Nm9 RhB modules and standards

[jonhall]

9 hours ago, VanBasten said:

Hi Paul.

Yes, there is the INGA.netNG (narrow gauge) standard for Nm modules, below the link to the endplate drawing, we are using it (among the others) for the Nm modules in Stuttgart, at the Nm meeting during the European N Scale Convention, in november.

You can find it here:

http://inganetng.spur-n-schweiz.ch/attachment.php?attachmentid=4

 

 

That's interesting, Its the sort of specification I thought might already exist - am I right in understanding this is a 6.5mm 'z' track gauge?

 

Jon

[PaulRhB]

Forum is here Jon 

http://inganetng.spur-n-schweiz.ch/

 

standard

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by PaulRhB

[VanBasten]

On 18/04/2019 at 09:09, jonhall said:

 

That's interesting, Its the sort of specification I thought might already exist - am I right in understanding this is a 6.5mm 'z' track gauge?

 

Jon

 

Yes, Nm track gauge is 6,5 mm as Z scale. 

Edited April 21, 2019 by VanBasten

[PaulRhB]

Ok so here's the latest considerations for a Nm9 standard, I quite like a lot of the INGnetNG 6.5mm  standard but I think we could slim it down a bit as simpler versions work well for Freemo and my Freem009 derived from it.

 

Modules

Free standing modules with adjustable feet for levelling boards.

 

End profile(s) and joining them. Include scenic treatment and ballast?

 

Depth of frame at end for clamps / bolts to join modules.

 

Height to top of rail, (wheelchairs and kids consideration)

Freem009 1000mm,

Freemo 1143mm,

FREMO 1300mm?

INGAnetNG (6.5mm) standard 900mm-1300mm

 

Track

Track, code 55 Peco

 

Minimum radii? INGAnetNG 250mm but recommend 300mm minimum.

 

20-25mm straight at ends of boards to stop kinks at joins?

 

Gradient? (3% on INGAnetNG standard).

1in14 - 7% Bernina

1in17 - 6% Arosa

1in20 - 5%

1in23 - 4.5% Davos - Lq

1in25 - 4%

1in29 - 3.5% Albula

1in33 - 3%

1in50 - 2%

 

6 coach + loco minimum loop length?

 

Couplings? Depends on whether just running trains or doing operations. (Personally I think a mixture will work ok as long as it is only 1-2 types)

 

Loading gauge & Catenary - Morop NEM 102 seems a good place to start, see below.

 

Control

Control DC or DCC?   (Personally I think DCC is the best option for ease of wiring)

 

Connectors? Suggest 4mm banana plugs as already used in Freemo and FREMO..

 

Accessories / points  to have separate power supply?

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

I decided to try out gradients based on the spirals idea. I increased the radius to 216mm and the rise to 50mm giving a gradient of 1in27, slightly steeper than the real Albula line but well within the RhB gradients. 

The 4/4ii goes up easily and can easily restart from a stand with six coaches when it’s an even grade but will spin on starting if you increase it to 1in20. If you made the loops for the Kato six coach sets then this would introduce the need to double head bigger trains  

 

 

 

 

 

[Glorious NSE]

Fascinating stuff Paul - I wonder if I can resist something compatible, especially as more and more stock is becoming available for it.

Ref the height - 1000 sounds logical, but is defining a specific height counterproductive if you want gradients? Would it be better to define a range.

The Free-Mo in the US has a whole foot of vertical adjustment to allow for this - that was something we culled from the spec for the UK US outline version, but it'd probably be more useful here than it would be for US modelling!

[PaulRhB]

Yes we rather like the idea and the Nm standard has 900-1300 but the legs need fairly sophisticated production to cut a long slot so that’s something we need to look into. I’ve already designed two spirals for my own BonsaiRhB standard and I’m thinking about drilling 8mm holes at 50mm intervals and using 2x 6mm bolts to hold the leg extension in place so there’s a bit of float in the accuracy required to make them and then the screw feet can adjust for the rest. 

[JimFin]

Readily available commercial alternative. https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/desks/table-tops-legs/olov-leg-adjustable-white-art-10264302/

 

[PaulRhB]

32 minutes ago, JimFin said:

Readily available commercial alternative. https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/products/desks/table-tops-legs/olov-leg-adjustable-white-art-10264302/

 

“since the legs are adjustable between 60-90 cm”

 

They’re a bit low Jim as we are looking at 90cm up and you’d need to have four large flat mounting plates under the board to bolt them too. A piece of 2x1 with bolt holes and 2 bolts costs about £2. 

[PaulRhB]

Comparison of module heights, I'm hoping to bolt on a board to the module for Globalrail to show the different levels.

[Glorious NSE]

Okay, having inexplicably spent half the weekend googling Rhb stuff and 'cab riding' the network via streetview, I think i'm up for contributing something, though probably it'll be something small, accessible, freight-friendly (and having to also have some elements, at least at home, that work for a 5 year old too...!)

I did look at their freight terminal near Samedan, which is just fabulous and allows for seemingly all traffic types you can think of - but that's probably a bit too much to take on without getting rid of other interests!

I'm currently a bit taken in by the pocket intermodal terminal just West of Ilanz...
https://goo.gl/maps/MKT3mArKcprcHtup9

Some thoughts on what's been put out...

Wider than 150mm please - my suggestion would be 300mm/1' - as you can get off the peg boards (including curves) in that size which could form a basis for your boards if you're not into woodwork.

(Tim Horn also has 250mm/10" listed as well - and the image on that page shows a curve but he doesn't have off the peg curves to order or i'd have suggested that instead!)

I'd suggest 3 ends - a symmetrical nominal flat, a symmetrical vee cutting, and an asymmetrical slope (obviously the latter has to be usable LH/RH) - that would give 4 potential end configurations to any given board end which is plenty to be getting on with! I'd suggest nothing too dramatic for the slope and then it could work as either mountain or meadow?

Whilst matching end profiles is good, Fremo use "black boxes" where necessary if two mismatching ones have to be placed together in a setup.
A 'black box' might be the kind of thing that could be done as a kit maybe?

1000mm nominal height, variable by increments is fine by me. Whilst precision is great, as long as the variation in height settings is covered by the variation available in the feet adjustment then it should be adjustable to any height in the range in practice?

DCC please, much simpler for modules, and it looks as though the rolling stock side is not too difficult to achieve with what's on the market at present. We already know the layout-side DCC architecture is achievable.

Operation - this shouldn't be in the standard it should be down to whatever those at the meet want to do - if they want to run fixed train sets between two yards then so be it, if they want something more organised then do that instead. 

But - I think there might be a case to argue on standardising on couplings to enable operations to happen when folk do want to - for instance if 5 people contribute a mix of freight stock and compatible freight loco's to a meet and between them they have 3 coupler types which can't be intermingled, then it's nigh on impossible to reasonably run it as a railway comprised of loose stock as the real thing is - MT couplings seems like a plausible option if the Kato are't uncoupleable in service?

If we end up with a yard (or yards) making up trains to go out, a workable coupler is a must.
If we end up with a pair of return loops that trains shuttle between, then having couplers that only work within a train is fine.
We won't know the answer to that one yet!

Got to say i'm really interested in the potential for operations on these, the ability for carload freight including mixed trains and tail traffic on EMUs is really interesting stuff. I love the whole carload forwarding side in the US HO scale modules, but a RhB modular scenario adds the potential of running an actual timetable for the network created onto that, and with the potential to also allocate loco's and passenger cars in a way that we don't really have the infrastructure (or a tight enough focus) to do in HO US outline. 

And doing that with much less "land take", both domestically, transport wise and at a meet than US HO too...

Minimum loop length seems like really good advice - length proposed seems like a good compromise, presumably that length will also take a loco and 6x GEX cars?

Please keep me in the loop, so to speak! 





 

[PaulRhB]

Lots there I agree with and your thoughts on the module ends mirror my own. I’d already thought the asymmetrical Fremo slope was probably more useful than the steeper Nm one but their width was more versatile.

I’d also thought of a blank box or some short pairs of adaptors that could either be used as a board in themselves, joined as a pair, or singly to swap direction / profile. 

Similarly with couplings you could keep coach sets as fixed rakes and have a pair of ‘Group couplings’ that are on the outer ends at a meet but can be coupled together inside a set the rest of the time. I’ve used this at home to test new locos still with Kato couplers, while I’m mainly using microtrains the coaches have been kept in sets so there seemed little point in converting every one to knuckles.

 

 

[Glorious NSE]

Yes. that's logical, but having at least some 'loose' coaching stock is also desirable for mixed trains/Allegra tail traffic/adding & removing cars from peak trains/tourist trains etc...

But the actual mix of fixed and loose coaching stock could be something to think about later, if there was a basis of Microtrains being used for loco's/traction units/wagons and at least coach rake ends already.

Not suggesting we use JMRI at this stage, but the likes of that can handle moving fixed groups of vehicles mixed with singles if it came to it, so the practicalities would work of mixing them.

[PaulRhB]

Yep I was ultimately thinking of a few single coaches that could be added to strengthen rakes or to make the interregional trains. 

Operation wise I could see fixed sets not really being an issue for through trains so unmodified couplings will work alongside operations of whatever style. Much like we do with block trains on Freemo from yard to yard. It just ties that set to that loco.  

[JohnDMJ]

On 28/03/2019 at 09:24, PaulRhB said:

One thing that does concern me is the height. I’ve been using 1000mm because it’s easily viewable from a seated position and wheelchairs, raising it to their N-RE 1300mm would put it well out of view and for many children too.

1000mm is comfortable for operation, as seen in the photos in the first post, as I’ve used it on Freem009, my Harz layout and Lulworth all of which are also intended as exhibitable layouts. Currently I’d prefer that for those reasons and it doesn’t preclude alternative legs or bolt on 300mm extensions. 

 

 

This diagram certainly brings the issue home!

[Glorious NSE]

7 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Operation wise I could see fixed sets not really being an issue for through trains so unmodified couplings will work alongside operations of whatever style. Much like we do with block trains on Freemo from yard to yard. It just ties that set to that loco.  

 

At Christow, whilst our pair of through trains were provided with a set of loco's each, both of them had received different loco's by the second time they ran - i'd have said no to a through train which wouldn't have been compatible and where you couldn't even run the loco round at the far end of the run without getting hands-on though! 

In US HO we don't need to make the argument that things need to be fundamentally compatible to work, it's just expected because they (mostly) already just are compatible - this is very different, we have fundamentally incompatible stock straight from the box - yet we'd be modelling a system where most things on the prototype freely intermix on a daily basis - i'd argue that's part of what gives it much of it's character! 

I think the argument needs to be deliberately made that compatibility is an important thing - i'd argue if that's seen as something desirable (and personally, that's a big yes!) then it'll be easier to build that into the group ethos from the start than try and change it later.

[jonhall]

My lack of enthusiasm for switching to <any other> couplings is the potential damage to the lovely Kato original models - yes a lot of my UK stock is Kadee, but i'm not sure I want the faff of swapping couplings in this scale.

 

Jon

[PaulRhB]

Depends what you term as damage really, you have to snip off the rapido ‘cage’ on the bogie the way I do it on the coaches. 

Martyn and I enjoy the operation side which is far more absorbing than you think  and it’s not complicated. It just adds another dimension to running a bigger layout. Like I said earlier I think it could be included in a compromise operation where  some fixed sets run alongside the stock equipped for full operation. 

At the recent Freemo meet I took four locos and no stock at all as others had supplied it all. You can just adapt locos where the microtrains couplers drop into the Kato loco pockets and only the microtrains coupled itself needs trimming. The spring and Kato coupler can be popped back in at home, it’s a one minute job requiring a fingernail as the only tool to clip off the loco skirt that holds the coupling. If only they’d made the stock use the same fitting

My own home setup is intended for operation so I’ve fitted all the goods stock with microtrains couplers and the coaches are fixed in sets with a few more going to be fitted individually to strengthen sets. The RhB tends to run set formations in the main and then add on extra capacity single coaches or special cars like the Gourmino restaurant, Starck Bar or the tourist opens. 

We still need driving trailers to represent many modern services as the local trains on the Engadine and Davos line have used 3-5 coach push pull sets for some time. 

I settled on 6 coach mainline sets and four car locals for now. I’ve also got a couple of Tmf2/2 shapeways bodies and chassis to fit them as shunters are the usual way to add extras at short notice rather than the train loco adding them on. 

 

Edited June 11, 2019 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

Here’s the method of changing loco couplings. 

 

 

[Glorious NSE]

4 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

 

At the recent Freemo meet I took four locos and no stock at all as others had supplied it all.

 

That's potentially even more relevant here - it seems to me there's a very high possibility that multiple participants will all own more or less identical stock, something that's never been an issue in US HO. Not really a problem with wagons or coaches, but it'll be critical with traction units - if 10 people turn up to a meet and bring the same loco we've effectively only got one loco that can run... 

Food for thought on organising and how it impacts ops.  

[jonhall]

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Here’s the method of changing loco couplings. 

 

 

 

Thanks Paul, I'll have to have a look on Saturday.

 

Jon

[jonhall]

8 hours ago, Glorious NSE said:

That's potentially even more relevant here - it seems to me there's a very high possibility that multiple participants will all own more or less identical stock, something that's never been an issue in US HO. Not really a problem with wagons or coaches, but it'll be critical with traction units - if 10 people turn up to a meet and bring the same loco we've effectively only got one loco that can run... 

Food for thought on organising and how it impacts ops.  

 

That's true enough, but there are a range of liveries available in GE 4/4 II and III, so we should exceed one loco per module(set)  but what is almost certain is that several people will come with the 'same' loco and particularly stock, and that its quite likely to be factory condition, therefore a discreet marking system will be essential for packing up time.

 

To simplify Saturday I'm not bringing any stock!

 

Jon

[PaulRhB]

20 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

Thanks Paul, I'll have to have a look on Saturday.

 

Jon

I'll have a look if I've got any 2004 left as I have a couple of locos not yet converted, if I have some you can have a go  

 

14 minutes ago, jonhall said:

 

That's true enough, but there are a range of liveries available in GE 4/4 II and III, so we should exceed one loco per module(set)  but what is almost certain is that several people will come with the 'same' loco and particularly stock, and that its quite likely to be factory condition, therefore a discreet marking system will be essential for packing up time.

Yes a coloured dot, either sticky or paint, works well. I've bought the packs of coloured sticky dots and cut them in half to use on stock in the past as they don't permanently mark the model. I've got 8 different locos DCC fitted so that would cover the locos moving on most of the big HO layouts let alone this  Increasingly at Freemo meets you end up driving someone else's loco as it has been put on a train in the yard but it's equally as easy to swap it for one of yours and if there is a depot on the layout no handling is required so you don't worry about handling if someone else is driving yours.

[PaulRhB]

Just a reminder that Jon and I will be at Globalrail this Saturday with these BonsaiRhB modules and discussing setting up a wider Nm9 standard for group meets, come and have a chat   

[roundhouse]

Looking forward to seeing these boards at the weekend.