A modular layout

[AlanRogers]

If you want to stick to plain old, simple and known, analogue control, you're confining yourself to controlling your own module and basically completely defeating the object of a modular layout because interoperable transferable cab control is pretty much unachievable on a modular layout. You've painted yourself into a corner of taking a train from an adjoining module and passing it to the next.

 

With the benefit of hindsight, I'm going to revise my opinion slightly and rein in my vehemence equally. I'm still pro DCC personally but the DCC vs DC argument can be better summed up in a simpler question:

Do you want to drive the train for the entirety of its journey or do you want to operate the station and therefore everything that goes through it?

 

Neither is right or wrong but that's what it boils down to.

[AndrewC]

No doubt some one will demand clockwork or Dublo 3-rail to be incorporated into the specs.

 

Seriously though. The main reason the US modular groups have taken off is they all use DCC and they all use the most simple set of standards that are practical. Having to create massive looms of wiring to accommodate block section workings, isolated sections, change over power from previous/next modules, pass through power busses, etc make DC control of a modular setup unwieldy. Fremo and all its various offshoots and derivatives only became practical once DCC was adopted. 2 wires from each module. Left rail and right rail, simples. Throttle bus can be as simple as a home made extension cable with either a din or RJ12 socket at each end to pass through, or the same with an extra socket or 2 for local throttle access.

 

Another large issue in trying to herd cats towards a standard is the UK modeller's reluctance to move past the 1960s as far as the electrical side of things is concerned. The last Canadian exhibition I was involved with was in 2003. There were around 30 layouts and the only ones not running DCC was the Lego builders group and a kiddie's drive Thomas layout. At a recent exhibition here I spotted 3 layouts still using ancient H&M controllers.

[Kenton]

 

Indeed, worth waiting until it has all settled down. I will be very interested to see how the DC vs DCC debate pans out as this is a very emotive issue... 

Although I raised the issue on the other topic - I believe the motive was misunderstood. I really do not see there being a debate between DC and DCC. It is an operation issue that, in theory, should not affect module standards. Operationally it is a no-brainer that the group operations should be DCC. However a very significant proportion of modellers do not use DCC with 2 main reasons: cost and they only ever operate 1 or two locos on their layouts. As most who know me round these parts I always advocate wiring to be DCC compliant even if you are going to introduce section switching and operate DC. It makes any future change in control to DCC a simple step. The problem comes when the simple wiring rules advocated any Peco and DC fanatics is presented as it often is to newcomers as answer to "wire this please" questions.

 

The main thrust of all my arguments on that other topic is to make standards as inclusive as possible. So modules can be built to be used as home layouts (perhaps with the addition of a simple FY). They can be DC use at home but wired correctly to be used as DCC or DC. In the group module arena someone comes along and simply plugs a DCC control until into the bus and the module owner can sit and watch/signal trains passing through his module or experience DCC and potentially become a convert/or not. Nothing changes when the module goes home except perhaps some seed of interest in DCC.

 

BTW there is a load of rubbish talked about wiring modules for overall DC control most of it around scaremongering DCC fanatics who have forgotten more about DC and logic control that they even knew. It actually only requires 4 wires to transfer DC control between independent modules but the big difference is the loco is passed (signalled) through - rather than with DCC where the loco and its driver both get passed between modules.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Although I am not experienced with DCC, I am persuaded that it would be the way to go on a large modular layout. That is because I have been involved with DC modular layouts and they are not operationally interesting. Basically, one just sends the trains round one after another, non-stop, in a very "trainset" fashion. That is only mitigated if some of the sections have independently operated features such as a branch line, narrow-gauge feeder, MPD, industrial site, etc.

 

My experience is with the FFMF (French Federation of Railway Modellers) standards. Good in that they are simple to apply. Much less good in that:

1) they tend to encourage "flat earth" layouts with no scenery below track level;

2) the main tracks are too close to the front (or rear) of the baseboard leading to uninteresting layouts and/or unprototypical reverse curves.

 

Success depends a lot on good carpentry so that the interfaces work reliably. In the context of a group such as is proposed, it is probably worth seeking out one member with access to full wood machining equipment who can provide end profiles, or even complete baseboard kits, consistently.

[Kenton]

 

Success depends a lot on good carpentry so that the interfaces work reliably. In the context of a group such as is proposed, it is probably worth seeking out one member with access to full wood machining equipment who can provide end profiles, or even complete baseboard kits, consistently.

I am completely against any such Ikea flat pack approach. Just as I am totally against any imposed use of preformed end-plates. Although there may be some scope for someone to use such things if provided/available. The last thing that should happen is an enforcement. My carpentry skills are not that bad that I can build a board that can be G-clamped to others. I can also build legs to reach the height compliance (though mine may well be more adjustable than specified as I see it as an absolute minimum.

[cromptonnut]

Most larger diy stores and timber yards should be able to cut wood squarely and accurately at point of sale if you don't have the tools at home.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Most larger diy stores and timber yards should be able to cut wood squarely and accurately at point of sale if you don't have the tools at home.

 

They should be able to - but often don't unless closely supervised. I was thinking though more of end plates that guarantee good alignment. The FFMF norm uses G-clamps, as suggested by Kenton, but I have never been very satisfied by that arrangement. Any other system, e.g. dowels, needs accuracy and consistency.

[Kenton]

 

needs accuracy and consistency.

and imposes severe restrictions on those participating - which is why it was probably set aside as an absolute standard on the topic discussing module standards.

 

Do we have to return to the whole debate again on this topic which I thought was taking the discussion further into investigating the "interest" of potential participants in a roughly defined area (SECAG). Let's accept that standards are debated over there and try to keep this topic on topic.

 

I'll also try not to respond to any provocation

[cromptonnut]

Hi all

 

I'd rather keep "discussion on the standards" on the official thread if possible, and save this thread for discussions on who is interested and how we think it can work for us in SECAG.  Obviously once we decide to "do something" things like arranging a meetup to put the theories to the test can be dealt with in separate discussions.

 

'Nut

[GRC]

In principle I'd like to participate in a local group so yes to all 3 questions. I'm not totally bought into the concept though of desert to Tundra and pre grouping steam to APT-E so need to see how this all shakes out over the next month or so. On the subject of connector boards I think this is a challenge particularly if you want to use double track. WSNG use bridging pieces between modules which whilst a pain to set up work very well and take differences on the track ends and position away as a problem . I don't see why you couldn't do the same for OO . Gavin......

[cromptonnut]

Hi GRC

 

Obviously people are free to build whatever scenery and run whatever stock they wish.  However, as a group, we may decide to concentrate generally on "summer-ish" as a theme, and if we have an operating day, for example between 9 and 10 we set up, 10-12 run steam era, 12-1 lunch, 1-3 diesel era, 3-4 pack up and head home.

 

I know what you mean about the "mismatched" and that's one thing that worries me.  But there's no reason that us in SECAG can't decide on "extra standards" such as a particular ballast type and default ground cover colours for board edges, that we will weather our track and, etc etc so that if we have a 'group layout' for shows, or indeed travel en-masse to a bigger meetup, we can't all ask to be placed together so our uniformity is shown to be a benefit.

 

But one thing - particularly about stock - that I'm seeing a lot from the "big thread" is that we as UK modellers are too often concentrating on consistency of the layout as a whole, set in a particular time period or location, whereas with the modular concept you are actually driving "your train" from A to C via B and to a degree the scenery it's passing through, and the trains it passes en route, are largely immaterial - if your freight (steam hauled and open wagons) is required to wait in a loop to let an express pass, then operationally it makes no difference to you whatsoever if that express is a class 47 and 10 mk 2's, or a West Country on a mixed rake of green mk 1's and Bullied stock.

 

It's a very different setup to what many of us (myself included) are used to, and that 30+ or more years of doing it "our way" takes some undoing.

[GRC]

I've seen a few USA Freemo type layouts over the years, Aly Paly this year and The Crawley show last year I think. What makes them stand out is the standardisation of scenic dressing, colours and at least to me some consistency in stock. well it all looked like USA stock to me so that's somewhat consistent. I agree that the concept of driving your train through the modules, doing the jobs you have been asked, rota'd to do is very different to a normal show. It's much more about the operating experience than the aesthetic appeal but if there is no/limited appeal to observers/public hen we won't get invited to many shows this may not be a problem but something we should consider as a group before getting started?

[cromptonnut]

Hi GRC, it seems that most of the existing modular concepts (at least based on what people have been writing) are based very much around "private operating sessions" rather than "exhibitions" in the way that we understand them, and rather than a uniformity to please the public it's the operations side that takes precedence - which is fine but as I said above, that means that exhibition invites are few and far between.  I'm not sure but maybe American and continental "model railway shows" like we know are actually few and far between?  It may well be that the randomness of American trains passing Japanese trains in alpine scenery is one of the things that puts exhibition organisers off having "modular setups"?

 

Certainly once Andy Y has "locked down" whatever the bascic standards are, we can start thinking about what we as a group would like to "add" to the standards within our own group - I'd probably suggest we pick a few things like a ballast shade and a ground cover shade from something readily available like the Woodland Scenics range, as I don't think there are too many things that would be necessary to create a uniformity that would distract or hinder individual creativity within the actual modules themselves.   Any 'additions' that we make will, of course, be purely aesthetic and will not affect compatibility with other RMWeb members building to the basic module standards.

 

Being too 'dictatorial' about these things I think would probably destroy the enjoyment potential of module building.

[cromptonnut]

I've had a look on the map at those expressing interest and there seems to be a distinct "split" giving a possible North and South sub-group although of course some of us are in the middle and could make both sides or happy to travel to either.  Apologies if I've forgotten anyone.

 

North - Kenton, Shanks522, Jcm@gwr, AlanRogers, Cromptonnut

 

South - Claude Dreyfus, Nest, GRC, Shadow, BlueLightning

 

I would be happy to co-ordinate a "North" group and have in mind a venue I may be able to get very cheaply (if there is nobody better suited to it); is there anyone in the south who knows of a cheap and easily acccessible venue where we might be able to meet down there?  I envisage that we, as a whole, may meet up twice a year (or 4 times?) - alternating north and south - although each sub-group may decide to meet up as often as they like, officially or unofficially, with the dates/general locations listed in a thread so people can express interest directly with the organiser and give out details of the actual meet.

 

Unfortunately this sort of idea will only take off and gather pace with RMWeb as a whole as people start to see things happening - and we've already had someone link to our "map" asking if one could be set up for people with modules so they can work out area meets; why shouldn't we be trendsetters (first time in my life I guess...) and show the rest of RMWeb how it can be done?  In theory we should be able to get something basic up and running by christmas... and maybe finish the day off with a "curry night" like SWAG do?

[Kenton]

 

why shouldn't we be trendsetters (first time in my life I guess...) and show the rest of RMWeb how it can be done? In theory we should be able to get something basic up and running by christmas...

I just love your optimistic enthusiasm I hope some of it rubs off.

 

Adding "area" standards - I would prefer to see this as more recommendation and even done by example and influence. (I may even be convinced into changing the shade of my blue ballast. But I think this is still best done by example rather than a small sub-group insisting that their way is the correct way. It was very much that sort of mentality that puts most off the traditional club scene.

 

I do not think splitting the area up into smaller groups is wise at this stage and should be left until we have too many modules built and in use to make use of them all (when some may be feeling excluded). After all numbers help to keep the costs low and allow for more diversity in the gathering. From my remote north western edge of the area only a meet in Dover/Canterbury would prove to be inconvenient. If I can manage Wells or Manchester for an exhibition I certainly can cope with Worthing or Tunbridge.

 

In my head (and it is likely to remain there for some time) you may have seen rumoured my "concept" of a module triplet forming an operating triangle. Each module within the triplet would be able to operate independently - so the first one becomes very much a taster into the activity but still of potential worth. I have a pretty good but rough idea of how it will work scenically - however it will be far from the conventional both in baseboard shape (square ends/standard widths) and in comparison to the flat plains of the square US states. Getting the board built and track laid is not so much an issue the potential downfall comes during the scenicing phase. So there is a greater chance of having all 3 modules built and operational long before one of them looks aesthetically correct.

[BlueLightning]

Hi 'nut,

 

You have me listed as North in you groups there. I however would just like to quickly point out that I'm sitting in my office looking at the English Channel and would most defiantly consider myself south. My office is in Eastbourne and I live only 7 miles inland from there.

 

Also the conference room in my office could be used on Sundays as a venue and it wouldn't cost a penny!

 

Gary

[cromptonnut]

Kenton: One has to try I'm not saying "if you don't use this shade of ballast we don't want you in our group" (even if it is blue...) but just some thoughts that may help us reach a uniformity.  It may be that the consensus is "let us do our own thing" and that's fine by me.  Just throwing some ideas into the pot whilst we're waiting for the board standards to be agreed.  I wasn't necessarily suggesting "splitting the group" but more that it would be helpful to have different venues so we all travel different distances to meets, and knowing that there are two people near me (for example) means that in-between meetings I can arrange privately to meet with Bob and we can put our modules together in his garage to check things work fine - after all our own choice of modules is likely to all work together as if nothing else we'll be consistent in our build, even if that is consistently wrong and such errors can be ironed out before a big meet.

 

BlueLightning:  My apologies - no idea how I messed that up.  Your offer of a free venue is appealing

[BlueLightning]

Not a problem 'nut just wanted to make sure it was corrected before it caused confusion (and delay. Damn there's Thomas the Tank influencing what i say again lol).

 

Would my offer be even more appealing if I told you that there is a model shop on the opposite side of the road! Although it is currently closed due to new ownership.

 

Gary

[cromptonnut]

Depends if it was open on a sunday so we could get some bits when we realise we've left something critical at home.

 

Alternatively, of course, if they have a good second-hand cabinet or some bargains that may well also fit.

 

I'm currently sketching out some module ideas in XTrackCAD which I think will be a good starter for me, and I'd be happy to share the dimensions with others once I've proven to myself that it works properly (once of course standards are locked).

 

In many ways I think I am getting interested in this is partly because it takes us all back to "train set on the bedroom floor" with individual modules effectively becoming pieces of setrack which we can put together in infinite combinations...

[BlueLightning]

Unfortunately I don't know how the new owner plans on running the shop as he seems to having a full re-fit and I haven't had chance to talk to him yet. However under it's previous owner it was open 7-days and had a wonderful second hand section. The shop has been there many many years and even had Hornby commission a covered wagon with the shops details on back in the early 80's.

 

I am hoping for the shop to be similar although more helpful would be nice as the old owner had a very strong leaning towards Hornby and wasn't very interested in much else.

 

I have several plans laying about on my laptop that I am thinking could be hopefully adapted to match the standards once they are locked. Including a terminus station a couple of through stations and some scenics. All in AnyRail format which of coarse I will be willing to share once we know what the standards will be.

[Barnaby]

I follow this with interest.

How will the operators control their train journey.  Is it to be a handover at each board exit or will ops have to follow their trains over the complete journey.  I can see stumble and trip going on in the confines of the op side.  

Similarly how will the public follow each journey, to have multi mexican waves of people trying to stay up with their chosen train could be difficult. 

 

I assume like full size some sort of announcing would be going on for public consumption of train movements.

Generally I look at the whole layout from its buildings, the track layout, its operational interest etc I'm not too sure how a mega layout will fit my show needs.

 

Of course if you stay in club house most of this won't matter.

The operational side of your mega layout is of interest so I will be following this with interest.

 

Regards

[cromptonnut]

Hi Barnaby, a good question as I've never seen a modular layout in operation!  I guess I need to do some reading up...

However as I understand it, the layout is normally DCC controlled.  Somewhere on the layout the "control box" is plugged in, then along the layout you have a number of controller attachment points with a common connection standard - this would usually be the RJ12 plugs as standard on Lenz and other equipment.  Apologies if you already know this but when your controller is set to control a particular loco, once it's moving you can unplug the controller and walk to the next plug-in point, and in-between plug-ins the loco just keeps going based on the last speed/direction instructions it was given.   If you're covering a long distance, then once you get to a station and stop you could unplug your controller, walk to the next station, plug in, then when you get the RA from the stationmaster at your train's current location, just drive it towards you and repeat until you get to the end of the layout.  You can theoretically drive the entire route from one position, although I think much of the point of it would actually be lost.

 

I understand your concerns about the "appeal" of modular based on our normal perception of shows ... and of course time will tell how things pan out amongst the UK modeller base.  Existing modular layouts here seem to be very much a "watch the trains go by" as a random selection of trains passing random scenery in procession rather than having an actual operational purpose.

 

Normally we watch a layout from a static viewpoint as both punter and operator at a show - however I think operating this sort of modular layout, where you're driving a train along a route rather than a 12ft section, will be more like a "cab ride video" than a "lineside video".

 

However... the big thing is... FREMO and FREEMO have their own "definitions" of how a modular layout should be operated.  There's no reason why we (as in "whatever the RMWeb standard gets called") should automatically adopt an existing "method of operation" any more than any other aspect of an existing modular standard.  It may be that it's down to the "organiser of the meet" to choose what way they want to run it, as long as it's made clear to everyone when the date and location of the meeting is set, then people can choose for themselves whether they want to come along and just run random trains, or a strict operational timetable, or whatever.  It's up to the organiser to make the layout best fit the operational theme of the day by arranging the modules in an appropriate manner once people submit them. 

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Maybe this is more suited to the 'main' thread, but the nature of the operations should at least be considered when it comes to control.

 

Many modular layouts are in effect giant roundy-roundies passing through a number of different (sometimes vastly different) scenes. The main outer circuits are controlled centrally, with the aim of keeping the trains running. Individual operators control in the inner circuit(s) with optional access onto their particular modules.

 

The idea here seems to be following at least the spirit of FREMO. The best modular layouts I have seen (mainly the US offerings) often have point-to-point operations; i.e. a train originating in one module/yard and running to a different yard further along the layout. For operation fiends, this is certainly an appeal, and in many cases does away with a 'fiddle yard'; which if present is frequently just some scenic'd staging sidings.

 

Once the 'overall' strategy and standards have been set for construction, then I would say the question 'how do we want to operate' needs to be looked at. What needs to be kept in mind is that any layout, be it your own personal train set, or some giant modular system, has to be interesting to view and operate. Miles and miles of plain track running through fields will quickly become tedious. On the flip-side, you don't want something that involves countless operators and becomes a logistical nightmare to get trains running.

[cromptonnut]

Hi Claude, totally agree - it's getting the balance right that will be key to a meet's success, although of course an organiser can only plan using what is offered.  One of the 'recommendations' I will propose within our little group is that if you are planning a module set that involves 'stopping' - whether that's an engine shed, a passing loop, a station or a junction, that you also undertake to create at least one "plain track" module of either straight or a curve which can effectively be a flat field if that's all you want to do (although one would hope that some effort towards landscaping would be put it) which will mean that, at minimum effort and expense, we can extend the layout further.

[Glorious NSE]

However... the big thing is... FREMO and FREEMO have their own "definitions" of how a modular layout should be operated.  There's no reason why we (as in "whatever the RMWeb standard gets called") should automatically adopt an existing "method of operation" any more than any other aspect of an existing modular standard.  It may be that it's down to the "organiser of the meet" to choose what way they want to run it, as long as it's made clear to everyone when the date and location of the meeting is set, then people can choose for themselves whether they want to come along and just run random trains, or a strict operational timetable, or whatever.  It's up to the organiser to make the layout best fit the operational theme of the day by arranging the modules in an appropriate manner once people submit them. 

 

Totally agree!

 

The only thing - speaking for our own experience with Freemo, there are several groups involved already in different parts of the country, the "norm" of how those groups prefer to run a meet already varies slightly, there is almost constant evolution and experimentation, and all the groups would tend to vary the operating further depending on what is appropriate for a given layout on a given day (what era is being run, how big the layout is, etc) - so already there is more than one "how to operate", and i'd be amazed if the evolution and experimentation of our operations didn't continue...

 

Once the 'overall' strategy and standards have been set for construction, then I would say the question 'how do we want to operate' needs to be looked at. What needs to be kept in mind is that any layout, be it your own personal train set, or some giant modular system, has to be interesting to view and operate. Miles and miles of plain track running through fields will quickly become tedious. On the flip-side, you don't want something that involves countless operators and becomes a logistical nightmare to get trains running.

 

Outsiders comment - yes miles of plain track can be boring, but too little plain track between "towns" makes it really hard to operate - for instance if you can't shunt town A without using town B as your headshunt then it'll both "feel wrong" and make it hard to run anything else in the vicinity...