British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[jonhall]

 

 

 One flaw in the "right angle track to end profile" is that it precludes using transition curves on interchangeable curved modules or grouped curved modules that do not form a full 90 degree angle of curve for that use only. 

Andy

 

Andy,

 

I think a group of curved modules is really  'a single module with multiple parts' there is no suggestion that any multi-part modules have to have any specific fixings/profile to join the intra-module parts together, hence not really relevant.

 

I think you may have misunderstood the 90° to the end specification, the rails must be at 90° to the end of the module, not that the module must equal 1/4 of a circle.

 

Jon

[Andy Reichert]

<<<< Specifying the through route to use only the straight path on points means no junction boards.
That's not going to work minimum radius is all you need and points to meet that.
The only must spec I saw involving Peco was the minimum radius of their point. >>>>>

 

Rather than PECO, just say 900 mm for minimum turnout radius. Real railway, and many model railway turnout makers use number angles instead, so you might want to include the equivalent. (or specify the other way around).

 

My apologies, I was referring to the default straight route for my comment about using the straight path of turnouts in that route. Clearly a junction module would likely have the curved route of one or more turnouts in the path. However I doubt that any module of a fast main line junction would look it's best with minimum radius turnouts used for that.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "choice of wheels clearing track".  Whether wheels work correctly on track is determined by the wheels and track "Standard" that both designed to meet.  You have to match them.

[jonhall]

Indeed it looks terrible. I guess you can still have jarring scenery differences in an all British layout - GWR 14XX & Autocoach for the Scottish Highlands or Glens? Or a Tri-ang Rocket passing a Class 66 on a container train or modern EMU. There is now a period of almost 200 years of British railways to choose from.

 

Of course, its always possible at a meet to have 2 or more separate layouts, rather than a single large layout covering multiple periods. It just depends on space & what modules are available. That would prevent the excessive and wild variations.

 

I think you could cope with area variations by clever 'layout' design at meetings - all the GWR  layouts in one leg feed a 'transfer yard' where the GW loco comes off and is replaced by an LMS loco to head onto those modules modelling LMS... Era's is a little harder to work, but if the focus is on operation, than it might be most desirable to overlook it (or have a 'tardis' transfer yard where the nominal traffic comes in by steam era wagon, has a virtual transhipment, and the nearest equivalent modern wagon emerges onto that half of the layout.

 

Jon

[Andy Reichert]

Andy,

 

I think a group of curved modules is really  'a single module with multiple parts' there is no suggestion that any multi-part modules have to have any specific fixings/profile to join the intra-module parts together, hence not really relevant.

 

I think you may have misunderstood the 90° to the end specification, the rails must be at 90° to the end of the module, not that the module must equal 1/4 of a circle.

 

Jon

 

No I was considering that a full 90 Deg turn was often a common "group owned " set of modules or module sets, to make up to four "corners", in order to conveniently make an "L", a "U" or a full round the room loop possible for exhibition running. In that case, it could be built to have smooth transition curves incorporated in both ends.  For example the full "complete end return loop" module set we have for SLO Free-Mo has transition curves built in for the profile end for smoother operation.

 

You can't otherwise plan to have transition curves at module ends if you don't know whether you are connecting to another curve, or a plain straight module next.

[Harald Brosch]

Regarding end profiles, should we not be looking at a uk based manufacturer as surely shipping bits of wood overseas will be expensive?

Moin Cromtonut

 

depends on the price for lasering in the UK

 

 

 

Shipping of some 30 low endplates like B96 and E96 from D to UK is some 22 Euro using DPD or DHL

(more expencive to some islands)

 

Endplates in this dimension (500x104mm) are 6,50 Euro each lasered from 12mm cottonwood / poplar plywood.

 

Don´t know it exactly, but  - 6,50 Euro must be some 5,20 pound sterling - 22 Euro some 17,50 pound.

 

Wide of endplates can be adopted für Your purpose - be it  a little bit wider or narrower - but drills should always be in the middle of endplates .

 

tschuess

Harald

 

 

Once again - please excuse misspellings

Edited July 15, 2014 by Harald Brosch

[jonhall]

No I was considering that a full 90 Deg turn was often a common "group owned " set of modules or module sets, to make up to four "corners", in order to conveniently make an "L", a "U" or a full round the room loop possible for exhibition running. In that case, it could be built to have smooth transition curves incorporated in both ends.  For example the full "complete end return loop" module set we have for SLO Free-Mo has transition curves built in for the profile end for smoother operation.

 

You can't otherwise plan to have transition curves at module ends if you don't know whether you are connecting to another curve, or a plain straight module next.

 

I don't understand?

 

J

[Harald Brosch]

By the way - FREMO took part in Warley in 2013 ans 2014.

 

in 2013 with some 35m of modules - coming from the Netherlands and Germany imho

4 pics on fremo.net.eu

 

https://www.fremo-net.eu/2653.html?&L=10

 

I´ve just asked Paul Hartmann - president of FREMO - coming from the Netherlands - for more pics.

 

Bye

 

Harald

Edited July 15, 2014 by Harald Brosch

[Talltim]

If the track at the end of a module is straight for whatever length the standard is, then the transition curve starts at the end of the straight and all the curve is contained within the (possibly multi baseboarded module.

You do get the situation where if you join two curved modules together in a non-S-curve fashion you get a big curve with a straight bit in the middle, but I think that is really unavoidable.

I'm really not a fan of 45 or 90 degree 'corner' modules, but I doubt I'll be building a British module so it's not really up to me

Edited July 15, 2014 by Talltim

[Harald Brosch]

Track / modulend 90 degrees

 

not always

 

Straight modules - sure - there have to be 90 degrees at the end

 

Curved modules - noway some inch of straight track to the end of a module.

looks terrific

What to do with this track ?

 

hmmm - peco has something - but also we do :-)

 

 

available in stainless steel for all kind of radius and angles :-)

 

And the track matches the endplate in the right way :-)

[bxmoore]

Unless the specified end boards (ie the ones that present the "universal" facing between two distinct modules) are able to be made, at home, with minimal woodworking skills, then you are again alienating a lot of people.

 

Ditto in respect of trying to create some sort of captive market where you have to order them from one or more manufacturer.  People would be rightly suspicious of that, especially us Brits, for various reasons.

 

The UK OO concept may well really develop into something approaching what you see both on the Continent and in the US, with huge set-ups, but they're a complete pipe dream until you break through the required metaphorical sound barrier.  Learn to fly in a Tiger Moth first, and safely enjoy the experience; you can then aspire to the Typhoon.  It's a lot of fun getting there, and you may wish never to "move on" to jet engines.

 

At the risk of sounding negative, notions of creating modules with interchange stations where you arrive from another module, change GWR power to LMS power, and then depart to yet another location, are a long way in the future.  At the very least, you would need six or seven really committed individuals, all of whom would have to build big (for the UK) modules, plus a lot of "spacer" boards to give a feeling of distance between active modules.  

 

Start with something that's achievable with a few people in a, say, 12-month time frame.  You'll also learn a lot and probably change your mind on a few things in that period of time.

 

Brian

[Talltim]

Track / modulend 90 degrees

 

not always

 

Straight modules - sure - there have to be 90 degrees at the end

 

Curved modules - noway some inch of straight track to the end of a module.

looks terrific

What to do with this track ?

 

hmmm - peco has something - but also we do :-)

 

 

available in stainless steel for all kind of radius and angles :-)

 

And the track matches the endplate in the right way :-)

Having the curve right to the end of the module works technically (as long as the very end is at right angles to the end. However you don't get the realism of transition curves

[Andy Reichert]

I don't understand?

 

J

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AWOfqW0oXk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4VhleK5V3k

 

A transition curve is where the radius varies from almost straight at it's entry/exit steadily up/down to the final  majority constant radius through the curve proper. Apart from looking good, it keeps couplers and corridor connections on longer cars much more closely aligned, and on real railways, stops the significant sideways jerk (and mechanical heavy stress) that occurs when suddenly changing direction from straight to full radius and back again.

 

Obviously a stand-alone curved module between two straight modules would look best if it had transitions to straight at both ends.  But put two modules like that together in the same curved direction and they would look a little strange. Not having transition curves when a straight module joins a curved module can give the "corner" effect you see on sectional track layouts, when the long coach ends swing out as they enter and leave it

 

Hope that's clearer this time

 

Andy.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Harald Brosch]

By the way

I´m not looking for a new market - have already  lots ! of customers :-) in whole Europe. (happy)

 

As member of FREMO since 2002 -  US H0 and H0-Europe - i just want to show You

some aspects of FREMOs kind of modulrailroading,

 

Modul-railroading is fun - be cautious - makes addictive :-)

 

Doesn´t any matter if You use the american Way of Free-mo - the FREMO-way - or a special British way.

It has to be Your way. The way You are confortable with.

 

But - all mistakes have been made already - in Europe and in the US.

Therefore i hope, You will not be annoyed if I try to show some ways the FREMO handles ist.

 

Interested in all kinds of modulrailroading I´m also member of the american Free-mo yahoogroup.
for many years. But cause I´m playing FREMO and know it well, I can give some informations

concerning FREMO - I´m not able to explain the Free-mo way.

 

Tschuess

 

Harald

[PaulRhB]

I'm not sure what you mean by "choice of wheels clearing track". Whether wheels work correctly on track is determined by the wheels and track "Standard" that both designed to meet. You have to match them.

Do Hornby and Bachmann work to a published standard? Never seen it mentioned, it seems to be code 75 Peco track that defines it

 

Regarding end profiles, have a downloadable picture that can be photocopied to size or offer laser cut boards so people can choose

 

At the risk of sounding negative, notions of creating modules with interchange stations where you arrive from another module, change GWR power to LMS power, and then depart to yet another location, are a long way in the future. At the very least, you would need six or seven really committed individuals, all of whom would have to build big (for the UK) modules, plus a lot of "spacer" boards to give a feeling of distance between active modules.

 

The whole point of suggesting that was to allow existing layouts to be considered Brian therefore making it easier to concentrate on the plain run modules.

The Armitage meet saw several new build modules, a converted layout, a standalone layout connected to a module and existing modules from two groups. They varied from highly finished exhibited standard to plain boards, work in progress. They worked well together.

If we could get two existing main stations, two or three branch stations with adapted ends or converter modules plus a few new build modules for plain running and the fiddleyard off someone's show layout we would have a very good start. Make the initial meeting a RMweb day and it'll be a social as well and discussion so I doubt it'll be a disaster

Edited July 15, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

But - all mistakes have been made already - in Europe and in the US.

 

Never underestimate the power of the British to come up with new mistakes and bad ways of doing things.

 

Successive UK governments have been leading the way in innovation in this field for years.

[Glorious NSE]

You can't otherwise plan to have transition curves at module ends if you don't know whether you are connecting to another curve, or a plain straight module next.

 

You can - but you'll be building much larger modules as they will all have to transition to straight at the module end.

[runs as required]

A promising thread to happen across.

 

It sparks my interest because I have an eclectic collection of traction and rolling stock amassed over the decades (that I have converted to DCC operation) which runs on H0/ 00 track .

My solution to the scale discrepancy is to deliberately play down 'realistic' scenery, instead opting for a minimalist setting so that elements such as stations are expressed as wood block outlines that can be 'imagined' in relation to whether the stock I've chosen to run on the layout is within a British railway environment (BR or earlier Big Four or Pre Grouping) or French, FS or Eastern European/ Turkish.

 

I am planning two 'modular' extensions to my 'anywheresville' continuous run circuit:

1

is a helix that I can sit inside and experience the trains climbing and descending around my club armchair

2

Is an accurately semaphore signalled small station and yard that I can operate on the absolute block system.

 

I don't know whether this has any relevance to the posts already appearing on this thread other than re-inforcing an overall spec for maintaining an 'open' and 'loose fit' modular approach.

 

dh

[The Bigbee Line]

I guess a question would be whether you're planning to build a double track or single track module - if the module you want to use on both systems is single track, then any potential differences in the double track spacing between the standards aren't relevant.

I must admit my comments were mischief making regarding the double track.

However I do want to be able to run between boards and single track should not be a problem. The main stumbling block for me will be platform clearances. Best stick to using the scenic boards and yards.

I'm interested to see where this thread goes. Maybe someone wants to suggest a non Peco point as a standard? Radical but would be a clean break for most people and a step up in quality and appearance. Suggestions please.

[Clive Mortimore]

Never underestimate the power of the British to come up with new mistakes and bad ways of doing things.

 

 

This sentanced sums this up for me.

 

Jon called this proposed British system FreemOO, the double o comes from the first British mistake, 00 track. I know this 1930s cock-up has placed us in a unique position that we do not match any other systems. 1/76th scale trains running on underscale track. Should we adopt Freemo or Free-Mo, I feel neither would match our odd system as both are geared up for their respective H0 modelling. trying to make 00 match an H0 system is akin to making 0 gauge work with n gauge. Reviewing both systems has given me some food for thought as I hope it has others interested in FreemOO. Adopting one or the other will not necessary be a good move.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Clive Mortimore

[Clive Mortimore]

I must admit my comments were mischief making regarding the double track.

However I do want to be able to run between boards and single track should not be a problem. The main stumbling block for me will be platform clearances. Best stick to using the scenic boards and yards.

I'm interested to see where this thread goes. Maybe someone wants to suggest a non Peco point as a standard? Radical but would be a clean break for most people and a step up in quality and appearance. Suggestions please.

Hi Ernie

 

A non Peco point as a standard? The second British big mistake, Peco. At this juncture don't let this now evolve into a scale track verses Peco debate. I agree that it would be better not to use Peco standards but then we might as well be talking about a FreeP4, or FreeEM. Too many British modellers are wedded to Peco.....why does it have to be so reliable????

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Lets see what Andy Y comes up with shortly.

[wfk]

Hi all,

 

I'm new on this forum.  I just signed up after the chairman of FREMO pointed us (fremo_uk) to this discussion, noting that we might be able to provide some useful input.  I'm Dutch myself, but I am one of the people who have been working over the past few years on getting a UK branch of FREMO started.  Yes, there is a group already, and plans for meetings are being worked on.  The UK members we have so far appear to have a rather broad range of interests.  I've seen discussions on HO-Europe modelling, OO-UK, and On30 (US narrow gauge).

 

As for OO-UK, consensus in the UK has been to simply adopt the existing and well-tested FREMO H0-Europe standard, and simply amend the recommended practices parts as needed where there are specific differences between either H0 vs OO scale, or EU vs UK modelling.  The main reason for doing this is that this standard has been developed for over 25 years, and thus encodes a lot of practical experience with making a modular system work well.  By simply latching on to this, we easily avoid all the common beginner's mistakes.  Technically, there is nothing in the H0-Europe standard that is incompatible with OO scale use.

After we had been talking about this for some time, we found out that there was also an OO-UK group active in Berlin, who had through historical accident taken the FREMO H0-US module as a basis for their own separate OO-UK standard.

So we found ourselves in the rather unique situation that the Brits were following existing continental standards, and the Germans were developing their own new UK standard.  Sort of a reversal of historic precedent.  :-)

We've had some good discussions with the German group on the subject of standards, but I haven't followed their activities lately, so I don't know what they ended up doing.

 

Anyway, what this all means is that if people here are interested in building a modular system to model UK prototype in OO scale (or anything else, for that matter), they are most welcome to join FREMO UK.

 

There are several continental FREMO members interested in helping the UK group get started.  So we have offers of people willing to come over to a UK meeting with modules and other materials, etc.

 

FREMO has been using DCC since the late 1990s, and has a lot of experience with making it work right in the complex setting of a modular layout.  We have our own low-cost controllers specifically designed for the particular use case of a modular layout where many different people (including children), often with limited or no knowledge of DCC, operate dozens or hundreds of different trains and walk along the layout doing so.  (One DCC manufacturer cloned this design for their own product...)

 

 

Well, apologies for lots of rambling in my first post.  I hope I didn't upset anyone with any of the above, but I just wanted to give you all the potentially relevant info about the current state of FREMO in the UK, in the hope that we can all join forces and avoid fragmenting the modular layout landscape in the UK.

 

 

Willem

[wfk]

Oh btw, regarding the subject of "language gap" and "badly documented" wrt FREMO standards: the UK group has been working hard on translating the full FREMO H0-Europe standard from German to English.  This is available as a PDF from the FREMO web site (http://www.fremo-net.eu/).  The FREMO H0-Europe standard is an extensive document of 56 pages describing various aspects, both mechanical, electrical, electronic, safety, compatibility, operational, etc.  Some of the other FREMO standards are less detailed, though presumably good enough to serve the needs of their respective groups.

 

Sometimes I do wish the people writing the FREMO standards would take some more hints from the NMRA, because I do think the FREMO standards are not as well organised as the NMRA standards.  But that is a separate discussion...

 

 

Willem

[FelixM]

As for OO-UK, consensus in the UK has been to simply adopt the existing and well-tested FREMO H0-Europe standard, and simply amend the recommended practices parts as needed where there are specific differences between either H0 vs OO scale, or EU vs UK modelling.  The main reason for doing this is that this standard has been developed for over 25 years, and thus encodes a lot of practical experience with making a modular system work well.  By simply latching on to this, we easily avoid all the common beginner's mistakes.  Technically, there is nothing in the H0-Europe standard that is incompatible with OO scale use.

After we had been talking about this for some time, we found out that there was also an OO-UK group active in Berlin, who had through historical accident taken the FREMO H0-US module as a basis for their own separate OO-UK standard.

So we found ourselves in the rather unique situation that the Brits were following existing continental standards, and the Germans were developing their own new UK standard.  Sort of a reversal of historic precedent.  :-)

We've had some good discussions with the German group on the subject of standards, but I haven't followed their activities lately, so I don't know what they ended up doing.

 

It was a hard time. I was argumenting for two of us, me and Torsten, the inventor of the norm who has given up argumenting in English at some point. But as time has passed the advantages of H0-RE have clearly come to light and we Germans now share the view which the UK based Fremo members ironically always had. Willem can be trusted when it comes to experiences with modular modelling norms.

 

I may repeat myself but there are Fremo members in Kent who are actively constructing British modules in 00 gauge which may be connected to a French or Belgium layout due to H0-RE compatibility. These members have been often enough at meetings on the continents so the knowledge already is domestic. Sadly I have not yet got to know them. Surprisingly the FremoUK Yahoo group has stayed quiet although both it was mentioned here and this thread was mentioned there. I hope that something will come to fruition now.

 

To sum up what has happened after the mentioned UK-German discussion (maybe interesting just for Willem): An experienced H0-RE and H0-USA modeller has taken over the norm and it was completely rewritten. It is now very much H0-RE with the exception of the US valley profile which in the opinion of some is suitable to represent typical cuttings in Britain. The hole position has to be amended though to make it compatible with every possible H0-RE module. Adaptors have been built to bring the track separation from US 52 mm to UK 46 mm, two of them were in use on our meeting in Rendsburg in may (actually fitting in the only 46 mm station into an otherwise 52 mm layout but this will change in the future). Since then we have started lots of detail discussions like developing an 00 scale German ferry boat van or preparing a batch of etched PCBs which enables slotting functionality (splitting signal behaviour between two stations/operators) for signals in signal slots.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Andy Reichert]

Do Hornby and Bachmann work to a published standard? Never seen it mentioned, it seems to be code 75 Peco track that defines it

 

Hornby and Bachmann, as confirmed by measurement, appear to follow the US  regular NMRA wheels standard for HO. PECO code 75 turnouts are a compromise that fits no known track standard although apparently it falls between HO an GB DOGA.  Hence it may slightly unreliable for achieving fully zero derailments in both the US and the UK.

 

Andy