Sort of club for Dutch/German/Belgian members?

[Martijn Meerts]

I don't think they have the space for a Japanese layout anymore, the Dutch N-scale is taking up the space where the Japanese layout was supposed to go. However, it might be possible to make a deal to set up the T-Trak modules there some time, or some small, fully automated tram layout.

 

They obviously have some interest in Japanese trains, considering the plan for the Japanese layout was at some point advertised on their pages. They even added it'd be the biggest Japanese N-scale layout outside Japan.

 

 

Actually, the reason I mailed them about it back then, was that I wanted to volunteer to help out with that layout ;)

[Densha]

Don't forget that there's room next to the workshop, but there's a chance that it will be used for extension of the main layout. It's possible to make a pretty large layout in that space, especially in N scale. If you've been there are few years ago, it is the place what was the workshop before and the workshop itself was moved to another room.

[Martijn Meerts]

Last I was there they had just started building the Rotterdam CS part, they were still laying track. I think the workshop had been moved already by then to where it is now.

 

I actually hope they're not going to extend too much. Miniatur Wunderland in Hamburg has gotten so big that the detail work has started to get worse. They've been redoing a lot of things recently to add details. Miniworld on the other hand always had really nice little details which made the layout feel much more alive, even if it was much smaller.

[Densha]

Ah right.

 

I totally agree with you, I think it's been enough Dutch HO scale, and we want that space to be used for a Japanese layout of course!

[Martijn Meerts]

Exactly 

[ToniBabelony]

Got my KATO tracks today in Houten; it seems that I can begin with building soon (after that I've met all my deadlines for other projects that is...).

[Densha]

From which dealer did you get it?

[ToniBabelony]

I got some tracks from a German guy, but also a few from N-Spoor Store. Very friendly people at the latter one, plus they are very willing to receive orders for Kato tracks. Also, they are cheaper than the German fellow I bought some tracks from.

[Martijn Meerts]

Nice :)

 

So, have we decided on module sizes yet, mainly the height of the most common modules?

[ToniBabelony]

So, have we decided on module sizes yet, mainly the height of the most common modules?

 

Well, size will probably be standard T-Trak, right? 310mm (long) x 210~310mm (deep) with the track centred 50mm from the front of the module. The height, well. I'm for 100mm, but 70mm is fine as well (both variable for at least 10mm). We can always up the ante if we want higher modules.

 

P.s. (offtopic) I kind of like the looks of Unitrack a bit better than FineTrack now that I can compare them. Much finer sleepers, which makes it look more elegan, plus I live the Unijoiner concept!

[Densha]

I thought that we would make the depth of the modules in blocks of 5cm. So modules with 15/20/30 or something like that. I haven't ever read about T-Trak having such weird depths. I think it's a lot easier to design when using easy numbers. Also if we have modules of 15cm and 30cm deep then you could place two of 15 in 30, so maybe possibilities to play with layout design.

By centred do you mean from the edge of the module to the middle of the track or to the edge of the trackbed?

On the height: personally I'm already having trouble putting together a module existing just of wood, so adding those things to differ height is going to be a trouble for at least me.

[ToniBabelony]

I thought that we would make the depth of the modules in blocks of 5cm. So modules with 15/20/30 or something like that.

 

Good method. It'll certainly make room for some form of free play.

 

I haven't ever read about T-Trak having such weird depths. I think it's a lot easier to design when using easy numbers.

 

Well, take a look at the origins of T-Trak and you'll see that 210mm is a common size, especially when you consider T-Trak being derived from the DIN-A4 paper size: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/official.html To make corners fit in the pattern, they are 310x310mm, so a normal module can be of the same size.

 

By centred do you mean from the edge of the module to the middle of the track or to the edge of the trackbed?

On the height: personally I'm already having trouble putting together a module existing just of wood, so adding those things to differ height is going to be a trouble for at least me.

 

See also the same link as above. Making modules of variable height is pretty easy if you have the right method, plus if you don't like/can't build modules, Martijn or I could make a few if you'd like. It's not too hard, you just need the right sizes of planks, one or two tools, glue and nails and you're ready to go actually.

[Densha]

But we still don't know what corners we are going use, (and personally don't like how the smaller spacing looks in the corners), so maybe it doesn't make sense then. We also need some space to put up the background images behind the modules, if we're going to do that.

Personally I would say 15 or 30cm depth, and alternatively 20cm for more scenery or tracks, or something like that. It's just a detail, and don't mind going with you either, but I want to keep it as clear and easy as possible.

Keep in mind that we have to use those weird 64mm tracks when using 310mm width instead resulting in a more difficult geometry. On the page you linked it's not completely right, because the module has the same length/width as the tracks. We should use 308mm modules if we're going for easy track building.

5cm centred spacing is good with me in that case; I don't have any complains about it, like I usually do.

 

I have tried making a module myself, but the result wasn't really good, but I learned quite a few things from it so I think that I probably could do it now, but I'm still feared of doing things from again. I probably should just do it at that time, and see for myself how it's going.

Just remembered what someone was talking about earlier: instead of those bolts using a sort of rack with bolts to level up multiple modules a time. Don't know who what where said it though.

[ToniBabelony]

But we still don't know what corners we are going use, (and personally don't like how the smaller spacing looks in the corners), so maybe it doesn't make sense then. We also need some space to put up the background images behind the modules, if we're going to do that.

Personally I would say 15 or 30cm depth, and alternatively 20cm for more scenery or tracks, or something like that. It's just a detail, and don't mind going with you either, but I want to keep it as clear and easy as possible.

 

IMO, the standards set by T-Trak are good, but it's always possible to make wider or narrower modules. As long as it doesn't break the general layout setup, it's fine. That's the good thing about T-Trak.

 

About the corners: yes, we have no conclusion about that either. IMO, we should somewhat avoid using radii smaller than 177mm, since quite some rolling stock (especially MicroAce) refuses to handle corners like these. Then again, we could go for smaller radii, but that would render out a lot of rolling stock unfortunately. Either way, I'm fine with it.

 

Keep in mind that we have to use those weird 64mm tracks when using 310mm width instead resulting in a more difficult geometry. On the page you linked it's not completely right, because the module has the same length/width as the tracks. We should use 308mm modules if we're going for easy track building.

5cm centred spacing is good with me in that case; I don't have any complains about it, like I usually do.

 

The website with the standards states that 310mm is the standard length. However, it's recommended to use standard A4-sized modules to make fitting modules together with ease. Also, the standards are set by the 62mm tracks, not by 64mm. That results in making modules themselves slightly smaller than 310mm indeed. ;)

 

"幅310mm×奥行210mmという寸法は、A4判（幅297mm×奥行210mm）の寸法を、ユニトラックの長さの規格（62mmの倍数に揃える）にあわせて少し広げたものです。モジュールの基礎となる台枠に市販のA4判パネルを使えるため、工作の手間が省け、誰でも正確な寸法のモジュールを簡単に作ることができます。"

---

Crummy Google Translation:

"Dimensions 310mm × depth 210mm width that is slightly extended in accordance with the (aligned to multiples of 62mm) standard of the length of the Uni-track, the dimensions of the (210mm depth 297mm × width) size A4. Use A4 size commercially available for the panel to frame the underlying units of the module, you can Get rid of trouble manoeuvring, easily create a module of the exact dimensions anyone."

 

- http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/official.html (2012-05-06, 15:30)

 

I have tried making a module myself, but the result wasn't really good, but I learned quite a few things from it so I think that I probably could do it now, but I'm still feared of doing things from again. I probably should just do it at that time, and see for myself how it's going.

 

Well, you can always ask for help and by trying and failing you'll only learn to do it better. :)

 

Just remembered what someone was talking about earlier: instead of those bolts using a sort of rack with bolts to level up multiple modules a time. Don't know who what where said it though.

 

That's true, it's somewhat the same method, but physically separated from the module itself.

[Densha]

But we still don't know what corners we are going use, (and personally don't like how the smaller spacing looks in the corners), so maybe it doesn't make sense then. We also need some space to put up the background images behind the modules, if we're going to do that.

Personally I would say 15 or 30cm depth, and alternatively 20cm for more scenery or tracks, or something like that. It's just a detail, and don't mind going with you either, but I want to keep it as clear and easy as possible.

 

IMO, the standards set by T-Trak are good, but it's always possible to make wider or narrower modules. As long as it doesn't break the general layout setup, it's fine. That's the good thing about T-Trak.

 

About the corners: yes, we have no conclusion about that either. IMO, we should somewhat avoid using radii smaller than 177mm, since quite some rolling stock (especially MicroAce) refuses to handle corners like these. Then again, we could go for smaller radii, but that would render out a lot of rolling stock unfortunately. Either way, I'm fine with it.

So, what is your final thought on the depth? Do you want to go with the 210/310mm or with the more conventional 15(/20)/30cm?

 

Yikes, even 177mm radius is a very narrow corner. It was originally becoming a local railway, right? It depends a bit on what kind of railway on what radius we would use.

 

Keep in mind that we have to use those weird 64mm tracks when using 310mm width instead resulting in a more difficult geometry. On the page you linked it's not completely right, because the module has the same length/width as the tracks. We should use 308mm modules if we're going for easy track building.

5cm centred spacing is good with me in that case; I don't have any complains about it, like I usually do.

The website with the standards states that 310mm is the standard length. However, it's recommended to use standard A4-sized modules to make fitting modules together with ease. Also, the standards are set by the 62mm tracks, not by 64mm. That results in making modules themselves slightly smaller than 310mm indeed. ;)

"幅310mm×奥行210mmという寸法は、A4判（幅297mm×奥行210mm）の寸法を、ユニトラックの長さの規格（62mmの倍数に揃える）にあわせて少し広げたものです。モジュールの基礎となる台枠に市販のA4判パネルを使えるため、工作の手間が省け、誰でも正確な寸法のモジュールを簡単に作ることができます。"

---

Crummy Google Translation:

"Dimensions 310mm × depth 210mm width that is slightly extended in accordance with the (aligned to multiples of 62mm) standard of the length of the Uni-track, the dimensions of the (210mm depth 297mm × width) size A4. Use A4 size commercially available for the panel to frame the underlying units of the module, you can Get rid of trouble manoeuvring, easily create a module of the exact dimensions anyone."

 

- http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/official.html (2012-05-06, 15:30)

But the height of A4 paper isn't 310mm. The width is 210mm. So it's not really much useful to use A4 paper for that I think, maybe only for cutting half of the sides of the wood, but that's it.

 

 

I want to add that I want to start my T-trak as a personal project and later alternatively use it in 'club' form, hence I prefer using a bit of the sizes I would do myself of course.

 

Edit: this page says "Local", and is probably meant for more local trains instead of trams: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/local.html

[ToniBabelony]

So, what is your final thought on the depth? Do you want to go with the 210/310mm or with the more conventional 15(/20)/30cm?

 

I'd say, have 200~210mm as a standard size, but allow other depths as well. 150mm is actually pretty narrow (think about how little scenery you can put in when you have double track) and 300mm is maybe too much (too much scenery at the back will be rendered uninteresting when a train passes by in the front, unless done well), so 200mm is a fine IMO.

 

However, if you start to think in Kato Unitrack geometry, you really have to start to think in 62mm measurements, much like Tomix FineTrack where you have to think in 70mm measurements (In comparison; the Fleischmann in 111mm and Minitrix in 107.2mm are a bit more difficult to work with). If you stop thinking in 62mm, you step out of the Unitrack geometry and things will quickly go wrong when putting modules together.

 

Now, what I'm trying to say is: 310mm is a good measurement to work with, since it's 62mm x 5, but it's a bit too much, so 200~210mm is fine. It separates modules that are back-to-back and creates some visual ease.

 

Anyway, to conclude. Depth isn't much of an issue, as long as it doesn't go over 300~310mm (otherwise, putting modules back-to-back will be difficult). So, you're pretty much free to do anything you like, as long as it's under 310mm.

 

Yikes, even 177mm radius is a very narrow corner. It was originally becoming a local railway, right? It depends a bit on what kind of railway on what radius we would use.

 

Hahaha. Yes, if we stick to Unitrack, the simple 216mm radius will do fine as a minimum.

 

But the height of A4 paper isn't 310mm. The width is 210mm. So it's not really much useful to use A4 paper for that I think, maybe only for cutting half of the sides of the wood, but that's it.

 

Well, for height it isn't much use taking DIN-A paper geometry as standard. It's just a coincidence that Unitrack roughly has the same length as a DIN-A4 sheet, since DIN-A4 is 210x297mm. So, we need to decide on a height on practical reasons. For me it's somewhere in between 70 and 100mm.

 

I want to add that I want to start my T-trak as a personal project and later alternatively use it in 'club' form, hence I prefer using a bit of the sizes I would do myself of course.

 

Sure, if you'd like to set your own standards for use at home, who am I to interfere? ;) However, if you'd like to use it in combination with others' modules, you have to put up with some 'communal' compromises (like height, tracks, electronics, etc.) or make transition modules (I've seen this a lot in FREMO meetings).

 

Edit: this page says "Local", and is probably meant for more local trains instead of trams: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/local.html

 

"Local" stands for local standards (not for local tracks, but as variations to the standards given by RMM). Here single-track, the US-version with 33mm spacing (instead of standard 27mm spacing), Tomix track (37mm spacing) and some kind of 'Underground' version are represented on this page.

[Densha]

I messed up the quote codes, so hopefully it's correctly.

 

I'd say, have 200~210mm as a standard size, but allow other depths as well. 150mm is actually pretty narrow (think about how little scenery you can put in when you have double track) and 300mm is maybe too much (too much scenery at the back will be rendered uninteresting when a train passes by in the front, unless done well), so 200mm is a fine IMO.

Totally agreed. 150mm is really small and 300mm is fairly large. Starting with single track is for the better I think, since it's more easy to start like that, more tracks results in more costs and more hassle at the beginning. When making a station with multiple tracks you could make deeper modules for example.

 

However, if you start to think in Kato Unitrack geometry, you really have to start to think in 62mm measurements, much like Tomix FineTrack where you have to think in 70mm measurements (In comparison; the Fleischmann in 111mm and Minitrix in 107.2mm are a bit more difficult to work with). If you stop thinking in 62mm, you step out of the Unitrack geometry and things will quickly go wrong when putting modules together.

I only have experience with HO scale Fleischmann track, but the idea is the same indeed.

 

Now, what I'm trying to say is: 310mm is a good measurement to work with, since it's 62mm x 5, but it's a bit too much, so 200~210mm is fine. It separates modules that are back-to-back and creates some visual ease.

That it's 62mm x 5 doesn't really matter when you're working with depth right? That only applies to the lenght. Or am I mixing things together here? It makes a complete square of course, but that's all I can think about.

 

Anyway, to conclude. Depth isn't much of an issue, as long as it doesn't go over 300~310mm (otherwise, putting modules back-to-back will be difficult). So, you're pretty much free to do anything you like, as long as it's under 310mm.

Complaint: isn't it more handy to make a sort of standard (just sort of) in which we at least make clear what sizes we are going to use ultimately? I mean: 200-210 and 300-310 looks probably ugly when put together. I think it's for the better to just decide which we are going with in the final thought.

 

Yikes, even 177mm radius is a very narrow corner. It was originally becoming a local railway, right? It depends a bit on what kind of railway on what radius we would use.

 

Hahaha. Yes, if we stick to Unitrack, the simple 216mm radius will do fine as a minimum.

 

Well, for height it isn't much use taking DIN-A paper geometry as standard. It's just a coincidence that Unitrack roughly has the same length as a DIN-A4 sheet, since DIN-A4 is 210x297mm. So, we need to decide on a height on practical reasons. For me it's somewhere in between 70 and 100mm.

Actually my English was a bit weird there: I meant to say that the size of the 297mm of the A4 isn't the same as the ~310mm length of the modules, why I said "height" is a mystery.

 

Sure, if you'd like to set your own standards for use at home, who am I to interfere? ;) However, if you'd like to use it in combination with others' modules, you have to put up with some 'communal' compromises (like height, tracks, electronics, etc.) or make transition modules (I've seen this a lot in FREMO meetings).

I was actually talking about just the width and length of modules, no less, no more. I want to go with 7cm height too, with Unitrack, and with the Kato controller (have we actually talked about the controller?), so I think my own idea of T-Trak/modules is close to yours.

 

Edit: this page says "Local", and is probably meant for more local trains instead of trams: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/local.html

"Local" stands for local standards (not for local tracks, but as variations to the standards given by RMM). Here single-track, the US-version with 33mm spacing (instead of standard 27mm spacing), Tomix track (37mm spacing) and some kind of 'Underground' version are represented on this page.

...right... my Japanese skills aren't very impressive, so I usually look at the URL's. But it does talk about the R216 radius and wider, I also noticed Tomix being written below but just sort of ignored it.

[ToniBabelony]

I messed up the quote codes, so hopefully it's correctly.

 

It wasn't. :P But, the hell with it.

 

Now, what I'm trying to say is: 310mm is a good measurement to work with, since it's 62mm x 5, but it's a bit too much, so 200~210mm is fine. It separates modules that are back-to-back and creates some visual ease.

That it's 62mm x 5 doesn't really matter when you're working with depth right? That only applies to the lenght. Or am I mixing things together here? It makes a complete square of course, but that's all I can think about.

 

That's the whole point. With T-Trak and/or fixed dimensions, you should be able to make a square or any form for that matter with 90˚ and/or 180˚ angles in it. Think about 'L' shapes, 'T' shapes, 'H' shapes, etc. etc.

 

Complaint: isn't it more handy to make a sort of standard (just sort of) in which we at least make clear what sizes we are going to use ultimately? I mean: 200-210 and 300-310 looks probably ugly when put together. I think it's for the better to just decide which we are going with in the final thought.

 

Well, if you look at pictures on the internet of Japanese T-Trak meetings (they call it: 路面モジュール [Romen Mojyuuru], Street Face Module) you see several sizes and forms mixed together, but it doesn't really look as bad as one might imagine. It gives off a anything-goes attitude that makes it a very open concept, which is inviting for others to join in with maybe one or two modules.

 

Here's an example:

 

However, it might be a good idea to set some standards for street running e.g. making standard street widths, so transitions between modules don't look too abrupt.

 

Actually my English was a bit weird there: I meant to say that the size of the 297mm of the A4 isn't the same as the ~310mm length of the modules, why I said "height" is a mystery.

 

Well, if you adapt this formula: (310mm - 297mm)/2 = 6.5mm overlap of rail on each side. It's a bit much, but it's actually about the length of the rail, not about the size of the module (in essence that is). Another reason to keep thinking in 62mm size. ;)

 

I was actually talking about just the width and length of modules, no less, no more. I want to go with 7cm height too, with Unitrack, and with the Kato controller (have we actually talked about the controller?), so I think my own idea of T-Trak/modules is close to yours.

 

Okay, so that's good. I'm however also for 100mm, since then it'll maybe easier to make a 'subway' level. Well, if we ever want to implement such a thing, but it's something about thinking ahead.

 

...right... my Japanese skills aren't very impressive, so I usually look at the URL's. But it does talk about the R216 radius and wider, I also noticed Tomix being written below but just sort of ignored it.

 

That's why people introduced translation programs. Plus, the link could also have said: "blablabla.co.jp/vogelvogel/hamburger/a.htm", but talk about bike tuning parts and wall-paste. You never know after a bit of deeper research.

[Densha]

It wasn't. :P But, the hell with it.

It was, but it probably was only when I was writing my post.

 

That's the whole point. With T-Trak and/or fixed dimensions, you should be able to make a square or any form for that matter with 90˚ and/or 180˚ angles in it. Think about 'L' shapes, 'T' shapes, 'H' shapes, etc. etc.

I actually meant a 'whole square', to specify in Dutch: een vierkant (bv. 1x1cm) ipv een rechthoek (bv. 1x2cm)

 

Well, if you look at pictures on the internet of Japanese T-Trak meetings (they call it: 路面モジュール [Romen Mojyuuru], Street Face Module) you see several sizes and forms mixed together, but it doesn't really look as bad as one might imagine. It gives off a anything-goes attitude that makes it a very open concept, which is inviting for others to join in with maybe one or two modules.

 

Here's an example:

 

However, it might be a good idea to set some standards for street running e.g. making standard street widths, so transitions between modules don't look too abrupt.

Ah, well, I don't really mind anymore. You've convinced me now, congratulations!

Such things come later, the tracks first.

 

Okay, so that's good. I'm however also for 100mm, since then it'll maybe easier to make a 'subway' level. Well, if we ever want to implement such a thing, but it's something about thinking ahead.

Hmmm... I'm not too keen on the subway idea. Rather, as I said before: what do you all actually want to make? For example, a rural local line with a KiHa or something Enoden-like, or something like a town which could go with a subway? When making a rural line, a subway beneath it is not appropriate (rather completely inappropriate), but it's a different story with a town. Of course town can be combined with rural and such, but it should fit a bit together. Also, a subway isn't that high and could easily fit in 7cm height (even less). And how would you actually want to implement a subway? Not that it really matters at the moment.

 

That's why people introduced translation programs. Plus, the link could also have said: "blablabla.co.jp/vogelvogel/hamburger/a.htm", but talk about bike tuning parts and wall-paste. You never know after a bit of deeper research.

I know that of course, of course. But when I think I have the right term/word/whatever, I assume it is about that. Also, I read the katakana at the top of the page and since it said ロカール I thought I was sure even more. I've never seen Dutch words in a Japanese URL though...

[Ben]

So do we think the modules will be main line, suburban, interurban or tram?

 

Of course I'm in favour of trams! Inter urban/ tram train with a mixture of street running and ballasted track could be the most fun though (and most flexible)

[Ben]

If we were to go for something Enoden-like, maybe Tomix would be best, since then we could use the single track wide tram track for street running.

[ToniBabelony]

So do we think the modules will be main line, suburban, interurban or tram?

 

Of course I'm in favour of trams! Inter urban/ tram train with a mixture of street running and ballasted track could be the most fun though (and most flexible)

---

If we were to go for something Enoden-like, maybe Tomix would be best, since then we could use the single track wide tram track for street running.

 

The modules are made for such operations, not for 10-car Yamanote-style trains. I'm thinking max. 3~4 cars for easy operations on small layouts. I think most of us who want to participate in this project have at least some Modemo trams/interurbans or something else that can be ran to fit.

 

However, you can then only run trams and not other rolling stock that can manage the tight corners of Tomix unfortunately. You then render a lot of interesting trains from Kato, GreenMax and MicroAce useless.

[Densha]

To tell the truth I don't own any train except my Yamanote-sen 4-car set, but still want to participate because it's just so easy to start with. Buying a small train is definitely in the planning though.

[Ben]

However, you can then only run trams and not other rolling stock that can manage the tight corners of Tomix unfortunately. You then render a lot of interesting trains from Kato, GreenMax and MicroAce useless.

 

I guess we could have easier curves, and keep the street running for the straight sections.

[ToniBabelony]

To tell the truth I don't own any train except my Yamanote-sen 4-car set, but still want to participate because it's just so easy to start with. Buying a small train is definitely in the planning though.

 

Owning small sized trains is always a good thing. There is no excuse, really :P

 

However, you can then only run trams and not other rolling stock that can manage the tight corners of Tomix unfortunately. You then render a lot of interesting trains from Kato, GreenMax and MicroAce useless.

 

I guess we could have easier curves, and keep the street running for the straight sections.

 

Then you can also use Unitrack (Kato), since they now have smaller radii and tram/street tracks named Unitram, like FineTrack (Tomix). It doesn't make a difference really if you look at it that way. Unitrack however has more advantages over FineTrack, since the connecting pins of Unitrack are easily replaceable with spares, whereas Finetrack connecting pins can (and probably will at some point) break off.

 

Unitram is also within the geometry of 25mm centred tracks (with conversion pieces to 33mm), so it's perfect for T-Trak as well. The thing is though, that it's still a very costly affair until Kato decides to release individual street tracks, instead of complete expensive sets.