Jump to content

Nm9 RhB modules and standards


Recommended Posts

My only wariness with the steep profiles is it forces it even if you wanted to do a meadow type scene, the lower blue profile is easy to use as there are many channels even in rocky areas where avalanches run in winter so can justify a gully with grass and rock that will blend to lower profiles easier. If we want to go that steep I think we need to have two asymmetric profiles as a lot of the RhB climbs along mountain meadows and that’s too steep for those. Look around Bergun, Bever, Susch, Surava and Disentis etc you only really get the steep mountainsides in the Gorges, Albula pass, around Davos Wiesen and the Bernina ;) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

My only wariness with the steep profiles is it forces it even if you wanted to do a meadow type scene, the lower blue profile is easy to use as there are many channels even in rocky areas where avalanches run in winter so can justify a gully with grass and rock that will blend to lower profiles easier. If we want to go that steep I think we need to have two asymmetric profiles as a lot of the RhB climbs along mountain meadows and that’s too steep for those. Look around Bergun, Bever, Susch, Surava and Disentis etc you only really get the steep mountainsides in the Gorges, Albula pass, around Davos Wiesen and the Bernina ;) 

 

 

I think you just listed most of the network there ;) but I know what you mean, as nice as cliff edge is, through 'steep' meadow is more realistic, and it would be easier to add rocks and tunnels to that than to try and do it the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to visualise:

We'd use Jon's template a few posts ago up-thread for a steep-ish slope, that would work for the likes of these two:
https://goo.gl/maps/gvdwmNy6RNLVTmoGA
or
https://goo.gl/maps/gPaJczH7KrGP4gzb8

Something like this for a gentle slope:
https://goo.gl/maps/eZcx9aVnogCcTofV7
or
https://goo.gl/maps/yYu39WzectbxcRKG7

And a "nominal flatness" end like so (but also good for "utility" modules like staging yards):
https://goo.gl/maps/TrNN4gW5TVhTuSny9
or
https://goo.gl/maps/cSuFkravxfUEvn5i9
(Interestingly I'd have included a roadbed 'hump' as per the HO on that, but both those examples suggest we might be better with track straight on to the board top?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep so steep, FREMOish and flat? We may as well include the ballast shoulder in the profile so it works for the flat valley floors rather than just flat which if needed for larger stations and yards can be within a module. The flat with roadbed would also transition easily to low embankments. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

im thinking about joining in on this.  

 

Can I ask what is available building wise for this scale, or is it all needing scratchbuilding? I assume 1:160 would look a bit odd.

 

carl

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carlw said:

Can I ask what is available building wise for this scale, or is it all needing scratchbuilding? I assume 1:160 would look a bit odd.

 

Kato makes a station building in plastic (Filisur) plus a kit for a modern platform with canopy and signage (presumably the island platform from Filisur?)

Kato and Tomix both make a lot of nominally Japanese structures in 1:150, whilst some really won't work, some of the modern ones would work quite well for urban areas I think, and others might give you a core to kitbash from if you can get them cheaply enough.

(Tomix also has a Mercedes Citaro post-bus out at the moment which might be worth picking up whilst it's available!)

There are some laser cut kits from Faller of RhB station buildings (Langweis, and Stugl-Suls) which look excellent, I presume these wouldn't look bad - they are branded as "N scale", but I must confess i'm not entirely sure which N scale!

They are bigger structures though so even if they were 1:160 i'm not sure they would look too bad, i'm also interested in any thoughts on this!?

 

Edited by Glorious NSE
Link to post
Share on other sites

1/160 looks ok but you might want to enlarge doors slightly on stations that will be right next to the stock. The rest creates a slight perspective behind, I’m using Oxford diecast modern cars as they are 1/148 so pretty spot on to match. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue with the Kato Filisur is they decided to replace the small brick or block with huge blocks so it doesn’t look great close up as it looks like breeze blocks. Best to paint it dark brown to hide it a bit ;) 

The Tomix Citaro can also be motorised with the Faller road system :)

 

DDFA6A7A-A03F-40DC-B524-96BA5B343AE6.jpeg.5f7d29f386ee318397fc93ff33b27341.jpeg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

1/160 looks ok but you might want to enlarge doors slightly on stations that will be right next to the stock. The rest creates a slight perspective behind, I’m using Oxford diecast modern cars as they are 1/148 so pretty spot on to match. 

 

 

Thanks, also a reminder for me to look at 1/148 structure ranges for anything that might help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

angles.png.6d2352a87dd388fcf1a5d74f178554c0.png

Here's a play with profiles, I've started with Jon's end (blue line).

I've added a gentler slope option (green), and two alternate takes (purple and orange) to consider for the nominal flat - orange is flat with just a very small roadbed (ballast) hump - purple makes it more of a low embankment.

I've mocked in 6 hole positions, the steep profile (and possibly the gentle slope also) would only have 5 of the 6, that would still leave 4 usable holes if two opposing steep modules were joined.

I've drawn this with all ends the same depth to the track, that makes the hole locations easier, though it means we're lugging round deeper boards than we might otherwise need for some of the ends?

Below is a take on a clamped version based on similar principles - i'm intending that these should be big enough holes to hook a small clamp through and rotate - again with the slope the steep profile would lose a hole compared to the others, down side there is that you'd end up with only one clamp hole if you mated two opposing steep module ends.

1050466823_anglesclampsversion.png.23fc8b5f24be529417e3b84321381e5e.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

The yellow line is presumably a 100mm flat surface and 3mm of underlay. All 'my' profiles were drawn through a coordinate at 150,100, but in fact they would want to meet a 'roadbed' that might also include a 'cess'

 

I think  a profile somewhere between green and blue would be desirable as well.

 

I'm not keen on clamps, the idea of using 6mm bolts in 8mm holes feels like it gives a little adjustment, without it being excessive.

 

Paul and I have both used a 90mm surface/93mm with cork end thus far - are Tim's standard baseboard a 100mm including surface, or 100 plus the surface ?  you only really need the depth on the 'blue frontline.

 

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jonhall said:

The yellow line is presumably a 100mm flat surface and 3mm of underlay.


It'd amount to underlay at the track on a flat baseboard top, yes.
 

Quote

I think  a profile somewhere between green and blue would be desirable as well.


Suspect you'd want to limit how many variants there were, at least to start with - or you'll struggle to get compatible boards. As you get a bigger group it may be that more could be added if needed?

Which ones you start with is always the question... ;)
 

4 hours ago, jonhall said:

Paul and I have both used a 90mm surface/93mm with cork end thus far - are Tim's standard baseboard a 100mm including surface, or 100 plus the surface ?  you only really need the depth on the 'blue frontline.

 


Not sure what height the Tim Horn ones are exactly - on one level however i'm not sure it matters - the laser cut end being overlaid will just be a little shorter/longer than the board it's being attached to if it's a different height.

I agree you only need the depth on the 'blue' version, at least physically - but it seems to me the closer the ends are to each other in design the easier it is to work out how bolt holes connect between versions and the more flexible you can be in future with the least number and least complexity of holes.

Lets say some variants were shallower and only used the upper line of bolt holes drawn (for example) then you're down to two 'mission critical' bolt holes if you connected, say, an "orange" profile one to a "blue" one. You couldn't use any of the lower line of bolts as they aren't there on the "orange" board, and you lose one of the upper ones to the terrain on the "blue" board. Two bolts will do it - but it gives no leeway if you have a challenging connection for any reason.

The deep end also leaves open some potential future ends - if all the ends are that deep design you can do a proper "embankment" end using the lower 3 holes and the upper centre hole and still mate with all other designs with multiple holes in common - but if you try to mate an embankment like that with a thin end you only have one hole in common, which isn't going to be workable. 




 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First think that occurred to me is do we need the profiles to take catenary clearances into account? Might need to ease back the initial blue slope as if you add rock onto it it’s going to get very close. We might not need to as I’ve set my masts back from the board ends 55mm. My minimum spacing on the R210mm  is 110mm between masts, something like this might be useful in the standard. 

Slightly steeper for the ‘meadow’ profile would be my suggestion, (thicker green line)

029CFE4B-34EF-4BF0-83E4-9C4BDF42935F.jpeg.1f4a0ee2c4ba1d3ae35cd3e8eb6423c8.jpeg

 

 

I’ll try clamping up my modules, to see if I get gaps, as if we go for free standing boards like we use in HO & 009 the clamps are easier and quicker to use than getting to the bolts. I only used them as my layout will be set up for longer periods at home so speed’s not as important.

 

The masts I used so far are either SBB masts by N-train I picked up cheap or Dapol UK masts. After a bit of studying photos the N-train BLS style is very common on the RhB although it does vary a bit by lines so checking Google RhB trackview is useful if trying to represent a particular area. 

I can’t find the N-train website but they are available from several shops like MSL https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/gruppenliste/Catenary/187-2-0-0-001003-0-0-0-0-0-0-grp-gb-p-0/gruppenliste.html

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Catenary, 

Chur to St Moritz & Davos. 

 

D41D338C-39F2-4279-835D-EEE2384830C9.jpeg.2c1e7add4ee6720cb5668de545190b89.jpeg

 

A23BC66E-B938-4F07-B35A-0ED525595EA1.jpeg.2b9d27720b2abcbcf7ae2909f6f8d833.jpeg

 

D1517E51-9BD1-455C-A3DD-71BF1B1811DF.jpeg.42220473d84bb9fff1a9afe0d1763c41.jpeg

 

427B0422-F6B6-4089-B3BF-A8EC9657CC72.jpeg.411015e33a3b5a8174a3e84f35aa052c.jpeg

 

Engadine line

0FF8525B-9C8F-4785-B459-BAA6FCD39555.jpeg.703a5eabd8b66b6fc10b0fbf3b9ab887.jpeg

 

531DC215-0A95-4962-9DCF-B560669B9EDA.jpeg.5a36df64b05828d37ad5d10665719746.jpeg

 

 

Here’s the details of mast spacing for the N-train masts that might make a good start. 

 

 

CD1FAEF0-BDA3-4B72-AB57-61124CDB6D24.jpeg.b426d7c3b4d1ef72f22260492f4dce98.jpeg

 

 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

First think that occurred to me is do we need the profiles to take catenary clearances into account? Might need to ease back the initial blue slope as if you add rock onto it it’s going to get very close. We might not need to as I’ve set my masts back from the board ends 55mm. My minimum spacing on the R210mm  is 110mm between masts, something like this might be useful in the standard. 

Slightly steeper for the ‘meadow’ profile would be my suggestion, (thicker green line)

 

I’ll try clamping up my modules, to see if I get gaps, as if we go for free standing boards like we use in HO & 009 the clamps are easier and quicker to use than getting to the bolts. I only used them as my layout will be set up for longer periods at home so speed’s not as important.

 

Agreed we'd probably want a "distance of nearest mast to board end" in the spec.

I'm ultimately ambivalent on whether the spec finally ends up with clamps or bolts, but as you say the experience is that it is really quick and easy to join the HO ones using them.

These boards might be a little more complex with shaped ends and defined slots for clamps, but that shouldn't slow it down too much, and we've no double track ends to deal with here which are the harder ones to physically align in HO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we need a defined slot for a clamp though? How close does it need to be to the track? If we were having freestanding modules like Freemo it means we align it with those then leave the clamps merely to stop it slipping. Having the bolt holes just gives us the option of either method if a clamp has decent reach. Maybe we just need to specify to use clamps of up to X mm reach? 

 

Freestanding legs on tiny modules can seem redundant so here’s an idea to throw into the mix, anything under 13” / 330mm long & up to 305mm wide,  can be suspended between two independent modules. Obviously that only applies to a single module so people would have to accept that if they build just micro modules they might not get used. We could also say they have to supply a single leg just to take the weight?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Glorious NSE said:

Agreed we'd probably want a "distance of nearest mast to board end" in the spec.

On 210 radius it came out as 110mm spans for mast spacing so it will depend what we specify as a minimum as we may as well make it look feasible to have wires even if we don’t use them. Once the minimum is set then work it out from that by laying a straight edge on a constant curve to check the length of wire that would stay within gauge and halve it to give the distance from the end of the board. 

On my spec it made it 55mm which even on a straight doesn’t look odd. 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Do we need a defined slot for a clamp though? How close does it need to be to the track? If we were having freestanding modules like Freemo it means we align it with those then leave the clamps merely to stop it slipping. Having the bolt holes just gives us the option of either method if a clamp has decent reach. Maybe we just need to specify to use clamps of up to X mm reach? 

 

Freestanding legs on tiny modules can seem redundant so here’s an idea to throw into the mix, anything under 13” / 330mm long & up to 305mm wide,  can be suspended between two independent modules. Obviously that only applies to a single module so people would have to accept that if they build just micro modules they might not get used. We could also say they have to supply a single leg just to take the weight?

 

 

Good points there.

 

I think I'd prefer bolts for 'hanging' short modules though.

 

But being able to use either in the overall setup is an interesting thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think the bolts are a good safety feature for hanging modules but I think we need to keep them very short like Jon’s ‘birdbox’ in a previous picture. 

 

I’ve added the N-train catenary dimensions to the mast pics above. 

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 13 of the first pdf (p6 on the scanned page) has some actual RhB profiles. Various interesting bits on this site. 

Pdf

http://stefano.dalli.it/wp-content/model/landwasser/albula_0.pdf

 

Main site

http://stefano.dalli.it/model/landwasser/

 

From that I’ve converted the trackbed profile to 1/150

15C2504B-86E3-4263-8EC4-23EA496BA84F.jpeg.6bb4463507eb6c67616afa93ddfa0b87.jpeg

Edited by PaulRhB
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.