Minimal-purchase layout plan

[scott]

I've been trying to come up with an idea for a smallish Japanese layout, and trying to work mostly with track already have. And recently I've been looking at pictures of the Iida Line, which gave me lots of ideas.

 

The following 2.5x8' layout would only require me to buy 2 #6 turnouts and 2 64mm straights.

 

The track is very simple--only really room for two trains at a time, one parked and one running--but there's plenty of room for rural scenery. The horizontal divider is just conceptual--it shows how the layout would be two-sided, with a significant visual separator (wooded ridge) along the middle.

 

Any thoughts?

 

[edit] Forgot to mention that this is intended for 3- or 4-car EMUs and the occasional very short, very lost blue train. Oh, and that the 3/4 straight at the upper left could be replaced with a turnout to put a hidden storage siding under the ridge.

[disturbman]

Looks good to me but, you should maybe think about replacing one side by a hidden yard or let provision to add one in the future. It will give you more flexibility.

 

I can clearly see very short tunnels here and there on the bridge side of the layout. Looks promising.

[KenS]

Looks good, and I like the idea of a ridge as a scenic divider. There are some nice near-vertical ridges on the line so you should be able to have a high divider (like 8+ inches) and look reasonable.

 

Looking at photos and a route map of the line on wikimedia, the thing that strikes me about it is that the line runs from the coast into the mountains (the first picture I saw had a 4% (40/1000) grade sign).  Consider putting the "valley" side at a lower elevation from the station, and using the curved portions to drop down to it on a 3% or 4% grade (test your rolling stock, but 4% should work if it has traction tires). At 3% you'd only have around a 1-inch rise on each curve, easy to model with foam and WS risers, but it should be long enough to make the visual point that this isn't flatland.

 

disturbman's idea for tunnels could work well with that: put one curve in a tunnel and you won't see it as down-and-up, but as down-and-into-a-tunnel, since you'd only see the grade on one end (make sure to build an access for fixing derailments in the tunnel).

[scott]

I haven't gotten to the grades yet, but how about this--rather than hidden yard complicating the heavily-terrained scenic side where a turnout doesn't make sense, I could just add a siding by the station. This would require one more turnout, but I have the rest of the pieces.

[disturbman]

If you are happy with it, I think it's a great addition.:) And you could connect such a siding to the table limit and possibly use it to connect the layout to a hidden yard so you can send new trains in or out. In fact, that's msotly what I meant when I referd to the yard idea. Plus, you don't need to build it now. you can wait for less cash strap times. :)

 

Back on the tunnel idea, I some very short will look great next to the bridge. Maybe before it, in the midle of the first curve of the S, or maybe after it. But, you'll see that later.

[CaptOblivious]

I think Plan 2 looks excellent. However, running three trains on that layout would require DCC. If you have three trains parked in the station, and want to pull the train off the one-sided siding…at least one other train is going to want to try to come with it under a DC scheme, even with routing turnouts.

 

Nevertheless, I like it. I imagine the station could double as a fiddle yard when running the layout for young viewers; but when you are running it for yourself, you also have the option of a little bit of station operations for your own entertainment. A nice balance, I'd say.

[disturbman]

Three train operation?! You can't do that with DC in this configuration. You'll need to change things a bit.

 

You could have something like that:

1/ This layout allow you to connect a fiddle yard later in the game and it simulate the junction of two lines. You could also extend the layout further by adding one or more modules. It would be great for simulating a busy intersection with small EMU consists.

Pros: it gives you more operational possibility and you can have three different trains at the same time on the layout. It's easily extendable

Cons: it's a tad lenger than the original draft and you'll need five switches instead of two or three.

2/ Allmost the same as your second proposition but with one more yard.

Pros: You can run a three train operation in DC with no problem whatsoever. You also gain some operational possibility and don't need to extend the size of the layout.

Cons: More turnouts than expected.

[scott]

Thanks, guys--I appreciate the suggestions. I guess I wasn't thinking too clearly when I did layout 2, but this is one way to learn.

 

BTW--I'm not planning to literally recreate the Iida Line with this; it's more of an inspiration than a literal model.

[KenS]

Three train operation?! You can't do that with DC in this configuration. You'll need to change things a bit.

 

Actually, you could.

 

Divide the track into four blocks:

1) Station main, excluding switches.

2) Station siding.

3) "East" from station (including switch) to some point in the valley.

4) "West" from that point back to the station (including switch).

 

Isolate both rails at each point (you could run with a common rail and isolate one, but isolating both is, to my mind, easier to diagnose).

 

Each block would need at a minimum an on/off switch between it and the power pack (dual pole, dual throw is what I'd use even with one power pack, as it would let you add a second later). Alternatively, using something like the Kato power pack and wiring (I don't know what you have) you could plug the power pack into whichever block you wanted live (you'd need a splitter to plug it into two blocks simultaneously for the train to move between them; Kato makes one).

 

Train 1: east block (hide it in a tunnel, if you can)

Train 2: station main

Train 3: station siding

 

Train 1 can move throught the valley to the west block and stop (anywhere, but just outside the station as if it had a red signal is a good place), allowing either 2 or 3 to exit the station to the now-vacant east block.

With trains on east and west, only train 1 can move, into the station.

 

It's limited, and a passing siding in the valley would open up more options (and subdividng the valley with a block in the middle would allow a bit more variety in moves since both trains in the station could depart before the third arrives, although that might interfere with running all the way through the valley in one move).

 

If you just want to run trains in/out of the station, and are willing to do it in one direction only, you can do it with this track arrangement and a single power pack.

 

Drawing a schematic on a piece of paper and moving pennies around for trains is a good way to visualize these kinds of problems.  I've done that when trying to work out complex siding designs.

[CaptOblivious]

Kens, clever thinking is banned on this board. Stop making sense at us!

 

You are right of course, and your scheme is very thoughtful. Naturally I wonder if its worth the bother though...but then I'm lazy ;)

[scott]

Here's attempt #3

[scott]

OTOH, that "minimum-purchase" plan would cost over $100 just for turnouts and controls.

 

Where this would require a lot more individual pieces of track, but no turnouts, and would cost about $50 for track. (Of course, then I'd need an extra controller, so....)

[disturbman]

Yeah... but there is just no fun in a simple double oval.  

 

You know Scott, you can start your layout simply, with just a siding and then detail the scenic part of the layout. You could complexify the station later. You don't need to buy everything before beggining.

 

The question is: What do you want to do with your layout? If you enjoy simple running and operational variety go ahead with your first or last plan. If not, works a way around your financial problems. :)

 

@Ken:  Blocks are not really my thing. They allways appear overly complicated to me.  

[bill937ca]

OTOH, that "minimum-purchase" plan would cost over $100 just for turnouts and controls.

 

 

A true minimalist can only go around and around and around.      Just how much round and round there is in you?      

[scott]

You know Scott, you can start your layout simply, with just a siding and then detail the scenic part of the layout. You could complexify the station later. You don't need to buy everything before beggining.

 

That's a good point, and now that you've told me that about six times, I'm starting to get it. :-)

 

A true minimalist can only go around and around and around.      Just how much round and round there is in you?      

 

Not so much--I get enough of that at work. :-P

 

Ideally, I would have a complex station *and* about 50 scale miles of track, but that's proving difficult...

[disturbman]

That's a good point, and now that you've told me that about six times, I'm starting to get it. :-)

 

Now I feel like we can go somewhere. :p

 

Plus, if you don't rush into things, it will give you time to play around and find the configuration that pleasures you the most (this in fact an extract of MRR Kamasutra, Book One). I have the feeling you'll need this time.

 

Also, one last thing, I don't think you really need those change of heights on such a small layout.

[scott]

Now I feel like we can go somewhere. :p

 

Lead me, oh wise one.

 

MRR Kamasutra, Book One

 

I *really* don't need to imagine that. :-P

[scott]

Stage One: minimal purchase

 

Stage Two: after boredom sets in

[CaptOblivious]

Now we're getting somewhere!

 

So, a bit off-topic, but I'm curious (says the collector of only a very narrowly defined region and area to the wide-ranging generalist who has surprised us all by designing a layout based, even if loosely, on a single somewhat obscure line) what about rolling stock?

[Krackel Hopper]

hey hey,

 

I really like it.

 

My 2 cents - the tunnel beside the bridge.  Maybe place it on the other side.  Covering where the 2 curved pieces connect.  Topographically, that seems like it would make a little more sense, as it is closer to the backdrop.  Creating a finger ridge from the backdrop (your green line) and roughly out over the dotted line/where the 2 curves connect.  Then again, you may be looking at this with a completely different topography than I am.  Just one more idea to think about, if you haven't already.

 

Jon

[disturbman]

Again, it's looking good Scott. The last proposition is really great but I agree with Jon, the tunnel will look better on the other side.

 

Also, I'm not sure you need a yard longer than your shorter siding.

 

So, a bit off-topic, but I'm curious (says the collector of only a very narrowly defined region and area to the wide-ranging generalist who has surprised us all by designing a layout based, even if loosely, on a single somewhat obscure line) what about rolling stock?

 

Ush, ush! He doesn't want to hear about that.

[scott]

So, a bit off-topic, but I'm curious (says the collector of only a very narrowly defined region and area to the wide-ranging generalist who has surprised us all by designing a layout based, even if loosely, on a single somewhat obscure line) what about rolling stock?

 

The original idea was only to use the Iida line as an inspiration, but to stick with the shorter EMUs that I already have -- the Tohoku 455, the Minobu-line 115 pretending to be in Hokuriku livery, etc. Maybe the line could be a fictional east-west connector across Tohoku.

 

But a certain evil Frenchman has been trying to convince me that the new MicroAce JR Central 119, which is right for the Iida line, is affordable. 

[scott]

Forgot to ask--if I *don't* want to focus on the Iida Line, would a 113/115/165 etc in Shonan livery be plausible for a rural line like this?

[disturbman]

Like I said in your other thread, it looks like some 115 run in the Shonan livery on the Iida Line. So, yes, it's plausible. 

[scott]

Yeah, but this was the non-Iida version of the question. :-)