Sort of club for Dutch/German/Belgian members?

[Ben]

You must be joking - it's great here, I have an apartment twice the size my one in London was! 

 

My new job is at the university, TU Delft, so I was able to organize accomodation through the university. Not the cheapest, but a good deal I think.

 

Anyway, come meet up with us in Rotterdam and I can tell you all about it then!

[Densha]

In that case I was joking. ;)

Actually I do prefer more modern houses as all pipes are hidden, less noisy, etc. But I'm getting reeaaaly off-topic here.

 

Lol, an acquaintance of me also just got a job at the TU Delft.

[Ben]

All my trams arrived! (Why is it you wait a week for one, then six turn up at once?)

 

All intact, despite the shipper's best efforts...

 

Hurrah!

[Martijn Meerts]

No bootprints on the boxes and such? =)

[Ben]

No bootprints on the boxes and such? =)

 

Well, they managed to tear a big hole in one box. But no damage was done fortunately...

[Darklighter]

Sorry for OT: Do you have any suggestions on what to do on a Thursday afternoon in Eindhoven or for a half-day trip from there?

[Martijn Meerts]

I don't know much about Eindhoven, and most the train related stuff (train museum, mini world, etc) are a bit too far for a half-day trip probably.

[Densha]

So, continuing from 'you know what I mean', I was talking about viaducts bridges, and just came up with a better solution. If, only if, someone would make use of the Kato bridges or viaducts, the height of the track including the piers (if that's the correct word to use for it) would get to 60mm above the level of the bottom of the pier. So if the thickness of the wood would be 1cm then it would be exactly 7cm you will get to exactly the height we need. See KenS article (Viaduct Supports parts) for more info including the bridges Ben liked so much, right?

Also the incline (of Kato's piers but could be possibly used on ordinary inclines too) could be a maximum of 4% according to his article, that would take at least 1.75m to get from 7cm to ground level on the table (without a module of it and can't be done with Kato piers), if my calculation is right. But since many trains have not the best motors ever it could be maybe even take 2 meters, which is close to being much too long I think.

[KenS]

To be strictly correct, you can make the incline steeper or less than 4% by choosing where to attach supports to track, and using shorter or longer track elements.  I think 4% is what you get with out-of-the-box sets in their V series (although I never actually measured it) with 248mm segmentgs and without using intermediate supports, and 2% is what you get if you used the intermediate sets and doubled the length of the inclined track.  You can get steeper than 4%, but since Kato only rates its trains for 4%, that is likely to be problematic.

 

I try to use nothing more than 2% in my modeling, but I'm not working within the constraints of a modular system or pure Unitrack (I mosly use Woodland Scenics Riser and Incline styrofoam).

[Ben]

Hmmm. So if we want to have elevated track, it's not going to be practical to have a gradient to the elevated section in the constraints of a (portable!) modular system.

 

Solution: keep the track level, and have the ground level slope down! Could look cool!

[Densha]

I should add though that changing the level should only be done if we would make some siding tracks to park the trains, but it's probably even cheaper making a module for that rather than using a slope and putting separate pieces on the table.

 

I also have to add that when using the bridges the modules have to be upside-down of course, but I probably don't have to tell that.

[cteno4]

one warning with gradients and portable is they dont mix all that well. it can be done, but it brings in a lot of issues in that you have to have a certain set of modules there to make the transition up and down. they also take up quite a run of track to do so can limit a modular layout's footprint/design. when doing a modular, transportable layout you are already adding some variables in how well things run each time you set up (as opposed to a layout that its not broken down and moved and re-setup all the time), so inclines just add a bunch more headaches in there. if you really want raised tracks you can either have two sets of track on the layout (raised and ground) or just have your ground modules set up on higher legs to mate with viaduct/raised track.

 

one of our club members is experimenting with a little modular layout for himself and to bring to shows that is double kato unitrak. modules are 750mmx250mm. he is making many of the modules about 70mm high with foam and a 12mm board underneath that. then there is a piece of thin plywood along the faces following what ever the foam contour is for a facing. he plans on having some modules that are just the 12mm board with a very thin strip of foam on them with viaduct and other with the full foam strip at 70mm high as embankment tracks. two modules will be 4 bridge units with a small river. interesting compromise plan. only scenery right near the tracks for the most part except the curve modules will have larger scenery space. he wanted something that would fit in his car and make something about the overall dimensions of the jrm layout but with a lot less surface area to have to model and store (he lives in a smaller apartment).

 

cheers

 

jeff

[Densha]

I don't think the idea was to make elevated track, but I only know that Martijn (?) was talking about setting up a few tracks on just the table for storage a long time ago and maybe even has a different thought about it now, but it's a hassle to do that, and we probably won't have that much trains anyway.

Like I said, I think that we would only do bridge modules using upside down modules like this (terrible sketch):

[cteno4]

Densha

 

Yes this is a simple way to do this, been around in Japan and the basis for ulrich's little sectional layout.

 

http://www.jnsforum.com/index.php/topic,4682.200.html

 

Cheers

 

Jeff

[Densha]

@Jeff

Yeah I got the idea of upside-down modules from them.

[Martijn Meerts]

I'm fairly certain I can fit a helix on a corner module that would go down to table level on a compact area, but that's really something to think about at a later time. As we discussed, we should probably keep it simple, with mainly single track modules, some double track/passing track/station modules, and just make sure they're nice detailed. Just something that we can (easily) take to shows and see how much interest we get from people.

[Densha]

Yeah, I was just writing a few of my random thoughts, it isn't very useful I think. As I said I think it's probably cheaper or the same price to get a piece of wood instead of all tracks for a helix and stuff. Bridges modules are the same as straight anyway.

I'm not really adding any substance here, but whatever.

[SONIC883_de]

@Densha: Here the japanese site with many pictures of the mini modules

http://space.geocities.jp/popoya2008/menu.html

[Densha]

Yeah that one is a great inspiration.

[ToniBabelony]

Sorry about the delay. All of a sudden, I'm very busy and I don't have much time at home to work on the .pdf right now... Frankly, I've been working on a module (cardboard-base :P) at the same time and well, prioritising it over the .pdf... Sorry. Anyway, I hope to have it uploaded either tonight or tomorrow afternoon! Please be patient!

[Densha]

No problem! I have a lot of business for the coming two weeks anyway, so I probably won't start building until then so I don't really need the details at the moment either.

[ToniBabelony]

I have somewhat finished the files that defines that Dutch T-Trak standards with illustrations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aZThDWTZDp1YyYOmLHwBTaBQBNZ10VVhzc919AwPkXo/edit Please take a look and add comments in this thread if you'd like to see something changed/added before we can release a final version.

[Densha]

Personally I prefer having the outer track as the standard track rather than the inside one. The main argument for me is that the standard radius is larger that way, and I (and I don't know if I speak for others) like that.

 

I still also don't get the idea of outer and inner border, can you explain what it means and in what case it should be used? Also I realized that I find the straight 45mm tracks a bit weird, is there as reason as for why you chose to use it?

 

And as last, have you realized that there's that problem when your track is the same length as your module and can't couple both modules because of that. The modules have to be 308mm because of that. I'm sure we discussed this earlier but you haven't written about this in your 'guide'.

[Martijn Meerts]

I'm not sure about the main track thing.. I like the larger radius, but on the other hand, being able to place houses at the front of the module gives very Japanese scenes.

 

I guess we could do a bit of both though, it's not that hard making some transition module from front track to rear track I'd guess.

[ToniBabelony]

Personally I prefer having the outer track as the standard track rather than the inside one. The main argument for me is that the standard radius is larger that way, and I (and I don't know if I speak for others) like that.

 

It would have been good if you would have brought that up in the meeting. At the moment, I am already working on a module which complies with the standards we decided upon in the meeting. Also, IIRC Ben and Martijn were also very much inclined to the proposal.

 

I guess we could do a bit of both though, it's not that hard making some transition module from front track to rear track I'd guess.

 

True, but then the person that wishes to comply with their own standards should then also provide two modules to switch between the set-standard and their personal standards.

 

Anyway, the radius of 183mm will be featured in a double-track module anyway (no matter how you twist and turn it), plus it doesn't look too bad with tram/interurban trains running over it. You could always make a double-length-double-deep module to make a massive curve at that. As long as you stay in the 310mm grid, you should be fine. You could even go as far as to make a triple or quadruple length-deep module, but than you have to take the transport of that monster into account as well.

 

I still also don't get the idea of outer and inner border, can you explain what it means and in what case it should be used? Also I realized that I find the straight 45mm tracks a bit weird, is there as reason as for why you chose to use it?

 

Well, the S45 pieces are to keep the curve radius in the 310mm grid with standard Unitrack pieces, but you are always free to use different pieces. Provided you stick with the minimum radius of 180mm, all is well. In the description of each module the rail pieces are stated as 'recommended', so you don't need to stick to the description. It's merely there as a guideline to make things easier.

 

And as last, have you realized that there's that problem when your track is the same length as your module and can't couple both modules because of that. The modules have to be 308mm because of that. I'm sure we discussed this earlier but you haven't written about this in your 'guide'.

 

That is true, but it would be more than logical to leave some space open on each transition end of every module. However, you are very right about that and I'll also add that to the guide.