Kiyoshi RR; a coal mining town.

[Kabutoni]

A friend demanded some pictures of the new stuff I got, so I'll just share them with you guys.

 

Lineup 1: L~R

- Nambu Juukan KIHA 101/102 (TOMIX);

- JNR KIHA 183 (TOMIX);

- JNR DD54 with old brass 24-Series coaches (TOMIX + ENDOU);

- JNR DD51-1 with tankers and WAMU80000 (MICROACE + KATO).

 

Lineup 2: L~R

- Again Nambu Juukan;

- Kashima Tetsudou KIHA 431 (TOMYTEC).

 

Also, I'm thinking about making my layout modular on IKEA IVAR shelves (83cm x 30cm). The modules would be connected with the expandable track from TOMIX. In this way it's easier to transport, easy to build up and easy to expand. Also, when someone decides to join they can easily make their own modules and connect them. It's a single-track system, so a bit6 different then the J-Track system that was made up about 6 years ago, but never really gained any popularity (I even helped develop the system )

[Fenway Park]

Don't forget the regular wood chip trains on Hokkaido as an alternative to cement traffic. Kawai make the Tora 9000 and Kato the more modern Wamu conversions.

[Kabutoni]

Woodchip trains. Yeah, I've considered that option too, but that industry is much built up at a much larger scale and I'm more of a fan of small coal lines rather then logging lines. Coal is easier to load onto wagons in model trains as is wood. However, the simulation of wood chip loading would also be a quite easy task to load in model.

 

Anyways, I've revisited my layout plans and came up with a more sophisticated plan. When switching the mainline isn't obstructed and longer trains can be loaded into two separate parts at the coal bunker. Other then the previous plan the wagons will be loaded 'live' and not be exchanged with cassettes. Looking at photos of the Douwa Kougyou Katakami Railroad: http://www.geocities.jp/a78027/page006.html one can see that the track plan is heavily inspired by the terminal station Yanahara where low two-axle gondola cars were loaded with iron-ore. The layout I've drawn is some kind of compact model of the real version with a slightly altered tracks and switches. However, the switching roads could be expanded with a short module in between the entrance and exit of the station.

 

The inspiring bit of the station is the small spur for motor cars and the coal bunker across the passenger platform. This platform was originally thought to fit a 4-car passenger train hauled by a D11, D12 or DD13. However, my plan has only room for 3 coaches, which is not really a concern.

The spur on the far right in the middle of the tracks can be used for storage of random rolling stock, such as passenger coaches and freight cars.

 

Anyway, I hope the plan is to your liking! I like this one better then the one before. All done with the help of some criticism and remarks found here. Yeah! I've learned something and it didn't last long since I've came here! Thanks a lot :)

[Krackel Hopper]

I like the new layout.  From an operational standpoint it looks like things would run much smoother than your previous.. but there also doesn't appear to be as much operation (switching/etc).. a double-edged sword I guess?

 

When you mentioned that your plan will only allow you a 3 car platform instead of 4.. is it possible for you to expand the platform to fit a 4th car?  If I'm seeing it right, you have the platform filling in the whole wedge on the left module.. and coming across the right module until just behind the shop?  Then it looks like a parking lot? from the edge of the shop to the road crossing?  Maybe you could cut the parking lot in half and fill the platform all the way to the road crossing? 

 

You may have already thought of this.. but just an idea to maybe get that 4th car.. seeing as you have that sweet new KIHA 183 4-car setup.. or maybe you are only planning on using that spur for the passenger station stop..

 

Is the revised layout still 2200mm x 170mm?

 

Jon

[Kabutoni]

Hi Jon,

 

The size of the layout has changed to 1660 x 300mm separated into two modules on the base of an IKEA IVAR shelf board. The IVAR system has also a board that is 420 x 300mm that can be used to expand the layout from the centre and thus provide an extension of the passenger platform. Then I can have the full 6-car KIHA 183 on the platform. For now a 3/4-car formation will do (The KIHA183-500 runs in 3-car formation in the Sarobetsu Ltd. Expr. service).

 

The best thing about the original layout is that the station is built as a through-station rather then a terminus, so the option to later expand the layout on both sides, next to expanding it in the middle part, is an option. The operation though will be a bit more boring, but now I have a chance to run around trains, watch them go by. This is I think a better way to enjoy a layout after a beer or two and it will stick more to the original layout of the station where I got my inspiration from. :)

[marknewton]

Anyway, I hope the plan is to your liking! I like this one better then the one before. All done with the help of some criticism and remarks found here. Yeah! I've learned something and it didn't last long since I've came here! Thanks a lot :)

 

Very nice, Tony, very nice indeed! I think this is a far superior trackplan than your earlier proposal.

 

On the subject of criticism, I hope I didn't come across as rude or didactic when discussing your previous plan. I tend to be fairly critical when looking at trackplans, because I've spent my entire working life on the railway on the operations/traffic side. But I sometimes forget that not everyone else has had the same experience.

 

I think you've learned a valuable lesson about designing trackplans - if it works for a real railway, it will most likely work for a model. I'll be very interested to see how your layout progresses.

 

All the best,

 

Mark.

[Kabutoni]

Very nice, Tony, very nice indeed! I think this is a far superior trackplan than your earlier proposal.

 

On the subject of criticism, I hope I didn't come across as rude or didactic when discussing your previous plan. I tend to be fairly critical when looking at trackplans, because I've spent my entire working life on the railway on the operations/traffic side. But I sometimes forget that not everyone else has had the same experience.

 

I think you've learned a valuable lesson about designing trackplans - if it works for a real railway, it will most likely work for a model. I'll be very interested to see how your layout progresses.

 

Thanks for the praise! That means a lot to me.

 

I've not felt offended in any way. It's been a great help to me. I've been working with track plans as long as I can remember, but never took safelty measures in account. It's all about being rational and fitting the best possible layout in the best possible room you have. It's always a great help when a professional jumps in and comments you on the mistakes in a friendly and positive way, especially if you want to operate a semi-realistic layout. :)

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Tony, that's an interesting plan, but one thing puzzles me. If a loco-hauled train runs into the platform from right to left, how does the loco run around and get onto the other end of the train for the return trip?

Hi Mark,

 

The plan is just to back the train up just after the last switch, run the locomotive around, back it up to the coaches again, back the train up to the end of the platform and presto. I got inspiration from British branch line termini where this was common practice. As the Japanese railway system is based on the British system, I guess this was also regular on Japanese termini (which is most likely). Otherwise another spare loco could take over the coaches instead (but I don't like that idea).

 

Caught up with this a little late!

 

It was indeed common operating practice on branchlines, dependent of course on the trackplan of the station, although this essentially died out in the mid 1960s with a combination of mass closures and DMU introduction. You are correct with your sequence; the train would arrive at the platform, allow the passengers to alight before propelling back onto the loop. The loco was then uncoupled, before running round and then propelling the coaches back to the platform.

 

As you say, a busier station would have another locomotive, however the more likely scenario would be the provision of a station pilot.

 

As an aside, practices not only depended on track layouts and size of station, but also the company the operated the line. The Great Western had a practice of often separating arrival and departure plaforms, although this would be for slightly larger stations than the one you have in mind. Train would arrive, the pilot attached to the back and shunt into the next platform, whereupon the train engine will reattach. Would not take too much of a leap to nab the yard shunter (if one is resident) to perform this process.

 

Whilst I agree with many of the comments about signalling, many of these operations were performed on lines which operated a 'one engine in steam' principle.

 

Obviously your thought process has moved on from your original idea, just thought I would throw a few comments.

 

I do rather like your 183 unit. Have seen them available and quite fancy an N Gauge one to go with the H0 unit I already have. Be interested to see your progress here!

[Kabutoni]

Thanks for the info. Rather interesting to have arrival and departure platforms. I've seen that in Japan on several stations, like Meitetsu Nagoya and Odakyu Shinjuku. The right door is de-boarding and the left door of the train is boarding. Very interesting and efficient on busy termini.

 

Anyway, if some of you are interested in watching an up-to-date photo album, please click the following link to see my progress on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/album.php?aid=8713&id=100000040332799&ref=nf

[westfalen]

Not in Japan, but Jingtong in Taiwan. Now abandoned coal loading bunkers for nearby coal mine across the tracks from station.

[Kabutoni]

Ah, that's a nice location and an interesting line. According to the Japanese and Taiwanese wikipedia, this is the last station on the Pingsi Line, just like Yanahara on the Katakami Line in Japan. However, this line is still open and runs a tourist steamer during the high-season. The Pingsi Line has some very interesting stations and sections. Thanks for the initiation of the wave of information! :)

[westfalen]

Ah, that's a nice location and an interesting line. According to the Japanese and Taiwanese wikipedia, this is the last station on the Pingsi Line, just like Yanahara on the Katakami Line in Japan. However, this line is still open and runs a tourist steamer during the high-season. The Pingsi Line has some very interesting stations and sections. Thanks for the initiation of the wave of information! :)

I took the photo during a two week visit to Taiwan in May, it is an interesting line, sadly passenger only for many years, I wish I could have visited when it and other branch lines were in their heyday, there were remains of coal mining operations all along the line. We rode the line on our second day and then did a trip around the island, when we returned to Taipei we found a poster advertising a steam excursion on the line while we were away, in fact we passed the engine returning south to its home depot as we were heading back. :crybaby2:

[Kabutoni]

As you know I'm planning a module based layout, though now I would like to make my layout compatible with other Japanese normed module forms. I've visited the IG-NippoN forum for their standards on module building, but apparently they have yet to conclude their standards. Still whining on what track system they'll be using, the head standards, electrics, etc. etc. So, I think I'll be settling for the J-Module standards that were made up by members of the JRForum (me included) about a small decade ago.

 

Problem is that it's based on a 2-track main line and I want to have some switching action in it as well... Back to the drawing board it is for me

[Bernard]

As you know I'm planning a module based layout, though now I would like to make my layout compatible with other Japanese normed module forms. I've visited the IG-NippoN forum for their standards on module building, but apparently they have yet to conclude their standards. Still whining on what track system they'll be using, the head standards, electrics, etc. etc. So, I think I'll be settling for the J-Module standards that were made up by members of the JRForum (me included) about a small decade ago.

 

Problem is that it's based on a 2-track main line and I want to have some switching action in it as well... Back to the drawing board it is for me

The IG-NippoN doesn't have a standard? Wow!

 

I'm guessing (and I'm really guessing) these would be all connecting modules to form a large layout, there would be 2 main rails at the front of each module to connect to other modules? (I believe the Ntraks in the US use 3 main lines in their modules)

Could you keep your design and just add the 2 main connecting lines at the top of your module?

I know of one module where the modeler had the 3 main lines in front but built a mountain pass in the background where a train ran in an incline figure 8 and have a false backing where the train disappeared. It was a very popular module because it had additional action for the viewer.

[Kabutoni]

J-module uses only 2 mainline tracks, but I don't like the idea of having 3-tracks... It's not really prototypical IMO.

 

I'm intend to keep the design I have, but only add a few more tracks to it. I have ordered a sufficient batch of switches and rails, so that shouldn't be much of a problem. I could keep the design as it is, double the main line, add a switch or two to the sidings and presto! The only problem is that the with is 500mm compared to my original 300mm. I don't know where to properly store the thing and have a run once in a while. I guess I have to reside with having temporary set-ups on the floor then.

 

Otherwise I could make up a plan where I have the same standards as a J-module (electrics, geometry, etc.) but with a single-line layout, then later build a module that is compatible with the original J-module standards (e.g. a station/main line with a branch line that connects with the single-track J-module system...). Just a thought though.

 

EDIT: just made a few drawings, but no. I think I'll stick to my IVAR modules concept and maybe do a J-module stand-alone project later :/