Densha's Keihan Ōtsu Lines T-Trak Project

[velotrain]

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

 

Yeah, right.

 

"  - this is a very appealing line!"

[Ken Ford]

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

 

[Densha]

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).

katoftw,

 

Can you also post your track plans? Would be interesting to look at!

 

Having the turnouts on the street running section be dummies is a very good idea! I was thinking of possibly using the junction for a line to an underground terminal station (just like the real Keishin-Tozan Line), but making them dummies saves a lot of costs. Unitram turnouts are very expensive after all.

 

I don't have any tables or so for T-Trak. I can have a 3 modules long module (let's make "module" a length unit :P) on my desk and can store them on shelves, but apart from that I will have to put the modules on the floor when I want to run trains on them. I don't mind that though, it's still much better than running trains directly on the floor.

 

 

Concerning videos:

 

[katoftw]

Yeah I'll post up some plans today.  I was just tinkering and didn't really save much.  But I'll do it sometime today.

[velotrain]

Densha - A very thorough response, and I will see you :-)

 

After I wrote my unfavorable comment about T-Trak, I decided that I should look into it some more.  I discovered that there are all sorts of interpretations of it, including this:

 

http://ttrak.wikidot.com/railway-modellers-club-of-queensland-tall-timbers-tramway

 

which I would suggest is more of a sectional layout than modules, as it seems there are only a limited number of ways that it can be set-up, and not all sections are interchangeable - which defines modules to most people.

 

I can appreciate the origins, and the populist concept of all Japanese modelers being able to build a very small module that they can transport on a subway or bus to a meeting.  But when a more limited group of modelers wishes to build modules for a specific purpose - such as Dutch (and nearby) modelers wishing to build a modular Japanese layout, I think modifications to the module depth (and perhaps height) can provide a more realistic and satisfying experience. 

 

I think it makes a major difference if all involved share a similar concept of what they're after, otherwise there will be modules that are toylike

 

   

 

mixed in with more "serious" modules.  I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with such models, just that they can be distracting if most of the module makers have "their heads in a different place".  This comment is not specific to T-Trak at all, but modules in general.

 

> 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.

 

From the little that I know of you, I am sure that you would want all the modules to look good together, even if it is clear that different people designed and built them.

 

I have always been impressed how European FREMO groups can permit a lot of individual freedom, but end up with large groups of modules that look like they belong together - perhaps more importantly, there are none that look like they don't belong.

 

 

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

 

> Something like this? Looks quite good actually, but I don't get where exactly you want to put the maintenance facility.

 

 

Actually, I had made this proposal before looking at images of the proto scene, and then felt a bit guilty at suggesting you move away from that.  The long lead track would allow you to raise the yard somewhat above the main line, and I think varied elevation is always something that adds visual interest.  It also helps to blend the modeled scene into the background, as the landscape is already rising.  I was thinking the maintenance facility could reverse back from perhaps the top siding in your drawing, although it might not be long enough for 800 trains.

 

After seeing the proto yard, I better understand why you prefer the tracks to be at an angle, but this is exactly the sort of situation where a little more module depth would allow you to do this more easily. 

I don't understand this from the Standards Guide, "The depth of a module is defined by the user/creator of the module itself, but should also be in line with the 310 mm standard." 

Sort of - you can make your own choice, so long as it is 310 mm?

 

> I will also add a backdrop to take away the sudden 'end of the world' effect.

 

If these yard modules were a little deeper than the others, you could "cove" the rear corners to bring the backdrop into alignment with those on the sides of it.

 

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

 

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

 

Something like this:

 

 

 

but - with the yard lead coming off the main as you originally drew it.  It would allow all the yard (and station) tracks to be on a single module, and provide some ability to move trains between the station and the yard.  This gives you some "self-contained" operation while you wait for the group to have enough modules for a loop.  If both modules were 930 mm, you could even move 800's.  Final location of the crossover TBD.

 

If you do wish to maintain the T-Trak 310 mm depth, then perhaps something like the design with the station and yard on separate modules would work best, so all of the track isn't clustered together on a single module.  You could even use a short curve track before the road crossing to give a little angle to the yard tracks.  That also might create space for the maintenance equipment track.

 

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

 

One other thing to consider for the group.  Instead of aiming for a traditional loop, consider a linear run with turnaround modules at each end.  If you built these yourself, then you would be ready for a show with just the four modules, and could easily expand.  Of course, this probably doesn't work if you want to run Shinkansen, but if you restrict (dedicate) yourselves then you could use this approach, and it avoids the problems of always needing four corner modules and matching lengths of modules on all four sides. 

 

It addresses the problem of what to do if someone doesn't show up for a meet - especially someone with a corner module!  Since it is your idea, if you commit yourself to always showing up, then you can always operate - even if no one else comes.  Plus, you can accommodate any number of straight modules, so long as the exhibition space has enough room.

 

If you could all agree to make it a Keihan-themed layout, then at some point you could model Hamaotsu station as a real junction with all routes represented by modules!  One additional benefit of modeling this sort of operation is that the prototypical slow speed - and linear run - will make the layout seem longer, vs. Shinkansen flying around it in circles every few seconds. 

 

Eventually maybe someone can build city modules with underground subway running.  My limited knowledge of the European modeling scene tells me that the informed audiences at meets there would be much more interested in modules representing - or at least inspired by, a prototypical railway than "generic Japanese".

[katoftw]

The tall timber layout started out as regular t-trak but quickly evolved away from any standards.  I have met the modellers of the layout many times.  The modules sit in a trailer with shelves (as discussed previously) about 35 minutes from my home.

 

One of the modelers used to model Japanese Railways, mainly commuters and Shinkansens before doing what he is doing now.

 

I can grab you some photos of tall timber sometime if you'd like some more.

[velotrain]

I can grab you some photos of tall timber sometime if you'd like some more.

 

I had a thorough look around their site and don't feel a need for more images.

 

They're an extreme case, but I ran across other local adaptations of T-Trak.

 

I'm generally turned off by the extreme shallow depth and low display height (both of which they modified), but bothered by how they lost the "democratic" focus, which I see as a major component of the original intent.  It's a fixed sectional layout, so doesn't leave room for new people to join in spontaneously.  In fact, I was just reading that there are now so many module-owners in the NMRA group I used to belong to, they now need to "ration" how many shows a year each member can bring modules to.

 

I see this as a major benefit of the linear approach - as long as you have two end return-loops, any number of modules can be positioned between them, and an inside corner allows you to follow walls.  It is helpful if people build long or "paired" modules, as they provide an opportunity to vary the track routing away from being endlessly straight.  I used to be in an HOn30 module group, which used 24" deep modules, but the single track was located 17" in from the front (at module edges), so the trains passed through the landscape - instead of in front of it.

[Densha]

> Something like this? Looks quite good actually, but I don't get where exactly you want to put the maintenance facility.

 

Actually, I had made this proposal before looking at images of the proto scene, and then felt a bit guilty at suggesting you move away from that.  The long lead track would allow you to raise the yard somewhat above the main line, and I think varied elevation is always something that adds visual interest.  It also helps to blend the modeled scene into the background, as the landscape is already rising.  I was thinking the maintenance facility could reverse back from perhaps the top siding in your drawing, although it might not be long enough for 800 trains.

 

After seeing the proto yard, I better understand why you prefer the tracks to be at an angle, but this is exactly the sort of situation where a little more module depth would allow you to do this more easily.

I don't understand this from the Standards Guide, "The depth of a module is defined by the user/creator of the module itself, but should also be in line with the 310 mm standard."

Sort of - you can make your own choice, so long as it is 310 mm?

Hmmm well that maintenance facility thing would become a little too complicated for my tastes if I did it like that. But I also like this track plan, not bad at all. I'm not sure about elevating lines because of both the prototypical situation and more important that elevation is difficult to achieve with T-Trak. But maybe I also just don't really feel like doing so. :P

 

What is meant is that you there is no minimum depth of the module, but only a maximum depth of 310mm. But as said before, it's not really a problem if a module or two would be protruding a bit. It only has to be made sure that there are enough straight modules on the side to make it so that it won't get in the way of the modules on the opposite side.

 

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

 

Something like this:

 

 

but - with the yard lead coming off the main as you originally drew it.  It would allow all the yard (and station) tracks to be on a single module, and provide some ability to move trains between the station and the yard.  This gives you some "self-contained" operation while you wait for the group to have enough modules for a loop.  If both modules were 930 mm, you could even move 800's.  Final location of the crossover TBD.

 

If you do wish to maintain the T-Trak 310 mm depth, then perhaps something like the design with the station and yard on separate modules would work best, so all of the track isn't clustered together on a single module.  You could even use a short curve track before the road crossing to give a little angle to the yard tracks.  That also might create space for the maintenance equipment track.

The main problem I have with that idea is that you can't have angled tracks at module transitions. (Well, you could, but I don't think that's a very good idea.) So that results in a strange S-curve from the main track to the sidings that is not very visually appealing. The other problem is that I needed to mirror the station because otherwise you can't reach the sidings if an 800 series stands at platform 3 so that means that the whole Shinomiya scene has to change to something else. I'm not sure about this plan.

 

If only a 4 module long module would have been easier to carry and store...

 

______________________________________________

 

About T-Trak groups etc...

 

Even if I would indeed decide to go for a Keihan layout that still doesn't mean I can find others who also want to model this prototype. There are really only a very few Japanese railway modellers in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (the countries closest to the Netherlands) and I personally only know a handful of people of who I'm not sure they even know about this prototype or actually care for interurbans and rather model other parts of Japanese railways. Now that is of course something I can always ask them about, but it's all just very vague at the moment.

 

I only know that Martijn (Meerts) is also experimenting with T-Trak modules, but apart from that there are no people yet who have said they are thinking of building modules. On the other hand, like everything in humanity, if one person starts then usually others follow. But again, if they don't want to model Keihan I can't "force" them to model Keihan. There are so few Japanese railway modellers here that probably most people will have entirely different tastes. That's why we thought T-Trak would be the best, so that everyone can enjoy the hobby in their own way while still being able to meet up and run together on one layout.

 

I would really be thrilled if this whole thing could become reality, but you also have to be realistic. I think it's best to just start for myself while leaving open options for others to join. It's already been three years since the "Dutch T-Trak standard" has been made, but apart from a few modules Toni built before he moved to Japan there's not any finished module. In that light, I will definitely not start with a big station as my first module. I'll also first do experimenting with a single or double module before tackling such big projects..

 

As for a "turnaround module"... while the basic idea is good, you can't just let two trains run at the same time on the layout like that. A traditional loop has an outer and an inner track so you can run two trains at once, but you can't do that with a turnaround module without all kinds of electronics that I don't know about. I personally also don't like how such turnaround modules look, but you could easily cover that up if you would want to. The idea of an L-shaped layout however sounds great.

[velotrain]

 I will definitely not start with a big station as my first module. I'll also first do experimenting with a single or double module before tackling such big projects.

 

Oh . . . you didn't tell us it was just a fantasy.

[katoftw]

  I used to be in an HOn30 module group, which used 24" deep modules, but the single track was located 17" in from the front (at module edges), so the trains passed through the landscape - instead of in front of it.

This has been done in T-Trak.  There is no reason why the center if the closest track need to be 50mm from the edge.  I've seen many modules with tracks down the centre of the modules.  And the is what they call a transition module which is 620mm long and the plan make you able to switch the module next to it buy 180 degrees.  You need another module again to bring you back to normal standards.

[Densha]

Oh . . . you didn't tell us it was just a fantasy.

I would say I really want to eventually create a station module like this, but it may not be feasible to do it right now. (especially money-wise because those turnouts are expensive and time-wise) That does not take away that my goal is to eventually build Shinomiya, Omijingumae or Hamaotsu.

[kvp]

 

As for a "turnaround module"... while the basic idea is good, you can't just let two trains run at the same time on the layout like that. A traditional loop has an outer and an inner track so you can run two trains at once, but you can't do that with a turnaround module without all kinds of electronics that I don't know about. 

There are two kinds of turnaround modules. One is a single track one with a loop control circuit and the second one is the two track one, with a single isolator in both rails around the middle of the loop. This way as as long as both controllers are turned to opposing directions on the main, the whole layout is just a folded dogbone. The trains can pass from one power district to the other. Speeds has to be matched or some form of block control is needed for fully autmatic operation, but if you stop each train in the middle and only start them when the other arrives, then they won't catch each other.

 

Another way to make a layout like this is to have two terminal stations. They can be single or multi tracked, but the idea is to only connect them to one direction at a time. The trains arrive with one controller and after a changeover and some turnout flipping, they leave on the other track with the other controller. This is fully prototypical, but you have to drive the trains manually to stop at the stations. (including the terminals) This is also prototypical.

[Densha]

Do you mean stopping and starting trains in the middle manually or having the trains start and stop with some kind of device?

[kvp]

Easiest to wire is the manual stop. You just connect the two controllers to the two tracks and stop both trains at the middle station by hand. (two hands = two trains) If one is faster, it will arrive a bit sooner, but when you start them around the same time, then they couldn't catch each other before arriving back to the middle. There are several places to put the isolators, for example here are two common ones:

(the green arrows indicate the place for the middle station and the controller feed points)

 

And the terminus station version, with two end station variants:

 

The red and blue sections are connected permanently to a controller, the green ones are selected with a power routing switch, the first is the unconnected state, the second is arrival, the third the departure state. Still two controllers and hands only, but each station needs a power selector switch and turnout controls. (preferably on the left and right of the two controllers in the middle) On the layout above, two trains can move at the same time between three or more stations with one end station storing one extra train, that can be selected with another power switch, so the active and inactive tracks can be switched.

 

Both layouts can be built with zero automation, two controllers (trafos), some isolating joiners or tracks and a few off the shelf turnout and power routing switches (the latter having two controller inputs and a single track output). They can be operated by one person with two hands.

[Densha]

I've been wondering... what happens on the first plan when one bogie of a powered car is on section 1 and the other bogie on section 2? Does that work fine?

[kvp]

As long as the polarities are matching, not much. This means you have to turn the controllers according to the direction of travel in each direction when a train is crossing across two power districts. Just make sure you plug both controllers into the same power strip and turn them on/off together. Mismatched polarities will cause a short, very much like a derailment or a cut switch would. Afaik Kato controllers are protected against this. Analog fremo layouts (fremo-N) use this block to block control with one dedicated controller per station and direction. If you have more than one person to operate the layout, you can use more than two controllers and move more than two trains at a time. Usual setup is two controllers per station on a two track modular layout, with each controller dedicated to one direction. Larger stations can have as much as 4 controllers so they can handle two arriving and two departing trains at the same time. This requires at least 2 persons to operate.

[westfalen]

Eventually maybe someone can build city modules with underground subway running.

It has been done.  I think it was on the T-TRAK Facebook group a while back that someone posted photos of a module with an airport with a subway station beneath.

[cteno4]

I made a prototype subway module that our 1" tall standard streetcar modules can sit on top of. I've got the parts cut out and the track ready to make a 10 module loop, but got stalled on the project. Was planning on having stations on either side and an underground shopping arcade in between.

 

I'll snap some Picts of the prototype module.

 

Jeff

[westfalen]

Some interesting track plans.  One of the ideas in the back of my head is a set of modules depicting a Japanese suburban station with a stabling area for trains.

 

One thing I would avoid if at all possible is putting turnouts right at the ends of the modules.  A couple of replacments on my 'Whereford' set of Santa Fe depot modules after a few too many accidental bumps during layout setup have taught me to put at least a 29mm straight at the end of the modules.

[ToniBabelony]

It has been done.  I think it was on the T-TRAK Facebook group a while back that someone posted photos of a module with an airport with a subway station beneath.

 

You know what, I know that guy who developed that idea. He made a handful of modules that incorporated this concept to be able to show a full double circle with this in action. It didn't have much following though: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/local.html (bottom of the page).

[westfalen]

You know what, I know that guy who developed that idea. He made a handful of modules that incorporated this concept to be able to show a full double circle with this in action. It didn't have much following though: http://white.zero.jp/t-trak/standard/local.html (bottom of the page).

Not the same guy, this was an American.

[ToniBabelony]

Not the same guy, this was an American.

 

Ah, when it's T-Trak, I tend stick to the original: https://www.facebook.com/groups/287301574782550/

[velotrain]

The original Evil Empire?

[ToniBabelony]

The original Evil Empire?

 

Please elaborate.

[velotrain]

_{Just a personal opinion based on some publicly reported events.}

 

_YMMV