British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[PaulRhB]

Labelling stock could be done with a small temporary sticky tag on the roof or load used only for the meet or just car cards with a photo. I renumbered two of my boxcars for the US meet just by scratching off part of one number and modifying it with paint, so 8 can be turned in a 3 just by scratching carefully or 3 or 6 turned into 8 with a fine brush and matching paint.

1 can become 7 etc

Edited July 9, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Talltim]

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...?

But the point is that the the coupling don't effect the module design. You specify the what coupling you use when you have a session, not when you are building baseboards.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Talltim

[Stubby47]

But coupled wagons need to be un-coupled and that might mean adding magnets / electro magnets under the track either at the uncoupling spot (S&W, BK tension locks, KD) or at the yard throat (S&W2 , Dinghams).

[cromptonnut]

But coupled wagons need to be un-coupled and that might mean adding magnets / electro magnets under the track either at the uncoupling spot (S&W, BK tension locks, KD) or at the yard throat (S&W2 , Dinghams).

 

That assumes that "shunting" (as per the American standards) is a key factor - in the UK we may want to focus more on running trains to a timetable without necessarily fiddling about shuffling wagons.  Certainly if you're working in the steam era (which many don't) shunting is a necessary evil however unless you're modelling a marshalling yard or speedlink service there is very little shunting except for perhaps loco release at a terminus (assuming you're still on loco hauled services).

 

Personally I'm not a fan of shunting and would find participation in a "module operation" where I was expected to shuffle wagons incredibly tedious.  It's more likely my module(s) would involve plain track, a junction or a station, and I'd mostly sit back and watch the world go by unless I am driving myself.  Is that what everyone would want to do?  Most likely not, but let's not just make the mistake of doing the same things as the americans do because it works for them, as UK railways do tend to be different.

[bxmoore]

The guiding influence should always be that other people, who may never have operated on, or even seen your module before, should be able to use it on their own (you may well be on the other side of the hall, using theirs), without big lessons being given.  Adding bespoke features, and making things possibly more complicated (despite how simple and straight-forward they may seem to you) can back-fire. 

 

Brian

Edited July 9, 2014 by bxmoore

[FelixM]

That assumes that "shunting" (as per the American standards) is a key factor - in the UK we may want to focus more on running trains to a timetable without necessarily fiddling about shuffling wagons.  Certainly if you're working in the steam era (which many don't) shunting is a necessary evil however unless you're modelling a marshalling yard or speedlink service there is very little shunting except for perhaps loco release at a terminus (assuming you're still on loco hauled services).

 

Personally I'm not a fan of shunting and would find participation in a "module operation" where I was expected to shuffle wagons incredibly tedious.  It's more likely my module(s) would involve plain track, a junction or a station, and I'd mostly sit back and watch the world go by unless I am driving myself.  Is that what everyone would want to do?  Most likely not, but let's not just make the mistake of doing the same things as the americans do because it works for them, as UK railways do tend to be different.

 

It is the experience and wisedom of timetable creators / meeting organisers to accommodate both parties involved, those who don't fancy shunting and those who do. I have some experience in this.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Stubby47]

 

But coupled wagons need to be un-coupled and that might mean adding magnets / electro magnets under the track either at the uncoupling spot (S&W, BK tension locks, KD) or at the yard throat (S&W2 , Dinghams).

 

Felix,  can I ask what you disagree with ?  (I'm curious, not upset).

 

There must be a method of uncoupling wagons, if operators want to shunt (point noted and agreed with, Cromptonnut), which may have some bearing on couplings used and un-coupling methods preferred.

[FelixM]

Yes, of course. (No offence intended!)

 

Stationary uncoupling magnets are too unflexible. Just as the prototype you sometimes need to let wagons at some places you could have never dreamed of before. Either you are going to build in very much magnets, and at the same time impose everyone else to use magnetic couplers, or you stay prototypically and uncouple mechanical (a shunter / guard with the prototype, your hands in model form).

 

There are very few couplings around which aren't able to be uncoupled mechanically (for example Piko Ganzzug coupling, Bachmann coach "hose" short coupling), and unless you don't use exactly these there is no problem with uncoupling.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Re6/6]

Freemo modular systems work well in Europe,

 

These are the recognized 'standard' end boards in German P87 circles.

 

 

A few snaps of parts of a large and well integrated Freemo set-up from a P87 convention held in the Netherlands in 2009.

 

 

 

CK undergoing route learning from Herr Dr Klaus !

 

Can you see the join?

 

 

 

 

We (three members of SWAG/DRAG) are planning a 'Freemo-esque' modular British layout featuring interchangeable regional locations.

 

The plans are at a very early stage ATM but it will be quite on the large side! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FelixM]

Re6/6,

what is the rail over floor height in your norm?

 

Felix

Edited July 9, 2014 by FelixM

[McRuss]

As I promised a picture of the coach bolts used by FREMO members.

 

 

Markus

[bxmoore]

It's obviously your choice for what you finally decide to go with, but in our experience over several years, clamping two flat surfaces together is far simpler, involves less FAR bits to lose (and you will), and doesn't result in any instability if done properly.  Bolts take time, even if only for a couple of minutes (times how many individual boards you want to put together), and they can be fiddly.

 

Brian

[FelixM]

Sorry for hand sketch, but no time for a professional drawing.

 

 

20 clamps take the same space of 2 packs of 100 coach bolts or wing nuts each. So you will end up with much more fiddling around if using clamps.

 

No technique without reason within Fremo.

 

Kind regards

Felix

 

Edit: Of course there is nothing wrong with additional clamping when after years the end planks of some module start to bend inwards, increasing the gap in the centre of the module where the track is. Fremo usually uses additional screws and has centre holes (not shown in the sketch) for this purpose.

Edited July 9, 2014 by FelixM

[Glorious NSE]

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?

 

I'm sensing a little confusion.

 

Our current (US Outline HO scale) standard is not the same as the American designed spec for Free-Mo - and I don't see any intention of anyone using the Free-Mo spec as the basis here - when we started dabbling in this, as you point out, making it 100% compatible with something that's run on an entirely different continent was never likely to be a very useful feature, but neither for that matter did it seem likely to the small group starting that we'd be connecting to US HO scale FREMO modellers on mainland Europe.

 

(So far that assesment has been accurate, but never say never!)

 

Ours was an attempt to build in the features we liked best of both, for our own HO scale US outline use, bearing in mind the sharing of practical issues (size) with the European version, and "cultural" ones with the US - whilst making it as simple to build and wire, and as easy to get involved with as possible - we eventually settled on Freemo as a title, reflecting it's stylistic roots of both standards. The NMRA-BR chose our system as a basis for theirs, which both closed some loopholes and applied some thought to standardising things that we'd not considered (we always thought of ours as a stripped-out bare bones basic connectivity.)

[Glorious NSE]

20 clamps take the same space of 2 packs of 100 coach bolts or wing nuts each. So you will end up with much more fiddling around if using clamps.

 

No technique without reason within Fremo.

 

On the other hand it effectively forces you into using precision pre-cut ends to ensure that everybodys bolts are in exactly the right place - you don't need any of that with clamps - there are positives and negatives for all...

[PaulRhB]

Felix, my section on the US layout used dowels and bolts on internal connections but not on the freemo ends. On the internal ones I know the work is all to the same standard and I admit I was wary at first but the clamp has to take virtually no load as the track was aligned using the feet then just 'nipped up' with the clamp to prevent lateral movement. Most layouts I've seen and been involved with at shows that relied just on bolts suffered from drooping joints over a weekend show. As I said before bolts and dowels are great but the tolerance to the track position has to be accurate and that's my concern without a jig if not all built by one person. I also dislike the modular layouts that require a 3 inch free piece of track to join boards as it's so easy to rip out rails and it looks odd having no ballast too.

[FelixM]

On the other hand it effectively forces you into using precision pre-cut ends to ensure that everybodys bolts are in exactly the right place - you don't need any of that with clamps - there are positives and negatives for all...

 

 

Felix, my section on the US layout used dowels and bolts on internal connections but not on the freemo ends. On the internal ones I know the work is all to the same standard and I admit I was wary at first but the clamp has to take virtually no load as the track was aligned using the feet then just 'nipped up' with the clamp to prevent lateral movement. Most layouts I've seen and been involved with at shows that relied just on bolts suffered from drooping joints over a weekend show. As I said before bolts and dowels are great but the tolerance to the track position has to be accurate and that's my concern without a jig if not all built by one person. I also dislike the modular layouts that require a 3 inch free piece of track to join boards as it's so easy to rip out rails and it looks odd having no ballast too.

 

There is no precision cut necessary, because the bolts are of 8 mm diameter but the holes are 13 mm. This means you have a vertical play of 5 mm (and horizontally). Only when the nut are fastened it takes vertical load if there was some. When they are just plugged in the holes (without fastening) the whole construction already stands for itself, but is still adjustable. There is no practical way of doing this with clamps.

 

Furthermore the bolts can hold the legs as well, which is not practical with clamps. So you once again need more clamps. Or you can use separate legs, but if those separate legs are screwed on then please tell me why to use two separate methods of fixing on a module?

 

Fixed dowels aren't recommended. I have seen an N gauge module whose surface got wet. This caused the surface to bend and wander upwards, and then there was a 2 mm track "step" at the join without any option to fix it. Not a nice experience for the owner!

 

Kind regards

Felix

 

Edit: Got confused with M6 and M8 bolts. Corrected now.

Edited July 9, 2014 by FelixM

[Glorious NSE]

When they are just plugged in the holes the whole construction already stands for itself, but is still adjustable. There is no practical way of doing this with clamps..

 

It's adjustable at any time - slacken the clamp, line up the tracks, tighten the clamp?

 

 

 

Furthermore the bolts can hold the legs as well, which is not practical with clamps. So you once again need more clamps. Or you can use separate legs, but if those separate legs are screwed on then please tell me why to use two separate methods of fixing on a module?

 

Why do you need to screw your legs on?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Glorious NSE

[bxmoore]

Most of the guys at the Plymouth meet use H-shaped legs that slot firmly into notches under their modules - no screws required.  On my slowly-but-getting-there 16', four-board module, I'm using legs that are integral to each board.  One board has two sets of legs and the others piggyback onto it.  Less to carry, and no nuts and bolts either - the legs are secured when standing by a simple L-shaped pin. I'm using pink foam surrounded by marine ply.  It looks wobbly, but it stands solid.

 

Brian

[Satan's Goldfish]

That makes it sound like there would be a standard removable 'leg design' involved too, which in my understanding there wouldn't. The individuals module can be supported anyway they're happy creating (whatever works for them) as long as the rail tops come to the right height. Personally i'd be of a g-clamp preference for connecting on this system rather than wingnuts, i can see the benefits of the wingnut system but maybe this is one of those 'differences' that the Brits would find more comfortable with all  our eccentricties!

 

Edit for clarity: that was a response to Felix's post.

 

Additional: Kenton's 'agreed' with one of my previous posts, are you feeling ok Kenton?

Edited July 9, 2014 by Satan's Goldfish

[Glorious NSE]

I dunno though, Britain has a long and proud history of wingnuts.

[McRuss]

Hello Brian,

 

your method of with the module legs is only working when the module length ist longer than

the height from bottom to the underside of the module. But with a height of 1,30 meters above

floor level for the FREMO 00 modules you need moduls with a length of more than 1,20 meters

And these lengths are very tricky to handle by one man. So usually the legs are bolted or clamped

to the underside of the modules.

 

Markus

[Satan's Goldfish]

But if the design of the end profile is public and/or provided from a central point, and laser cut thus accurate?

 

As a matter of fact, within our club we're now transitioning between the old, self-cut end profile to a new, laser cut version and from C (or G) clamps to M12 bolts who double up as dowels Note that the M12 bolts don't have a full thread cut, they have a shoulder of machined metal that'll line up the modules. Some washers and nuts and the join is seamless (well, from a technical p-o-v, scenically is a different matter )

This may work there just fine. an additional British trait to take into consideration though is our potential tight fistedness in some matters. Whilest some may be fine with spending a little extra on laser cut end boards that all match, I personally would rather cut my own endboard from a suitable sized left over piece of wood, enjoy the pleasure of working with my own hands, and save a few bob. If the initial 'standard' for us is just rail height above floor then this isn't an issue anyway - lets not run before we've started to walk!

 

that's not to say that in the future it may not be prudent for someone to churn out a load of preformed 'ends', whatever the requirement maybe, but treat it as a 'recommendation' rather than a 'standard'.

[Harald Brosch]

 

>>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 <<

 

Moin / hello from Germany

 

If You are looking for FREMO endplates in H0 starndard track You better use the following links, cause the link above

shows endplates of different scales.

 

FREMO H0 Europe

- 1 track  http://www.modulbahner.de/FREMO-H0-1gl/html/default.html

- 2 track  http://www.modulbahner.de/FREMO-H0-2gl/html/default.html

   track distance 46mm

FREMO H0 USA

-  http://www.modulbahner.de/USA-H0/html/default.html

   track distance 52mm

 

Tschuess / bye

Harald Brosch

new to 00 since some 6 months

Edited July 9, 2014 by Harald Brosch

[PaulRhB]

But if the design of the end profile is public and/or provided from a central point, and laser cut thus accurate?

 

 

Yep I agree but it was if dowels were used with it I had concerns about the geometry to the rails having to be ultra precise. If it's bolts in larger holes then my worries aren't relevant

This banter is clearing up a lot if the misunderstandings well.

The RS Freemo system worked well, probably if I had some OO Fremo boards to play with I'd be equally as happy. The clamps worked well and I think partly because of the greater leverage than a wing nut which does slip if it's the only support in my experience.

If the end boards are flat I don't think there will be deformation and the 75-100mm depth meant the clamps were near the top anyway.