Hakone with 2 Loops

[toc36]

Looking for critiques of my Hakone track plan. I wanted a continuous run for two-to-four trains with the switchback operation.  

 

I will be running the Tomix and 98006, 98007, 92198, and Modemo NT 134.

 

The layout will be 6' by 2'6" (1830mm x 760mm).  This is the dimension of the standard office folding table.

 

The turns on the inner loop are Kato 20170 / 7" / 183mm, and the outer loop are Kato 20170 / 8.5" / 216mm.  

 

A previous Hakone poster mentioned that the Hakone was serpentine and had very few straight stretches.  I used Kato 20150 / 28.5" / 724mm and Kato 2016 / 19"0 / 483mm to minimize straights. 

 

My intent is to start with a low elevation at the NW corner, climb to the cross-track, climb to the NNW left turnout and ascend to the center track.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

Hakone Loop.pdf

Edited February 15, 2016 by toc36

[Ochanomizu]

Hello,

 

Please attach your track plan, but before you do, my advice is to keep it tight and curved.

 

Have you travelled on Hakone Tozan?  If so, you will remember the curves are so tight that the wheels squeal ... and there are many small bridges as well as the several large that are much photographed.

 

Finally, you might consider this little layout as a starting point.

 

Edit:

-------------------------

Because Hakone Tozan trains are 2-3 cars, you will find your models can handle some steep grades.  I suggest you experiment with some curved track and your models.

Edited February 15, 2016 by Ochanomizu

[toc36]

PDF added.  Don't know why it didn't upload before.

 

The trains I selected run well on the 7" turns.  

[katoftw]

It doesn't really look like Hakone.  Hakone is known for switchbacks.

[velotrain]

> My intent is to start with a low elevation at the NW corner, climb to the cross-track, climb to the NNW left turnout and ascend to the center track.

 

I'm not following this - for one thing, I'd have so say that the plan is far too small to have both NW and NNW corners - I can only think that they're the same location?

 

Also, how can you start at a low elevation and then climb to a higher elevation, when what you have is a loop?

 

It might help if you indicated elevations and your intended start and terminal points.

 

It doesn't particularly remind me of the Hakone at all.

 

I do appreciate your use of wide-radius tracks to get away from the rigid loops and excessive straight track of the previous Hakone project.

Edited February 15, 2016 by velotrain

[toc36]

"My intent is to start with a low elevation at the NW corner, climb to the cross-track, climb to the NNW left turnout and ascend to the center track."  Should have been the NNE on the inner loop turnout.  My mistake.

 

"Also, how can you start at a low elevation and then climb to a higher elevation, when what you have is a loop?"  I realize that I cannot create an M.C. Escher loop.  I assumed that most would understand that there would be a descent.

 

"It doesn't particularly remind me of the Hakone at all."  I thought most model railroads are "representative".  We have have to cram as much as we can in a limited space.  

[velotrain]

> "Also, how can you start at a low elevation and then climb to a higher elevation, when what you have is a loop?"

 

That was based on your original description, which made it seem as if you're climbing, then climbing some more, only to get back to the original location.   Since you mention a "NNW left turnout", I could only take it as the one at your starting point.

 

"representative" is fine, but as katoftw points out, switchbacks are representative of the Hakone.

 

I'm not sure how you would run three or four trains, as there are no passing tracks.

 

With no passing tracks, sidings, or yard, your operations will be severely limited, and you'll need to lift stock off and on to vary things.  I'm not sure you've really thought out what you want in - and from, a layout.

 

I think it's fine if you want to have two trains running on separate loops, with alternate point-to-point operation available - but you couldn't do both at once.  If it's what you want, then build it, but I doubt many modelers would interpret it as the Hakone - even if you run Hakone stock.

 

[toc36]

Velo, I was looking for help and opinions that would contribute to the design of my future layout.  Thanks for nothing.  I was hoping that I would get the types of insights and opinions that were submitted in regards to http://www.jnsforum.com/community/topic/10936-hakone-tozan-line-in-n-gauge/

 

For all others, it's too hard to explain, but I planned six version of this layout extending out to 9" x 4".  I would be able to run three-to-four trains with multiple cross tracks and turnouts.  Too complicated for what I want.  I did not want a point-to-point.

 

""representative" is fine, but as katoftw points out, switchbacks are representative of the Hakone."  Model railroading is representative.  Without compression the Hakone would require about 110 yards of linear.   

 

Our hobby is based on artistic license.

[velotrain]

> I was looking for help and opinions that would contribute to the design of my future layout.

 

That's what I was trying to do - sorry you saw it differently.

 

> Thanks for nothing.

 

Nothing ventured - nothing gained.

[katoftw]

First posts asks for critiques of the track plan.  Don't ask for critiques if you cannot handle the responses.

 

If you have artistic license, then why ask others for opinions?  Do as you wish, it is your layout after all.  My opinion was switchbacks for a Hakone layout.  You opinion differs.  Some may see Hakone, others may see general mountain layout.

 

Hopefully the end result is what you are looking for.

[kvp]

The hakone tozan railway has a few easy to recognise characteristics: single track running, switchbacks and passing stations with bridges, tunnels and very tight curves on the line (it's essentially a mountain running interurban).

 

If you can't or don't want to model switchbacks and don't want a point to point layout, you can still model the passing stations with the characteristic catch points on the downhill side.

 

This means if you want continous running, then it would be possible to model two passing stations on a single track line and wind the tracks between them. This would allow up to 4 trains with 2 moving at the same time.

 

If you want double tracks with no passing, then you can model a single station where both turnouts are in tunnels and only the station is open air, between two very steep cliffs. This way you can hide the double track sections in the tunnels, have a turnoutless double track station and drop one line down and raise the other up on the other side of the mountain, then join back to the same level in the other double track tunnel to enter the station.

 

I would even add two passing stations on the single track parts, creating 3 stations at three heights, with the tunnel to tunnel one being a fake single track (where the loops meet) and two real single track ones higher and lower. This would allow continous running with 2 trains and storage for another 2 while being mostly prototypical.

[toc36]

kvp,

 

I added a passing track to the inner loop.  Can't find a good place for one on the outer loop.  I doubled both sidings.  This gives me the potential locations for four small stations.

 

I drafted plans for having both 3 and 4 trains moving at the same time.  However, the 30" width, forces me to eliminate the siding in the upper left.  

 

I need to re-think your tunnel idea.  I was planning on using cuts, but the Tonosawa station is short with tunnels at both ends.  

 

I plan on laying out the track plan (flat) to see if it works as planned and to visualize the terrain features.  Maybe, I'll even try the 3 train plan.

 

Thanks

[JR 500系]

Another suggestion, here's a nice full video of a front view (前面展望) of the Hakone Hill Climb from Hakone-Yumoto to Gora:

 

 

You can view the whole line from there, how it bends, how narrow it is, how many turnouts etc. to get a nice, clear, prototypical idea ~~ :)

[Ochanomizu]

Hello Mr TOC,

 

Please allow me to provide further assistance.  Hakone Tozan is one of my favourite railway journeys for so many reasons.  One of these is because, if done properly, it makes for an exciting, even award-winning layout!

 

You can

.  I notice just now that Mr JR500 has posted a link to a similar video.  I find that drinking sake improves the enjoyment of the video.  At least, that is what I tell my wife.

 

Next: I like the meandering nature of your track plan.  BUT !!!  As others have pointed out, your layout does not represent the "features" of Hakone Tozan.  As Mr kvp pointed out, Hakone Tozan has three distinctive switchbacks.  These are all in close proximity to one another and occur on very steeply graded track.  

 

Hakone Tozan is a single line, with passing tracks at stations.  Miyanoshita Station has the biggest one.

 

Please use Google Earth.  Search = "Hakone Tozan Railway".  Please turn on the correct layer to view the railway in black ... this is found under Layers / More / Transport / Rail.  You can then see the switchbacks and passing tracks for yourself.  If you review the link I added to my first reply you will see that layout has represented a switchback and the engine shed at Ohiradai Station.

 

Rather than two loops, your layout would be more representative if it corkscrewed its way up a mountain as a single track.

 

In my first reply I mentioned the steep grade.  The models you have noted will probably cope with an extraordinary grade, such as 1:10 or 1:15.  Using such steep grade will convey the feeling of towering heights we all enjoy when we ride Hakone Tozan.  In one of your replies you referred to another thread about Hakone Tozan.  Please consider the photos of the layout under construction on p2 and 3 of that thread to understand the drama created by exaggerating the vertical.

 

I look forward to seeing your revised layout track plan.

[toc36]

Ochanomizu,

 

I really appreciate your comments.  I've studied google maps in great detail, looked at many Hakone-Tozan layouts, and watched just about every Youtube video.  

 

I want to be able to continuously run multiple train AND have the option to run the switch backs to the top.  kvp had some interesting ideas for hiding/camoflaging portions of the double-track.

 

I don't know if I will be able to achieve the "extraordinary" grade that give the Hakone it's unique vertical climb.  I'm looking at only 6"-8" of vertical development.  It might not be dramatic, but this will be my first attempt at a 3D mountainous layout.

 

I have enough space to build out to 9'x4'.  I've seen layouts that climb inside the mountain and split the layout.  1-2 running low and 1-2 running high.  I hope I get the skills to build that in the future.

 

If you have a plan that will allow me to have a semblance of continuous operations and climb, please do not hesitate to modify my plan.

 

Thanks

[velotrain]

The OP has stated that he does not want a point to point model railroad.

 

I think he needs to consider just what it is about the Hakone that attracts him and let that drive his design.

 

As katoftw suggested, if he just wants a general mountain railroad running Hakone stock, then that's what he should build.

 

There are certainly multiple examples of Hakone-inspired model railways and designs out there.

 

It seems to me that the most successful ones combine a loop on the lowest level with a switchback line climbing the mountain.  Regarding the design that Ochanomizu has referenced a couple of times, it doesn't appear to have a loop at the bottom, and the distance between the middle and upper stations is extremely short - to the point of being nonsensical.

 

I think that too often modelers don't put enough effort into analyzing how satisfying a layout design will be to operate over the long term - if you don't allow for enough variety in the operation, you'll probably tire of it very quickly.  Perhaps so fast that you don't  progress beyond laying the track before you start on a new and hopefully better design.

 

Having separate tracks at the base station allows the loop and switchback lines to run independently.  A hidden siding under the mountain in the back would allow alternating trains on the "main" - easily automated with a Tomix controller and TCS.

 

Regarding the most recent thread, I personally thought it had some good points, but a number of things that held it back:

 

- The loop at the bottom was too regular - regimented, and nowhere did we see the twisting nature of the prototype's track.

 

- The switchback being just above and parallel to the bottom station created a difficult scenic situation.  They were so close together that only a vertical wall could be used between them.  I was told there was something similar on the proto, but that doesn't necessarily account for anything when designing a satisfying model railroad.  To my mind a successful Hakone design requires maximum visual separation between the scenes - stations.

 

- All three stations were too close to each other, so although the elevation increased, it didn't really seem that the train was progressing anywhere.

 

I think more width is required to do a decent job with the Hakone, so would suggest perhaps using a 36" x 84" door as the base, and it could still sit on a 30" x 72" folding table - but you would need to secure it somehow, or be careful not to bump it.

[toc36]

Velo,

 

BINGO!!!

 

This hits the sweet spot of what I am looking for!  

 

1.  I love the Hakone-Tozan trains and I love the Swiss Allegras and the Glaciers.  I know they are not all Japanese , but .........

2.  The vertical development offers eye catching visibility.

3.  I want continuous running with an option for operations.  I thought about multiple single tracks in a "wedding cake" design, but it would get boring very quickly.

 

"To my mind a successful Hakone design requires maximum visual separation between the scenes - stations."  I agree with you 100%.  On a layout like this, trying to include everything just jams up the visual highlights.  If this was an urban layout, then more is usually better.

 

"All three stations were too close to each other, so although the elevation increased, it didn't really seem that the train was progressing anywhere."  This is a hard problem to visualize.  From a satellite view looking down, the use of tunnels and visual blocks would probably not work.  I will have to figure this out.

 

"...so would suggest perhaps using a 36" x 84" door as the base, and it could still sit on a 30" x 72" folding table..."  My thoughts for using a 30" x 72" folding table was for portability if I got this built and wanted to take it to a show (wishful thinking).  I have a 48" x 108" table that I can use.  If I use this set-up, my layout will be a foot taller so the visual blocks might work. I don't think my modelling ability is ready to meet this challenge yet.

 

The ideas you threw out, along with the suggestions form kvp and Ochanomizu, and internal helix that tridentalx have got me thinking.  That can be dangerous.

 

Finally, apologies for my earlier comment.  I appreciate your constructive critique.  Thanks.

Edited February 17, 2016 by toc36

[velotrain]

Hi toc -

 

No need to apologize.  I (almost) always mean my criticisms to be constructive, but am well aware that many folks don't interpret them that way.  I tend to tell it like it is, and am not good at sugar coating things.

 

One thing I was thinking was that if you do wish to include a switchback, a double crossover might be considered to save space.  I realize this will offend the purists, and I do appreciate the look of the proto switchbacks, but another thing that I noticed about the previous design is that the first switchback consumed a huge amount of the very limited space.  I sense you're much more interested in a mountain feel to it than proto conformity.

 

Having just watched JR 500's linked video, I hadn't realized how many tunnels there were in the lower portions of the run.

 

On my comment about the stations being close to each other, that was related to the previous design we saw, where I believe they were all stacked above each other, somewhat analogous to your mention of a wedding cake.  The Hakone definitely benefits from as much space as you can give it - to allow adequate room for the scenery to suggest the proto landscape, but that 4' x 9' table would definitely not be portable.  The door could be lifted off the folding table, and train shows would be happy to give you a table if you bring the layout.

 

I have some ideas that I'll play with.  While I don't believe that Tomix offers curved track anywhere near as wide as the Kato 724 mm, one potential benefit of the former is the ease of automating loop and/or switchback operation.  If you're comfortable working with flextrack and integrating it with "snap-track", that might be a possibility to get graceful curves between the turnouts.

 

One other thing I feel strongly about is that the scenery needs to build from the front to the rear, since if you try to have it on both sides then there will be a very obvious narrow ridge down the middle.  I believe the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway has that to some extent at the upper terminus, but think it would look silly for the Hakone - which is in a very different sort of landscape.

[katoftw]

Tomixs largest curve is a C605-10 piece.  A mixture of C605-10s and C541-15s would break up the straights.  Both come in wood and concrete ties.

Edited February 17, 2016 by katoftw

[velotrain]

Thanks for the info Kato.  I was thinking it was the 541, which is their widest turnout - but I keep hoping for something between the 280 (useless for parallel sidings) and that. 

 

I think this would be a good layout to have optional automated ops on - you could operate the switchbacks manually while the loop(s) are running on their own, or vice-versa.

[railsquid]

Velo,

 

BINGO!!!

 

This hits the sweet spot of what I am looking for!  

 

1.  I love the Hakone-Tozan trains and I love the Swiss Allegras and the Glaciers.  I know they are not all Japanese , but .........

2.  The vertical development offers eye catching visibility.

3.  I want continuous running with an option for operations.  I thought about multiple single tracks in a "wedding cake" design, but it would get boring very quickly.

 

Sounds a bit like the plan for the next section of my layout, which will involve a "mountain", a small-radius line suitable for mountain-climbing stock of various companies, and a switchback, without wanting to be the Hakone line.

[kvp]

I drew a picture:

In the front is a station similar to Miyanoshita (sitting on the lowest level), the farthest one (mid level) can be made similar to Tonosawa, while the center one is the highest, that can be almost any station like Kowakidani. The middle mountain was left off so the back is visible, but this area is reserved for some kind of scenery break like a mountain with trees.

 

Operations:

-two loops with four trains, each one can be automated for alternating trains or a single train can run continously unattended

-the station in the back is actually on a single line in real life, so trains can pass each other, this means to simulate real traffic, one train from one loop should wait for the other from the other loop, but this is not mandatory as there is no connection between the loops

-all three stations can simulate both an opposite direction crossing (both local/local or local/express) or an express (tourist) train passing a local in the same direction the number of combinations for the 3 stations are around 6^3 (216)

-while the stub track is actually only a safety derail in real life, i made it a bit longer, so a mow unit can park on it or a goods wagon can be dropped/picked up by a passenger train (the Hakone Tozan actually had one, the RhB still does)

-the track layouts and operations are usable both with Hakone Tozan sets and RhB trains and stations of these kinds look more or less realistic on both networks, so rolling stock and buildings can be swapped

 

[velotrain]

toc - here is a draft for the lower level of a possible design using Tomix track.  I found that 84" doors are not as common as I thought, so changed the length to 80".  As I had mentioned, depending on your comfort level I think it might be better to use flex except for the turnouts.  I think Hakone station might be really fine with something like a R1500 - 2000 curve through it.  Minimum radius is 177, as you indicated that your stock can handle 7".  Minimum on the outer track is 243.

 

The general idea was to provide the maximum of operational possibilities, while trying to keep as much open space for scenery as possible.  There are multiple options for the upper level and I hope to have some plans before the weekend.  One other reason for separating the two elements is that the mountain tracks will definitely be on top of these racks in the rear of the layout, so showing them separately will help keep each component of the trackplan clean.

 

Due to your wanting a mountain railway focused on operation and scenery, that means little to no storage for alternate trains, so I've indicated a turnout leading to a fiddle yard.  In actuality this can be designed however you want, and is merely a way to move trains off the layout, and bring other trains on.  This could also be done at one of the back corners where the track is hidden if you prefer, although visibility might help with this.

 

While we're discussing the right end of the layout, I've shown the curved turnout as being in the open, but that could change for some of the upper level options that might need to be in that corner.  In general, access is from the rear to get to all hidden track.

 

I'm designing this for Tomix track to take advantage of the TCS 5563, which provides seven modes of automated operation.  Another unit will be needed for some of the upper level switchback operations.  For the lower level, two trains will alternately run out of Hakone station - in opposite directions if desired.

 

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10040736

 

Basic manual operation would be one train on both the Hakone and Tonosawa loops - each would need a separate controller.  An option would be to only run one train, but set the double crossover to the crossing position, so it makes a figure-8 double loop.

 

Using the 5563, this could be automated with two alternating trains running out of Hakone station.  Or, with the crossover set for straight, you could have alternating trains on the lower loop and a third train on the upper loop.  BTW - I see some 3-4" elevation difference between these two stations, with maybe a 5% grade.

 

 

 

 

[toc36]

I’m having a cranial implosion…….

 

Velo:

 

“One other thing I feel strongly about is that the scenery needs to build from the front to the rear, since….”

Last April at the Timonium Train Show (cteno4 knows this venue well), there was a mountain mining layout for sale.  I didn’t measure it, but I estimate it to be 3’ deep and 10’-12’ wide.  It was built in two pieces.   Moving from front to rear, starting with zero elevation at the front of the layout, the ridge rose steeply and peaked at about 2.5’ in the back.  It averaged about 1.5’ for most of its length.  The face of the mountain was a shell and the builder used the hollow area behind the mountain as space for climbing/descending.  This track plan allowed two trains to run on two separate dual levels.

 

“If you're comfortable working with flextrack …”

I used Peco Flex Track on my last layout (built 10+ years ago).  I liked the track, but I hated ballasting.  Maybe, I need to practice on this for future layouts.  Question:  My understanding is that most brands of flex track are more susceptible to corrosion and require more maintenance.  Is that still valid?

 

“….easily automated with a Tomix controller and TCS.’

I guess I am going to have to get smart with this.  Can I build continuous running automated layout with trains going up/down through 2-3 switchbacks on the front of the mountain and moving back to their start point on the hollow side?  I’ll save this for the future.

 

Kvp

 

I like this track plan.  What software are you using?

 

 

I’m going to have a couple of glasses of vino because I’m going to get my A$$ kicked at work tomorrow…………..

 

Thanks

[toc36]

Velo,

 

I hit "post" before reading your latest post.

 

You're scaring me.  I have a ton of Kato track.  Do I need to transition to Tomix track?  I like their Wide Tram products.

 

I definitely need to learn more about the TCS 5563.