Jump to content
 

British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates


Andy Y
 Share

Recommended Posts

So here we are 2 years on to the day from when Andy first proposed it. 10 1/2 months of faffing back and forth, 13 1/2 months of silence. In the mean time several North American Freemo meets have been staged again and even more new ones created. There must be around 50 modules around the country by now. The continental based OO freemo continues to grow.

 

What happened? Is the UK modeller so wrapped up in the "we have to have our own solution" and "we do it our way" that the idea has died a painful death from analysis paralysis?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What happened? Is the UK modeller so wrapped up in the "we have to have our own solution" and "we do it our way" that the idea has died a painful death from analysis paralysis?

 

It's a bit like a political party - not much use without a critical mass of members. A bit like the LibDems the participants can all fit in a taxi (without their modules) and the few vocal enthusiasts seem to have lost their voices.

 

Although the proof of concept meet up worked well the overall RMWeb support seemed to have gone out of the sails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened? Is the UK modeller so wrapped up in the "we have to have our own solution" and "we do it our way" that the idea has died a painful death from analysis paralysis?

I was interested, started a topic looking for others in near vicinity but then I found out the nearest other interested party was over 100 miles away so abandoned any thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that "take-up" was limited. I had followed Cromptonnut's efforts (including Kenton and others) and had half-heartedly convinced myself to join in at some point. Alas, I think there are two major players in the model railway game... Exhibitors with self contained show layouts (Roundhouse's "Banbury" among many) and the more hermit-like "lone" modeller, and I include myself in that last category. Getting enough folk to build to a set standard within one geographical area was never doomed from the start, but was perhaps a "big ask".

Edited by Pete 75C
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Pete

 

The US Freemo seems to be doing rather well with a third Armitage meet in September and a second one in Merstham currently being finalised let alone already established meets by local groups.

 

They do rely on a small band of people who do the Lenz DCC setting up and the dispatching through JMRI.

 

However the US type modular set up is more geared to freight as are the current railroads in the US, so I guess it's a different sort of operation to British modelling. We have run a fair few passenger services of recent meets though.

 

I would certainly liked to have got involved in the British modular but with so many shows and already having Fort Myers converted for modular use I just don't have the time or space at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps what is needed is for a club or two to get involved and to build a layout to the standard and create a critical core that would generate wider interest in the format.

 

From looking at the success of Freemo it is down to groups, however loosely organised, setting up the events rather than it just being left to an individual. Perhaps a club can be that group that has the resources to make it happen.

 

A big part of the driver for Freemo is operations, so perhaps this is something that can be encouraged. The lure of operating on a very big layout must be attractive to some.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We - well I - tried under the banner here of SECAG but although we had a great day, the momentum just wasn't there to keep expanding.  A change of job on my part meaning I now work 2 out of 3 weekends hasn't helped matters.

 

It needed "buy in" from around the country and it just wasn't there, as you say local groups doing little things then regional get-togethers and suchlike.

 

I think part of the success of  other modular systems is that they are already established so there are things to get involved in as a beginner whereas we were starting basically from nothing, trying to define a set of loose standards to work with - and we proved they could work, with about a 50ft end to end run albeit with no real purpose as we were testing the theory.

 

I still have some modules stored here that could be used should another meeting be organised.  But someone else will have to do that, and if it falls on a rest weekend and I can get there, I'll be there.  Still happy to help anyone by sharing my experiences of organising if anyone wants them - my inbox is always open.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

 

A big part of the driver for Freemo is operations, so perhaps this is something that can be encouraged. The lure of operating on a very big layout must be attractive to some.

The operation part is certainly my main interest in a bigger layout and I'd planned some details to take along last year until personal circumstances threw everything in the bin.

Luckily for me I can continue doing this with the US group but I'd like to try it in a UK setting still. No time to devote to it at present but I have an idea to get a core group going that could be the basis of a bigger meet. The problems with RMweb live mean that potential venue, which would have been ideal, isn't there but maybe in the future it could be held as part of a bigger show with the modular participants given space but paying for their own lodgings? Otherwise a modular would be a big expense due to the number of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A dedicated club for modular built layouts has started up in SE London with a wide catchment area due to excellent transport links. We will be meeting twice a month and working with the Timhope baseboard and each module will be 1000mm x 450mm 00/Ho and 3ft x 1ft N gauge using Peco 100 track, the club module which will act as the mother board and track datum point.  The idea is your module fits in your car boot and bring it each time or we can store some at the venue for non drivers.  You chose the theme of module and period set and there is a continuous single track running along each one and will be DCC.  Have to agree track height from baseboard and standard electrical connections and backboard  and sideboard standard heights.  

 

Membership is £20 per year plus the cost of your module which is around £40, which of course you then own.   The venue has a well stocked bar and we have a van which is set up to carry about 12 modules to exhibitions.  

 

see www.selkentmodelrailwayclub.weebly.com

 

We have a meeting on Tues 9th Aug from 6pm to 10pm

Edited by russianlayout
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 year later...

Ok,​ so a couple of years on it seems there are still a few of us with modules and a dormant interest, so I'm looking at arranging another meeting, this time in Hampshire (which is where I now live), discussion thread elsewhere in this forum section.  Information here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133238-modular-meet-2-hampshire-date-tba-but-early-2019/

 

However, having thought about the standards and their practicalities from the last meet, and looked to see what a number of other people have come up with via different modular standards, I'd like to suggest an amendment to the standards to make it a little easier for everyone - board width.

 

​I feel that the 18" board width and exact centering of track is somewhat restrictive.  Whilst we are used to all boards being the same width on our layouts, I think we'd open up a lot more possibilities if we made the board widths simply that there must be a minimum of 5" each side of track centres.  This still gives us a minimum of 10" (single) or 12" (double) track which is enough for a secure connection to adjacent modules providing that the legs are adequate.  A wider width where required, as long as the track is a minimum of 5" from one edge of the board, still gives compatibility with other modules and enough space to clamp together.  After all, the clamps are only holding the boards together, the legs themselves are supporting the actual boards.  Remember that with modular, operation is the driving factor, not uniformity of scenery - so why stick with uniformity of board with and straight line?  Free-mo works on a similar principle although Fremo requires uniform boards.

 

The thinking behind this suggestion is that an offset board allows sidings, for example, on one side and no wasted space on the other for the sake of an artificial "straight line" and wasted land.  This is particularly beneficial for curves and junctions.  Also, existing layouts that have not been built to "Dave" standards but are easily convertible (ie with a new set of legs at the right height and with a small transitional board if required to smooth out scenery depth) and provide that minimum 5" either side of track at the end can join in.  It also means there's no longer a need for complicated woodwork to neatly transition between the existing 18" and whatever width you want to use for your modules - a big plus for cack-handed numpties like me who struggle when it comes to baseboard construction anyway.

 

It also means narrower boards as "plain track" between modules with features (stations, yards, junctions etc) giving longer runs, where scenery is not necessary and may just be plain fields which takes up less space in the car (and also quicker to build).  One thing we lacked at the last meet was 'corners' and as we're using a smaller hall this time I believe it's important to have more corners to maximise the use of what space we have available.

 

Obviously if you have nothing but 10" wide boards then you may have a structural integrity issue somewhere but with narrow curved boards this will be reduced - plus of course there's no reason that trestles couldn't be wider than the boards anyway to help support.  They don't take up anywhere near as much space in the car.

 

Below is an example quickly drawn up of three modules joined at offsets but maintaining the 5" each side of track centre line (right one only partly shown), a 10" wide single track module, coming into an offset siding, passing into a 10 track freight yard module, both of which are different widths.  Happy to explain with more images should clarification be required.

 

post-8328-0-86821300-1523738639_thumb.jpg

 

Although this second modular meet is still under the SECAG banner, any RMWeb member anywhere in the world prepared to travel to Hampshire is welcome to join in...

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

  • 2 months later...

It is highly ironic that Germany has had modular modelling for 30 years by now and the UK didn't, whereas in civil engineering the UK with modular design is about 10 years ahead with modern processes like BIM than the rest of Europe. https://www.the-possible.com/long-held-dream-modular-construction-becoming-reality/

 

And I don't have any explanation.

Edited by FelixM
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hello!

 

I'm your standard run-of-the-mill lapsed modeller thinking about getting more involved with the hobby again, without anything approaching a module, but I'm very enthusiastic about the idea of joining in.

To this end, I've started sketching plans for an inner-city terminus with the centre platforms optionally through ones, and the pointwork at the other end on a curve. I searched the forums as well as I could to try and a consensus of what minimum radius was in force where (especially with slips and the Curved Points of Extreme Contentiousness), but remain afraid of getting it wrong. There have been a couple of meets since the topic was last discussed (at some length, it would appear); are the offending points permitted where the diverging route is not part of route which trains will be pelting along?

 

Best wishes, and apologies if this re-ignites a long debate!

 

Wilf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Wilf

 

From the standard http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88537-rmweb-modular-project-standards/&do=findComment&comment=1533866

 

“Track curvature - Minimum radius for the mainline should be 36" which corresponds with Peco Medium Radius points and for sidings 24" which corresponds with Peco Small Radius Points.”

 

This chart is quite useful and shows the set track curve, (st244/245), points are too tight as both are under 2ft radius but the larger code 100 or code 75 ones are fine.

 

http://caldernorthern.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pecoturnoutdimensions.pdf

Edited by PaulRhB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Paul,

 

Thank you very much for your prompt reply, copy of what is indeed a very useful chart, and general patience!

 

For the absolute avoidance of all doubt, would the following be considered compliant with the spirit and intent of the Standard?

 

The two routes from the join with other modules into the two "optional-through platforms" are mainline (36" minimum radius, likely to be used as a standard rather than a minimum) and everything else is a low-speed approach ("siding"; 24" minimum [and I really do mean MINIMUM not usual] radius).

 

Looking forward to picking up the Saw in due course, as well as the Pencil!

 

Wilf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok,​ so a couple of years on it seems there are still a few of us with modules and a dormant interest, so I'm looking at arranging another meeting, this time in Hampshire (which is where I now live), discussion thread elsewhere in this forum section.  Information here: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/133238-modular-meet-2-hampshire-date-tba-but-early-2019/

 

However, having thought about the standards and their practicalities from the last meet, and looked to see what a number of other people have come up with via different modular standards, I'd like to suggest an amendment to the standards to make it a little easier for everyone - board width.

 

​I feel that the 18" board width and exact centering of track is somewhat restrictive.  Whilst we are used to all boards being the same width on our layouts, I think we'd open up a lot more possibilities if we made the board widths simply that there must be a minimum of 5" each side of track centres.  This still gives us a minimum of 10" (single) or 12" (double) track which is enough for a secure connection to adjacent modules providing that the legs are adequate.  A wider width where required, as long as the track is a minimum of 5" from one edge of the board, still gives compatibility with other modules and enough space to clamp together.  After all, the clamps are only holding the boards together, the legs themselves are supporting the actual boards.  Remember that with modular, operation is the driving factor, not uniformity of scenery - so why stick with uniformity of board with and straight line?  Free-mo works on a similar principle although Fremo requires uniform boards.

 

The thinking behind this suggestion is that an offset board allows sidings, for example, on one side and no wasted space on the other for the sake of an artificial "straight line" and wasted land.  This is particularly beneficial for curves and junctions.  Also, existing layouts that have not been built to "Dave" standards but are easily convertible (ie with a new set of legs at the right height and with a small transitional board if required to smooth out scenery depth) and provide that minimum 5" either side of track at the end can join in.  It also means there's no longer a need for complicated woodwork to neatly transition between the existing 18" and whatever width you want to use for your modules - a big plus for cack-handed numpties like me who struggle when it comes to baseboard construction anyway.

 

It also means narrower boards as "plain track" between modules with features (stations, yards, junctions etc) giving longer runs, where scenery is not necessary and may just be plain fields which takes up less space in the car (and also quicker to build).  One thing we lacked at the last meet was 'corners' and as we're using a smaller hall this time I believe it's important to have more corners to maximise the use of what space we have available.

 

Obviously if you have nothing but 10" wide boards then you may have a structural integrity issue somewhere but with narrow curved boards this will be reduced - plus of course there's no reason that trestles couldn't be wider than the boards anyway to help support.  They don't take up anywhere near as much space in the car.

 

Below is an example quickly drawn up of three modules joined at offsets but maintaining the 5" each side of track centre line (right one only partly shown), a 10" wide single track module, coming into an offset siding, passing into a 10 track freight yard module, both of which are different widths.  Happy to explain with more images should clarification be required.

 

attachicon.gifCapture.JPG

 

Although this second modular meet is still under the SECAG banner, any RMWeb member anywhere in the world prepared to travel to Hampshire is welcome to join in...

The issue with wider than standard or offset ends comes with junctions. In this quick diagram you can see that the wider-than-standard module (cyan) conflicts with the standard module (yellow) when combined with a junction module (grey) that meets the standard. Obviously you can work around this when planning the setup, but it does add complication

post-6836-0-73737100-1539540144.png

Edited by Talltim
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Right what was actually decided and what are people actually using? I'm in the process of building a relatively large mainline terminus station and will be making it modular, I was originally going to go with the Fremo standard and use one of their end plates, bit seeing as this discussion is here I'll ask. Also the standards listed in the standards topic aren't very clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dungrange said:

I think you want the pinned topic that summarises what was actually defined as the standard as opposed to how we got to them.

 

 

that pinned topic still isn't all that clear, for example, are you using Xpressnet or Loconet for handsets on the DCC system, you can't expect everyone to just stand around one point where the DCC system is, you need throttle and booster bus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Adamphillip said:

 

that pinned topic still isn't all that clear, for example, are you using Xpressnet or Loconet for handsets on the DCC system, you can't expect everyone to just stand around one point where the DCC system is, you need throttle and booster bus.

The dcc system was left up to the local group. So many now using wifi that at recent US meets we haven’t  always had a full expressnet bus either. 
On our 009 version we just used a Z21 and boosters so all WiFi. 
In the Freemo setup we tend to rely on a couple of the groups who already had the bus and slave panels clamping them to the modules. Both FREEMO & Britmod only require the two track bus connections as a minimum and with multiple meets each year with FREEMO it’s worked well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Adamphillip said:

that pinned topic still isn't all that clear, for example, are you using Xpressnet or Loconet for handsets on the DCC system, you can't expect everyone to just stand around one point where the DCC system is, you need throttle and booster bus.

 

The intention was that it up to the modular meet organiser and participants to decide what system should be used for the modules that are being connected and that decision will be based on what equipment these people own.  The requirements may well be different if you have just three participants rather than 30.  The only standards that were agreed were for the physical baseboard and the track bus - which is what that thread indicates.

 

It's also worth pointing out that although there have been a couple of what I understand to have been successful modular meetings in the South East of England, it's not a concept that's really gained a lot of take up elsewhere.  As such, there is nothing to stop you developing the specification in conjunction with whatever group of modellers you are likely to meet with.

 

Like you, there are some undefined potential issues that I've never been quite sure about.  For example, if you wire your point motors up to the DCC bus, how do you handle accessory address conflicts between modules constructed by different people?  I don't think the standard specified a separate accessory bus, so if you have a separate accessory bus on your module and the module that you are connecting to doesn't, then you either have to connect your accessory bus directly to the DCC bus, or you have a separate DCC Command Station to control your accessories, which won't be accessible through the central Command Station.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I believe that the decision was made for "no DCC accessories" such as point motors for those specific reasons you mention.  

 

Correct it was up to the meet organiser to decide what DCC system to used, based on what the members had available.  For example, I have a Lenz setup with a PC interface configured with JMRI and an old router, so everyone with a smartphone (or a couple of spare smartphones and tablets I had) could download the Enginedriver app and configure it, so although I had about 3 Lenz controllers available, everyone else could just use their phone.  The meet we had was only 6 people so it wasn't really an issue.

 

A full report of our (good grief was it really that long ago?) successful meet can be found here 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

We have had the same problem in Australia, no commonly agreed standard and Free-Mo /Fremo in Australia has gone nowhere.  Now my local model railway club decided, instead of building a new exhibition layout, it would build a Fremo layout for exhibiting, with the club starting to build some useful modules as a start. The old chessnut about standards raised it's head, and after a quick discussion with the interested members I suggested we could get the AMRA standard improved, as I am on their standards comittee. We all had many years of modular layout design and exhibiting, and in a short period of time the AMRA standard was improved, updated and adopted by my local club. The new standard is basically a throw back to the early Fremo simple end board, 500mm wide and using close to the US Free-Mo depth 150mm. We decided to make jumper cables instead of using tethered plugs, as experience shows these can be damaged if the are not properly secured. Also the module wiring was simplifed, using DCC and Wifi allows this. With the support of both my local club and AMRA, this time we should get things going.  Here is the link to the AMRA freeform standard, to get an idea of some alternative ideas.  https://amra.asn.au/about/standards/

Edited by nswgr1855
  • Like 2
  • 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...