then later realize it isn't what they really wanted, so start on a new layout almost right away.  That's what I'm trying to help you avoid.

 

Which is why it has been modified to my needs.  I don't want to run a JNR steam era layout like the original.  So the steam yard has been omitted and more modern sidings have been included.  And the crossover has been positioned to allow figure of 8 running.

 

And thank you for and welcome your input.  All the changes so far have been from your suggestions

Edited June 12, 2015 by katoftw