British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Steve Williams]

So the clear inference is that, the use of RTR equipment, precludes membership of the NMRA on the grounds that it is for 'scale model railroading'. Looks like most of us are buggered!

[Andy Reichert]

So the clear inference is that, the use of RTR equipment, precludes membership of the NMRA on the grounds that it is for 'scale model railroading'. Looks like most of us are buggered!

 

I'm heading off topic, but an analysis of the NMRA AP program, leading to the MMR designation, officially supports the opposite. Scale models of track results are not considered if they do not result from bodging methods. So It's the scale modelers' practices that are unwelcome. You can buy any thing for operations, but not for modeling.

 

Andy

[Steve Williams]

It doesn't say it. Andy questions how the poster squares with NMRA's statement that it is an organization for 'scale model railroading'. His perceiving of a potential mis-match is raised because he perceives that the poster is promoting / advertising the NMRA as being about operations with purchased RTR equipment. Ergo, the clear implication is that the two are mutually exclusive.  Incidentally, I don't find the poster in the least confusing and for the life of me, can't find anything contentious in it at all. Am I missing something?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Steve Williams

[PaulRhB]

It only states the model is proprietary not that it has to be since when can't you scale model railroad with scale rtr models?

 

Anyhoo this is the UK thread and RTR, kit and scratchbuilt stock will work fine together on a bare board, ( we had one as yet non sceniced board at Armitage ), or a fully finished one. Operation is the focus, not the only part, running from one station to another or industry to customer. Scenery is important to fulfil the illusion of a real railway and there were some super examples of scenic and stock modelling too.

 

Some sort of timetable to provide paths for freight amongst passenger workings that is easy to adapt to different configurations is going to be needed too. I don't know if the jmri system could be adapted to keep track of stock and generate a regular passenger timetable too but it strikes me as a possible way to start vs someone trying to write a specific full timetable each time.

Edited July 8, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Talltim]

I'm failing to understand what Andy is getting at as well. To me the possibly confusing part is the switching (shunting? ) between UK railway and US railroading terms. I get the impression that the poster is designed for UK modellers who don't model US?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Talltim

[298]

I think the problem is you have to look at US modelling in the UK from a home perspective, if you translated what we were running in British 4mm then the average exhibition punter would have cause to lean on the barrier and rant that loco x would never haul car y. But that isn't what it's about, for me it was running trains to in a prototypical manner with like-minded friends on a layout that I had made a small contribution to, and thinking about how to perform the job in an efficient and realistic fashion.

 

That doesn't mean that what we were doing wasn't accurate, or scenery standards weren't high, or everything was out of the box RTR, but the problem that Andy mentioned in the first post is translating the enjoyment and euphoria from the weekend into a British prototype that ticks all the boxes and still generates enough interest to attract people to get involved.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Finally read to the end of this, only taken 2 days between problems at work!

 

so my 10 pence worth: I like it. I've not read the links to the existing ho standards in use, however if this was to become a new option for us UK modellers then to start with for 'standards' we'd probably be best to work to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). From a basic point of view, the 3 standards required (4 if you count gauge) are top of rail height above floor, method of getting rail across joints, and wire connectors between boards. Everything else is a 'recommendation' or 'advised' method like board width.

 

So, IMHO, top of rail height above floor would possibly be best to be the same as the Europeans already doing this so there's the potential in the future for some international co-operation. Same with the banana plug idea already illustrated to carry DCC bus between modules (i'll get onto DC/DCC later). As for rails across module joins, i don't know what the other systems in use are but my gut would be to say rails to board edge and line up by eye when applying clamps.

 

The more 'you will build it like this' rules/diagrams/jigs that are imposed then the less take up from the less able there is likely to be. I know my carpentry is not as good as others here, however I can get rail tops to the correct height from the floor and roughly in the centre of an 18in wide board (20 for double track). As already discussed, board width only needs be a recommendation and not strictly adhered to if it doesn't fit your personal requirements, however when all joined up there would be aesthetic benefits.

 

I work in DC and prefer DC. However for modular layouts I can see that DCC is the logical way to go. For someone like me, the way that springs to mind to incorporate myself into something like this would be to create a shunting yard module with an exchange siding to the mainline. Timetabled DCC services would be able to pass by while a DC shunter shunts the yard/industry, when wagons need to leave/arrive they are exchanged in a siding with access to both the shunter and mainline whos track supply can switch between the DCC bus or the isolated DC yard. This still gives the option 'at home' of creating an attachable fiddle yard plank to the mainline which can be seperately DC operated.

 

That's a point worth bareing in mind with all this: just think what small part of a layout you would like for use at home, or already have, and just make your FY access point module compliant and you're in. I know it's all for a bigger environment but try not to think of the bigger environment when planning your part! Using the above yard to FY at home as an example, as space allows it would be easy to incorporate another module at home as you wished between the 2 as some 'pass through countryside' rather than having to perform major personal layout alterations.....and still not worry about the potential larger environment.

 

Finally the couplings topic; again IMHO do what ever you as the individual prefer. I like hook and loop, but stock that saw use on Warren Lane needed Kadee, so using NEM pocket fitted stock I created some 'translator' wagons. I now also have other translator wagons going between hook and loop and euro style connectors for some items of stock. This means an individuals module may not be able to shunt all wagons in use which may seem inconvenient at first but if this exercise is more about operations then it just adds to the operational challenge instead and requires some forethought before dispatching a train along the whole layout. As already stated, NEM pockets and a supply of different couplings should hopefully ease any major issues that do arise.

 

That's my 10 pence anyway, I'm looking forward to hearing what Andy comes back with as my underconstruction test plank is 18in wide and could easily be adapted to this. PaulRhB mentioned big fiddle yards for ends, I also happen to have 18ft of code 75 DCC fiddleyard in my garage which it would be very easy to create correct size double track adaptors for.....

[Andy Reichert]

I'm failing to understand what Andy is getting at as well. To me the possibly confusing part is the switching (shunting? ) between UK railway and US railroading terms. I get the impression that the poster is designed for UK modellers who don't model US?

 

Rivet Counter is frequently used in the US as a highly derogatory term. Regardless of the intentions of the person involved. (helpful vs. critical) .

 

Andy

[PaulRhB]

One of the advantages of not exhibiting it as such, you can live with the compromises or you can gather a correct set of stock and let others use it. Personally I'd rather see a couple of regions used on a joint line for part of it or where you saw one with running rights as changing all the stock over takes time.

Finding an existing layout or two to act as the main town stations would help especially if one was big enough to act as the changeover between one region and another.

[Clive Mortimore]

I am interested in a UK version of Freemo based here in the UK.

 

As I have said before we need to standardise on, gauge, track height at module joints, track distance from front of modules, an ideal scenic section that will (hopefully) blend in with the modules either side, width of end of module (again to blend in with modules either side), an operating system, a minimum radius, and couplings.

 

I want to be able to be part of running a (model) railway to a time table not just a single layout. I can see that Freemo is a way of doing this.

 

I like the idea of being with people who are likeminded for a day or two without the pressure of an exhibition.

 

The helpful post from those who already are part of a Freemo group have been great. The post from those who appear not wanting to be part of it but are happy to share their "advice" is making the issue cloudy.

 

I normally enjoy modelling DC powered 60s diesels but for this project would be more than willing to buy a couple of locomotives (with chips) and a handful of stock that would match the stock belonging to the rest of the group.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[cromptonnut]

As I have said before we need to standardise on, gauge.

 

That's easy, it has to be OO and not one of the 18 point something gauges.  The only question is whether it is code 100 or code 75, and to a degree that doesn't actually make a difference because we're only talking 25 thou in height (not width) which, if boards are clamped together with G clamps rather than jigs and alignment dowels, that little bit of slack can easily be figured in.

 

Fixed height legs are all well and good but don't forget uneven hall floors (we've all been there...) so there has to be an element of adjustability (even if just half an inch) built into the legs, surely even existing standards should accommodate this?

[torikoos]

I'm sorry Andy, but I don't find 'Rivet Counter' derogatory at all. It is used in context all over the internet on many modeling websites, and everyone knows what is meant by it. 

I don't think the vast majority of modelers would be offended. 

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rivet_counter

 

http://glosbe.com/en/en/rivet%20counter

 

http://www.wordsense.eu/rivet_counter/

 

Nowhere I found during my (admittedly) brief search flagged up that it was perceived as a derogatory term. If it really was, moderators on many websites would guard for the term similarly as racist or abusive language, but you can find it everywhere and the vast majority of people it seems, are not offended.  In fact the truth is more nuanced and while it is used in a somewhat 'negative' context, it doesn't need to be.

 

It is often true though that those referred to as 'rivet counters' (and I include myself as being one, although not in every part of the hobby, and I also haven't yet acquired the skill set to achieve the minute detail I'd like, and I can laugh at myself for being like that sometimes) often are highly critical (often very vocal too) about the efforts of others.

 

While it is ok to be critical of your own work, being critical to others needs to be done with more care and should be done in a manner that builds a persons confidence and knowledge.

That's often forgotten and usually the result is that the 'target' is left feeling inferior and of a lesser modeler with no chance of ever becoming as good.

Yes critics are needed to elevate the hobby, but just be critical in the right manner.

All too often (not always!) , people's work is dismissed, but very little is offered in terms of what could be improved, let alone showing how it could/should be done.

If that was applied more often, then 'rivet counters' would be viewed as a more positive thing. 

 

 

Anyway, I've been veering way of topic, this thread is supposed to be about possible UK modular railroading systems. 

 

Cheers, Koos

Edited July 9, 2014 by torikoos

[McRuss]

Hello,

 

for connecting the modules. At FREMO we use M6 coach bolts and nuts with wings on it.

So you don't need spanners for tightening or loosening the bolts. And clamps are only

used if for every reason the holes of two module endplates don't match or a non FREMO

module is attached. For allining the modules the holes in the endplates are usually 8 to 10 mm

in diameter, so that little differences in rail and trackbed height could be leveled.

 

Markus

[2ManySpams]

Great idea but I can see why previous attempts in the UK to promote it have failed. 

[cromptonnut]

Great idea but I can see why previous attempts in the UK to promote it have failed. 

 

It may be because too many people are "banging their own drums" and demanding that their one idea of a standard be adopted whereas if a concensus of opinion can be formed as to the most basic requirements led from a source that has access to the whole spectrum of opinion and led by a respected source (RMWeb), that can get a lot of people building to the same standards then it might just work.

 

After all, there's no point building a module if you have nobody else building modules to the same specification to join it to.

 

I just hope that it is recognised as driven from the userbase (even if Andy Y is attempting to bring some consensus of opinion into it) and nothing to do with site sponsorship, after all the "BRModular standard" would be a very obvious name for the standard...

[PaulRhB]

Great idea but I can see why previous attempts in the UK to promote it have failed. 

 

Yep, over thinking it I don't think it will be a problem though as Andy has an idea but wants to see what else develops from this to make sure we are as inclusive as possible within reason.

 

I've doodled up an adaptor for Lulworth, the branch off the bottom can serve either MOD or a quarry if Iused it as part of my own layout or any industry in freemo configuration 

Edited July 9, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Stubby47]

I think that is possibly a better way to go - adapting/extending existing layouts to join up. 

 

Shepherds & Treamble has been built with this idea in mind. The FY baseboards are double ended, so additional scenic modules can be added at either end, possibly as other stations on the Chacewater line but could be anywhere, even Treneglos...

[Satan's Goldfish]

Andy, we're an eager mob, tell us our standards and set us free!!!!!!

[FelixM]

Felix

The piece on page 3 on curve radii here suggest 2m radius not diameter

That's all I was quoting, 1m radius sounds fine

http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1404930245&hash=0ef557e971f7a7bd8228e692156af9336aac9f29&file=fileadmin/redakteure/felix.moering/Norm_UK_EN.pdf

 

I have co-written the German version of this document (the translation was not done by me). 2m radius is recommended practice but to achieve to make it possible to use Peco medium radius points the minimum radius was set at 1m (nine hundret something mm for the points).

 

Of course you can build modules with 1 m radius (better than even smaller at last!) but they won't look the part if it carries a main line. There may also be derailments with inhomogenous rakes of stock. These modules probably will have a short lifetime. But for shunting yards, siding and similar a meter radius will be fine.

 

Let's not take couplings and radii into serious accounts. At last, the layout planner can refuse to include too sharp curves. A "standard coupling" can be different from meeting to meeting. For example modellers A and B provide all the rolling stock of a 1960s Southern Region themed meeting and have used Tension locks all life long, then there's nothing wrong with modellers C and D providing stock of a 2010s era meeting with Kadee couplings. This is a microscopic aspect, whereas we are currently talking of macroscopic topics.

 

Is anybody out there who intends to build modules in the UK and then taking them to America to join Free-mo meetings abroad?

If not, why not adapting the European Fremo standard?

 

Kind regards

Felix

[torikoos]

Hello,

 

for connecting the modules. At FREMO we use M6 coach bolts and nuts with wings on it.

So you don't need spanners for tightening or loosening the bolts. And clamps are only

used if for every reason the holes of two module endplates don't match or a non FREMO

module is attached. For allining the modules the holes in the endplates are usually 8 to 10 mm

in diameter, so that little differences in rail and trackbed height could be leveled.

 

Markus

 

 

Isn't it also the case (it certainly was in the '90s when I dabbled in FREMO (not to be confused with the US originating FREEMO)) that end plates of a few 'standard' designs needed to be purchased from the FREMO organisation, to make sure they are a perfect fit with others? 

I know since then, FREMO has expanded to include other scales, gauges, and other parts of the world (the original concept being of a german secondary line), while there is now a Fremo-USA (particularly popular on the European continent) etc. etc

 

The NMRA-BR 'standards' as currently used, were developed keeping in mind what was already being done by some groups, in order to be able to join up with as many others as possible, and not go for a design that would exclude too many modelers.  Amongst others the 'standards' these were based on were derived from those developed by RS Tower, and the existing NMRA BR standards that were starting to become a bit outdated, based on advances in available technologies, and track. (the old standard used code 100, while code 83 track has a nicer appearance for a mainline). 

 

More on those module specifications can be found at the NMRA BR website, and a download link is found at the bottom of the page.

 

I suggest you have a read of it, and see which points of the specs could be useful for the UK specs.  It does explain why certain choices were made, which may be similar or even identical to some choices a specification for UK systems faces, but others may not be relevant, or unwanted.

It's just a starting point, but hopefully may get you on your way to develop a UK modular standard for 00 initially, and other scales/gauges at a later stage.

 

http://www.nmrabr.org.uk/member-articles/153-nmra-ho-module-specification

 

Koos

Edited July 9, 2014 by torikoos

[Talltim]

I think it's a very good point that any standards for stock do not need to be considered when planning a module standard

[FelixM]

Koos

Harald Brosch sells module profiles to everyone, not just to Fremo members. He can be contacted by e-mail, his English is pretty good, and he does 00 gauge modelling for half a year now too.

His range of module ends can be found here: http://www.modulbahner.de/numerisch/html/default.html

 

There is always the possibility of scratchbuilding a flat "box shape" module which just has a simple plank as an end. I currently have two modules at home in various design stages, one with a laser cut valley shape, the other one with a square end profile. I will take photos later today when I am back at home.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Suzie]

If you want to use existing standards, that is excellent - I don't subscribe to 'you can never have too many standards' but...

 

... We are now in the 21^st century and technology has moved on since the last lot of standards were created - so if a new set of standards is being proposed make use of current technology and specify tighter standards that are now easily adhered to. Baseboard ends can be precision cut and copperclad end sleepers can be precision routed to make easy precise alignment with bolts possible, allow an extra set of oversize holes in a defined place for if adjustment against another module is required. It should not be hard to position holes for half a dozen 4mm banana sockets so that 4mm pins can be inserted when joining modules to completely eliminate any need to hook up loose cables to the next module. I am sure that someone will step up to the tape and make a module end kit - perhaps a magazine can offer a kit (hint hint...) of a pair of ends with bolt on adjustable legs. Getting a couple of hundred kits out into the wild should produce a pool of usable modules such that there will be a few outings possible for peoples modules.

 

Wireless operation is becoming very popular and easily done so no point in specifying a cab bus that is going to see little use for a lot of installation effort but through wiring of both track bus, accessory bus and feedback bus will be useful and are easily done. Specifying that each module should have its own local circuit breaker on the track bus is not unreasonable given the amount of layout that could be shut down if a short occurs, and that is more likely to be a problem on a busy double track setup than on a sprawling single track foreign prototype.

[PaulRhB]

. Specifying that each module should have its own local circuit breaker on the track bus is not unreasonable given the amount of layout that could be shut down if a short occurs, and that is more likely to be a problem on a busy double track setup than on a sprawling single track foreign prototype.

A circuit breaker for each is a bit of overkill, I think we had 3 power areas with the US layout and it didn't cause any problem as people quickly found the short when we caused one. The sprawling single line we had could easily have been three branchlines of a central double track 'spine' route

A kit at a sensible price is a good idea but we had no alignment problems this weekend with adjustable feet and G clamps, I've known far more with exhibition layouts with bolts in plywood which is why I use dowels and bolts. A precision kit would answer this but it's the only way you will get dowels to line up if built by different people, my concern is that they then have to get the track height in relation to those dowels precise which makes rail section an issue. The system we used allows easy adjustment on the day and allows for dimensional errors easier with different rail heights.

The examples below show my concern with minor errors

1 is free floating with clamps and adjustable feet.

2 is someone putting code 75 next to code100

3 is a measuring error from dowel to rail height.

You could include a jig to specify it but that increases cost.

Edited July 9, 2014 by PaulRhB

[298]

I think it's a very good point that any standards for stock do not need to be considered when planning a module standard

Thinking hypothetically, that's easy to consider from a US point of view where everything has a knuckle coupler and will connect with a bit of prototypical pokery, but even then there isn't a Standard for uncoupling, whether it be by magnet or twizzle stick. Goodness knows how OO modellers will cope, they have so many couplings to choose from, but still use American ones in European spec adapter boxes. Sooner or later, something will gave to be drawn up for anyone bringing stock to follow, such as individual readable numbers and conpatable couplings.

 

Another issue is we all build to different standards, so any module set up will have a weak link, if someone has a lesser atitude then their module might be the one with electrical gremlins or incompatable scenery. The couplings on their stock might be made from bent coat hangers and could be easily damaged whilst in storage, nothing wrong with that as long as they have a height gauge to rework the errant ones, otherwise the stock they've taken so long to build would soon be taken off the layout. Taking a module out of a set up would be a lot harder, so who polices the participants and tells them in a diplomatic way that they can't take part...?