British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Satan's Goldfish]

And today I designed the leg extensions for Lulworth that are adjustable, so as soon as the height is set 6 pieces of 2x1 will be cut and drilled to attach to the existing support frame when required

I'm waiting to hear the height too so I can make legs for the big fiddle yard in my garage to the correct height and some adaptor boards for the end. My 'North Quay' board is 18in wide, small adjustment to track plan and that will be a shunting module.

[FelixM]

You'd probably need to have a standardized wire coupler (tiny and thin metal plate with two close spaced holes). Each hole would have to be large enough to allow for the greatest wire diameter likely to be used. And you have to specify that wire ends would be tensioned at say a 4 oz pull when coupled , with an upwards hooked end and sprung extensibility for coupling of 1/4". Your typical RTR pantograph upward pressure is the factor that would determine the finalized wire tension force. The wire diameter could vary from 26 swg (US NMRA HO Traction) down to 0.006-7" (scale), if it is sufficiently rigid to have a hook formed end.

 

H0-RE uses wire that is ~1 inch longer on each end of the module. The wire is then bend up at the joint, so that each wire describes a V shape (bent back). When connecting the modules you first do the mechanical connection, then align the tracks and finally hook in the wires. The last step should only be done when all modules are standing safely and do not any more have to be moved again.

 

 

The rest of the track, module ends and DCC/wiring specs can pretty much be just copied from Free Mo.

 

 

Can please someone tell me the advantages of the American Free-Mo system over the Fremo H0-RE norm? To my knowledge there is no modular 00 gauge modelling in Free-Mo.

 

Regards

Felix

[FelixM]

1300 mm rail top over floor is the height to go if you are not debilerately going to make incombatibilities to modules already existent in the UK and other European countries. There is a certain secondhand market for modules.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Satan's Goldfish]

Possibly the most important question that anyone has yet to ask before we worry about OHLE or 3rd rail is the standard for how many Rapido APT-E's could be justified on a modular layout?........

[Clive Mortimore]

 

Can please someone tell me the advantages of the American Free-Mo system over the Fremo H0-RE norm? To my knowledge there is no modular 00 gauge modelling in Free-Mo.

 

Regards

Felix

Hi Felix

 

Both systems look good now I have re-read both sets of requirements, maybe we adpot one or the other as they stand. Or take the parts that we feel would work for us 00 modellers. Or we try something that would suit us British better. I have my ideas which would be best and that is Free-Mo as appears less complicated, but I am open to other people's opinions and will go with the majority.

 

In 4mm the nominal contact wire height of Mk1 OLE is 64mm and Mk3 it is 62mm.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[Stubby47]

If we do adopt the 64mm or 62mm standard, will I have to fit pantographs to my 45xx's?

[Markus-Hymek]

Hi Felix

 

Both systems look good now I have re-read both sets of requirements, maybe we adpot one or the other as they stand. Or take the parts that we feel would work for us 00 modellers. Or we try something that would suit us British better. I have my ideas which would be best and that is Free-Mo as appears less complicated, but I am open to other people's opinions and will go with the majority.

 

In 4mm the nominal contact wire height of Mk1 OLE is 64mm and Mk3 it is 62mm.

 

Moin Clive,

 

I think the 1st thought should be about the connection to exsiting module standards. Is there any chance that you visit a continental europe 00 meeting or not respectively did a existing continetal europe 00 module will be connectet at a UK meeting.

The european Fremo have all what you need and more than 30 years experience with around 1500 members is a importance fact.

 

Markus

[kevinlms]

If we do adopt the 64mm or 62mm standard, will I have to fit pantographs to my 45xx's?

Yes, if you think it would improve their appearance and/or their steam raising capabilities!

[PaulRhB]

Can please someone tell me the advantages of the American Free-Mo system over the Fremo H0-RE norm? To my knowledge there is no modular 00 gauge modelling in Free-Mo.

I think there's little difference though the UK version of US Fremo has less specifications and maybe seems simpler to some of us. I haven't seen any knocking of the OO Fremo standard but it's not taken off over here and that was one of the discussions we had as to why.

We have already discussed the curves specified and 1300mm is also quite high, a full 300 taller than my layout and 150mm taller than the Freemo I've tried, so I start to question if that is one slightly limiting factor for getting kids involved.

If people want to travel abroad then the OO Fremo is an obvious standard to follow but whatever system is proposed as the RMweb standard it's likely to be fairly compatible using an adaptor board, even if that has to be a spiral

I guess from your responses and helpful discussion you find this slightly frustrating why we don't just follow an existing one but equally a lot of us are fairly experienced exhibition layout builders and have built up our own equally strong opinions on construction.

So it's not necessarily that we think the OO Fremo is bad but we have other options that satisfy our requirements too.

Andy Y is no doubt cogitating all the responses and will propose what he thinks will suit the most members, which may well be an existing standard yet. Whatever it is I'm up for adapting my layout to join in as I enjoyed the US version and don't have room to start a module from scratch for this too

 

If we do adopt the 64mm or 62mm standard, will I have to fit pantographs to my 45xx's?

The Swiss beat you to it

http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

[MacRat]

We have already discussed the curves specified and 1300mm is also quite high, a full 300 taller than my layout and 150mm taller than the Freemo I've tried, so I start to question if that is one slightly limiting factor for getting kids involved.

Hight differences can be solved in two ways, either lower the higher or get the smaller higher. Wheelchairs could be an issue, not only because of the hight but more for getting around, though I'm optimistic there are ways to involve wheelchair users.

[PaulRhB]

I'm optimistic there are ways to involve wheelchair users.

That's why I settled on 1000mm on my own layout as the average height of eye level in a wheelchair is around 1100mm. It's a problem as that's still too high to easily operate for a chair and going lower means stooping for people like me. That's one thing I think we would have to take the hit on or boost the seat height on the chair as it's not as crowded as a show and stability is less of an issue if you have less people and a second member to your crew to help if there's an awkward spot in the layout.

[jonhall]

What might be helpful to those of us who are loosing track of the various standards, would be a table that would allow us to see where the commonalities of the various systems lie? It seems to me that the options are all branches of the same tree, and probably share quite a lot of features that could also be common to a British modular standard, that I propose calling Free-mOO or FremOO.

 

Something like the table below, which concentrates on the minimum standards required to actually make the thing work - I wasn't sure of what the rows might be but I threw down a few options, I guess how the boards are joined together would also be on there, and I guess there my need to be extra columns to separate out some of the European standard variations.

 

 

Jon

Edited July 13, 2014 by jonhall

[FelixM]

Thanks Jon.

 

I can speak for European Fremo H0-RE = 00Fremo = compatible to H0-USA by adaptors.

 

Floor to rail height is 1300 mm.

Module width is recommended 50 cm, can be wider for big stations or narrower for harbour scenes, shunting planks or what you like.

Track standard: 16,5 mm. Recommended for 4 mm scale is Peco Code 75 (for the keep it simple guys) or SMP bullhead rail (for the ones who like it).

Train control: Modules wired for DCC, no provision for command stations built into the modules. De facto standardised on Loconet with portable controllers who can be plugged in and out, kits available on a batch basis. Compatible to handheld controllers from Uhlenbrock company.

 

No more must-haves in the norm, but a huge amount of recommended practices.

 

Kind regards

Felix

 

Edit: Track separation for double track lines is 46 mm, so the module width for double track lines is 546 mm.

Edited July 13, 2014 by FelixM

[FelixM]

I think there's little difference though the UK version of US Fremo has less specifications and maybe seems simpler to some of us. I haven't seen any knocking of the OO Fremo standard but it's not taken off over here and that was one of the discussions we had as to why.

We have already discussed the curves specified and 1300mm is also quite high, a full 300 taller than my layout and 150mm taller than the Freemo I've tried, so I start to question if that is one slightly limiting factor for getting kids involved.

If people want to travel abroad then the OO Fremo is an obvious standard to follow but whatever system is proposed as the RMweb standard it's likely to be fairly compatible using an adaptor board, even if that has to be a spiral

I guess from your responses and helpful discussion you find this slightly frustrating why we don't just follow an existing one but equally a lot of us are fairly experienced exhibition layout builders and have built up our own equally strong opinions on construction.

So it's not necessarily that we think the OO Fremo is bad but we have other options that satisfy our requirements too.

Andy Y is no doubt cogitating all the responses and will propose what he thinks will suit the most members, which may well be an existing standard yet. Whatever it is I'm up for adapting my layout to join in as I enjoyed the US version and don't have room to start a module from scratch for this too

 

Thanks Paul for your summary. That experinces with modular 00 gauge are thin on the ground is a problem, because we here in Berlin have made a similar mistake in the first place: We adopted the Fremo US norm which meant an overscale 52 mm track separation on double track lines. We realised this only when a Fremo member from Kent told us that this is wrong and that with a US norm there is no possibility to join in a future channel tunnel layout going to France, Belgium and the Netherlands. We now have adopted the H0-RE norm which makes all this possible.

 

I would like to convince you what modular 00 gauge layouts look like. The next meeting is planned at the end of october in Berlin. You and everyone else interested is wholeheartedly invited. I will cater for organising an accommodation if desired. Sadly I cannot see coming to Britain with a whole 00 gauge modular layout, this is because I would need a second man for this, the consent of all the module builders to take their "pets" on a big tour and not least the amount of money to hire a transporter for a whole weekend. But if I could I'd come.

 

I see you are on a good way to create a norm for Britain. The input of several experienced people already made this thread to look at what is already there. But I fear that the rail top over floor height is the last hurdle the norm could fall at. Please do not underestimate the needs of scale length trains to make a height difference! Sadly I don't have an example to hand but in a similar manner a modelling colleague recently has calculated the length needed to make a parallel shift of track of 6 mm. This was for a transition module from 52 mm to 46 mm track separation without the possibility to move one of the both tracks due to an already wired point. 6 mm seems to me minimal, but the result was – Surprise! – nearly 30 cm / 1 ft.!

Now look at a spiral / helix. It has a radius and gradient combined. This does not do favour to scale length trains, wheelslipping would occur if the radius is too small or the gradient to steep or both. Do you think of spirals with 1 m radius (= ~2,50 metres diameter with safety added)? Did you thought before of the filleting (unsure of correct word) to transition the gradient to level track at the start and end of the spiral, which should once again have a radius of at least 1 m, adding further ~0,5m to the overall length? Wasn't the UK the country with very small halls?

 

Let's talk about rail top to floor height. Exhibition layouts are build to cater for the public, this involves wheelchair users and children. But both are very rare in modular modelling which aim for realistic operations. Of course the 1300 mm height stems from a time when wheelchair users have not yet been on the radar of public attention. To the present day there is only one wheelchair user in European Fremo, he is a popular exception to the rule and there was a donation collection this year to help him with his home layout. I am not saying that inclusion of wheelchair users is not possible but lowering the height of modular setups is the wrong way to go. An operationally interested group of modellers will always tend to squeeze in another branch line instead of letting enough space to let wheelchair users or generally "the public" to pass through the "forest" of modules. Because it is not always possible to have no duck-under modules a wheelchair user is disadvantaged in each case (except the wheelchair user is so small that he will fit under a duck-under module with 1300 mm rail height).

 

If the last paragraph contained inappropriate expressions, please excuse me because I don't intend to be dismissive. It is simply because English is not my mother tongue. Disabled people is a difficult topic so please leave a note with me in this case.

 

1300 mm is optimised for standing and walking along. It is optimised for mechanical uncoupling and other work on the top of the modules while standing.

IMG_3265 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

If the height is lower, you always have to stoop which is going to do no favour to your back. Because 00 gauge is a relatively big scale, drivers of trains will have not much time to sit down while driving a train. Stationary "staation masters" operating a station can use special chairs which are higher than normal ones.

IMG_3289 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

Children use to use footrests or beer crates within Fremo.

 

No, I am not giving up yet, don't worry. My vision is to let this develloping RMweb / British modular standard becoming compatible with what not too far from you away Fremo members have already started.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 13, 2014 by FelixM

[PaulRhB]

Your Engish is more than adequate for the discussion Felix it doesn't come across as dismissive and I'd actually be interested in how he operates on the modules.

[Andy Reichert]

If we do adopt the 64mm or 62mm standard, will I have to fit pantographs to my 45xx's?

 

Only if you also have to paint them blue-grey I expect. .

 

Andy

Edited July 13, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

SNIPPED ABOVE

No, I am not giving up yet, don't worry. My vision is to let this develloping RMweb / British modular standard becoming compatible with what not too far from you away Fremo members have already started.

 

Kind regards

Felix

 

Nice picture Felix! 

 

I have a topology/logistics question that Clive's posting made me think of.  How does the "00 Standard", handle the "module standard" track position and assignments (track 1, 2 and 3), for GB style LH running double track connecting to single track working and vice versa? 

 

Andy

Edited July 13, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Talltim]

Surely double to single track conversion (or vice versa) is handled within a module, so the standard doesn't have to cover it?

[Andy Reichert]

Surely double to single track conversion (or vice versa) is handled within a module, so the standard doesn't have to cover it?

 

That's basically what I am asking about . Clive's single track passing loop example earlier would require another module of the conversion type to be present, if it was part of a (presumably) mixed single and double track set up.

 

Second question. If a single track is specified to be at the center of each module, where are double tracks centered? Or vice versa.

 

Those issues don't usually arise with the US system, because they don't typically operate double track as one handed running. The second and more tracks are operated as just extra single tracks.

[Satan's Goldfish]

I think that sounds like a challenge for the 'layout planner' when a bunch of modules come together. My initial module plan in my head has 20in at one end for 2 track mainline to come on, a junction on the board splitting to 2 single lines with 18in ends. Because of the junction design, if the double track end did need to fit to a single track module then it could and handed running wouldn't matter.

 

until there's a bunch of modules ready to test, I don't think we'll know how much of an 'issue' handed running will be. Crossovers on various modules may come into play, plus there's some locations on the prototype real railway where there's 2 single bi-directional lines side by side for short distances.

 

edit: from the way I understood it, a single track is centred on an 18in wide board. Double tracks have a 46mm spacing between track centres with the middle of that space centred on the end of a 20in wide board. That way if a single end has to join to a double end then one board edge should still roughly line up between the 2 modules (and is a removable buffer stop added to the line on the double track module that's not used?)

Edited July 13, 2014 by Satan's Goldfish

[cromptonnut]

Presumably if Peco (75 or 100) is settled upon for trackwork, then the handy Peco track spacer gauge can be used to ensure that track space at board ends remains accurate without the need for an extra jig?  It's only about 20p from memoy.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Presumably if Peco (75 or 100) is settled upon for trackwork, then the handy Peco track spacer gauge can be used to ensure that track space at board ends remains accurate without the need for an extra jig?  It's only about 20p from memoy.

good idea, but I think that would depend on how 'eu friendly' we want to be for possible big future meet ups with our continental neighbours.

[cromptonnut]

good idea, but I think that would depend on how 'eu friendly' we want to be for possible big future meet ups with our continental neighbours.

 

Unless we exactly follow another standard, then at some point a converter board will be needed, surely?

 

Personally I can't say I am particularly fussed (and I doubt if my wife will be either...) about giving up a weekend taking a couple of boards all the way to Belgium or some other foreign clime to "play trains" - I know travelling long distances is a big thing within American modular meetups but surely the whole point of the UK is that it's fairly small and we don't need to go a long way - and the whole point of a "British modular system" is that it is designed for British modellers modelling British prototypes, living, erm, in Britain?

Edited July 13, 2014 by cromptonnut

[bxmoore]

Putting in extra features to a modular standard "just in case" a few folk actually make it to anywhere else in the EU to join up with others is surely stretching the whole concept.  And even the doughty few would only be doing it once in a blue moon. 

 

Keep it simple.  Keep it accessible to the majority.  Don't get stuck down dead ends of people with their own agendas, hidden or not.

 

Brian

[Satan's Goldfish]

Valid point. I personally have no intention of going far with anything I eventually build. What is the Peco spacing anyway?