British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[wfk]

A few random remarks regarding some of the things I have seen coming up here, as it relates to the FREMO standards.

 

Roundy-roundy vs End-end:

Within FREMO, normal operation is end-end with fiddle yards or end stations at the end of each branch, but with a double track line, it would be fairly simple to build a few loop modules to replace the fiddle yard at the end, thus instantly turning it into a dog-bone style circle, somewhat akin to what NordModul does.  To actually construct a proper circle of modules is mechanically kinda tricky with free-form modules, but with some effort it might actually be achievable.  I am not aware of any meeting in FREMO ever attempting a loop or multi-path network layout, but then, I obviously don't know everything that's going on everywhere in the club...

Note that you do not actually need a full proper loop layout for an exhibition, although that is obviously common practice.  When FREMO went to Warley, they offerred a 10m x 10m block, and FREMO asked to changed that into 3m x 30m, so we could build a nice long weaving linear layout, which greatly impressed the audience.

 

Control: DC vs DCC, Loconet vs Expressnet:

One of the nice aspects of the FREMO standard is that the control aspects are kept entirely separate from the actual modules.  The modules themselves are pretty much neutral and generic.

Back in the 90s, FREMO converted from multi-circuit DC to DCC within a period of a few years (quicker than anticipated), with mixed operations during the transitional period.  All the control electrics/electronics and cabling are separate from the modules and installed at the meeting.  The main thing that has changed since the introduction of DCC is that station builders no longer bother with lots & lots of block control switches to control the station.  The whole station can simply be wired as one big blob, hooked up to a single feed from a booster.  Double track line modules still have 2 separate electrical hookups, one for each track, and on a DCC setup, these are externally joined to a booster by the DCC cabling.

We have discussed the issue of control bus, and I believe we concluded that the jacks & cabling used for the DCC control bus within FREMO are sufficiently generic that they should work fine with Expressnet, even though they were originally designed for use with Loconet.

However, the FREMO controller, which completely hides DCC from the train operators and thus makes life a lot easier, and the various bits of auxiliary DCC control electronics to cope with scale & distance, are Loconet, so you won't be able to use those with Expressnet based command stations.

 

 

 

Willem

[FelixM]

Some Italian FREMO members have achieved to build flexible scenic modules which would help to make a full loop although I don't know what compromises they made to achieve this.

 

Felix

[Talltim]

Did Andy actually say that he would recommend a standard? I don't recall it, but I'm not reading back through 18 pages of my drivel to check!

[HeavyDuty]

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.

 

What I see stateside is groupings of modules by a single person or group that have continuity - this avoids the NTrak look (a mountain module, then a circus module, then a city module, then...) within a group of modules.

[Andy Reichert]

Being part of Europe is a good reason.

 

Felix

 

I think the motto of the new Great British Modular Society appears to be:

 

"Abandon all HO, yE hU enter here"  ...........

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

What I see stateside is groupings of modules by a single person or group that have continuity - this avoids the NTrak look (a mountain module, then a circus module, then a city module, then...) within a group of modules.

 

I thought "Z Track" had a actual smoking volcano module. NMRA NAtional Train Show, Los Angeles, 2008,

 

Incidentally they also had a huge US Freemo working display on that occasion. It operated realistically (operations) on Fri and Sat, but had lots of long trains running around the large outer edge ( continuous running) for the Sunday show when the public were invited in.  That's the point of module flexibility. You can have all the connectivity set up for both ways of running. You just choose the routes that are permitted, that suit the current requirement., without necessarily disconnecting any modules.

 

Andy

Edited July 17, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[PaulRhB]

Let me enlighten you then: the British aren't Europeans, they're British. Period.

Yes a dogged nation of people who enjoy moaning about authority and beheaded their King then decided the replacement was no better so brought back the monarchy but with no power.

So it's nothing personal we don't like British people telling us how to do it either as there's no opportunity to argue about it

Andy has something in mind, whether he thinks it's worth sticking his head above this particular parapet remains to be seen

 

Anyhoo my layout is ready to be assimilated into whatever FreeRangeMoRMweb guide may be tried just to prove it does work after being convinced at the US meeting. The initial attempts at operation may need to be developed, we are discussing that with the US version too. The best thing about that is we all left wanting to do it again as we all went with open minds and really enjoyed it.

 

Isn't playing trains fun, some of us do it for a living too and still manage to enjoy it

Edited July 17, 2014 by PaulRhB

[The Bigbee Line]

Isn't playing trains fun, some of us do it for a living too and still manage to enjoy it

I mend the real things and like you still manage to enjoy modelling (when I get time).  I wonder, occasionally, what sort of railway system we would have if there had been a revolution in Victorian times?

 

Something more European maybe....

Edited July 17, 2014 by The Bigbee Line

[Glorious NSE]

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.

 

But both of them being pre-existing standards which provably already work and which folk could effectively start building to tomorrow without anyone having to go away and work out a standard from scratch may be a very good reason though Kenton, as may be the possibility of folk already using OO Fremo standards within the UK (it's a little unclear whether / how much that's the case)

 

To be honest - I struggle with the viewpoint that this is "an American system" and "a European system" which is what some folk (not just you Kenton) seem to be painting it as - in reality, both the pre-existing ones being discussed effectively provide generic modular frameworks suitable for modelling a railway. Pretty much any railway. 

 

Specifically on ours (only because I know my way around it better, not because i'm "promoting it" or that I think it's the right answer especially) - the only definate exception to that - IE something that would be silly as a basis for a British module system - would be that ours reccomends (though doesn't mandate) Peco C83 track - which would plainly be a nonsense. Disregarding the whole thing as "not British" and starting again due to something like that is a bit silly.

 

There are a couple of other bits which are arguable either way - (such as end profiles and double track spacings) - where following what somebody else has done may not be "wrong", and there may not be one "right" answer for all possibilities, however there may be a better choice than what's already written.

 

But I don't see that kind of thing as meaning that it's a good idea to disregard the whole thing as "not invented here" and to start from scratch.

 

None of the pre-existing specs really define what folk must to do with the modules, what the track plan is, how it's operated, what the scenery looks like, what the buildings must be like, what rolling stock (and coupling) must be used, what side (if any) trains must run on double track, what signalling....

 

And it's those things that are likely to define it being a British module as opposed to a German module or an American module. Not things like width or height of the board, position of the track, or what kind of electrical jumpers get used.

[Kenton]

 

Something more European maybe....

I've said it many times about transport infrastructure in Europe - they had the luxury of it being redesigned by Hitler and the RAF not that many years ago (a blank canvas on which to draw straight lines. In Britain we are left with something principally designed to replace waterways and the horse drawn vehicles. When travel was 10 miles between market towns avoiding geographical objects and the local landowner's stately view.

<br /><br />

It could be said that a British Modular System (I'm growing to dislike the term Fremo and all its contrivances) should reflect such inheritance and if someone wants to cross the channel to the federal states of Europe then someone can build euro tunnel module as a connector.

[Talltim]

  I've said it many times about transport infrastructure in Europe - they had the luxury of it being redesigned by Hitler and the RAF not that many years ago (a blank canvas on which to draw straight lines. In Britain we are left with something principally designed to replace waterways and the horse drawn vehicles. When travel was 10 miles between market towns avoiding geographical objects and the local landowner's stately view.

<br /><br />

It could be said that a British Modular System (I'm growing to dislike the term Fremo and all its contrivances) should reflect such inheritance and if someone wants to cross the channel to the federal states of Europe then someone can build euro tunnel module as a connector.

So where, apart from track type, would this Britishness show in a module connection standard? Remember, its all about the ends of modules, not the middles.

[Kenton]

 

So where, apart from track type, would this Britishness show in a module connection standard? Remember, its all about the ends of modules, not the middles.

That's what I'm getting at - All this nonsense about this European standard and that US standard (18 pages!) all about things that do not really matter and we have not moved on from what was posted in the first page.

 

Track gauge (OO Peco); Height floor to rail (adjustable legs); Single or Double (probably single?); Track Wiring (DCC compatible - I know nothing that isn't). Track ends at 90' (possibly not on corners/bends)

 

End plates (why? I have seen nothing positive just someone like selling them) Not essential!

G-clamps

 

Length and width - manageable.

 

Colour/era/railway company irrelevant to Module standards.

 

Even I can comply with those and the height question can even be settled at a later date once the module is built.

 

o we really need another 18 pages to deliberate our way through to page 1 again?

[Chubber]

Thinking....why legs?

 

Given the number of venues that now cater for table-top sales, craft shows, cake and things shows," lotsa 'fings on table shows" etc etc, why not do as YMR did at Cran Brae in 2010 and build individual modules that rest on a common series of tables, the only defining dimensions being the height of the principal rail above the table top and a max/min distance from the 'front' of the face side.

 

K.I.S.S., if someone wants to bring a 3ft long by 21" wide by 27 1/2" deep 'board' along, that's fine as long as it has one straight through route say 10"  from the front and say 4" to the top of the rail. Define the same values for a double track module and stick 'em all at one end of the line, provide some 'corners' Robert is your mother's brother, n'est-ce-pas?

 

D.C./D.C.C.? Who cares?  Stick a chocolate block on leads at each end of your empire and let the techies sort out the red electricity and the black electricity, they love doing it...

 

You don't even have to bring a locomotive or stock......or have I just said something rude.....?

 

I love the idea, a chance to show off a Pasty mine or a Thrupple-nut factory, or maybe just a landscaped tunnel the whole length of the module, or, or......Nurse, quickly, one of my green pills....

 

Chubber the Simpleton

 

Forgive me if this has already been said, I confess I became bored with spurious arguments about page 6....it's supposed to be fun.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Chubber

[Andy Reichert]

So where, apart from track type, would this Britishness show in a module connection standard? Remember, its all about the ends of modules, not the middles.

 

Potential interchange problem areas for connection to non-british modules:  Platform clearance width, Bridge/tunnel  height, width, all aspects of restricted loading gauge, Faller working road models.

 

Cosmetic areas :Platform height, Height of model people, appropriate side of road for road traffic. Overcast sky backdrops (north of Brighton).

Edited July 17, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Talltim]

Thinking....why legs?

 

Given the number of venues that now cater for table-top sales, craft shows, cake and things shows," lotsa 'fings on table shows" etc etc, why not do as YMR did at Cran Brae in 2010 and build individual modules that rest on a common series of tables, the only defining dimensions being the height of the principal rail above the table top and a max/min distance from the 'front' of the face side.

Many tables at such places have lips around the edges, which can cause problems. It also prevents a deep valley module, unless you support it only at each end.

[Talltim]

Potential interchange problem areas for connection to non-british modules:  Platform clearance width, Bridge/tunnel  height, width, all aspects of restricted loading gauge, Faller working road models.

 

Cosmetic areas :Platform height, Height of model people, appropriate side of road for road traffic. Overcast sky backdrops .

 But none of them affect connecting the ends of the modules with the exception of connecting to other standards. Agreed, you have make sure that trains will pass any possible loading gauge restrictions, but I would hope you wouldn't have to actively specify clearances.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Talltim

[roundhouse]

Not necessarily saying the RSTower Freemo system should be adopted but it has one big thing in its favour is that you do not need specially made end profiles with specific bolt hole positions, dowels etc but just clamps. Even with preformed end profiles I bet that some will still not line up properly and trying to make them do so at a meet is going to slow slow down the setting up when this does happen.

 

At the recent Freemo meet my track was code 75 (built before Peco launched their code 83) and it lines up fine with other modules the first time that it had ever been connected to anything else. Same with the very simple wiring system.

 

Keep It Simple......

 

Ian

[cromptonnut]

it's supposed to be fun.

 

Fun obviously means different things to different people - some enjoy burning their fingers trying to assemble brass kits, some are happy repainting kitchen cabinets in Rail Blue when they don't assemble their airbrush properly, some people find fun in scenic work, some people even enjoy ballasting.

 

But, key to this must be an enjoyment somewhere, or as you and others have said, what's the point?  Simple flexible standards that anyone with basic tools like a drill and a screwdriver can work to, using off-the-shelf track, and you're away.  Once things get down to specifying which brand and colour baseboard fronts should be painted to me very much gives the feeling of a "naughty schoolboy" who will turn up to a meeting with a board painted the wrong shade of black and getting sent home or made to sit in the corner whilst everyone else plays with their uniform modules.

[Andy Reichert]

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in this long thread.

 

One other aspect of end connectivity involves how you connect the track ends physically.

 

The modules I'm familiar with have the track ends cut back a "standardized" few inches from the board ends and firmly fixed down. Then a short 4-6" standardized piece of flex track track with rail joiners is use to link each track between modules. This avoids a whole bunch of alignment problems as well as minimizing any rail end damage during module transportation and set-up/tear down.

 

But it does involve having rail ends that can be connected via the flex track and rail joiners.  That could possibly be an issue between code GB 82 FB and GB code 75 BH.

 

Andy

[PaulRhB]

We had blue, black, green and unpainted baseboards and to be honest I was still focusing on the trains with no problem

 

I think Royal Purple with the Queens crest on the end plates and sound decoders playing Elgar should do it . . .

Edited July 17, 2014 by PaulRhB

[bxmoore]

This discussion is getting daft, and rather grating now.

 

All that has to be said has been said. 

 

It should be closed, and the contents looked at by the one who started it.

 

Brian

[298]

The meet that started this thread was obviously attended by like minded people, so once you've got the desire to take part, "towing the line" isn't really seen as sapping one's creativity. You'll notice a lack of curtains on most photos of modular setups, but when mine was bolted to RS Tower at Peterborough they were used to create a presentable look so having a different colour fascia would have looked awkward and broken the fluidity of the setup.

 

I think the public might be able to accept a lack of curtains and lighting, but there's no reason why they can't be considered, even if it's a strip of hook Velcro along the bottom of the fascia and holes for lighting brackets, both of which could be provided for from a central pool.

[Glorious NSE]

Some practical comments....

 

End plates (why? I have seen nothing positive just someone like selling them) Not essential!
G-clamps

 

End plates are essential, otherwise what do you use your G clamp on? 

 

What profile they should be is a question, assuming that folk will want adjoining modules to look vaguely like each other (which most folk appear to)

 

Thinking....why legs?

 

Given the number of venues that now cater for table-top sales, craft shows, cake and things shows," lotsa 'fings on table shows" etc etc, why not do as YMR did at Cran Brae in 2010 and build individual modules that rest on a common series of tables, the only defining dimensions being the height of the principal rail above the table top and a max/min distance from the 'front' of the face side.

 

K.I.S.S., if someone wants to bring a 3ft long by 21" wide by 27 1/2" deep 'board' along, that's fine as long as it has one straight through route say 10"  from the front and say 4" to the top of the rail. Define the same values for a double track module and stick 'em all at one end of the line, provide some 'corners' Robert is your mother's brother, n'est-ce-pas?

 

D.C./D.C.C.? Who cares?  Stick a chocolate block on leads at each end of your empire and let the techies sort out the red electricity and the black electricity, they love doing it...

 

Table mounting would force you to have a standard for baseboard depth (adds another restriction to what folk do) - and also presumably requires the mechanical and electrical connections to be on the sides rather than hidden underneath - not nice for looks, although possibly not the end of the world.

 

You will need some kind of wiring standard between modules whatever choice is made if you want to put boards together and be running in a sensible timeframe, you're not talking about cobbling together 2 boards, but potentially 50+...

 

Nobody would "love" trying to make all that work. Especially if the electrical standard is "who cares".

 

But it does involve having rail ends that can be connected via the flex track and rail joiners.  That could possibly be an issue between code GB 82 FB and GB code 75 BH.

 

 

It's not a problem when the modules use track that runs to the end. 

 

(And before we go down that road - yes it can be done - yes it does work - yes it is reliable - no it doesn't cause alignment problems - no the track doesn't fall to bits assuming you anchor it to the boards properly)

[kevinlms]

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in this long thread.

 

One other aspect of end connectivity involves how you connect the track ends physically.

 

The modules I'm familiar with have the track ends cut back a "standardized" few inches from the board ends and firmly fixed down. Then a short 4-6" standardized piece of flex track track with rail joiners is use to link each track between modules. This avoids a whole bunch of alignment problems as well as minimizing any rail end damage during module transportation and set-up/tear down.

 

But it does involve having rail ends that can be connected via the flex track and rail joiners.  That could possibly be an issue between code GB 82 FB and GB code 75 BH.

 

Andy

That's the one thing that looks absolutely terrible in the N-Trak modules I've ever seen.

[FelixM]

Being told that one has no right to partake because one is not British feels like a punch in the face. This is xenophobia.

 

 

All that has to be said has been said.

 

Apparently not.

 

IMG_3545 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3546 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3547 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

 

This is an article from Model railway constructor from August 1980. It proves that modular model railways have been invented originally in Britain. The standards look more like a construction manual than like what Fre(e)mo has. Freedom of module geometry is not granted.

 

We all know what resulted from this article: Nothing, at least directly.

 

IMG_3548 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

 

Part of Model Railroader 1981. Attention to operating principles was in the domain of the Americans at those days. This is a readers letter / contact ad from Otto Kurbjuweit who founded FREMO in September 1981 at the meeting mentioned in the magazine. Model Railroader has been covering operational topics since at least the Sixties if not for longer. It proves that European modular model railways are actual a child of ideas that were born in English speaking countries.

 

IMG_3549 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

 

The latest development known to me is Batcombe. This is a modular exhibition layout which comprises of a terminus station, 4 plain line modules (of which 1 is a 90° curve) and a fiddle yard. Noone has cotributed further modules to this layout, and on exhibitions it usually appears in minimal configuration (terminus to fiddle yard) because exhibition managers want many layouts and not big ones. It is DC controlled. The photo was printed in Hornby magazine December 2013.

 

All pictures can be viewed in HQ on their main flickr page.

 

Now go to town and find out why the British concepts have not been successful. Try to avoid the mistakes previous designers of standards have already done and you hopefully will be successful this time.

 

Kind regards

Felix