Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am interested in the modular approach of the hobby & see there is discussion of a 00 modular system, http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87665-british-modular-system-the-initial-ideas-and-debates.


I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if there is still interest in a modular group.



With, maybe, a different board end standard depth, as 6.5" is excessive, & was only recommended for the use of one type of point motor!

Edited by switcher 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My layout 'Leintwardine' consists of two 26" x 11" boards and a cassette fiddle yard that joins on using audio jack plugs for alignment and electrical connection.  I'm planning to make enough curved pieces to set it up as a continuous run using the same connections to make my own modular system.


I'm happy to make a connecting piece or two to join mine to a standard system if I can get hold of a couple of offcuts of Peco track (I build mine from code 100 FB and cardboard sleepers).  I would need about 5" of packing under my layout to meet the 6 1/2" rule but thats a lot easier than shaving an inch off the bottom.


I think a big problem with the idea of modular 0 gauge is the number of different wheel and track standards in use.  A lot of people do use PECO track but a lot of them probably build larger layouts that are less suitable for joining onto others.  Looking through the 7mm+ section on here shows that lots of RMWebbers with smaller 0 gauge efforts build thier own track either for appearance, economy or to fit more into a given space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested in having a go at a modular layout.


My own thoughts:

1. Power should definitely be DCC.


2. Track used within the module should be standardised at Peco or C&L 124/125 Bullhead as this allows for wide range of wheel standards.


3. Boards could be of a standardised length and width. It may be that a supplier of laser cut baseboards (Tim Horn ?) could produce a standardised board (1200mm x 45mm ?) with common end plates to enable easy joining of modules. This would also mean that people could easily make a start minus wood work which many people seem to find onerous (me included).


4. FREMO specify a period (epoch 3 to 4, 1945-1993) from which to choose motive power and rolling stock. For obvious reasons they exclude Epoch 2 (1920-1945) but this would not apply to a British modular concept so that 1900 to 1950 might be a good date range to use (?). To try and maintain a certain scenic unity FREMO also specify the season to be modelled (spring). If you wanted to extend this concept you could specify types of ballast (eg. Woodland Scenics small mid-grey granite) or type of scenic grass (eg. Heki summer or spring grass) to be used.


I think a key idea with promoting a successful modular layout concept would be to start from scratch, building to a standard, rather than to trying to adapt existing layouts. This would solve many of the problems that Hesperus identifies. Its also important to realise that with a modular concept it's not strictly necessary to build a self contained layout at all. The minimum requirement for someone to take part is a module with a single line running through it.


Jonathan P. 
Edited by JPPledge
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would resurrect this thread to see if there is still interest in a modular group.

My bold ... the problem with it was there wasn't a lot of interest to start with. As far as I'm aware only myself and Redgate actually started modules. If you look at the poll in the original discussion thread 24 positive votes only translated into 2 modules and 1 other planned.


I believe when things ground to a halt Redgate redeveloped Fourgig to be a stand-alone layout.


With, maybe, a different board end standard depth, as 6.5" is excessive, & was only recommended for the use of one type of point motor!

It wasn't just for point motors, but also to allow for layout features below 'flat earth', such as culverts. As Hesperus says, its easier to pack up than shave off ...


The existing rules were kept loose and generous to try and encourage as many as possible to join in.


Tbh I don't have the time to go into this atm. However, if someone else wishes to pick up the mantle ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Just moved down from Lancashire to temporary accomm near Gatwick, so no layout plans to sidetrack me right now. Planning a modular layout that might fit in a garage or nearby club in the future and introduce me to like-minded fans of 0-gauge, as well as the inevitable praise and back-slapping, does often fill the 7 minutes between lights out and snoring starting.


Board lengths, track centre separation and rail-head height above floor level are the only 3 dimensions to agree on. OK, 'track centre separation' presumes more than one inter-module running track, 2 is my choice.


DCC or DC (or both), corner-board radii, rail ends flush with board or set back to use the little, for example, 4-inch straights in the box Fred's forgotten, are all features to be agreed during the second pint.


Yes I admit the domestic move has made anything to do with model railways seem easy and fun, maybe the hardest thing for me is to admit my continuing interest in the Delaware & Hudson RR, but running US loading gauge models at 1:48 scale means they will nearly always fit under 1:43.5 scale bridges (British 0-gauge). Must go and have a look at the various 'modular standards' that are around.


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.