Sort of club for Dutch/German/Belgian members?

[Ben]

Ok, I am sold on Using Kato! I have been looking for an excuse to get some Unitram segments anyway :-)

[Martijn Meerts]

So, to recap..

 

- Single track (to start with)

- Unitrack

- Standard module 308mm long and 70mm high.

- Standard module depth 200mm (increments of 50mm, so 150, 200, 250, 300mm where needed)

- Kato 20-000 + 20-040 (or 20-041 for a module with power feed) for 248mm + 62mm track length

- Corner modules with 249mm radius track (Kato 20-100)

 

 

Do we need some sort of system to vary height in case of uneven surface, or will we at first just bring a lot of beer coasters to stabilize things where needed? :)

 

Also, which turnouts will we be using where turnouts are needed? I'm guessing the smaller number 4?

[Densha]

Me likey.

 

What would be the size of the corner modules when using R249? They're talking about 290mm here, but their spacing is different.

 

Do we need some sort of system to vary height in case of uneven surface, or will we at first just bring a lot of beer coasters to stabilize things where needed? :)

That's also a possibility...

Also, which turnouts will we be using where turnouts are needed? I'm guessing the smaller number 4?

I assume the small one too, the other one has much too large radius.

[ToniBabelony]

What would be the size of the corner modules when using R249? They're talking about 290mm here, but their spacing is different.

That's not T-Trak. That's some standard made by Poppoya.

 

I was actually going for 216mm as a minimum, but seeing Kato releasing their Unitram turnout in a not too far away future, the radius of that one will be 180mm... Maybe too tight?

 

Maybe if we get so far (at least, I have some ambition to do so), we can bring maybe one or two modules to Japan and participate in an event or something like that. So, I'd like to comply to general standards in some way: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/official.html

 

Do we need some sort of system to vary height in case of uneven surface, or will we at first just bring a lot of beer coasters to stabilize things where needed? :)

That's also fine with me. It makes building modules much easier, but dealing with uneven surfaces less easy... However, solving things with beer(insert any or no variable) is always a good idea. Besides, hight can always be adjusted later with under layers of some sort.

 

Also, which turnouts will we be using where turnouts are needed? I'm guessing the smaller number 4?

I assume the small one too, the other one has much too large radius.

Agreed. However, anything goes on a module really. As long as standard rolling stock fits through and doesn't derail it's fine with me. :P

 

P.s. Maybe we should make up some kind of file (in .pdf form) to make things clear for interested people. Eventually, I'm willing to set up and design a website on the server of my firm, but before that happens, we need some examples to show off ;)

[Martijn Meerts]

I think the best option would be for corner modules to be the same size as straight modules, so 308x308mm. Not sure how that'd work with 249mm radius track, but we might instead use 216mm like they do in the link Toni posted. So a corner module would get a 45mm straight, 2 219mm radius curves and another 45mm straight.

 

To get started that should be a good option, since we know it'll fit. If we, after some running session, find the radius to be too tight, we can always come up with something else.

 

 

As for height adjustment, it's no problem to add some sort of adjustable feet even after the modules are done, so to make it easy on ourselves and get the project off the ground, I think we should stick with beer coasters. We should get some Japanese ones though =)

[Densha]

I don't exactly get what you mean, first I think you've made a typo at "So a corner module would get a 45mm straight, 2 219mm radius curves and another 45mm straight.". You mean 216mm, right?

But would it actually fit when making the corner modules 308mm? Or it would stand out very weird or it wouldn't fit. I don't really get it myself, but so far I think, I've made the picture below when the tracks are aligned correctly to the module, but not aligned for the other module's track and the spacing.

Edit: never mind, I was talking nonsense

 

My own calculation is: 249(radius)+50(spacing)=299mm=29.9cm. I don't know if I'm right, but I think so. I find these kind of things a bit difficult, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[Martijn Meerts]

Yeah, that should be 216mm radius.. I have very little experience with Unitrack, so I don't really know the various tracks all that well :)

 

Anyway, what I mean with the corner module is as show in this picture, just remove the inner curve completely. http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/k12.png

 

You'll end up with something like the attached image.

[ToniBabelony]

Looks pretty okay to me...

 

EDIT: oh yeah, hivemind!

[Densha]

Don't mind my English from the last post please, I didn't really get what I meant myself either.

 

It wasn't clear to me you meant with that. For 216mm radius, I think that's the best idea too.

 

But in the case of 249mm radius, what module size would you need? Could my calculation be right? And I don't think this sort of calculation is different for other types of track, Martijn.

[Martijn Meerts]

Densha, using 249 you'd end up with about 29.9cm yes. But it's better to have the corner modules be 308x308, so it'd be easier to make a layout that's not an oval :)

[Densha]

so it'd be easier to make a layout that's not an oval :)

Could you explain me why that is?

[Martijn Meerts]

Because the corner modules will be the same width as the regular modules, which means you don't need any compensation modules for the shorter corner modules ..

 

Theoretically at least, I'm no expert in these matters =)

[Densha]

Stupid internet, my router is still malfunction. Anyway, I've used your 308mm idea, and messed around a bit in Anyrail and it seems you are right. You can make very weird setups while they still keep connecting.

(In anyrail I made a lot of squares in the size of the modules and after they fitted approximately I added the tracks and moved them a bit until they fitted right moving them with the arrow keys per mm, makes it really easy to design T-Trak on the pc.)

 

I think 216mm is still very narrow, but for 249mm we need a different design probably, I'm going to figure it out. In corners, would it actually be needed to subtract 1 or 2mm from the 299mm I calculated?

 

I made the exact same design using 249mm radius with 298mm long corner modules and it seems to work exactly as it did with 308mm. So I actually think that it doesn't matter at all. Or I would be misunderstanding something again.

[Martijn Meerts]

If you try to make a U shape layout, you'll run into problems with the 249mm radius corner modules.

 

This kind of stuff is the reason why it'd be nice to meet up, so we can get it worked out, and do some sketches etc. to explain what we all mean :)

[Densha]

How exactly a "U"? Something like this? I think I get what you mean, since an extra 64mm piece has to be put on the bottom right. Personally I don't experience that as a big problem, if we have to, I don't mind to make such a compensation module. Making a small module of 62mm long or putting a Unitrack 20-440 (yes it is 62mm) piece between it can probably do to job, I think.

 

This kind of stuff is the reason why it'd be nice to meet up, so we can get it worked out, and do some sketches etc. to explain what we all mean :)

Was what I was already thinking.

[Martijn Meerts]

Densha, that's exactly the problem yes. Wouldn't be too difficult just adding a 62mm piece, or making a module that's 62mm longer than the standard really.

 

I'm wondering though, an a layout like you've drawn now, how would we go about running more than 1 train without them running into each other at some point? :) Obviously, a station with 2 track will allow 1 train to stop and another to move, but it seems to me it's rather limited. Might just be because I'm used to DCC though ;)

[Densha]

I'm wondering though, an a layout like you've drawn now, how would we go about running more than 1 train without them running into each other at some point? :) Obviously, a station with 2 track will allow 1 train to stop and another to move, but it seems to me it's rather limited. Might just be because I'm used to DCC though ;)

I don't really have a good idea to come up with to tell the truth. That was something I was thinking about earlier too.

Even if you would use DCC then they could run into each other because you can't get the exact same speeds. Then you would have to think about computer control with blocks, but that's exactly what we want to avoid, right?

What could be easier (and possibly cheaper) to do is having a sort of circuit automatically switching between both trains at the double track station, but I don't know how difficult it is, if it's even possible with such modules, and how expensive it is.

Alternatively we could go for double track, but that was actually too much of a hassle to start with originally (and I still think so too).

 

On corners again:

This time I tried a U shape with R216, but it doesn't work in the below right. :( (or am I doing something wrong?) It's a length of 113.35mm, can be solved by a 29mm and extension track but it not something we want at all.

Also the L shape doesn't work as I want it to do, with both the R216 and R249. I really don't know what's happening.

[brill27mcb]

I haven't seen anyone mention a very basic T-trak consideration. If you are going to make your modules into an oval, you want them to all fit within the width of the tables they will be placed on. You can use any size of corner module that meets that criterion. Then the corner size determines the maximum possible depth of the straight modules, so they are not hitting each other back-to-back. A small empty trough down the middle of the table between the two runs of straight modules provides a nice spot to hook up cables and have access to them.

 

Rich K.

[Densha]

@brill27mcb

That's totally true, Martijn or Toni said something like that earlier too. That was the reason why the depth of straight modules shouldn't be more than the size of the corner modules, and actually makes me think about the fact that with the 249mm radius, the straight modules can't be 30cm. Making just an oval is not bad either, but the reason why I started all commotion about weird setups was to check whether it was possible or not.

[Ben]

 

Alternatively we could go for double track, but that was actually too much of a hassle to start with originally (and I still think so too).

 

 

I don't have any experience making modules - but how much more trouble would it be to go for double track? It would make for a more interesting to operate layout. I think the t-trak standard is 25 mm double track spacing, the same as Unitram?

[Ben]

I was actually going for 216mm as a minimum, but seeing Kato releasing their Unitram turnout in a not too far away future, the radius of that one will be 180mm... Maybe too tight?

 

That's ok - by this future time we will have lots of modules built... (!) We can incorporate a junction module to a street running section, the trams and LRVs can take the curve and go along the street, and the longer units can go straight ahead at the junction and take the long way round!

[ToniBabelony]

If we require something like a module to fill gaps, IMO we should make some kind of 'inside-corner' module that we can use to make at least an 'L' shape.

 

We should also think about having some sort of a 'loop' module if we don't have enough space, or just one table side to show off. Otherwise some plain yard modules, but that is of later concern.

 

For running multiple trains, I think we should stick to DC, so it will be accessible for everyone. I also think that an automated system of double-track station tracks is also a good idea. Switches than need to be wired as standard and we have to develop some kind of simple electronic system for the platform tracks. Anyway, these are things best discussed in a face-to-face meeting IMO.

 

That's ok - by this future time we will have lots of modules built... (!) We can incorporate a junction module to a street running section, the trams and LRVs can take the curve and go along the street, and the longer units can go straight ahead at the junction and take the long way round!

My thoughts exactly.

 

I think the t-trak standard is 25 mm double track spacing, the same as Unitram?

Yep.

[Martijn Meerts]

double track modules is no more difficult than single track, except that we weren't agreeing on the spacing.. The Kato standard 33mm would be easier, but 25mm looks better =)

[ToniBabelony]

So, would it be more conventient to make single-track as a standard and 25mm and 33mm spacing as an option? 25mm definitely looks much better, but it's harder to make a transition module for single-track to 25mm with standard Kato tracks.

 

Example: if you'd like to make a double-track module, you're also obliged to bring two modules that can connect to the single-track standard.

[Densha]

The main reason I don't like 25mm spacing is because it looks bad on the corners, so the advantage of closer tracks leads to a disadvantage in the corners. That's my opinion about it.

On the other side you have the problem you described about transitions, and it's also not possible to make switches or at least in a very difficult way.

 

And also, if we have both double track and single track modules we can't just turn on two trains and we still have to problem of needing something like a switching circuit.