Densha's Keihan Ōtsu Lines T-Trak Project

[Densha]

Sooo... As many of you may know, there are plans to create some sort of Dutch Japanese T-Trak club, but apart from a standards guide and some try-outs by Toni and Martijn not much has been achieved yet except for postponing. I personally also came up with several ideas for prospective modules, but I never liked them enough to put them into reality. But more than that I couldn't decide what exactly I wanted to model. A double track suburban mainline; a single-track rural line; JR East; JR Shikoku; something completely different; etc. etc.

 

Eventually I narrowed down my modelling interest to the Keihan Ōtsu Lines and JR Shikoku, but decided to go with the Ōtsu Lines for my T-Trak modules because it fits better in the limited space of the modules and the rolling stock is cheaper. :P

I still want to make a layout for my JR trains one day, but that's for another time.

 

If you think of the Keihan Ōtsu Lines there's one thing that will immediately pop-up in your mind: the street running section. The street-running section is located south and west of Hamaōtsu Station where the Keishin Line and the Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line join. I first wanted to incorporate Hamaōtsu Station in the modules including the famous intersection, but while it's a very interesting station, it's way too big for a small T-Trak module and just not really to my taste scenery-wise. I also wanted to replicate the siding east of Hamaōtsu Station (you need some sidings anyway and that way it would be prototypical as well), but that made the station+intersection+sidings way too long and resulted in spacing problems between the Unitram switch needed for the intersection and the normal Unitrack switches for the siding. All in all an interesting challenge, but it just wasn't really what I was looking for.

 

 

Shinomiya Station

Looking for a way to put a station, sidings and interesting scenery in a small space, I came across Shinomiya Station located on the Keishin Line and Ōmijingūmae Station on the Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line. Ōmijingūmae Station has some sidings and a maintenance facility near the station, but Shinomiya Station has sidings adjacent to the station platforms which means that it's possible to put everything together in a very small space. Shinomiya station also has some nicer scenery with a river crossing the tracks just west of the station.

 

Because planning can't hurt I played a bit with Anyrail which resulted in this:

(Module size: 1240 x 310 mm)

 

The lengths of the platforms have to be at least 43 cm to provide space for the 4-car Keihan 800 series. Here you can see how it would look like with trains in the station:

(blue = 16m long Keihan 800 series; green = 2-car 15m Keihan train; red = standard 20m 3-car EMU; yellow = maintenance vehicle)

 

Apart from that this layout provides three platform tracks and sidings, it's also possible to change tracks using the middle platform track without causing a short circuit because of the power routing of the Unitrack turnouts and thus also shunting a train from the sidings to the outer track (below in the picture) should also be possible. The sidings are not really long enough to store an 800 series EMU, but as you can see with some creativity everything will fit. I could make the sidings longer by making them parallel to the main tracks, but that makes the view a bit boring.

 

The main disadvantage of this plan is that the station will be four modules long with no way of making shorter modules because of how the tracks are arranged. 1240 mm is quite a length...

 

There's one other problem: I don't really know which platform to use for the island platform. The distance between the centers of the tracks is 49.5mm, which means that Kato platforms which are made for 66mm spacing will not work. Tomytec/Tomix have some platforms with 25mm width, but I fear that those will be too narrow leaving ugly gaps between the train and the platform. Greenmax' city island platform is also too wide (40mm), but Greenmax' one-sided city platform could work being 30mm wide. I'm thinkin of kit-bashing the Greenmax side platform base with some roofs, but first I will have to measure everything.

 

Street-running is still something I want to have somewhere of course, but I'll probably make a separate module or two for that.

[velotrain]

_{I was initially confused, as I have always seen T-Trak as tiny foot-square modules, that look silly due to the rapidly changing landscape - and frequent presence of Godzilla, et al.}

 

_{Then I saw that you say this is four modules long.}

 

_{What is the benefit of using T-Trak standards if you really want longer, "more serious" modules?  I'd think something like 15" depth would give more opportunity for credible scenery and perhaps increased operation, especially on longer modules such as this.}

 

_{For me, looking at small trains on a ~30" high table from above is not an ideal viewing angle, and much prefer 48" or even 54" track height.} 

 

_{I can appreciate the desire not to include self-contained legs.  I'm building my modules with detachable, 18" long legs, so I'll have a 48" viewing height when set-up on "banquet" tables.  The overall light module weight means that the legs will not need to be very heavy, and they will have height-adjusting nuts at the bottom.  I'll use two 3/8" bolts and wing nuts, at a diagonal on each leg, to make the set-up fast and easy.  If over time I find it necessary, I can add a cross-brace at each end.}

 

 

_{You could easily shorten this design if you wanted.}

 

_{The crossover and platform-siding turnout could be moved to the next module, allowing longer platforms if desired.}

 

_{You would need to slightly shorten two of the yard sidings, but they could still contain the equipment you show on them.  This should get it down to a 3-module length.}

[katoftw]

With T-Trak, going prototypical is difficult with 300mm depth.  Especially if you already have a station dropped in there.  But you can make deeper.  Up to 365mm, the same depth as the corner modules.  Or if you want deeper again, then you place a single module between the corner modules, and you got another 310mm to play with.

 

I'd also like to point out that the only station that has both the 600s, 700s and 800s sharing the same platforms is Hamaotsu.

 

The 800 comes down the street and arrives.  All passengers get off and the train and it moves forward into a siding between the up and down lines.  Then when scheduled, it reverses direction and pulls up on the other platform to collect passengers, ready to move on to Kyoto.

 

I'm loving the idea.  I was thinking of something similar.  As my original T-Trak idea required platforms for 8 car trains.  Where using the smaller 2 and 4 car trains means I need half modules required.

[velotrain]

The 800 comes down the street and arrives.  All passengers get off and the train and it moves forward into a siding between the up and down lines.  Then when scheduled, it reverses direction and pulls up on the other platform to collect passengers, ready to move on to Kyoto.

 

 

Is this that siding?  It would add an interesting element, but take away some of that already narrow T-Trak module width we both mentioned.

 

What are the white "buttons" between the rails - large scale Tomix sensors?  I notice there aren't any on the outbound track.

 

 

[westfalen]

_{For me, looking at small trains on a ~30" high table from above is not an ideal viewing angle, and much prefer 48" or even 54" track height.} 

For setting up my T-TRAK modules as a home layout I am planning to use something like kitchen counters in my train room to sit them on to give a better viewing height with storage space beneath.  The first article here gives an idea of what I am aiming for. https://docs.google.com/a/nscale.org.au/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bnNjYWxlLm9yZy5hdXxuc21hfGd4OmY0N2UwNzlmYjUwYWU2NQ

 

Most people just think of little square modules when it comes to T-TRAK, you have to look outside the box so to speak to see what the format is capable of.  A scene can be spread over several modules that go together, I am planning an intermodal yard that will be spread over five double modules.

 

The white buttons in the photo are ATS sensors, you will note they are leading up to signals (at each end of the middle siding and the one facing away from the camera at the right).

[Densha]

What is the benefit of using T-Trak standards if you really want longer, "more serious" modules?  I'd think something like 15" depth would give more opportunity for credible scenery and perhaps increased operation, especially on longer modules such as this.

 

You could easily shorten this design if you wanted.

The crossover and platform-siding turnout could be moved to the next module, allowing longer platforms if desired.

You would need to slightly shorten two of the yard sidings, but they could still contain the equipment you show on them.  This should get it down to a 3-module length.

The "benefit" of using T-Trak is that the eventual aim is to join it with other people's T-Trak modules in the Netherlands and its vicinity. If someone actually gets to building them that is, but somebody needs to start.

 

T-Trak was obviously designed for small modules, but no one ever decided that you can't make longer ones (actually many people already did so). I personally don't see much problems concerning scenery space, because other modules that have only two tracks will have plenty of space for townscapes and whatnot. I will also add a backdrop to take away the sudden 'end of the world' effect. Another possibility is to make my own derivative of the Dutch T-Trak standard so that I can have both larger modules and join them together with 'standard T-Trak modules'.

 

As for your design, that would become something like this:

It looks like the 800 will fit, but only on one siding track out of three and there is no space for any other possible longer trains. The fourth siding track now also became unusable for any passenger train but that is not a very big problem.

I also prefer reducing the length of the module, but I don't think this is gonna work because the sidings are barely usable like this. Counting in the gaps couplers leave between cars I just don't think the sidings are long enough this way.

 

Reducing the length to a maximum of 930mm is probably best achieved by paralleling the sidings to the main tracks:

It does look a bit boring compared to having the sidings the other way, but this way I can easily lengthen the sidings to whatever length I want.

 

With T-Trak, going prototypical is difficult with 300mm depth.  Especially if you already have a station dropped in there.  But you can make deeper.  Up to 365mm, the same depth as the corner modules.  Or if you want deeper again, then you place a single module between the corner modules, and you got another 310mm to play with.

 

I'd also like to point out that the only station that has both the 600s, 700s and 800s sharing the same platforms is Hamaotsu.

 

The 800 comes down the street and arrives.  All passengers get off and the train and it moves forward into a siding between the up and down lines.  Then when scheduled, it reverses direction and pulls up on the other platform to collect passengers, ready to move on to Kyoto.

 

I'm loving the idea.  I was thinking of something similar.  As my original T-Trak idea required platforms for 8 car trains.  Where using the smaller 2 and 4 car trains means I need half modules required.

Looking at the T-Trak standards I am following, going beyond 310mm depth means using a larger radius corner module or having to add a straight module between the corner modules indeed.

 

Yep, Hamaotsu is the only station where all Otsu Lines rolling stock meets, but I'm not that whiny about being prototypical. Actually, before the 800 series started running on the underground section in 1997 the 600, 700 etc. ran on the Keishin Line. The 800 series also run on the Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line, but only for empty runs to the maintenance facility at Ōmijingūmae Station. (not sure if there are more facilities or not)

 

T-Trak is originally designed for shorter trains and modules. It certainly wasn't meant to be used for 8-car trains but with shorter trains like Enoden or the Keihan 600.

 

Is this that siding?  It would add an interesting element, but take away some of that already narrow T-Trak module width we both mentioned.

Yeah that's the siding at Hamaotsu. I don't really like including this siding because it only adds length instead of depth into the layout. Using the track layout at Shinomiya I can also simulate the same sort of services because the Shinomiya's middle track can be reached from both main tracks.

Here's an example of Hamaotsu station including the siding:

[katoftw]

The Hamaotsu Station would be a island platform.  And the 66mm spacing would have a wye and #4 turnouts connecting the siding inside the 66mm spacing.  The above is a little inaccurate.

[Densha]

It is, but it was just a quick example...

 

 

Are you happy now? :P

[katoftw]

Yes.

 

How long is a 800?

[velotrain]

As for your design, that would become something like this:

 

It looks like the 800 will fit, but only on one siding track out of three and there is no space for any other possible longer trains. The fourth siding track now also became unusable for any passenger train but that is not a very big problem.

 

/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/

 

True - but is it really any worse than the original plan?

 

You had 2X 2-car 15m Keihan trains, a maintenance vehicle, and a 16m long Keihan 800 series that was fouling a turnout and blocking one of the 2-car 15m Keihan trains.

 

With the new plan, all trains can freely leave their sidings except for the maintenance vehicle, which is arguably least in need.

 

I'll agree that the angled sidings are more visually interesting, but in the end it's a question of what type and how many trains you wish to park here.

 

Going back to the issue of module depth, if you used 375 or even 400 mm, and increased the angle of the yard lead, you could fit more longer trains.  Or, perhaps two tracks parallel to the main and spanning modules for long trains, and angled tracks for the shorter ones.

 

One or more of the parallel tracks could even become double ended sidings.  I would lengthen the second module to 930mm also.

 

If you do span the modules, one thing that would make it more interesting is to have a longer lead track, and have the yard elevated some from the main, which would also help with the scenery.  With the actual yard on the second module, you will have a visual / operational focal point on each module, and space for sidings as long as you want.  There would be space for a maintenance facility - at an even higher elevation - next to the yard lead on the original module.

 

> I personally don't see much problems concerning scenery space, because other modules that have only two tracks will have plenty of space for townscapes and whatnot. I will also add a backdrop to take away the sudden 'end of the world' effect.

 

I'm mostly saying that I think there is a lot of difference between 12" and 15-16" (310mm vs. 375-400mm) in terms of the perceived scene.

From 16" to 24" it does start to impact handling, storage, and transportation, but I think it's a lot easier to make 375-400mm look believable than 310 mm - especially if looking down on it sitting on a 30" high table.  If you're starting a new group, there is no reason to be tied into someone else's standards, unless you wish to interface with existing (non-Japanese) T-Trak modules. 

 

Actually, varying depths can be accommodated so long as there is one or more straight sections between the corners at the ends - assuming that the most important/basic standard is track-center offset from the front of the module.  In the T-Trak arrangements I have seen, there is so much variance in scenery from one module to the next, that variance in depth wouldn't seem to matter.  I would also consider viewing height options - but that's just my preference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[katoftw]

I'd also like to point out that the only station that has both the 600s, 700s and 800s sharing the same platforms is Hamaotsu.

I'd now like to point out that I was wrong.

 

A few 800s sit at the yards at Omijingumae Station.  So the must travel between Omijingumae and Hamaostu also.

 

Just to reference the yards at Omijingumae station.  I think this yard is more T-Trak friendly as the yards lines run parallel with the main lines.

[velotrain]

_{I noticed an old - possibly disused, dead-end siding east of Shinomiya Station, just beyond where the station siding rejoins the main, that has a track arrangement somewhat similar to that at Hamaōtsu.  The running tracks rise as the line heads east, while this siding remains level in what looks to be a concrete trench.  The eastbound track zigzags north around it, but appears to still be connected with a switch.  However, it looks like some rails of the westbound switch have been removed.  The satellite view here is not at all sharp.}

 

 

_{I had another thought on the modules.  Use two 930 mm ones, but shift the whole scene somewhat to the west, perhaps also nudging the eastern station siding switch westward.  This should provide enough space to shuttle Keihan 800's between the yard and the station, providing limited operation while you're waiting for enough modules to be built to allow loop running.  The downside is that the yard would need to straddle both modules - but you might be able to fit multiple 800's.}

[velotrain]

How long is a 800?

 

200 short of a full meter ;-)

 

The MicroAce model is 438 mm.

[katoftw]

Careful with your curves.

 

I had my Kumamoto 200 with 2-3mm gap between cars on R315 curve today, and there was a hair width left mid corner.

 

The Otsu 600s with 5-6mm gaps had 2-3mm left on the same curve.

 

If you are planning on those much smaller curves, you'll have to keep or increase the gap.  No TN couplers.

[katoftw]

Just to prove I was really wrong about the 600s and 800s sharing tracks:- 

 

Only street section on the Sakamoto-Ishiyama Line north of Hamaostu.

[katoftw]

_{I noticed an old - possibly disused, dead-end siding east of Shinomiya Station, just beyond where the station siding rejoins the main, that has a track arrangement somewhat similar to that at Hamaōtsu.  The running tracks rise as the line heads east, while this siding remains level in what looks to be a concrete trench.  The eastbound track zigzags north around it, but appears to still be connected with a switch.  However, it looks like some rails of the westbound switch have been removed.  The satellite view here is not at all sharp.}

It is used for the same reasons as the siding at Hamaotsu.  Only theory I can give for it being in a pit is for noise reduction for a residential area.

 

The example of track layout for the yards on the module Densha designed is somewhat incorrect.  When the train exits the yard, it doesn't go directly onto the main lines.  They have to zigzag train out.  Via a 3rd road siding, then back onto and past the 3rd platform.  And if the train is to head west, then it will use this siding to access the Kyoto direction line.

Edited April 4, 2015 by katoftw

[Ken Ford]

Just to prove I was really wrong about the 600s and 800s sharing tracks:- 

 

Only street section on the Sakamoto-Ishiyama Line north of Hamaostu.

 

Must not research... must not research... MUST NOT RESEARCH!

[velotrain]

It is used for the same reasons as the siding at Hamaotsu.  Only theory I can give for it being in a pit is for noise reduction for a residential area.

 

The example of track layout for the yards on the module Densha designed is somewhat incorrect.  When the train exits the yard, it doesn't go directly onto the main lines.  They have to zigzag train out.  Via a 3rd road siding, then back onto and past the 3rd platform.  And if the train is to head west, then it will use this siding to access the Kyoto direction line.

 

Except that it looks to me like they've partially dismantled the switch from the siding to the westbound track.

I'm sure that's the reason it was built, but it must be used for something else now - if anything.

The other possibility for the trench is that they prefer the siding on level ground.

 

Also, unlike Densha's trackplan, I don't see a crossover anywhere near this station, which makes me wonder if all trains staged from the yard here are initially sent east?

That makes sense, as they would head out in the morning to get passengers heading into the city.

No idea how they handle it in the evening.

Perhaps the dead-end siding is used to store trainsets that have exited the yard, but are not ready for their run?

 

Would that 3rd road siding be what the British call a head-shunt, or is that only used for freight operations?

[kvp]

 

If you are planning on those much smaller curves, you'll have to keep or increase the gap. No TN couplers.

TN couplers close the gap on straights and increase it (up to 8mm) on curves. Since they are spring loaded, the cars will push themselves apart when needed.

 

Also, unlike Densha's trackplan, I don't see a crossover anywhere near this station, which makes me wonder if all trains staged from the yard here are initially sent east?

There is a crossover is just west of the station, right below the stub track of the yard. This means A train coming out of the yard and heading west has to go across the 3rd track, into the storage siding, reverse into the 2nd track and then cross over after the station. A train coming from the east has to arrive at the 1st track, reverse after the station, cross it on the 2nd into the siding and then move across the 3rd to reach the yard. The dismantled crossing made these movements slightly easier. For the model, i would keep both crossings.

 

 

 

[velotrain]

There is a crossover is just west of the station, right below the stub track of the yard.

 

Thanks kvp - I hadn't spotted that, perhaps because the pole shadows are at a similar angle.

[Densha]

First about the prototypical track layout at Shinomiya...
kvp made a good scheme of the track layout near Shinomiya station. I don't know about the exact operations, but it sounds realistic.
Google maps also has a clear outline of the track layout: https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Shinomiya+Station/@34.991982,135.8243805,19z/
And here are some links with photos:
http://keihano2love.blog.fc2.com/blog-category-207.html
http://keihano2love.blog.fc2.com/blog-category-176.html
http://keihano2love.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-721.html
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 

Going back to the issue of module depth, if you used 375 or even 400 mm, and increased the angle of the yard lead, you could fit more longer trains. Or, perhaps two tracks parallel to the main and spanning modules for long trains, and angled tracks for the shorter ones.

Do you mean something like this?

(depth = 35cm)
As you can see the angled siding tracks will interfere with the module transition so I don't think that's gonna work. With some lengthening of some tracks it may work, but I don't really like the looks of that so far.
 

If you do span the modules, one thing that would make it more interesting is to have a longer lead track, and have the yard elevated some from the main, which would also help with the scenery. With the actual yard on the second module, you will have a visual / operational focal point on each module, and space for sidings as long as you want. There would be space for a maintenance facility - at an even higher elevation - next to the yard lead on the original module.

Something like this? Looks quite good actually, but I don't get where exactly you want to put the maintenance facility.
(depth = 31cm)

 

I also made a track plan with the turnout to the sidings on the right of track 3, but the sidings get quite a bit shorter like that and more important, analog operation while become very difficult when trying to get a train from the outer (southern) track to the sidings. So this one goes into the trash bin.

 

> I personally don't see much problems concerning scenery space, because other modules that have only two tracks will have plenty of space for townscapes and whatnot. I will also add a backdrop to take away the sudden 'end of the world' effect.

I'm mostly saying that I think there is a lot of difference between 12" and 15-16" (310mm vs. 375-400mm) in terms of the perceived scene.
From 16" to 24" it does start to impact handling, storage, and transportation, but I think it's a lot easier to make 375-400mm look believable than 310 mm - especially if looking down on it sitting on a 30" high table. If you're starting a new group, there is no reason to be tied into someone else's standards, unless you wish to interface with existing (non-Japanese) T-Trak modules.

Actually, varying depths can be accommodated so long as there is one or more straight sections between the corners at the ends - assuming that the most important/basic standard is track-center offset from the front of the module. In the T-Trak arrangements I have seen, there is so much variance in scenery from one module to the next, that variance in depth wouldn't seem to matter. I would also consider viewing height options - but that's just my preference.

I understand what you mean about the depth, but before deciding on the definite modules I'm planning on doing a test arrangement and I'll probably decide from that which dimensions I'm going with in the end. I'm just really only making some track plans now, that doesn't mean that I will be building everything exactly as my current plans are.
 
As for the "being tied to someone else's standards"... together with some other people from JNS, I was one of those who decided on these "Dutch T-Trak standards". Of course I can decide not to follow the standards, but except for possibly module depth I don't see any reason why I shouldn't follow them because there's nothing wrong with them.
 
Also, while there can be much difference between T-Trak modules if everyone makes their own modules that are not adjusted to each other, I intend to make my own T-Trak layout mainly for personal use and eventually maybe taking them to meetings/shows when there's more people who made their own.

 

I had another thought on the modules. Use two 930 mm ones, but shift the whole scene somewhat to the west, perhaps also nudging the eastern station siding switch westward. This should provide enough space to shuttle Keihan 800's between the yard and the station, providing limited operation while you're waiting for enough modules to be built to allow loop running. The downside is that the yard would need to straddle both modules - but you might be able to fit multiple 800's.

I'm trying to understand what you mean, but I don't. :(

 

I'd now like to point out that I was wrong.

A few 800s sit at the yards at Omijingumae Station. So the must travel between Omijingumae and Hamaostu also.

Just to reference the yards at Omijingumae station. I think this yard is more T-Trak friendly as the yards lines run parallel with the main lines.

As I said before, yes the 800s indeed run between Ōmijingūmae and Hamaotsu. Note that I have also seen some recent photos of 600s/700s as far as Shinomiya. I have no idea what they where doing there, but just to confirm that you can pretty much run Keishin Line and Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line stock together. But more than that, it's my layout and I'll run trains on it I like so I don't really care for it that much.
 
Ōmijingūmae yard is in some sense more T-Trak friendly, but if I would be doing Ōmijingūmae it would end up looking like the last two track plans I posted a bit above in this post because I need to be able to switch between the main tracks so it doesn't really matter that much. Maybe I'll combine the best of both world. :D

 

The example of track layout for the yards on the module Densha designed is somewhat incorrect. When the train exits the yard, it doesn't go directly onto the main lines. They have to zigzag train out. Via a 3rd road siding, then back onto and past the 3rd platform. And if the train is to head west, then it will use this siding to access the Kyoto direction line.

Yes, my track layout is not an exact copy of the real Shinomiya station, but rather based on. Copying every single thing would be very difficult to fit in a relatively small space and I don't like all parts of the prototypical track layout there so I changed them to my liking and the operational possibilities I want on my layout.
 
A copy of the real Shinomiya would be like this; a whopping 279 x 35 cm... No, I don't have space for that nor the money to buy all those expensive turnouts. (of which the latter is already sorta a problem in this whole modelling Shinomiya station plan anyway)

 

__________________________________________________________________________
 
Some other thoughts... Hamaotsu station, taking up 186 cm:

(And yes, both 600s and 800s should be able to take the R180 Unitram curves)

 

A standard two-track side-platform station, taking up 3 modules or 93 cm:

__________________________________________________________________________
 
Some links to blogs with Keihan-themed layouts:
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/hk_hs_fun_hanharufun/folder/965199.html (partly based on Anō station)
http://fujikeikoh.blog22.fc2.com/blog-category-2.html

[katoftw]

Must not research... must not research... MUST NOT RESEARCH!

C'mon Ken.  Everyone needs an 11th project.  :cussing:

[katoftw]

Densha - Love the track plans.

 

I trialed a few things on Anyrail last night and came up very similar for the Hamaotsu section.  I used 4 double modules.  The module end bisected the platforms.  But all good cos the platforms and above building can be dropped in place then together.

 

I thought for my attempt that the points and west running street section just be dummy tracks.

 

I also made up a 3 double module section of the Omijingumae station and yards.  Had 2 open air roads and 2 roads into the sheds.

 

Leaves 1 double module to make whatever I want.  Probably farming scene or a mountain w/ temple like near Sakamoto or mountain w/ shine near Omijingumae.

 

For T-Track in Australia, we use 180x76cm portable tables, so I already have 2 of them, so can go up to 3600 in length.  Or 4 double modules, 1 single modules, and the 2 corners (36.5x36.5cm in oz as we use R282/315 curves).

[Ken Ford]

Another video a friend turned up - this is a very appealing line!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_GT3woPlGw&feature=youtu.be

[Ken Ford]

C'mon Ken.  Everyone needs an 11th project.  :cussing:

 

(fingers in ears) La la la la la la la la...