British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[cromptonnut]

Hi Felix

 

I'm not sure it's xenophobia, more that the concepts behind modular are generally very different to what we are used to.

 

Most UK modellers are used to building "their own little empire" (and I use that word deliberately) where they build it and decide how it's run.  This may of course be: end to end, roundy roundy, fiddleyard to terminus, fiddleyard to fiddleyard, built either individually or as part of a small group, and chosen to operate strictly to a timetable or 'anything goes'.  But at the end of the day, the individual or group have full say over what happens, how it is built and how it is operated.

 

Whereas with the various modular concepts, you build "your bit" and then tack other people's "bits" to each end, whether they are stations, junctions, scenic boards, or whatever.  Someone else plans the meeting and decides in what order the various offered modules are laid out, then someone else plans a timetable and how all the trains run, and if I understand it correctly, much of the time is spent watching trains going by, or waiting for a train to approach your particular section where it may pass another train or gain/lose some wagons.  Then it passes from "your bit of the world" to someone else's and then you wait for the next movement.

 

I don't know how many US or continental modellers use kitbuilt stock, but I would guess that there's a certain proportion of UK modellers with expensive kit built stock that they are nervous about sending off to a fiddle yard 30 metres away where someone who has never touched that item of stock before picks it up to turn it around to "go the other way".  It's ok for their own layout at home, or with a guest operator, or a club layout where everyone knows that particular loco cost £600, but when you have a group of random people, some of whom you'll never have met before, there's a lot greater risk of problems occurring - not to mention the risk of damage caused by a derailment on someone else who may be laying track to a "common standard" but not necessarily "the same standard" as your layout, if you know what I mean?

 

As I mentioned some pages back, there is a (now dead) well known UK modeller called Cyril Freezer - who you may or may not have heard of - who worked with Peco and is responsible for a number of 'track plan books' which I would guess most UK modellers would have owned at least one and built at least one plan from during their younger days. The plans had their quirks, being hand drawn were sometimes a little bit 'ambitious' to actually fit in the space they were meant to but pretty much every one was a self contained project.  Cyril had a huge influence on several generations of railway modellers and it's no real surprise that the idea of 'self contained worlds' is so deeply ingrained in our modelling mindset.

 

Many of us could only look on in awe and jealousy at some of the massive American layouts that would occasionally come across our path, in a basement or barn, with half a dozen stations and big distances between them, where trains ran with a purpose rather than from fiddle yard to station and back out again.  But UK houses are small, so we make do with our little roundy roundys or fiddleyard to terminus in 12ft or whatever because it's that or nothing.

 

I don't think many people have a problem with a set of board standards - interconnectability, wiring etc - but as others have pointed out, even things like bridge and platform clearances are different here, and of course on double track our trains run on the left rather than the right as overseas.  Building things to a standard that can be connected to others working to the same standard makes sense, as most of us dream of larger layouts than we have the space for at home.  We go to shows and see 50ft long club layouts and drool over them because they have the resources and manpower to do things we can't.  But that's just life.

 

I think the real problem here (although I may be wrong) is that the idea of "running to a timetable" and waiting for a train to appear that someone else has chosen to run, is very different to the way we normally do things where invariably we have our own favourite trains - whether a random collection or a prototypical collection of trains that were seen operating in our specific area at our specific time, and if we want to run our favourite again we do rather than waiting for a controller somewhere else to set it out again.

 

I think it's the "our world being a small part of a bigger world" concept that many of us are struggling with, and when the standards are being proposed are based on US or continental prototypes and operation, they simply just do not work for how we have done things for so many years.  Perhaps it's having seen some of the N gauge modular setups where you have American trains passing Spanish trains going through Alpine scenery then a Japanese town that puts people off as much as it might a layout with a modern Class 66 diesel loco pulling 5 pre-war wagons where "it's just wrong", and we're struggling to divorce the concept of running trains and operating a railway?

Edited July 18, 2014 by cromptonnut

[PaulRhB]

Felix unfortunately one or two feel they have to be abrupt to make their opinion known, that may be acceptable down the pub with friends but just comes across as rude on here amongst strangers.

 

Anyhoo

Certain parts of this thread have gone round in circles but other bits have moved along well.

We are aware of the pitfalls that await and if we choose something unique will tweak it and say ah that's why the Fremo lads did it.

As I've said in a couple of posts adaptors are easy to make, legs or boards, so most modular systems can be made compatible. Some may even choose to build Fremo modules with an adaptor to whatever is chosen from this

As Someone else said those with open minds will build or adapt and have fun.

[McRuss]

Hello,

 

speaking of adaptors. Last year I joined the FREMO Regional meeting at Hanau. and one of our members had an old HEB moduel (these is a modular norm created by a model railway club in the Frankfurt area).

These module was incooperated in the FREMO module arrangement. by two adaptor modules, and maybe other module legs.

I think for modules with only the railway line on it there is not much difference if it is build to FREMO, FREEMO oder other standarts.

But on station modules or modules with some kind of junction it would be different because of the operating system the standarts are using.

So using  a module prepared for a DCC system won't fit without much rewiring on a DC modular arrangement, the other way round it will.

 

Markus

Edited July 18, 2014 by McRuss

[Glorious NSE]

I think it's the "our world being a small part of a bigger world" concept that many of us are struggling with, and when the standards are being proposed are based on US or continental prototypes and operation, they simply just do not work for how we have done things for so many years. 

 

It's going to get boring if folk keep repeating this.

 

No.

 

The fundamental standards mentioned have nothing to do with US or Continental prototypes and operation.

 

The standards don't define the prototype or how that prototype operates.

 

What they are is standards for connecting multiple layout components (modules) together in a flexible and reliable way.

 

If the intention is to have modules which will connect in a flexible and reliable way, the fundamental basics of these standards will enable that.

 

and if I understand it correctly, much of the time is spent watching trains going by, or waiting for a train to approach your particular section where it may pass another train or gain/lose some wagons.  Then it passes from "your bit of the world" to someone else's and then you wait for the next movement.

 

 

Sorry to say - Comparing our experiences to your description my gut feeling is that you haven't understood this part very well, and that your description sounds like a very curious way to run a railway (unless those involved are aiming for it being a kind of odd signalman simulator?)

 

But YMMV and all that - how it's operated is down to the folk involved, and we're talking about something that doesn't exist yet, so it's down to those involved to work that out.

 

Maybe bring it up on the operations thread if you do plan to get involved?

 

As I mentioned some pages back, there is a (now dead) well known UK modeller called Cyril Freezer - who you may or may not have heard of - who worked with Peco and is responsible for a number of 'track plan books' which I would guess most UK modellers would have owned at least one and built at least one plan from during their younger days. The plans had their quirks, being hand drawn were sometimes a little bit 'ambitious' to actually fit in the space they were meant to but pretty much every one was a self contained project.  Cyril had a huge influence on several generations of railway modellers and it's no real surprise that the idea of 'self contained worlds' is so deeply ingrained in our modelling mindset.

 

 

Another thing Cyril was a big proponent of was operations and trying to make a chunk of working railway (such as somewhat convoluted attempts to get most of East Devon into a third bedroom and the like) - but being able to have that kind of real operation with less visual compromise is something which modules are perfect for...would he have approved? Pretty sure he would to be honest.

 

As for the rest of your post - seriously?

 

If you're a person who can't handle the fact that other folk will be involved, some of which you will not know (yet,) that you won't personally be making all the decisions, or even that your stock will have to run on track that you didn't personally lay, then probably collaborative modular model railways is not a concept for you, it may be time to walk on by and look at another thread somewhere else on RMWeb rather than stressing over things that you could never be comfortable with.

 

Alternatively - If you're open minded, are capable of happily playing trains with the other (big) kids, and are interested in creating and operating railways that are far outside any individuals reach, then maybe it is. It's down to you to decide though...

[Talltim]

While I'm not saying that any other pre-existing standard should necessarily be adopted, I'm interested to try to understand what is it about them them people feel is not suitable for the UK? What is different about the railways (or models of them) of the UK that would change what is needed to join two modules together?

The main one I can see is double track spacing, because we model in a different scale (although presumably those on the mainland building British prototype models aren't doing it in H0) and the go-to brand  of model track may be different.

Any other things, such as bolts versus clamps is down to preference rather than Britishness.

Elucidate me!

[cromptonnut]

Fine NSE, you don't have to agree, that's no problem.  Once standards and practices are designed, I - like everyone else - will decide whether they want to get involved or not.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I really have no idea.  It does seem possible to participate with a single module which can be quite simple and cheap to build doesn't give you a massive commitment into the concept which does make it easier for people to dabble.

[Chubber]

Fine NSE, you don't have to agree, that's no problem.  Once standards and practices are designed, I - like everyone else - will decide whether they want to get involved or not.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I really have no idea.  It does seem possible to participate with a single module which can be quite simple and cheap to build doesn't give you a massive commitment into the concept which does make it easier for people to dabble.

 

 

My font re-formatting, and I believe the above is nearer to the ethos needed.

 

Namely decide

 

Height to rail top

 

Distance from 'front'

 

An agreed rail profile for the 'joiny' bits

 

An agreed loading gauge

 

No legs

 

A red electricity wire at each end

 

A black electricity wire at each end

 

 

If you want 'deep valleys', join the 'Deep Valley' Society.  If you want to run pantograph-powered 7mm NG with sound, whistles and bells, or circus trains with giraffes poking their heads out, join the relevant society. If you want to have a 'very first try' at something new with 'yer Smokey Joe, get onboard, Andy and his chums will help and assist, I'm sure.

 

 

Doug

Edited July 18, 2014 by Chubber

[Talltim]

If you go for no legs and use tables, how do you keep the boards together? ( I can think of ways, but so far the ones I've thought of need a standard for measuring location of connection gubbins)

Edited July 18, 2014 by Talltim

[298]

Fine NSE, you don't have to agree, that's no problem.  Once standards and practices are designed, I - like everyone else - will decide whether they want to get involved or not.  Maybe I will, maybe I won't.  I really have no idea.  It does seem possible to participate with a single module which can be quite simple and cheap to build doesn't give you a massive commitment into the concept which does make it easier for people to dabble.

Which to me does say you're interested, and probably have a few module ideas. As far as building modules is concerned, it's the ultimate therapy for an exhibition critic, if you like a layout but think they could have operated it better or maybe should have included scenic features or more sidings, then you can get involved...! But quite how this is translated into British modelling is still to be seen, I for one would like to see something with full car-forwarding and switch lists, but fear it'll only be used as a big layout as the vocal parties will see radical thought changes as too difficult to change the Status Quo.

 

As for letting your delicate kitbuilt stock trundle off into the distance, only to later find it in pieces, the same could be said for anything running on a club layout at a show and some of my newish US stuff is quite capable of loosing steps and grabs at home on my 6' switching plank, gliding them back on is part of the course. Then again, I wouldn't be offended to see some lesser quality stock in use, from my point of view as a Conductor or Engineer, all I need is something that runs, has useable couplings, and a unique and readable number.

[Glorious NSE]

If you go for no legs and use tables, how do you keep the boards together? ( I can think of ways, but so far the ones I've thought of need a standard for measuring location of connection gubbins)

 

Another possible issue might be sourcing enough matching tables? Not sure Armitage (just for an example) would have had enough tables of the same design to support a layout the size we made there...

[roundhouse]

Theres been many a show / venue where they provide tables but often they are of different heights and can be a bit wobbly.

Edited July 18, 2014 by roundhouse

[Markus-Hymek]

  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?

 

If more than 30 Years of FREMO experience are nonsense, I must say you, that you don't know what you talking about!

[Markus-Hymek]

 

If you want 'deep valleys', join the 'Deep Valley' Society.  If you want to run pantograph-powered 7mm NG with sound, whistles and bells, or circus trains with giraffes poking their heads out, join the relevant society. If you want to have a 'very first try' at something new with 'yer Smokey Joe, get onboard, Andy and his chums will help and assist, I'm sure.

 

 

Doug

 

 

If you like run model trains after timetable and rules, through matching scenery, valleys, tunnels and over bridges, than join Fremo. They have all standards you need - the only thing to you is start building modules and connect em!

Edited July 18, 2014 by Markus-Hymek

[Chubber]

Theres been many a show / venue where they provide tables but often they are of different heights and can be a bit wobbly.

 

 

Wedges, bitsa wood, mini adjustable legs, large books, lumps of coal........it worked at Carn Brae with modules coming from as far apart as Switzerland, Australia, France and Spain.

 

If you want to, you CAN!

 

Doug

[Talltim]

Your mention of Carn Brea lead me to this thread here on RMweb, that I had not seen

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/35665-2012-module-standards/ and this whole subforum http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/122-swag-modules/

I can see that tables can be made to work, although I think they are not optimal, but what happens if you run out of tables?

 

Also, are there any pics of the modular layout set up?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Talltim

[Kenton]

 

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).

Point missed again! All of this is irrelevant. If you want a US or European module to take part in the British Module gathering then it is your strange foreign module that will have to comply with British loading gauges/track/etc. We would never build a British module to European standards. If I wanted to take part in Fremo (or whatever you wish to call it) I would build a US or European module as appropriate and seek out the appropriate standards to comply with it.

 

This should remain a British solution to the British problem and all others should probably refrain from pouring mud in the pure British waters.

 

Information and facts on what is done elsewhere is fine but attempting to distort the solution for peculiarities of distinctly foreign agendas should be ignored.

 

 

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

Yes it was covered earlier. Also answered but I can't remember what was decided on.

 

I think most UK layouts for shows have thrown out the idea of a flexible length of track and connection using fishplates. There may be an issue with DCC in making this connection to variously wired bus, or the damage that can be caused, or simply the scenic gap created. How do you propose the layout is connected at home to my FY - which terminates with copperclad at the edge of the board?

 

I have no idea where the Code 82 rail comes into it - Does anyone use this for a British model - I thought it was only for foreign layouts. However it is no more of an issue than Code 100 (which is used) as it is the height to top of rail that will be adjusted. Again using a clamp and adjustable legs (or copies of BRM under layouts on tables)

Edited July 18, 2014 by Kenton

[Talltim]

  Point missed again! All of this is irrelevant. If you want a US or European module to take part in the British Module gathering then it is your strange foreign module that will have to comply with British loading gauges/track/etc. We would never build a British module to European standards. If I wanted to take part in Fremo (or whatever you wish to call it) I would build a US or European module as appropriate and seek out the appropriate standards to comply with it.

 

This should remain a British solution to the British problem and all others should probably refrain from pouring mud in the pure British waters.

 

Information and facts on what is done elsewhere is fine but attempting to distort the solution for peculiarities of distinctly foreign agendas should be ignored.

I hope you are being a bit tongue in cheek...

[Arthur]

Your mention of Carn Brea lead me to this thread here on RMweb, that I had not seen

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/35665-2012-module-standards/ and this whole subforum http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/forum/122-swag-modules/

I can see that tables can be made to work, although I think they are not optimal, but what happens if you run out of tables?

 

Also, are there any pics of the modular layout set up?

Correct Tim, tables can be made to work but are not ideal. They work for us at Taunton because there is now a few years experience of using those at the venue (I've been involved for the last two years). Even so, my module incorporates levelling feet, others use bits of packing as appropriate. We still end up moving, swopping and re-orienting tables to get them to fit.

 

At a new venue you might not know how many tables there are, are they all the same height?, do their lengths work with your module lengths? I could foresee a chaotic opening session whilst tables were tried, shifted, turned and swopped.

 

I wrote up, retrospectively, the construction of my module here;

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/85021-a-module-for-taunton-staplegrove-works-bsc/

[Kenton]

 

I hope you are being a bit tongue in cheek...

A little, only a little.

 

It is obviously bugging me a little that the discussion is being overwhelmed by the Fremo gang trying to impose their standards on British railway modules. Some of their standards may well have a solid base of Eurpean or US layouts but do not stand such scrutiny here. I think the argument that those who are potential participants in a UK module gathering will wish to take part in a US/European gathering is completely flawed. I would suggest that most would not and even question the likelihood of a UK meet.

 

I suggest we should be starting local and aiming for national. Forget international as we are trying to fly before we can even crawl. That is not saying I think the simple basic standards should be local - I am not - just that the standards should be SIMPLE, ESSENTIAL and most important MINIMAL. Or this whole laudable effort in bringing folk together for what is supposed to fun is simply going to fail with just the usual suspects participating.

[cromptonnut]

I suggest we should be starting local and aiming for national.

 

Certainly there's potential within some of the pre-existing "area groups" *cough* to get together and create something.

[Talltim]

 I think the argument that those who are potential participants in a UK module gathering will wish to take part in a US/European gathering is completely flawed. I would suggest that most would not and even question the likelihood of a UK meet.

 

 

 

Gut feeling is that it might be more likely the other way round mainland European people coming to the UK for meets.

 

I agree that the various existing standards may not be what people want, but I don't see that its because they are foreign. As I said earlier

 

I'm interested to try to understand what is it about them them people feel is not suitable for the UK? What is different about the railways (or models of them) of the UK that would change what is needed to join two modules together?

Edited July 18, 2014 by Talltim

[Brinkly]

I think is a great idea. R6/6 and CK saw a modular system a few years ago and were very impressed with the idea. One thing they brought back was a laser cut board end, which would give a standard end and thus avoid any problems with baseboards being joined together.

 

If this has already been mentioned, I do apologies in advance, but I've not had time to read very post.

 

Well done for suggesting the idea Andy and for getting the idea going.

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

[roundhouse]

I am certainly interested in doing a British module and could even possibly convert an existing layout to connect up. Would be great if I could stick with the height of my adjusted legs for the Freemo boards although I may well be in the minority wanting to do so.

[cromptonnut]

Would be great if I could stick with the height of my adjusted legs for the Freemo boards although I may well be in the minority wanting to do so.

 

To be honest I think the height is quite a minor issue - accepted we need to pick "a" height but I don't think it matters which one.  We've had enough discussions about layout heights, wheelchairs and suchlike to know that you'll never suit anyone whatever is chosen.

[Kenton]

 

all I need is something that runs, has useable couplings, and a unique and readable number.

2 out of 3 I'll happily agree with.

 

I'm quite happy for you to change the DCC identification number on my chip from 3 to whatever you want - that is the advantage of DCC. The number on my Flying Scotsman will be the same as on every other Flying Scotsman and that is not up to you to change. Anther aesthetic only (not relevant to connection) highlight.

 

The big thing that will kill off most kit built stock participating is a standard for couplings - but agree that anything is usable as long as it works.

 

As a 'kit' person I have a solution for those that are too precious to run by others - simply don't bring it. I'm sure I can find some cheap RTR box (even a diesel*) that can be allowed to trundle away into the distant yards of never-never land. Or just turn up with no stock, as I am sure others may turn up with too much or even no layout module.