A modular layout

[cromptonnut]

Dear all

 

You may have seen a discussion - currently at 24 pages - on the suggestion of a "British standard" modular system, which hasn't really got very far in deciding any standards but bought up a lot of issues and has got heated on a few occasions.  You don't need to read it at this stage but I link it here for completeness.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87665-a-british-modular-system

 

In a nutshell, the idea behind a modular layout is that people build a board, or set of boards, to agreed standards including wiring and position of track, and that due to the standards they are theoretically infinitely connectable and rearrangeable (as they should all match at the edges) to build a much larger layout than we could ever, as individuals, hope to assemble.  It also means that we can experiment with things, perhaps new scenic techniques or even to build something like a viaduct that we'd never manage to fit in our "main" layout. 

 

In theory, apart from the cost of the wood to build the actual boards themselves, and a couple of lengths of Peco flexitrack, that's all you need to get involved (and transport to get to the venue where it's all assembled); no need to shell out hundreds of pounds on stock if you don't have any because other participants can provide the stock, and in theory if you have stock you'd like to run but no interest in building a module you could also get involved although it does miss the point of the modular concept.  Scenicked "plain track" boards are essential because they extend the space between stations and yards which are rather important in the concept.  Rather than "individual modules" you can of course also build 'mini layouts' to your own standards inbetween, as long as one or both (depending on whether it's single or double ended) actual end pieces match the standards.  For example, if the standard is a single track line but you want to build a yard that has 9 tracks across the middle joints of a 3 board "module" that's fine - it's compatibility at the extreme ends of your 'module' that is critical.  Of course, there is no reason you can't build a couple of modules that match the standard and then have a fiddle yard for one or each end that you use at home enabling the 'module' to be operated as a standalone layout.

 

Andy Y's suggestion is essentially OO gauge, British (the idea being region and era are up to you) - if you want to model American N of an alpine narrow gauge, this is not for you - however if either of those (or anything else really... is your current modelling interest but you fancy building a British OO module to join in then you are more than welcome.

 

The big difference with these 'modular mega layouts' is that we are likely used to running a train out of a fiddle yard on to a scenic section, stopping it, then either reversing it back into the fiddle yard or continuing on into the fiddle yard (or via 180 degree curves back into the fiddle yard) with our layouts, whether it is a small home layout or a large club layout.  When we build "our individual bit" and put it with other people's modules, you actually build a line (or, if you have junction modules, several branches) that may have a fiddle yard at one or both ends, but then you actually take control of a train from fiddle yard across a couple of scenic modules to station A, where you wait for the train coming the other way, then drive it across a couple more scenic modules to the next station where you may do some shunting, or just drop off a few wagons and pick up a few, taking the train on a few more scenic modules to the next station whilst another operator shuffles wagons about in the yard at the station you've just left.  At this station, your train waits for a branch train (driven by someone else) to cross your path into a bay then off you head across another few scenic modules before finally arriving at a terminus where you run your loco off to the shed and another 'driver' couples their loco up to your stock ready to take it back to the fiddle yard.  This could perhaps have taken place over a distance of 16 modules, built by 8 or 10 people, perhaps covering 50ft or so.

 

One thing to remember of course is that we have no money, so any costs involved including building boards and travel for question 2 would be borne by yourself, and travel costs for question 3 would be part of an exhibition expense which hopefully we could reduce and thus make more attractive to exhibition managers by carpooling if there are volunteers with big cars or vans

 

 

I have three questions which I'd like to throw out to you all at this stage.

 

1) Would you be interested in participating in an "RMWeb modular standard OO" layout by building one, or more, boards to make a module of your own? 

 

2) Would you be willing, or do you have the capabilities, of getting "it" to a location to assemble with other SECAG members?  In theory if you do not have your own transport but could make your modules portable with some small wheels and can get it on the train to the meeting location, I'm sure someone could pick you up if it wasn't walkable from the nearest station).

 

3) Would you be willing to be part of an SECAG "modular layout" at exhibitions in our area either by bringing along your own modules, or helping out as a relief operator or providing transport for other members with modules)? (of course this all depends on the date of any exhibition invitations etc)

 

I am going to reply with the three questions above in separate posts below, so you can "Agree" or "Disagree" so I can gauge the level of interest, as it may help me decide whether it's worth "on behalf of the group" responding in the thread above that there are a small group in the south east that will give it a go, subject to the standards being achieveable etc.  At this stage, any expression of interest is absolutely no commitment by yourself to anything, just a 'sample of feeling'.

 

Note: Although "Agree or Disagree" are the two obvious status ratings for the questions, from habit others may choose others which will be counted in the overall "for or against" - if you do not understand any of the questions please feel free to elaborate and I will do my best to response based on my limited understanding of the way these things work - although for more general questions or comments you are probably better to use the main 24 page thread as we (in this thread) are not debating or setting the standards, merely choosing whether we want to participate or not.

[cromptonnut]

STATEMENT 1

 

I would be interested in participating in an "RMWeb modular standard OO" layout by building one, or more, boards to make a module of my own.

[cromptonnut]

STATEMENT 2

 

I would be willing to getting my module/boards to an agreed location to assemble with other SECAG members, either by driving myself, offering lifts to others, being a passenger with others or by lugging it on public transport to the nearest station. *

 

* at my own expense (although no doubt contribution towards costs when carpooling would be appreciated)

* at an agreed well in advance date and location

* I accept I may not be able to make every meet that is organised.

[cromptonnut]

STATEMENT 3

 

I would be willing to be part of an SECAG "modular layout" at exhibitions in our area either by bringing along my own modules, or helping out as a relief operator or providing transport for other members with modules. *

 

*obviously subject to date, location and my personal availability on a case by case basis.

[cromptonnut]

As I cannot "rate" my own posts, for the record I am answering "yes" to all three

[Kenton]

OK, I'm not a declared member of the group but am not that far away ... and as I support the principles of what you are saying here and on the other topic - I've also "voted" yes to all three.

 

(I just hope my voting does not put too many others off)

[cromptonnut]

Hi Kenton, welcome to our little madhouse; although we have a defined 'area' we're happy to have nearby people participate in bits they want to, as long as you pass the induction test, criminal background check, medical and send me a suitcase of used fivers in due course.

 

"watch this space", essentially.  We will see how it all develops.  If no "national standard" can be agreed, then I suppose there is no reason why we can't create our own and work towards what I outlined in question 3 amongst ourselves. 

 

I think that overall there seems an understanding that the principle is sound and there are benefits within the concept, it's just the standards we work to that are the sticking point.

[Barnaby]

Hello Judging from the previous attempts at trying this in various scales I'm not sure how successful this will be. 

 

You could add to your existing 3 options to cover "existing layouts" a small connecting board to fit one at each end to align a non module standard layout to the module standard thus enabling it to be fitted. 

Might pull a few more in who only need to make 2 bridging pieces up.

 

From reading above the reason for doing this is so that you can run mega large layouts so if SIZE matters it could be a go-er.  The other points you make about shuffling wagons while waiting for line clearance etc I intend to do on my single shunting plank anyway.

 

Good luck but not for me.

[cromptonnut]

Hi Barnaby, many of your questions are probably answered in the "standards definition" (which hasn't been defined yet).

 

Certainly I would hope that "bridging sections" between existing layout and "the standard" were quite achievable by many so that existing projects could be tweaked to become part of something larger.  However the downside of layouts not being built from the start with "modular in mind" could mean we end up with ten terminus stations offered (if the original layout was a fiddle yard to terminus layout) although of course the challenge of the meet organiser is to try and find ways to make everything fit, I get the impression that this particular scenario may be somewhat impossible.

 

At the moment all my OO stock is in storage crates as the space I have for modelling is taken up with two projects, one in O and one in N.  It may well be that the N layout is "abandoned" in preference to starting something "modular" once the standards are defined but the ability to build something useable at home which can also be used elsewhere in conjunction with other people's work has a certain appeal although the thought of working to a 'schedule' is not something I have particularly done before - "my layout, my rules" and all that.

 

 It may be that there are too many people shouting loudly trying to drag the standards down some route or another with their own agenda that in the end nothing can be settled on and the whole thing fizzles out.  But until the point that "the standards" are written by Andy Y (and/or others) we then choose at that point whether to try and make something, or not. There may be things we aren't so keen on but can work with within the standards, it may be that (for example) all trackwork must be hand-made which I and no doubt others would consider too big a hurdle to overcome and therefore not bother.

 

At the end of the day, whatever the standard contains, you won't please everyone.  Some will just admit it and carry on modelling, others will go off on one and cause chaos on the boards.  We will see.  As I said, this thread was to see if anyone was interested in considering taking part, not to discuss the merits or shortfalls of the defined standard (which hasn't yet been defined) that we will work to.

[AlanRogers]

I have been watching the mentioned thread with morbid curiosity. I've been massively disappointed by the constant thread derailments, vitriol and back-stabbing, over-analysing and descent into excusitis and detailitis.

 

As I think I've declared previously in this forum, my main interest is narrow gauge; 0-16.5 and 0n30. However, my son is into 00 despite my best efforts to indoctrinate and brain-wash him into narrow gauge, and he enjoys operating. In support of him continuing to enjoy the hobby and not have my personal penchants forced upon him, I'll speak on his behalf and declare more than a latent, passing curiosity.

 

I'll also declare that various members of my local area group are looking at putting together something very similar for narrow gauge. The gauge is of course the same, so there will be more similarities than differences.

 

I've followed this thread, and unfollowed the other one because it was beginning to bore the @r$e off me.

[AlanRogers]

I would also like to add that, in my opinion, the other thread failed as a result of too many people trying to impose too many standards.

 

For a module to work mechanically and physically, the standards are relatively simple, requiring only four common elements:

1. height of rail top
2. track alignment at interface - includes distance from edge
3. electrical connectivity
4. control connectivity

EVERYTHING else is negotiable and ignorable. If somebody wants to model Arabian Desert and another Arctic Tundra, they can. A few bucolic green scenic modules will suspend improbability, at least in an operating session, if not actually at an exhibition. FYI, these are deliberately excessive extremes in an attempt to illustrate a point without offending individuals; we're talking about modelling Great Britain.

 

We could do well to look at NMRA publications, consisting of Standards and Recommended Practices. The former are essential and the latter just make life easier. If we as a virtual area group are going to do this, we need to agree on the minimum standards first and foremost. The rest can be discussed until the end of days but shouldn't stand in the way of playing trains together. 

[cromptonnut]

Hi Alan, I know you've dropped out of the other thread for reasons that many of us were teetering on the brink but in post 610 in "that thread" Andy Y has posted some proposed standards.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87665-a-british-modular-system/?p=1520591

 

As I said, this thread is to discuss whether we want to participate.  That thread is for arguing discussing the standards

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I have not participated in the main thread, predominantly because there are so many different voices and opinions, making the logistics a nightmare. It is an idea that does interest me, so I have put a tentative 'agree' against each of the statements, but will have to see how this develops.

 

Probably worth quoting Andy's post re standards here to save ploughing through the other thread...  

 

Thanks for everyone’s input to the topic so far. It’s apparent to me that to encourage participation that any ‘standards’ should be as relaxed as possible encouraging ‘modules’ (as in a distinct section of contribution to the greater whole) which can be used at home, as a standalone exhibit or as part of a modular meet.

 

What someone does within their module needs to be relaxed rather than too prescriptive but we do need to make sure there are some areas of commonality are presented to enable the models to be joined together. This also means that there’s a place for plain track (straight or curved sections) and functional junctions rather than just stand-alone exhibits and we need a ‘standard’ which encourages participation with simple but immensely useful boards.

 

Initially I had thought that a standardised end boards with bolt holes, electrical holes etc would have been the way to go I can see from the Freemo approach that this would limit the participation of some and even if end boards were technically precise it wouldn’t mean the railhead is absolutely in the correct place.

 

 

Absolutes

 

Gauge – OO, suggest Peco Code 75 as the maximum code with any variations being 'compatible' at the module joints.

 

Floor to rail height – suggest 45” as a reasonable figure workable for as many people as possible and inclusive of existing Freemo work.

 

Height adjustment - - suggest +/- 1” either side of the Floor to rail height measurement

 

End boards at module joints – Of sufficient thickness (suggest 9mm) and depth (suggest 4”) to enable modules to be clamped or bolted together.

 

Rail centres at module joints – Double track modules to have track centres at 50mm to match Peco.

 

Track Bus – A common standard for interlinking modules, suggestion of 3.5mm phono leads and sockets.

 

Control System – A module must be wired for, or be compatible with, DCC control.

 

Point/Signal control – A module operator should maintain and provide a means of local control (via DC or DCC) of all points and signals if used to enable operation through from an adjacent module.

 

Clearances – All modules should ensure the following clearances are met.

 

 OO Gauge Clearances.jpg

 

Recommendations

 

Board widths at module joints – Matching board widths encourages uniformity of appearance – suggest 18” width, if a ‘module’ is wider or narrower than this it should be ‘blended’ to match at the module joint.

Track centres – if a centre point of the 18” wide board is taken for the track centre this will encourage modules which can be used both ways round in a gathered meeting. For double track module joints the twin track formation (with 50mm centres) should centred on the 18” width.

 

Board landscape at module joints – whilst creativity of cuttings, embankments, tunnels, viaducts etc should be encouraged it would be helpful to return the ground level to that of the track base at the module joint.

 

So, if the above presents a workable approach it’s a case of tweaking any of the measured elements based on sound advice and then hopefully move forward to getting some content built or adapted and working out when it’s worth a suitable collective getting together.

 

Just don’t ask me about electrical and computer bits! 

 

I've tried to keep it simple and inclusive, creating technically exact specifications is unlikely to get modellers to start with the concept but if standards for particular items is needed it could be addressed on a need basis by and with the consensus of those partaking.

 

Off to consider something like Boscarne Junction as a useful junction 'module'.

 

[cromptonnut]

In principle I can see nothing obviously wrong with the standards in their first iteration although I plan to "hold off" thinking about anything until they are locked down and we know where we're starting from.  The difficulty of course is going to be the choice of whether to go single track or double track, and whether within small groups we'll be able to come up with enough variety and single to double converters

[AlanRogers]

Single track mainline is so much less common in this country than it is overseas but logistically it's simpler to build and simpler to plan for.

 

Should that not then be our, quoting Bamber Gascoigne and showing my age, Starter for 10? More and better can always be added later.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with sitting back and watching the other thread to see what consensus comes out of the simian faeces flinging session.

[cromptonnut]

Hi Alan, no reason that, amongst ourselves, we couldn't plan a self contained single branchline with a couple of passing places.  All it needs is a fiddle yard and a 'terminus section' (ie a foot of track past a station with a buffer stop on the end to make a run round loop) - both of which I'd be happy to make - then the rest of our group could make our single track modules to whatever designs we want, and then by doing without the fiddle yard and terminus section could just "slot in" to other people's sections either as a whole or spread out, if we happen to take our stuff to a larger meet.

 

Admittedly double track is more common for main lines but you can still run a fairly intensive service with a single track line with passing places using the 'speeded up clock' principle.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

If the idea was to follow the full US-style modular system - i.e. with junctions and the like - what is to stop an SECAR 'branch line' section from being built? Then it could still be compatible with the main modules, via a junction section, but still be single track?

[cromptonnut]

Exactly my thinking, Claude Of course there's also no reason why the branch itself couldn't have a junction off to a quarry or mine or whatever, with its connecting junction as part of the branch.

 

The "junction board to the rest of the world" could be an interesting single track to double track flying junction (particularly if someone felt brave enough to try a curved diamond) ... but let's not get too far into who's building what until we have standards defined then I'll probably ask Herr York to make us a separate sub-forum to keep module talk in there to save it getting lost amongst other chat.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Indeed, worth waiting until it has all settled down. I will be very interested to see how the DC vs DCC debate pans out as this is a very emotive issue... 

[AndrewC]

As a dark sider I've been there and done that. In a previous life I was a regional director for the BRMNA in Alberta. Trying to get a UK OO scale modular standard agreed between 20 people was like trying to nail Jello to a wall. I really hope Mr York manages to get a standard that a critical mass of people wil be happy enough with. From my standpoint, I've got a 13 module layout that was built using one of the UK NMRA regional group's modular standards. I've also got 4 additional modules that will be altered to the RS Tower Fremo standard. The 2 sets will have adaptor sections to link them together.

 

As for attempting something in OO, I think I'll sit this one out. The British mentality of having a homogenous "stage" for presentation hasn't changed in 20+ years. The whining in the modular thread rehashes the same excuses I heard years ago. Analysis paralysis and a typical "it can't work" attitude will drag on for ages.

[AlanRogers]

I can't help but feel the pain in your experience @AndrewC and I certainly can't argue with any conviction, especially when you take the wider forum audience into consideration. The simple facts of the matter are two-fold; opinions are like ani, some more readily vented than others; and it's far easier to criticise forward thinking and foretell doom than it is to embrace change and, quite frankly, get off your gluteus maximus and give it a go!

 

Our area group* has two failed prior attempts at creating a group modular layout, both of which caused some people to spend, and in their minds therefore lose, money. Newer members are approaching the idea afresh, anew, call it what you will, but they're ignorant of prior attempts. I've therefore quietly advised them to go ahead and do it but in the manner of friends within the group doing something together, as opposed to it being a group project that not everyone wants to be involved in. Those are clearly semantics for describing both sides of the same coin but there you have the definition of the fickle nature of the human psyche!

 

If a few of us were to go ahead and do something, anything, and prove that it works, even if we tripped and stumbled along the way, others would join in and the nay-sayers would still be saying nay but with nobody listening. As in all things, it only takes one to lead a few followers loyal to the cause.

 

* Surrey Area Group of 7mm NGA, not this recently formed virtual area group of an internet forum.

[AlanRogers]

I will be very interested to see how the DC vs DCC debate pans out as this is a very emotive issue... 

 

Yes, it's emotive, and also rather easily decided. If you want to stick to plain old, simple and known, analogue control, you're confining yourself to controlling your own module and basically completely defeating the object of a modular layout because interoperable transferable cab control is pretty much unachievable on a modular layout. You've painted yourself into a corner of taking a train from an adjoining module and passing it to the next.

 

Declaring myself a DCC fledgling, it is the easiest way to achieve a modular layout - full stop, period. The wiring is limited to a single simple flat six-core cable and that can be half-length of your module if you want to put a control socket on the fascia. Digitrax, Lenx, NCE,etc all use RJ11/12 connectors, the difference being whether all six cores are wired or not. Wiring all six cores makes the system instantly compatible with all such systems.

 

Therefore, wiring a module that you're building for DCC is as simple as creating two cables each half the length of your module and plugging them into A N Other supplier's control socket. If necessary, you can take the face plate off to avoid confusion. So long as it transmits the received signal on all six cable cores onwards, it fits the criteria. The actually system isn't decided until a command station is plugged in, and you can have only one.

[cromptonnut]

I get the feeling that there will never be complete concensus and there may well be "split off" groups - one using DCC, the other using some sort of "cab control" where plain track modules contain controller plug-in places, and stations are wired so the station operator ("signalman") can switch the track power for the station to the controller to its left or right, depending on the direction of the train.

 

Nevertheless, once standards are defined, we'll have another vote and decide how to proceed.  I don't think there's a question really that none of us would want to participate, but if we know there are others in our area that are easily contactable and identifiable and we can arrange between ourselves - as I said even if only 3 or 4 of us decide to have a go - then we can meet up and do what we can with our own modular arrangement, and it doesn't affect anyone else who doesn't want to participate although of course anyone curious or unsure would be more than welcome to come along to a meet - perhaps bring a favourite train to run - and the bug may bite.

 

The big debate we as a group will have - eventually - will really be whether those of us who are following the modular standards want to commit ourselves to having a 'group modular layout' that we can offer to exhibition managers.

[KTM]

I think it's a great idea but a truly modular concept, the like of which is popular in the US, will only work with a critical mass of contributors. Otherwise, it will be a collection of maybe two to four modellers who join their layouts together every now and then. Nothing wrong with that at all, it just depends where you want this to end up.

 

Count me out of this one but I will read with interest. If I do happen to get around to doing something with my OO stuff, it'll probably be something self-contained but...I could be swayed by an O gauge modular layout

 

Jon. 

[cromptonnut]

There is an "O gauge modular group" under Special Interests but it didn't get very far unfortunately.

 

A self-contained OO layout is perfectly fine - but all it takes is a small converter board from whatever you build at one end to "standard" at the other end, and hey ho it's instantly compatible with the modular standard.  I think many of us have got confused with interchanging the term "modular" with "board" - as a "module" can be of several different boards making a standalone layout but as long as the far end is to standard then it can be connected. 

 

Some food for thought, perhaps... if you build with the end that joins the fiddle yard as "modular standard" the everything on the layout being whatever you want, then it can join in the fun.