Noodling an idea

[Rod.H]

Right, for awhile I've been thinking of what to do with the Tomix CB set I've got. As I'm more of a visual tinkerer, each time I've set it up it seems that I want to do an island station with a siding or similar. That led me into trying a crossover point arrangement at the platform end, but it didn't feel right. As I've some C605-10s and I'd some out to bring the track pair back to 37mm spacing, swapped the points for them and...

it resulted in this. Yeah, it's longer than I was hoping for, but it's closer to a lock in regards to the station track arrangement. It's the additions that are now causing the puzzlement. I'm thinking replacing one of the RH points with a double slip is probably the way to go.

[kvp]

The top one is what you have now. The middle one is what you described, while the bottom one is a space saving alternative that allows you to move the platform end to the double slip.

[ToniBabelony]

To be honest, the top (current) version is the most realistic one, as you rarely see double slip points on mainlines in Japan. At least, not that I'm aware of...

[Rod.H]

Hmm, now I'm curious on the feasibility of those options with the wide track ballast extensions, as that too generates some head scratching.
 

Via google maps, I've seen a couple of double slips in the yard at Mito, but they were on storage tracks not the main.  

[marknewton]

Toni's observation is correct. Double slips aren't used much on running lines.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark.

[kvp]

The classical solution to avoid double slips would be to put the 3rd track on the other side. This also results in the longest possible sidings. Tomix has nice 3 way turnouts, so you could move the turnout of the 3rd track away from the platform. (this drawing uses the right-left variant, so the longer curve goes towards the platform, for maximal clearance)

 

[ToniBabelony]

I think for prototype's sake it's best to avoid any complicated mechanical designs and stick to simple points. Especially in JR/JNR situations. JNR isn't known to cut corners in layout design with new and complicated technology (hence the massive debt that is still being paid off), so a lot of space is used for station entrances. Looking at Google Maps can give you an idea.

 

Private railways on the other hand are more likely to do so, except when traffic levels are high. In that case marginalising is the key to efficiency. It also helps that there usually is no freight traffic to deal with as well.

 

In the end, I think suiting the site to your own needs is the best practice. Remember also that Tomix offers curved points that can save a lot of space!

[railsquid]

FWIW, double-slip (incorporated into a double crossover) at Keikyu Shinagawa:

[Densha]

The reason for that layout at Keikyu Shinagawa is definitely a case of lack of space though.

[velotrain]

The reason for that layout at Keikyu Shinagawa is definitely a case of lack of space though.

 

Isn't that the basis for many decisions on model railroads?

[railsquid]

I'll be using a a couple to save space...

[Rod.H]

That track arrangement is something no doubt someone wishes is available off the shelf, yet is achievable if you feel like cutting up a double crossover & slip.

 

Some of my inspiration's coming from Kashima stadium station, where there's an interchange between JR EMU & KRT DMU and similar situation freight wise. I'm starting to think that I'm trying to do a LDE for a much larger layout.

[kvp]

If you are willing to add a platform's worth of space between the running tracks, then it's possible to build it without cutting up any tracks.

[HantuBlauLOL]

Isn't that the basis for many decisions on model railroads?

 

nailed it.

 

still a problem for prototypical modeling tho.

[velotrain]

still a problem for prototypical modeling tho.

 

I'd have to say that any attempt to model prototypically is a series of compromises, starting with the fact that proto lines generally don't run in circles.

 

If you're really interested in the prototype, you'd be using a scale larger than N so you could model much more detail.

 

If someone wishes to follow the trackwork guidelines of a specific Japanese railway, that's their call.

 

Otherwise, it's your railroad, and you can do what you wish.

[HantuBlauLOL]

I'd have to say that any attempt to model prototypically is a series of compromises, starting with the fact that proto lines generally don't run in circles.

 

usually those modelers hide their back tracks.. 

[Rod.H]

There are some known RL circle & oval lines, though there's not many where you can see all the track at once from one viewing location.

 

Right, so what I'd like to do boils down to using Tomix track, preferably their wide track, an island station that's an interchange from a JR group electric passenger line to a unelectrified one. Attached to, or nearby is a small yard where the same thing happens with freight, though it's more of an loco swap. As what I've got to work with are DMU's used by Kashima Rinkai Tetsudō that's set the JR group to JR East, the period to recent and the area to depict Kashima.  

I've a feeling that getting the appropriate EMUs is going to be troublesome, the freight train's covered by the what I've got. Perhaps I should do some t-trak modules as practice, I've got enough spare unitrack to do a few. 

[ToniBabelony]

I've a feeling that getting the appropriate EMUs is going to be troublesome, the freight train's covered by the what I've got. Perhaps I should do some t-trak modules as practice, I've got enough spare unitrack to do a few. 

 

Kashima has JR East's 209-2000/2100 Series (209-2100 released by MicroAce) and the 217 Series (4-car formation), released by both Kato and Tomix & the E257-500 Series, also released by Kato. ;)

[Rod.H]

Kashima has JR East's 209-2000/2100 Series (209-2100 released by MicroAce) and the 217 Series (4-car formation), released by both Kato and Tomix & the E257-500 Series, also released by Kato. ;)

So this http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10315928 that was on the LE  Ayame service, http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10042620 for normal then, there's http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10415967 though the stripes are the wrong colour. Going by what I've found this  http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10129470 is also relevant.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Rod.H

[ToniBabelony]

Depending on the era you want to go for (or any era) a lot is applicable for that area! ;)

[Rod.H]

Right so I got a new bit of track and:
I like it, but it's obliviously an arrangement that'd make bean counters cry.

So, I yanked the point crossover & moved the double closer. I'd also assembled/setup some of the masts - some will work but a different style would be better.

 

I noticed an oddity with the double slip, if it's meant to equal a point or a 140 straight then I shouldn't have a stagger, like below;

It fits, though I'm wondering if I've got the correct double slip for this application. It might even be that I've got it around the wrong way.

[kvp]

There are two variants. One is a left and the other is a right slip. You should measure which direction is 140 mm and that is the straight direction, while the other is the diagonal and should equal to 145 mm. (you'll need a 1245 for this location)

[Rod.H]

Mine's a 1246. Solution #1: order a 1245; Solution #2: rearrange everything to use the 1246. 2's the better option as the RH points are now freed up for other uses. For example, making the siding into a loop with loco escape/hold.

 

Edit: Worked the problem. Yep, kvp, you reminded me that I'd not RTFM or in this case, the back of the blister pack as the solution was there all along.

And here we see a mild case of Chinese Curse, when it comes to integrating Fine Track (neo) with Wide Fine Track.

 

After setting that up, I'm now reconsidering the position of the platform, However, I move it I will need to take into account the effect it would have on train movements.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Rod.H

[Rod.H]

Had a bit of a rethink and decided to just rotate the platform:

It just means the other end of the loop uses my last LH point (from the CB set) to close it. I also resolved some of the trouble I had with the addon ballast, but obviously, there's still a way to go.

At least I have spots where I'm using S70s, I can swap them out for a TCS signal like the 5572 at a later stage.

 

I've a feeling that this station & yard is going to need more space to really lay it out, then the ~4 foot slices I'm working with.

 

Edit (to cut down on double & triple posts):

Messed around in anyrail, and came up with something 2.4 meters long. That's before adding the bits to get trains off & on. It's a start.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Rod.H

[Rod.H]

I removed the S70s after the crossover-slip as they were making spacing of the overhead poles & aligning of the plastic ballast pieces difficult.

Also, removing them almost got the station fitting in a 4-foot space

 

The variable width masts certainly make a difference compared to the using the fixed single & double overhead masts.

Though I'm not certain on the distance between them, I'm using 140mm, then again that's probably the perfect spacing for this section due to the track elements used.