British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Andy Y]

One thing we haven't really touched on is the ability to join larger, more traditionally british layouts into modular setups. The RS Tower layout shows how well this can work, and Roundhouse's modifications to give his layout a place in the modular world show how effective this can be. Imagine modelling your favourite station, but with somewhere for the trains to run that isn't the fabled "rest of the world" of hidden sidings...

 

 

This is very much in my thinking. I know I said I'd come back in a few days but I've been somewhat busy but will endeavour to do so in due course with a proposal which encourages participation without overcomplication.

[Talltim]

One thing we haven't really touched on is the ability to join larger, more traditionally british layouts into modular setups. The RS Tower layout shows how well this can work, and Roundhouse's modifications to give his layout a place in the modular world show how effective this can be. Imagine modelling your favourite station, but with somewhere for the trains to run that isn't the fabled "rest of the world" of hidden sidings...

 

Exactly my thinking. I can't see myself building any UK modules because I simply don't have the time, but any future US layouts I build will also be modules Edited July 11, 2014 by Talltim

[PaulRhB]

My god I hope you mean 25,000mV! (I'll need to get cracking on my Tesla Coil if not)

Nope MEGA volts wait to see the size of the dcc bus!!!

 

Converting an existing layout with an adaptor board or modifying one end also covers borrowing the fiddleyards off a club layout to use

[298]

Without picking at the bones of every comment made during the last few hours, one point you have to remember is the concept as developed by the RS Tower team can be used to build or incorporate just about anything of any size, just as long as the end boards are compatable. This, coupled with the general understanding of working to a cohesive appearance across the participants, means that if you want to do something out of the ordinary such as ohle or street running, it is possible to do so effectively as a lone project and to your own standards- the last time we discussed ohle on here, there were as many different methods used to scratchbuild as modellers doing it, and no commercial support. If you even got two modellers together who wanted to build comparable modules, who is to mediate to tell them what to do, especially if a third method that both don't like is suggested...?

 

As for the style of operation, any modular setup, whether it be new builds or modified existing layouts, need some form of regulation and car forwarding, otherwise the layout soon becomes conjested or doesn't live up to its capabilities. Such methods aren't unique to the US, it's just difficult to persuade those brought up on a diet of platform end train watching that there is more to the hobby than running trains at will and for no justifiable reason.

[kevinlms]

Nope MEGA volts wait to see the size of the dcc bus!!!

 

Converting an existing layout with an adaptor board or modifying one end also covers borrowing the fiddleyards off a club layout to use

Actually if higher voltages are used,the thinner the conductor needs to be to carry the power (Volt Amps). Mind you the insulation (air gap) required would tend to take over a module!

[PaulRhB]

I posted this in the Operation thread but it might give people ideas on adapting their current layout to fit in. A simple adaptor board on the end or changing the last few inches of track can bring a new lease of life to an existing exhibition layout.

The area boxed in red also shows how a standalone layout with its own fiddleyard could have a connection added for the branch station to be served by say GWR while the main station and FY is run as the layout is intended as Southern so it becomes and interchange.

 

Edited July 12, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

I posted this in the Operation thread but it might give people ideas on adapting their current layout to fit in. A simple adaptor board on the end or changing the last few inches of track can bring a new lease of life to an existing exhibition layout.

 

... or something as simple perhaps as a new set of legs to change the layout height?

[Satan's Goldfish]

If I remember rightly, 10,000V jumps approx 1inch through air. So, 100,000V or 100KV = 10inch, 1MV = 100inches air gap minimum. Therefore 25,000MV would be a minimum 2,500,000 inches of air gap (over 200,000 feet)........so yes there may be issues with board size.

[Stubby47]

If I remember rightly, 10,000V jumps approx 1inch through air. So, 100,000V or 100KV = 10inch, 1MV = 100inches air gap minimum. Therefore 25,000MV would be a minimum 2,500,000 inches of air gap (over 200,000 feet)........so yes there may be issues with board size.

 

But how fast would the trains go ?

[Andy Reichert]

As far as I know, none of the current Free-Mo modules in North America (at least, none of the ones i've seen images of) are models of locations that should have OHLE - if that's the case I don't see the slightest issue with their choice not to install it on their modules!

 

So. Andy.

 

Have a group of you who model electric roads got together and built yourselves a handful of Free-Mo modules which can come together to and represent those lines? 

 

Have you been told by existing US Free-Mo groups that if you built them, they wouldn't let you play with them?

 

If the answer to both of those is "No" - then surely it's down to YOU to promote what YOU want, rather than stand outside their group whining about how unfair it is that people haven't put OHLE up on modules where it's inappropriate! 

 

 

 

 

They already have a choice.

YOU have that choice.

YOU can develop that standard.

YOU can use that standard.

Then the standard will exist.

Then if there are others that want that standard, they will join you.

 

Somebody deciding to just get on, build something and show others how it can work is how all of this happens! Whinging about it to folk half a world away on the internet does nothing useful.

 

 

 

 

If there's enough of them that want to join together to contribute a usable chunk of a layout complete with OHLE, then they aren't likely to be frustrated?

 

Absolutely agree with all the last section.   I'll give some examples to the earlier part of the post later, when I've remembered out how to post you tube videos. But most Brits who haven't travelled "out West" have no idea of the enormous distances involved.

 

But by far the best way to get the that done, is to get in early and offer those suggestions when a modular specification is being first discussed on a group that includes the full range of modelling interests. That's possibly why you are seeing other posts that don't fully support your ideas of limiting it initially. (and the result of limiting  will likely unintentionally "stick")

 

So that's what I just did.  Not "whining", but "eyes widening".

 

Andy

Edited July 12, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[FelixM]

The UK has never had anywhere near 80% electrification.

 

As of 2010 only about 25% of route miles in the UK are electrified, and I think less than 20% is via OHLE - so it's a minority. A substantial one, but a minority.

 

Edit that - misread the figures - about 30% electrified, about 20% OHLE.

 

Much of that is relatively recent too, so OHLE fitted modules would be of much less use to folk representing older era's - the percentage of OHLE in 1960 would have been relatively tiny (I suspect in the region of 1% or less) and that would include different, incompatible, electrification systems for instance.

 

Just as an experiment Andy - have a dig through the UK modelling section on here - have a look and see how well represented layouts with OHLE are to take a gauge of how likely it is that there will be high demand.

 

Given that modules don't need OHLE to function as modules.

Given that the majority of folk will not need OHLE.

Given that there's absolutely zero point in just one person building a module with OHLE (where would his/her trains go?)

Given that OHLE on modules is likely to be harder to spec than OHLE on a conventional layout.

Given that the folk likely to want OHLE will more likely be the folk that can work out how to install OHLE than the rest of us.

 

My suggestion would be that it seems a perfectly reasonable plan to not have a standard for OHLE from the get-go - but let standards be decided as an overlay (so to speak) by interested parties themselves at some point in the future if anyone decides it's something they want to do.

 

There already is a standard for OHLE equipment for the H0-RE Fremo group, on which 00Fremo is based on. It is an extension to the already large rulebook of H0-RE. This means that you only will get in touch with OHLE norms if you are really interested in.

 

I can only recommend to base any 00 gauge standard on the Fremo experiences. I have tossed in lots of How-tos in this thread to demonstrate that virtually every question raised has had someone stumbling across it earlier. You will get the whole lot of experiences if adopting the Fremo norm.

 

I am looking forward to joining in with a single line passing loop station.

 

We are talking strategy now. Take a simple end profile like the valley profile (or sth. else, as you like) and aim at getting the mentioned passing loop, a terminus and a fiddle yard built for the start. Coupled for some plain track modules which follow the space restrictions of your first meeting you wil get a convincing and pleasurable first meeting.

 

Hi Andy

 

So your not joining in but you seem still wanting to tell us what to model.

 

There will have to be some consensus as to area of the country, time period and railways/regions, so we have something that looks to our own eyes a bit better than a train set.  That does not mean it will become a private group. 

 

OLE modellers, strange bunch they are, some want to model LNER 1500v DC, some BR Mk1, others Mk3. I would like to do some BR 1500v DC converted to 25KvA but not the upgraded stuff that is now going up between Shenfield and Chelmsford.

 

There is no point in mixing OHLE and non-OHLE modules. I expect that non-OHLE modellers will be more so the start should be made by them. To get OHLE into the group a few interested should join forces and create a matching OHLE part of the whole arrangement. From then on there will be two layout parts, one with and the other oone without OHLE.

 

One thing we haven't really touched on is the ability to join larger, more traditionally british layouts into modular setups. The RS Tower layout shows how well this can work, and Roundhouse's modifications to give his layout a place in the modular world show how effective this can be. Imagine modelling your favourite station, but with somewhere for the trains to run that isn't the fabled "rest of the world" of hidden sidings...

 

 

Ask Hornby magazine, to my knowledge they have a large Souther Region layout which is too big for them, but the platform lengths of 8 Mk1 is just about right for a mainline station in a modular group aiming for scale length trains.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Andy Reichert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWIrPlHEaDk     Chicago

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEOM3Q3JJ_o 

 

Here are a coupla you tube overviews of two far apart (2000 miles) US modular traction groups. Since they preceded the Free-Mo standards, they did what GNSE suggested and instead went out and got on with on their own. But since Fre-Mo was done in a different vacuum, the three systems are not inter-mixable AFAIK.

 

That's why I think a relatively tiny amount of effort should be expended now to make sure that there aren't several incompatible systems eventually developed as GB module standards.

 

Andy

 

PS I'm 250 miles from San Francisco, 200 miles from LA and even 90 miles from Santa Barbara. That kinda affect my modular "get togethers" with the US 's few traction modellers, even not allowing for the fact that I'm handicapped and can't travel seated for more than 30 minutes comfortably,. (or safely - DVT, which lets out most air travel)

 

For comparison:

 

Distance between London and Amsterdam is 223 miles
Distance between London and Athens is 1488 miles
Distance between London and Barcelona is 707 miles
Distance between London and Berlin is 508 miles
Distance between London and Dublin is 288 miles
Distance between London and Edinburgh is 333 miles
Distance between London and Florence is 751 miles
Distance between London and Munich is 571 miles
Distance between London and Paris is 212 miles
Distance between London and Prague is 645 miles
Distance between London and Rome is 891 miles

[Andy Reichert]

Hi Andy

 

So your not joining in but you seem still wanting to tell us what to model.

 

There will have to be some consensus as to area of the country, time period and railways/regions, so we have something that looks to our own eyes a bit better than a train set.  That does not mean it will become a private group. 

 

OLE modellers, strange bunch they are, some want to model LNER 1500v DC, some BR Mk1, others Mk3. I would like to do some BR 1500v DC converted to 25KvA but not the upgraded stuff that is now going up between Shenfield and Chelmsford.

25kv converted 1500dc Ingatestone portal rm.png

 

If you read my posts carefully, I was pointing out that the typical British Train Traveller is most likely to have been in a train running on an OHLE'd  (or 3rd rail ) line. So any visitor (paying or otherwise) to a GB standardized modular set up would most likely expect to see a typical GB experience. OTOH, partcipants will expect whatever they decide amongst themselves.

 

Note that that is VASTLY different form the typical US Traveller experience. Most of who have rarely if ever been on a train, let alone seen any of the most East Coast small  fraction of electrified lines.

 

As to compatibility between OHLE modules, it's just wire height and wire coupling methods at module ends that needs to be defined. It's a tiny amount of standard definition work up front. You can ring the changes as to which OHLE support types between every module if you so wish. That's a scenery issue.

 

Andy

[Markus-Hymek]

A think the risk of keeping the difficult stuff out of a GB module standard, is that it will merely end up as a poor man's copy of the USA oriented freight forwarding operations model, but just with slightly different trains/colours.

 

I ask me by my self what is your real interest writing in this thread?

[Clive Mortimore]

If you read my posts carefully, I was pointing out that the typical British Train Traveller is most likely to have been in a train running on an OHLE'd  (or 3rd rail ) line. So any visitor (paying or otherwise) to a GB standardized modular set up would most likely expect to see a typical GB experience. OTOH, partcipants will expect whatever they decide amongst themselves.

 

Note that that is VASTLY different form the typical US Traveller experience. Most of who have rarely if ever been on a train, let alone seen any of the most East Coast small  fraction of electrified lines.

 

As to compatibility between OHLE modules, it's just wire height and wire coupling methods at module ends that needs to be defined. It's a tiny amount of standard definition work up front. You can ring the changes as to which OHLE support types between every module if you so wish. That's a scenery issue.

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy

 

Many of us living in the UK are young enough to remember the days when the Euston to Liverpool and Manchester electrification was new and most the country did not have electric trains but steam or maybe diesel. Many of the travelling public will also remember sitting in trains that were not multi-coloured striped electric ones, these people attend ordinary exhibitions and are not concerned that every GWR  BLT has not been wired up but happy to see a pannier tank with 4 or 5 wagons.

 

I am unsure of your agenda. The idea, so I thought, about this thread was to explore the possibilities of a UK based group of UK outline modellers building modules that every now and then we got together and ran a model railway not just a railway model as most layouts are.

 

Thanks to the UK based Freemo gang for their input and to our friends in Europe who have shared their experience with us. Now with the support of these kind people can we get on with our aim instead of being bombarded with post that do not relate to the object of this thread.

[PaulRhB]

And today I designed the leg extensions for Lulworth that are adjustable, so as soon as the height is set 6 pieces of 2x1 will be cut and drilled to attach to the existing support frame when required

[Andy Reichert]

I ask me by my self what is your real interest writing in this thread?

 

Reminding people to keep an open mind and think just a little bit before they act. 

 

Open standards eventually attract far more followers than closed ones.

 

Andy

[298]

     Chicago

 

 

 

 

Impressive as I find these modules (and I too model traction), one obvious setback from a UK perspective is the fact that they are shown being transported in some pretty big (by UK standards) vehicles. Which is why I like the 18" width, as it is still wide enough for scenery, but fits within our lives a lot better.

 

The distances you quote present an interesting comparison, not least because if I wanted to travel a mere 100 miles, I could go to a quality show or preserved railway event every weekend throughout the year. But other factors usually get in the way, and us Brita are more conservative in travelling such distances, especially when you're paying your own fuel and accommodation costs.

[bxmoore]

Whilst the actual modelling in the two YouTube videos submitted by Andy Reichert is impressive, am I the only one to think that the actual depiction of "realistic operation" was minimal at best, and a spoof at worst? 

 

They were, almost without exception, tearing around the layouts like scared mice being chased by a cat.

 

I've so far refrained from commenting on Mr Reichert's complete dismissiveness of my post in which I appended an NMRA(BR) poster that attempts to encourage newcomers to the world of modular/DCC/operations, but what he's showing us here, is ANYTHING but prototypical operation.  The moving vehicles are running at Lionel-type speeds, and several times faster than they'd have run in real life. I'm surprised they stayed on the track as they took the corners.

 

If this is his notion of "scale model railroading" (his quote), then I'm a banana.   

 

Brian

[PaulRhB]

Chaps this is about considering options, inevitably we will all have to compromise

If you want a layout this size that's totally coherent in style, era and construction you need a big club layout or a lottery size shed

I think we now need Andy to propose the standard once he has time and see who decides to give it a go and make it work.

I can only go on experience of the standard Martyn suggested for the US layout, it was simple and worked well so I have no qualms as as long as people stick to the joint specs and curve radii it will work. Several of us built modules and a few more almost got theirs finished but still came along to experience it and had a fantastic weekend. There were no derailments, no wiring problems just a dodgy handset and inexperience of talking to the dispatcher.

Give it a go and be pleasantly surprised

[Andy Reichert]

Whilst the actual modelling in the two YouTube videos submitted by Andy Reichert is impressive, am I the only one to think that the actual depiction of "realistic operation" was minimal at best, and a spoof at worst? 

 

They were, almost without exception, tearing around the layouts like scared mice being chased by a cat.

 

I've so far refrained from commenting on Mr Reichert's complete dismissiveness of my post in which I appended an NMRA(BR) poster that attempts to encourage newcomers to the world of modular/DCC/operations, but what he's showing us here, is ANYTHING but prototypical operation.  The moving vehicles are running at Lionel-type speeds, and several times faster than they'd have run in real life. I'm surprised they stayed on the track as they took the corners.

 

If this is his notion of "scale model railroading" (his quote), then I'm a banana.   

 

Brian

 

Yes, I have no connection with either group. Dutch_Master's interpretation of the posting was correct.

 

Yes, I wouldn't be seen dead running my own models at those speeds, except for demonstrating track holding safety margins on finer scale track

 

Yes, I disagree with using the regular NMRA standards for HO traction, as they result in unrealistic, enormous street track flange ways (SPAN rules over FW in that special case, although it's rarely realized.). The NMRA also has the same OH wire standard for all scales from HO up to 1/24th scale IIRC.

 

And yes, I have no bananas.

 

Andy

Edited July 12, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Jon Gwinnett]

As for the style of operation, any modular setup, whether it be new builds or modified existing layouts, need some form of regulation and car forwarding, otherwise the layout soon becomes conjested or doesn't live up to its capabilities. Such methods aren't unique to the US, it's just difficult to persuade those brought up on a diet of platform end train watching that there is more to the hobby than running trains at will and for no justifiable reason.

I actually think this is one of the easier things to sort out for a UK set up, since the traditional wagon label seems to me to be an obvious shoe-in to operate on a car-card routing system. One could even attempt a timetable overlay for passenger once the modules for a particular meet were known.

[Andy Reichert]

Chaps this is about considering options, inevitably we will all have to compromise

If you want a layout this size that's totally coherent in style, era and construction you need a big club layout or a lottery size shed

I think we now need Andy to propose the standard once he has time and see who decides to give it a go and make it work.

I can only go on experience of the standard Martyn suggested for the US layout, it was simple and worked well so I have no qualms as as long as people stick to the joint specs and curve radii it will work. Several of us built modules and a few more almost got theirs finished but still came along to experience it and had a fantastic weekend. There were no derailments, no wiring problems just a dodgy handset and inexperience of talking to the dispatcher.

Give it a go and be pleasantly surprised

 

In response to the need above, I'm probably not the knowledgeable one to ask, but if someone who knows the UK preferred, open country, catenary contact wire height would answer, then that's the 4mm scaled down dimension needed for (optional) wire interchange at board edges, centered over each specified track. 

 

You'd probably need to have a standardized wire coupler (tiny and thin metal plate with two close spaced holes). Each hole would have to be large enough to allow for the greatest wire diameter likely to be used. And you have to specify that wire ends would be tensioned at say a 4 oz pull when coupled , with an upwards hooked end and sprung extensibility for coupling of 1/4". Your typical RTR pantograph upward pressure is the factor that would determine the finalized wire tension force. The wire diameter could vary from 26 swg (US NMRA HO Traction) down to 0.006-7" (scale), if it is sufficiently rigid to have a hook formed end.

 

Please excuse my thinking in imperial measurements. 

 

The rest of the track, module ends and DCC/wiring specs can pretty much be just copied from Free Mo.

 

IMHO, That's all that needs to be suggested (and thus agreed up front) to open the standard from just steam/diesel to include GB OHLE in the future.

 

Andy

[Clive Mortimore]

Mr Reichert

 

I think the Andy, Paul was refering to is Mr York.

 

As for British OLE for modular layouts having a standard, this might be impossible as between the different design ranges there was no standard contact wire height or system height, even for open line.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[PaulRhB]

Yep Andy Y

Doesn't need to be agreed now but I would suggest if anyone is interested in OHLE they build a test piece to prove it and then it stands a good chance of convincing others

To be honest I'd still suggest just deciding on a height for the wire and have the pantographs tied just clear so you don't have to rely on tension over joints. I had five joins on my Swiss layout with actual contact but getting that tolerance between different builders modules strikes me as a recipe for trouble that's all.

There's nothing to stop people doing it but it's not likely to be widely taken up at the start at least. So let's concentrate on something that can use existing layouts, new build modules with some extra modules to provide plain running as a way to establish this

Edited July 12, 2014 by PaulRhB