RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2015 Banana plugs are already chosen as the standard. ... Nothing personal, but I find it's rather tiring that people keep coming back to stuff that already has been set as standard Yes, but who by? I wouldn't use banana plugs for this purpose because they require soldering. For ultra-reliable flexible connections wires should use crimp connectors. Soldered connections can fracture if repeatedly handled -- banana plugs do not have any strain-relief. These are very cheap and ideal: http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/solder-tab-terminals/0534929/ http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/crimp-receptacles/4881235/ http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/products/4881314/ Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Dagworth Posted January 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 10, 2015 Banana plugs are already chosen as the standard. Besides, audio plugs like the ones you showed aren't capable of multiple (repeated) connect/disconnect action. In short, they're unfit for purpose. I'm sure they'll work happily for many years in a fixed audio-based setup but you'll find that professionals in that field will not use these plugs if the plug/unplug cycle count will be high The reason professionals avoid phono plugs is because they rip the connectors off the PCBs in the equipment, not because they fail as a connector. I ran a warehouse/workshop for a professional PA company for 9 years, I was always having to resolder phono plugs to the PCBs inside CD players. Andi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Banana plugs are already chosen as the standard. Besides, audio plugs like the ones you showed aren't capable of multiple (repeated) connect/disconnect action. In short, they're unfit for purpose. I'm sure they'll work happily for many years in a fixed audio-based setup but you'll find that professionals in that field will not use these plugs if the plug/unplug cycle count will be high (as it will on a modular railway). If you choose to use it connecting your own module sections, fine but highly discouraged as far as I'm concerned. But between the modules the standard prescribes the 4mm banana plugs and sockets. Period. Nothing personal, but I find it's rather tiring that people keep coming back to stuff that already has been set as standard, and then in a totally unrelated thread as well (yes, this is Kenton's module build thread, not the RMweb modular standards and proposals thread so it's completely irrelevant here ) Thinking out of the box, nothing to stop you from having 2 (or more) differing types of connections as you may wish to connect with other modules which may not be 100% compatible. Joins between your own boards can use your own preference Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Thinking out of the box, nothing to stop you from having 2 (or more) differing types of connections as you may wish to connect with other modules which may not be 100% compatible. Joins between your own boards can use your own preference ... or the cheaper answer probably is just to have the banana plugs as per the RMWeb OO Modular "Dave" standard on our boards, and then a converter lead with banana plugs one end and "whatever" the other end, assuming that the board profile/track spacing is compatible with our standards - or a converter board that can only be used one way round of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'd glad this isn't the Deadmans's Curve thread Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think the debate on connectivity is not yet totally settled. But from the "we have to start somewhere" or nothing will happen I think we sort of thrashed out a solution of sorts - banana plugs. Even so, while it was being debated on that other topic I indicated my personal choice will be different. Because it is a set of plug system I already use to connect power and control to my boards. However, even I realise that for a module to function it must have electrical connectivity with that other world (adjacent modules) for that there needs to be a standard even if it is simple choc-blocs. Whatever that standard (currently banana plugs) I need to connect to. It is a simple truth really, so I will provide adaptor cables that terminate in banana plugs. If there ends up 2 or more of my modules connected adjacent they will use Kenton's standard connector between them. It is the responsibility of the module owner to provide that link to the outside world. In the case of Kenton's Curve there is no requirement to have a DCC controller input so it doesn't have the issue of a faceplate link through. There are no points just simple continuous track (but it will have a secondary auxiliary bus (though out of use in group module terms - the plan is to have an operational signal - someday) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Dread Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Banana plugs are already chosen as the standard. Besides, audio plugs like the ones you showed aren't capable of multiple (repeated) connect/disconnect action. In short, they're unfit for purpose. I'm sure they'll work happily for many years in a fixed audio-based setup but you'll find that professionals in that field will not use these plugs if the plug/unplug cycle count will be high (as it will on a modular railway). If you choose to use it connecting your own module sections, fine but highly discouraged as far as I'm concerned. But between the modules the standard prescribes the 4mm banana plugs and sockets. Period. Nothing personal, but I find it's rather tiring that people keep coming back to stuff that already has been set as standard, and then in a totally unrelated thread as well (yes, this is Kenton's module build thread, not the RMweb modular standards and proposals thread so it's completely irrelevant here ) I'll keep in mind that audio plugs and sockets are not "fit for purpose" when I take "Meopham East Junction" to it's 23rd. exhibition. That would be in five different countries spread over three years during which time none of the 24 plugs and sockets it has have failed. I only made a suggestion and if you're not interested, so be it. Best of luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 I'll keep in mind that audio plugs and sockets are not "fit for purpose" when I take "Meopham East Junction" to it's 23rd. exhibition. That would be in five different countries spread over three years during which time none of the 24 plugs and sockets it has have failed. I only made a suggestion and if you're not interested, so be it. Bless of luck. Hey Judge, It wasn't me gov who said "fit for purpose" - when I get back you will see as I said above I don't use banana plugs either. I think it was agreed on banana plugs as the current standard by others and I'm reasonably happy to go down that route. We need to agree on something simply to get this rolling. There still seems very little take up so inevitably it is going to be influenced by those who are currently building modules. That is why those from outside will appear to get cold shoulder. Even those who are never going to contribute a module. It doesn't make any suggestion wrong (all are welcome) it just makes them secondary while something actually does get built. Nothing will ever be perfect, there will always be room for failure, improvement, reinventing the wheel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 There still seems very little take up so inevitably it is going to be influenced by those who are currently building modules. I think, like most "new" things, there will be a lot of people who are interested but "waiting to see how it turns out" before committing themselves, without thinking of it the way I have been - build something that can operate as a standalone layout project, to modular standards (ie a 4ft "fiddle yard" module, an 8ft station module, a 4ft scenic module and another 4ft "fiddle yard" module) which means that your time, effort and money has been spent on making something you can run as a layout, but also the component parts - as long as they match the module end and wiring standards - would then be useable if an accessible modular meet was arranged nearby. I think you are right that it will take a small group of us to come together, build something and document it well on here - which may even form the basis of an article in BRM or elsewhere in the model press - before others start cutting wood to make modules for the next one. Over here in SECAG we're having a go, there's no reason SWAG couldn't come up with something for one of their area meetings, I know someone in Wales was looking to do something (although I don't know the progress on that), and it only takes one person to post in the modular forum and say "anyone within reach of xxx interested in getting together to build modules and arrange a meet" and I am sure there will be take-up. It may only take 5 people to "get together" for that first meet, heck it might even be 2 people in someone's garage with a couple of modules just to prove the concept works, and for people to start posting for interest to start to take off. Of course, it may all die a slow painful death with half a dozen of us battling the tide and never really getting anywhere, but at least we gave it a try, and of course if all else fails we could make converter boards to switch between "Dave" and Fre(e)mo or some other system, providing that the "other system" allows UK stock to be run on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve-e Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I think, like most "new" things, there will be a lot of people who are interested but "waiting to see how it turns out" before committing themselves, without thinking of it the way I have been - build something that can operate as a standalone layout project, to modular standards (ie a 4ft "fiddle yard" module, an 8ft station module, a 4ft scenic module and another 4ft "fiddle yard" module) which means that your time, effort and money has been spent on making something you can run as a layout, but also the component parts - as long as they match the module end and wiring standards - would then be useable if an accessible modular meet was arranged nearby. I think you are right that it will take a small group of us to come together, build something and document it well on here - which may even form the basis of an article in BRM or elsewhere in the model press - before others start cutting wood to make modules for the next one. Over here in SECAG we're having a go, there's no reason SWAG couldn't come up with something for one of their area meetings, I know someone in Wales was looking to do something (although I don't know the progress on that), and it only takes one person to post in the modular forum and say "anyone within reach of xxx interested in getting together to build modules and arrange a meet" and I am sure there will be take-up. It may only take 5 people to "get together" for that first meet, heck it might even be 2 people in someone's garage with a couple of modules just to prove the concept works, and for people to start posting for interest to start to take off. Of course, it may all die a slow painful death with half a dozen of us battling the tide and never really getting anywhere, but at least we gave it a try, and of course if all else fails we could make converter boards to switch between "Dave" and Fre(e)mo or some other system, providing that the "other system" allows UK stock to be run on it. There were some good points in this thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/92457-anything-happening/?p=1663576 as to ways to push things along... and was hoping based on the below from the same thread that the module principle would have been the 2015 challenge....(it may still be as we don't have a 2015 challenge yet so still hoping.......) I did "report" the above thread before Christmas in the hope it would get noticed but never heard anything. Perhaps someone wants to "report" this post in the same vane?? Sorry; the last couple of months have been distractingly busy with shows, upgrade plans and photo jobs to personally do any meaningful modelling; I'd intended to get on with it as soon as Tim's baseboards land but I haven't got those yet. So far the heart of the interest seemed to be in the S & SE so maybe the rest of the country needs a bit of a shove. Although I see it as an organic project based on the community rather than being led from this end I'm happy to hear what you'd like from me/us to move it up a gear. We could certainly do an article in the mag to show what's happening too, maybe use this as a basis for a challenge from Christmas onwards? Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I have a pile of wood staring at me in the garage and a lack of suitable time to do anything with it. Seeing progress on things like Kenton's curve is what is keeping my hope alive of having half an hour to fix the wood together, run a straight of track along it, and solder some wires. That's really all that's need to take part at the start, bigger things can flow from there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I have a pile of wood staring at me in the garage and a lack of suitable time to do anything with it. Seeing progress on things like Kenton's curve is what is keeping my hope alive of having half an hour to fix the wood together, run a straight of track along it, and solder some wires. That's really all that's need to take part at the start, bigger things can flow from there. Exactly! Remember that there is no diktat that boards must be finished to be useable at a modular meet - if you look at videos of most of the big American meets you'll find at least one incomplete board. Here's a typical example, how many can you see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clGJCU9u5Bs In discussions about our SECAG modular meet, the only "must" I have stipulated is that boards must be functional - ie ends built to standards (whether single or double track), and that there must be a way to run trains across it from one end to the other, requiring whatever is considered the main line to be electrically functional with the appropriate banana plugs/sockets and legs as stipulated. If there is one point on the board that will fan out into 3 sidings that aren't yet laid, or the board only has a base coat of scenic colours and marker pen squiggles to indicate where things are going to go, then it doesn't matter. So get on, find that half hour, build the board, lay a couple of bits of flexitrack, solder some droppers to it and wire up the sockets and bus wire underneath, make a couple of sets of legs and jumper cables, and you have a modular board that can take part in a meet. Anything else complete is a bonus - particularly at these early stages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaxjones Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm a little confused, is this a left or right hand curve? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm a little confused, is this a left or right hand curve? It all depends which way you look at it, and from where you are coming from at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 Grief, 4 months without an update! ... and no one noticed though 'nut is in an apoplectic panic (justified) No image update (well not much to show - the track is down and wired (well almost, when I remove the crocodile clips) Did have a long talk with myself on cork matters and decided the rumble was far too loud and so pulled the track up and relaid with with cork underlay so the height grew by 1mm. Now stuck back down and soldered to the copper end sleepers. Today I finally kept to my new schedule and cut wood for the legs now lying on the floor waiting for the screw and glue to set. Tomorrow I'll add the bolts and feet and photo them. Should also get the work table back from the wedding excursion so I can complete the wiring. It is moving forward again. Which may come as a relief to some. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted June 2, 2015 Author Share Posted June 2, 2015 OK I promised an update photo. Well you know the old engineering adage - "measure twice cut once" - well I followed it to the letter but forgot the unwritten bit about measuring from the correct place. So what was very nearly 4 fully adjustable legs has turned out to be 3 fully adjustable legs. and some more firewood. I was doing quite well until after dinner and a glass of wine I forgot that the component parts are mirror images and cut the hole in the wrong place. Ah well something to do tomorrow. I rather like the other 3 though. Extendible over a 8 inch range (in addition to the adjustable feet) with 45" rail height near the lower end. The spec 45" is simply too low for me and my age back. Once I get the other leg fabricated I can sit the board on top and check if I require any cross-members to prevent wobbles. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Nice legs (shame about the face...) I think, on their own, individual boards will have some wobble to them, but when they're all combined they should be pretty secure. 45" seems high to me, from what I'm used to as well, but it seems to be a reasonable working height. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yes, I know it has been discussed at length before on here (no wish to pursue it again) but I like to view and generally work on layouts that are about eye level. Either that or where I can sit and work at them. Sadly the spec and even these legs fail both of those personal preferences. I could cut a middle section to raise them even further but that would involve extra work not essential for the "project". At least the 4th leg has now been made and the glue is drying. Tomorrow I'll try to lift the module on to its legs - the good lady will be out so I should be able to find space to up-end it. It is not heavy, just awkward. There is a strong case for hinging the legs rather than the socket approach, but at a meet I expect hands to be available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yep I would expect everyone to help out on each others stuff. RTS has 10 sections, 24 legs, 20 bolts and 24 cables to plug in... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Yep I would expect everyone to help out on each others stuff. RTS has 10 sections, 24 legs, 20 bolts and 24 cables to plug in...I feel lame all of a sudden Are you planning to sequence module set-up? I can see the layout of the modules depend on having them in a strict order so does it make sense to say start with RTS then bring on each module in turn. By the time we get to the other end it could be several inches out from the plan. Physical setting up before electrical. Another method is to put it on the side (again), insert all legs and use the feet of one pair as hinge to lift the entire assembly upright. Yes that is the eventual plan. But until the tops of the legs actually have sockets it is going to be a bit of a balancing act. Once again the penalty of having a non-rectangular open frame design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 What I was planning was to set stuff up mostly in approximately the right place as obviously people will arrive in various orders, then as gaps are filled those with "nothing to do" can help each other manoeuvre boards into the right position, clamp together, check alignment and wire up as they go along until everything's in place, then RTS can just have an 'all hands on deck' to lift an inch or so and move into position and clamp up. Unfortunately two of my boards - RTS and the fiddle yard - are at extreme opposite ends of the main circuit so we'll just make do. Thankfully by leaving the 6ft(ish) walkway around all the edges plus having several other feet of space in most areas there is plenty of wriggle room rather than just having a couple of inches here and there. In fact, the 'critical' boards are my Shakespear Brook and Devil's Bridge Curve - as long as they are in the position they are meant to be that sets the datum; your curve and Border Curve come before my board which sets the position of the fiddle yard at a funny angle, then the Lulworth Branch and Norden Junction set the position for the boards on the Lulworth line, then my two other boards will slot into place, next the Woodstock Junction which then sets the position of the remaining boards. We can work out approximate positions using my 100ft tape measure, then it's just a case of shuffling a bit to suit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 ###### no pressure on DBC to function correctly there then! An d I thought the morning's entertainment was going to be watching you set up RTS all on your own Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 If for some strange reason your board can't be made to work (and remember there's 10 of us there that can work on things) then by removing Shakespear Brook and putting the fiddle yard straight on to Border Curve, Shakespear Brook can then go between Hailsham and Devils Bridge sidings (just to give a longer 'headshunt') and it still all seems to work properly. Just means that the 5ft walkway becomes a 4ft walkway by the door to the toilets - and I don't see that as a major issue to be honest. But I'm quite sure that your board will work just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Just means that the 5ft walkway becomes a 4ft walkway by the door to the toilets - and I don't see that as a major issue to be honest. Just depends on how much of a hurry one is in at the time ... the extra ft could make all the difference when cornering at speed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Just depends on how much of a hurry one is in at the time ... the extra ft could make all the difference when cornering at speed. There are several large trees just outside the front door, if that's more "convenient". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.