Jump to content

For the use of SWAG modular layout contributors

Stubby47

2012 Module Standards

  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the standards are detailed enough ?

  2. 2. What Code of rail should be used ?

    • Code 100
    • Code 75 / or equivalent


Recommended Posts

2012 Module Standards

 

Following the meeting at Taunton on Sunday, these are the proposed standards to which Modules for the 2012 party need to be built.

 

Please indicate in the poll if you're happy with them, or please add a comment if you have any improvements.

 

The standards are available as a pdf : RMweb Module Layout Standards.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Module Layout Standards

 

These are the proposed standards for the modules :

 

 

 

  • Scale : 4mm / 00 Track - Code 100
  • Track height to be EXACTLY 4" from table to top of rail
  • Nearest rail to be 4" (+/- a little bit) from front edge of module
  • Double track - tracks to be EXACTLY 2" centre to centre, at the module edges
  • Modules connected by 2 x 4" bridges of plain track, which include soldered fishplates at each end
  • Each module builder HAS to supply bridges for one end
  • Each module to have 2 x 4-wire connection point/s, clearly indicating which connection is for which of the four rails
  • Power to be supplied via track / connection wires from the Receiving end of the layout
  • Module size to be 1-2ft deep and 2-4ft long
  • For clarity the Up line is the back line, travelling left to right across the module, which means the Down line is the other one.

 

 

 

 

 

Module dimensions

 

 

 

  • Baseboard width. Min 12" max 24"
  • Baseboard length Min 12" max 48"
  • Backscene height Max 16" from the base of module (max. 12" above rail level)

 

post-7025-0-66582600-1303164363_thumb.gif

 

Picture courtesy Martin Hale

 

  • 00 gauge Code 100 only.
  • Front edge to front face of most forward rail at baseboard ends 4"
  • Twin track spacing 2" centres at module edges. This spacing can be changed as required across the module.
  • Top of rail 4†from bottom of module.
  • The UP and Down Main track should be flat throughout the module, that is, no grades or inclines.
  • No points on the main running lines, but you may have any other track (any gauge / configuration) elsewhere on your module.

post-7025-0-45795900-1303164440_thumb.gif

 

 

Picture courtesy Martin Hale

 

 

Module wiring diagram :

 

 

 

Each rail should be wired as follows (as viewed from the front of the module ) : Black / Red, Green / Blue

Both choc blocks should be wired in the same way , from the front, left to right : Black / Red, Green / Blue

 

post-7025-0-85693700-1303164598_thumb.gif

 

 

What wire you use between the rail and the choc blocks is up to you, but the wiring at the choc blocks must follow the convention above.

 

The choc blocks themselves can be fitted to the rear of the module, or left on flying leads - again this is your choice.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Stu do the tracks have to be straight or can they curve within the module (provided, obviously, course that they are in the correct places at each end)?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

They can curve, or split (i.e widen the distance between them for example a bridge parapet or centre platform) as much as you like, provided, as you suggest, they are back in place at the other end of the module.

 

The only caveat is that the lines may be subject to 'high speed running', so you'll need to bear that in mind...

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will also need to be aware of the possible overhang of long locos, wagons and Mk3 coaches for example so there is no possible contact between oncoming trains :blink:

 

I like the idea of a curve or two in the modules ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dilbert

Out of curiosity, are there plans for corner modules ? ...dilbert

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dilbert,

 

Corner modules may or may not make an apearance - it depends on the uptake of straight ones and whether we need any.

 

Mozzer has given us excellent advice on these, for example making them (it ?) without a backscene so they (it) could be viewed from inside or outside the curve, depending upon the exhibition managers preference as to where the modules would be positioned in the hall.

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depending upon the exhibition managers preference as to where the modules would be positioned in the hall.

That would be me, then.

 

I like the idea of no backscene - have a look at the Fremo 87 (modular P87 layout to very rigorous standards) set-up at Houten, Netherlands a few weeks ago (keen-eyed observers will spot Re6/6 walking towards the camera..)

post-57-0-92160800-1303327765_thumb.jpg

 

This one was actually a layout configured in a 'V' shape, with a large fiddle yard at the point of the 'V'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stu

 

Since I obviously don't expect to be part of SWAG - although I have been known to SWAGger, typically shortly before encountering one of life's banana-skins sitting ready to put me on my back - I merely wanted to observe that Code 100 seems a bit crude by C21 standards in 4mm. Few "good" models will have wheel standards that demand Code 100, and I would have thought that Code<100, probably 75, would seem more sensibe. Be it noted that our leader, Andy Y, has been running a clinic on how to make yer Peco Code 75 look more prototypical, and thus further reducing the glaring contrast between P4/EM and OO appearance.

 

Just a thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for the 2012 party it is you, captain, but the theory behind making modules to these standards is they can be used at any exhibition - hence the corner modules need to be a bit more orientation friendly than the straight ones.

 

These standards also are specifically not to a rigourous design for connecting, meaning those who feel they are carpentry challenged ( me being one !) can still get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These standards also are specifically not to a rigourous design for connecting, meaning those who feel they are carpentry challenged ( me being one !) can still get involved.

But I can't see how that will affect Code 75 vs Code 100?

You will still have to make all the modules at exactly the right height or through trains will derail over the bump Code 100 or Code 75 and the position of the track inwards from the front is a factor of OO gauge not rail height, so again Code100 = Code75 = better.

 

But I guess that the way around it would be a very short length of Code100 at the interface then a Code100-Code75 joiner followed by the rest of the module in Code75. (or Code100 if you wanted) or even Settrack or OOSF hand-built .... then we could have a onlooker's competition to see if anyone could actually tell the difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenton,

you are completely correct that the track within the module could be anything, not just Code 100, as long as the connecting / end bits were Code 100.

However, in catering for a wide variety of stock, the lowest common denominator is probably the best.

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, sorry I missed your post.

 

The Code 100 is a suggestion copied from the original ( ?) Module layouts by the CRM group, I'm only following their lead.

 

But it's nothing I'm going to get precious about - if the general concensus is Code 75. ( or any equivalent track ) then let's agree and make that the criteria.

 

Stu

 

Edit : poll question for track code now added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get the poll to let me answer track question , but I will go with code 100 , as I have already got the points sorted for

the fiddle yards in this and have enough to do my module .

 

Why go to a finer scale than is needed for something that will only make an occasional appearance ?

 

I thought this was to be a fun project not something to be seen as a competition as to who builds the most

accurate scale model .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't get the poll to let me answer track question , but I will go with code 100 , as I have already got the points sorted for

the fiddle yards in this and have enough to do my module .

 

Why go to a finer scale than is needed for something that will only make an occasional appearance ?

 

I thought this was to be a fun project not something to be seen as a competition as to who builds the most

accurate scale model .

 

Sounds about right to me. (Code 75 does look a lot better and is my 'preferred medium' at home but I too thought this was a fun thing - however if it is to be an upgrade jobbie....)

PS I wonder if my Austrains diesel would be happy on Code 75 although it seems ok on Scaleway chairs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree code 75 looks better. But...........

 

If we were to have anything but code 100 this will restrict the stock that can be run. e.g. Lima (pass the pizza) and the number of people who can get involved, be it building modules or bringing stock to run. Having a mixture of codes will only add to possible problems on the day and with such little time to set up and debug the thing before opening these need to be kept to a minimum.

 

And The track is down on my module and the point work is purchased and partly down on my fiddle yard, all Peco code 100 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just a suggestion folks......

It seems to me that standardisation is always a far more difficult subject than one might first imagine....

 

I had spoken (at last years SWAG day in fact) to several members,

(incl Jack, I think?) about this very subject.....

 

I'm sure that although the dimensions and rail height have been stipulated,

there could be some very slight "variation" due to human error / different materials etc

 

On a few of my layouts, I have built the scenic section

and constructed the fiddle later

 

Now although I've used the same materials, I have found discrepancies

perhaps B&Q (other DIY stores are available!) had a difference in machining tolerance,

when cutting / planing their wood?

 

To compensate, I have found an easy method.....

I simply put a small screw in the underside of each corner

these are screwed in deeply, but they do allow for adjustment

as a sort of adjustable "pad" / "foot" whatever you want to call it

 

Speaking of discrepancies, even though I use the same eye-level stand for each show

I sometimes have to adjust these screws slightly, to compensate for floor levels!

 

Best of luck,

I'll be watching with interest....

 

Marc

Nice to see you on the weekend Stu,

and please don't try to put any ideas in my head..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree code 75 looks better. But...........

 

If we were to have anything but code 100 this will restrict the stock that can be run. e.g. Lima (pass the pizza) and the number of people who can get involved, be it building modules or bringing stock to run. Having a mixture of codes will only add to possible problems on the day and with such little time to set up and debug the thing before opening these need to be kept to a minimum.

 

And The track is down on my module and the point work is purchased and partly down on my fiddle yard, all Peco code 100 https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_wink3.gif

 

 

I have to agree with Tigger , we have both had a financialout lay to get this idea off the ground , if we start getting

problems on the day due to different track standards it will be disaster .

 

I dont wont to come across as a grouch but I am building one of the fiddle yards , I will have no use for it other

than this event , after a lot of time building and wiring it so we can all have some fun I would be very dissapointed

if things did'nt run smoothly on the day .

 

Just my input .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I'm sure that although the dimensions and rail height have been stipulated,

there could be some very slight "variation" due to human error / different materials etc

 

Speaking of discrepancies, even though I use the same eye-level stand for each show

I sometimes have to adjust these screws slightly, to compensate for floor levels!

 

Marc

 

Hi Marc ,

 

I agree there could be some small variations , hopefully this will be small and can be overcome by the use of

the 4'' bridges between modules , they should take up a difference of a mm or so either up or down .

 

Watch this space . :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Marc ,

 

I agree there could be some small variations , hopefully this will be small and can be overcome by the use of

the 4'' bridges between modules , they should take up a difference of a mm or so either up or down .

 

Watch this space . https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/emoticons/default_grin.gif

 

 

Marc,

 

Mike is completely correct - the 4" bridges allow for any variation in exact height of the rail on different modules- this is one of the major benefits of this whole system.

 

And as for putting ideas in your head - I fully expect you to bring a module next year, complete with mirrors !!!

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And as for putting ideas in your head - I fully expect you to bring a module next year, complete with mirrors !!!

 

Stu

 

Ah, now there's a thought provoking bit of usefulness which might go with something that's been bouncing around in my mind since yesterday eveningcool.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 4" gap also allows for tables which may well have a raised aluminium protective edge all round,

thus the bridging pieces need to bridge the 'convex' gap....huh.gif

 

Of course in anticipation that the module sizes accumulate to equal the length of the tables,

otherwise it's going to be a lot of beer mats under the modules to allow them to pass over the raised edges.......

Now where can I get some beer mats, uhmm, might need a lot of visits tongue.gif

 

I think I've mentioned this before somewhere here - the raised edges..

 

Most village halls, schools etc., have this style of table, Staplegrove Village Hall has them as seen here :-

 

post-7120-0-17019500-1303256704_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..... I fully expect ........ a module next year, complete with mirrors !!!

Damn, my covers blown...angry.gif

 

Penlan

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penlan,

 

The lip on the table edge was seen, and guessed to be about 2mm at most - this shouldn't be a problem, even if a module has to sit across table joins - beer mats or similar will help, but a slight gradient should be ok.

 

Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Penlan,

 

The lip on the table edge was seen, and guessed to be about 2mm at most - this shouldn't be a problem, even if a module has to sit across table joins - beer mats or similar will help, but a slight gradient should be ok.

 

Stu

 

But where will I put my beer? :lol:

 

Marc

Share this post


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.