British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Glorious NSE]

I see getting a basic standard of measurments first then we can go from there but....

 

What I was getting at is that you could have both depending on the situation for example if you were at a ‘traditional’ UK exhibition where you were allotted a set space you could go for example A below. This is probably the bare minimum but would depend on all boards been equal length you don’t need backboards just imagination and an explanation to the public that all of the boards have come from different homes, it may be better to have some straights down the sides then you could sit in the middle to break up the scenery but this was just an example. Also if someone had say boards 1,4,5,8 2 and 7 from a Large Garage Layout you could add to those. I see this as a good way of promoting RMWeb to the public/ modellers not yet on the web.

 

Then if you had a Hall only for Fremo you could go for option B again it has its benefits of the social side to RMWeb.

I think this is similar to what is been said above.

 

I do see option B taking off initially as this is probably easier to manage logistically example if one board didn't turn up to an exhibition you would be stuck but if one board didn't turn up to a general meet you can adapt the plan. So probably best to take option B first then see where things go once we have some boards made but I am open to everything with my little board so I can follow and learn just awaiting some standards. 

 

 

I don't think that would work for a "random" collection of modules to come together without also defining what a straight board and what a curve are like - which would kinda defeat the whole ethos of (FREMO/Free-Mo/Freemo) which is to not restrict folk to certain sizes and shapes of what they can design, allowing them to build something that more closely resembles, and so can be worked like, a real railway.

 

That said - if a local group of modellers came together with twin objectives of being able to take part in larger meets and have a local club-test-track-slash-exhibition-layout there's nothing to stop them deciding to restrict their own board shapes to let them do just that.

 

I know the NMRA version of our standard has already had one group do just that - so far they've not taken part in anything larger (from memory) - but the latent capability is there...

Edited July 17, 2014 by Glorious NSE

[cromptonnut]

I'd almost suggest (rather tongue in cheek) banning a double track standard for the first 5 years to ensure that we don't end up with the sort of modular layouts too often seen in n gauge with random trains speeding through disparate modules!

 

I must admit that's the one thing that puts me off modular N gauge layouts - otherwise the general concept fits N gauge (long trains as part of the landscape) perfectly and more to the "running trains" than "detailed prototypical operation to a timetable" side of things.

[jonhall]

IMG_3538 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

This is what a regulars table could look like. This is one of the more smaller ones with only 7ish partakers but we have been more than 30 in some cases. Interestingly today more than half of us have been interested in the railways of Britain.

 

IMG_3539 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3540 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

The latest developments in FREMO were detail researches. The first picture shows a German Saarbrücken type ferry boat van in 1:76 scale. The second picture shows a trial to combine Tension Lock and Norwegian Wire Hook coupling.

 

 

 

Felix

 

More 4mm ferry vans - excellent

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/58076-ferry-vans-from-scratch/

 

There seem to be two of they type you are working on preserved, one at Bochum and one at Darmstadt - it least you can go and look at those quite easily, I'm quite tempted to do one of these as well, but I suspect that the more modern HFS would be a better bet for a resin body.

 

I've left your first photo in the post because it seems to me a pretty attractive idea to have a fremo compatible module to take to the continent and have a long weekend away playing trains and eating & drinking well.

 

Jon

[cromptonnut]

The problem with modular layouts is that individuals HAVE to comply with the basis rules of the system for it to work properly, whatever standard is chosen, you will HAVE to comply with it. If I have a club layout and one item of stock always derails then I'll take it off the layout and 'red-card' it, but what happens if a non-compliant module ends up in the middle of a line? Does the railway all grind to a halt because nothing can pass on, or off, the problem module without derailing?

 

We run a bus replacement service using the Faller road system?

[Talltim]

I don't think that would work for a "random" collection of modules to come together without also defining what a straight board and what a curve are like - which would kinda defeat the whole ethos of (FREMO/Free-Mo/Freemo) which is to not restrict folk to certain sizes and shapes of what they can design, allowing them to build something that more closely resembles, and so can be worked like, a real railway.

 

That said - if a local group of modellers came together with twin objectives of being able to take part in larger meets and have a local club-test-track-slash-exhibition-layout there's nothing to stop them deciding to restrict their own board shapes to let them do just that.

 

I know the NMRA version of our standard has already had one group do just that - so far they've not taken part in anything larger (from memory) - but the latent capability is there...

Martyn has covered the extra requirements you would need to make sure a roundy roundy meets back on itself. There's no reason why a sub group couldn't create the required modules with added standards (length, radius, curve angle) within the overall looser standards and still be completely compatible. It would however require all those with the vital modules to be present at a meet to achieve it. There's also no reason why you can't have roundy roundy and meandering in the same setup, as long as someone builds a junction module.

RS Tower is a continuous run layout with a junction each end of the scenic section with Freemo standard ends , not quite the same thing as it is en effect a huge module but with a similar end result

Edited July 17, 2014 by Talltim

[298]

Why would you want to make a circle or oval or any sort of continuous run in a modular setup? Surely the point is that trains can go to and from places in a way that is out of the scope of most layouts where the 'rest of the world' is by necessity off scene

 

A balloon loop could have worked at the end of the Wallingford branch, keeping the Engineer happy as the loco would have stayed short nose forward and all of the set outs and pick ups would have been in the trailing direction. Another option I've seen on a plan in a US magazine and also on a large scale layout over here is a continous loop to extend the running time as the train performs a number of orbits.

 

Sadly I tend to agree with you, Dutch_Master. Whilst Fremo itself is a concept I can understand and see the logic in, it is, generally, different to the mindset of UK modellers where the traditional "Roundy Roundy" approach is more the norm, particularly for larger exhibition layouts.  I wonder whether there was ever a European equivalent of Cyril Freezer in the continental model press of years gone by and whether the lack thereof may be why there is a lack of understanding as to why some of us just "don't get Fremo"?

 

Clearly Fremo works.  Those who like the concept enjoy it and naturally defend and promote it - I have no problem with that - but sometimes there are overtones of "OO v EM or P4" and "O gauge kit built v ready to run" or "DC v DCC" and I certainly wouldn't want to get involved in any group of people who feel that their way - whatever it may be - is the only "proper way to be a railway modeller".  I've been there, told them where to shove it, before.

 

Nobody has to purely model in one discipline or another. The module concept is obviously new to lots of people (including me 2.5 years ago), and can be an escape from the drudgery of a glorified tail-chasing trainset, or the repitive operation of a branch line.

 

Hello,

 

For the height. A friend of mine developed some sort of wooden legs, which could be adapted for different heights.

1,30m and 1,10 meters are possible, I think 3 feet would be possible to.

Here is the link to his site. But it is written in german, but there are some pictures which I think will explain the whole thing.

 

http://www.blauthermik-rostock.de/Modellbahn/ModellbahnBeine.html

 

Markus

 

I'd suggest 1300mm is a bit high, purely because over here timber is sold in 2400mm lengths and without going too far into the maths, the standard ought to consider the minumum amount of wasteage and cuts from this stock length. You would add on about 13mm at the top for the track, roadbed, and board top, and about 20mm at the bottom for the foot plus another ~13mm (1/2") of leg adjustment.

[Taigatrommel]

I really don't see that it's sensible to try and come up with a new standard, by adopting an existing one there will be a few modules already existing which could kick-start things.  I'd personally call for 00Fremo, not least as I have some module end plates already cut!  I made them without the use of any specialist gear using the well documented standards.  I also like the options for differing land profile.  At Warley and Intermodellbau I've seen setups that demonstrate how well presented a system of these modules can be, blending effectively scenically and offering a fulfilling operating experience.  I wouldn't kid myself in saying that modules are ideal for exhibition, but perhaps a move away from the peculiarly British focus on the audience rather than the modeller's own pleasure could be worthwhile.

 

I know this post is a bit "me too", still, perhaps it helps demonstrate the weight of opinion one way or another.

[cromptonnut]

I really don't see that it's sensible to try and come up with a new standard, by adopting an existing one there will be a few modules already existing which could kick-start things.  

 

How many actual British Fremo/Freemo modules are there out there though?  Let's not forget that on overseas railways many of them drive on the wrong side of the railway like they do on the roads.

[McRuss]

Hello 298,

 

in Germany timber is usually sold in 2100 or 2400 mm length, so we have the same problem. But with the legs from my friend one part the longest part of the module legs are 700mm long.

With the two halves you could adapt the height I think between 800 and 1300mm.

At the Great-britN modular norm we settled for a rail above floor height of 1100mm.

But some of my modules could be set to 1300mm if necessary.

 

Markus

[McRuss]

Hello Cromptonnut,

 

I don't know how many FREEMO modules with a british theme are out there, but there are british themed FREMO modules here for a length of line of about

35 to 40 meters. (38 to 43 feet) in OO. And about 33 meters of Great-britN modules in Germany, and as far as I know a british model railway club is building

some Great-britN modules too.

 

Markus

[cromptonnut]

I don't know how many FREEMO modules with a british theme are out there, but there are british themed FREMO modules here for a length of line of about

35 to 40 meters. (38 to 43 feet) in OO. And about 33 meters of Great-britN modules in Germany, and as far as I know a british model railway club is building

some Great-britN modules too.

Do you know how many of those are actually UK-based?

[wfk]

 

The problem with modular layouts is that individuals HAVE to comply with the basis rules of the system for it to work properly, whatever standard is chosen, you will HAVE to comply with it. If I have a club layout and one item of stock always derails then I'll take it off the layout and 'red-card' it, but what happens if a non-compliant module ends up in the middle of a line? Does the railway all grind to a halt because nothing can pass on, or off, the problem module without derailing?

 

 

The way this is handled within FREMO is to maintain a database of modules, with CAD drawings and notes.  A new module is marked as "drawing unverified", "module untested", or some such, so an organizer knows this one is an uncertain factor and they should not stick it right at the center of the layout where any problem with it will be very disruptive.  So you stick it somewhere near an end point, where it is relatively easy to replace if it really causes problems.  (People always bring a few spare modules just in case).  People are also encouraged to take their module to a meeting when it is still in a very rough form, so any trouble with measurements, track work, etc, can be fixed before all the scenery is added, which makes fixing things more difficult.  The result of this is, of course, that at any meeting you *will* see a few "ugly" modules with no scenery whatsoever, going through a test run.

 

Willem

[Harald Brosch]

Do you know how many of those are actually UK-based?

Moin, hello

 

....   just for information   ....

 

Don´t know how much 00-FREMO modules exist in the UK. But ..   this year till now  I´ve sold  some 100 FREMO endplates

to UK residents. A mix of FREMO-H0-Europe (standard track and H0e narrow gauge) FREMO USA-H0 and US-H0n3 .

Ah - not to forget - another 21 endplates just shipped yesterday :-)

 

FREMO endplates in this numbers have been odered the last 3 to 4 years by UK residents.

 

Don´t know how much of the H0-modules are used for 00 and/or H0

 

Bye / tschuess

 

Harald

[FelixM]

How many actual British Fremo/Freemo modules are there out there though?  Let's not forget that on overseas railways many of them drive on the wrong side of the railway like they do on the roads.

 

Had to look into the layout plan of our Rendsburg meeting: 47.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[cromptonnut]

Hi Felix, thanks for looking into that.

 

Are the 47 all British based modellers building British themed boards, or modellers overseas building British based boards?

 

Just trying to figure out how many there are already in the UK that might be able to have a get-together and show us how it's supposed to be done.

[FelixM]

These have all been from northern Germany, but dedicated with a British theme. Some were converted from US modules which makes them having some imperfections but looked not too wrong.

 

I failed to compile a list of UK based FREMO modules. I have found only vague statements on the FremoUK mailing list. After these, there are about 3 to 5 modellers with a small station each and another modeller with a bigger station, a junction and a tunnel too. Furthermore it seems there is a fiddle yard from a club in the South East which is directly compatible but I might have misunderstood this.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Steven B]

I'd almost suggest (rather tongue in cheek) banning a double track standard for the first 5 years to ensure that we don't end up with the sort of modular layouts too often seen in n gauge with random trains speeding through disparate modules!

 

Like it or not, you will have random trains speeding through disparate modules unless there's some restrictions on what can be built and run (e.g. modules can only represent the West Highland Line in the summer of 1959).

 

Modular layouts built on the FreeMo concept are more about the operations, i.e. making the railway work for a living rather than modelling any particular location or time at the level of detail we're more used to. Who's to say the first RMWeb-Mo meeting won't have SR M7s passing through CR stations whilst on another branch a panier tank shunts wagons at an LNER good depot.

 

Anyone expecting a FreeMo layout to look like the work of a single person or group is going to be disapointed. There will be a wide range of locations and eras modelled not to mention a wide range of modelling abilities. If you can see past the differences and enjoy running trains then you'll enjoy modular layouts. Fail to do that and you're better off spending your time on something else.

 

Happy modelling.

 

Steven B.

 

[PaulRhB]

The height is probably the least important as you can have alternative legs or extensions as I've now catered for on my layout.

 

 

Code 75 Track is going to be compatible with rtr wheels so a safe bet. A single standard end to start with is probably easiest but as we've seen there's no reason adaptors or bridge modules can't join two different standards regardless of single track or different spacing a on double track.

Curve radii seems to be 900-1000mm minimum but go as big as you can so that's the biggest difference in opinion that affects all options.

[The Bigbee Line]

I'm in thinking mode at the moment. If a 'roundy roundy' had an 18" board width at the rear and a 20" board width at the front, would 2'10" as an operating well width be enough. We're talking just enough room, not a dance hall.

Thoughts please Ladies and Gents.

[The Bigbee Line]

Another thought. “many a true word is spoken in jest”, how about a 'Holman F Stephens' light railway standard for modules. Just a thought, back to sorting out the new workshop.

[Glorious NSE]

I'm in thinking mode at the moment. If a 'roundy roundy' had an 18" board width at the rear and a 20" board width at the front, would 2'10" as an operating well width be enough. We're talking just enough room, not a dance hall.

Thoughts please Ladies and Gents.

 

That's a tight-ish gap to my way of thinking - but surely it would be down to the person/small group who wanted the roundy?

 

Those dimensions would suggest a 2'3" radius (685mm?) 180deg curve too, which sounds on the tight side to my ear, as well as being a rather odd figure to go for unless that layout width was a specifically desired outcome?

 

(Are you thinking of it fitting in a domestic shed at home?)

[Talltim]

That's a tight-ish gap to my way of thinking - but surely it would be down to the person/small group who wanted the roundy?

 

 Would have to be a small group...

[Kenton]

I have been out of the RMWeb loop for just over 7 days and on my return I was eager to find out if this topic had progressed any over the half-a-dozen or so additional pages.

 

:no:

 

Not in the slightest. We still seem to be going round in circles discussing abstracts (such as OHLE) and many other things that are not relevant to a basic set of standards and the discussion seems to still have an agenda driven by those who should only be providing information. American and European systems are not what we should be adopting without a very good reason. (Being part of Europe isn't a good reason). The rail-floor height can be anything (even the same as adopted by other systems) but it does need to be decided on. Just about everything else should be developed based on British/Peco standards.

 

I await a proposal from Andy Y - I'll comment on that - and base any involvement on how far that is removed from what I see as possible and how far it permits deviation with what I might build. I would rather see what I can do to make my module fit (essential) rather than what I must do to be considered as taking part (someone else's desires).

 

At the moment it is not looking so good as with everything designed by committee.

[FelixM]

Being part of Europe is a good reason.

 

Felix

[Gerald Henriksen]

Like it or not, you will have random trains speeding through disparate modules unless there's some restrictions on what can be built and run (e.g. modules can only represent the West Highland Line in the summer of 1959).

 

Modular layouts built on the FreeMo concept are more about the operations, i.e. making the railway work for a living rather than modelling any particular location or time at the level of detail we're more used to.

 

 

Free-mo is about whatever you want it to be.

 

Free-mo is a set of standards that allow different modules to join together and work reliably (the height, track minimum standards, etc. that is being argued about here).

 

What gets done with that is then up to the participant.

 

For some setups the fun is in operations, others are about being able to operate longer trains than they have room for at home.

 

Some do get very specific about what is modeled - the CASO Free-mo is a group who all created models based on the Canada Southern in a very specific time period, and they specified additional details like ballast, module frame colour, etc to make it look very uniform - http://www.casofreemo.org/   Perhaps the key point though is that because they followed the Free-mo standard they are able to use their modules in other setups as well.