British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[PaulRhB]

Would "minimum 100mm frame depth below track level" work as I have a couple of valley/bridge units in mind that would require perhaps 150mm.

Again it's only the end plates that matter, the module / layout can be 45" deep in the middle

 

If someone wants to model Ribblehead or the Forth bridge they can as long as it has the adjustable feet so the limit is really 1 inch off the floor

Edited July 24, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Claude_Dreyfus]

Again it's only the end plates that matter, the module / layout can be 45" deep in the middle

 

Indeed, and then you still have a little margin for variation, just so long as a 'standard' G clamp will fit. 

[Kenton]

 

Would "minimum 100mm frame depth below track level" work as I have a couple of valley/bridge units in mind that would require perhaps 150mm.

I was also thinking along these lines and considered if a 4" end would make things difficult but then realised that even on any scenic change you would be making a cliff edge drop (ala US canyons perhaps) and even then would not be making that within the first say 6" of the board edge. So once again in this unusual circumstance a short adaptor board width between 4" and 6" or greater) ends would fix the problem.

 

The only reason why the 4" becomes of some concern is that the G clamps only have a limited range within the 'G' - but that is covered by the statement "that modules are required to be connectible by G clamps and a recommended depth of 4" and of material ends able to take the force of the clamps"

Edited July 24, 2014 by Kenton

[cromptonnut]

Hate to have to ask this possibly basic question... but what size G clamps are we meant to be using?  I'm going to need a few...

 

Will these be big enough? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-x-1-25mm-G-CLAMP-Woodwork-DIY-Tool-Metal-Work-Vice-/190711965356?pt=UK_Baby_BabyFeedingUtensils_EH&hash=item2c6751a6ac

Edited July 24, 2014 by cromptonnut

[PaulRhB]

Well here's the answer to duckunders, a conveyor! Could be DCC controlled too . . . .

1300 and 1134 really don't make much difference in getting under and I'd be much happier if they were designed to walk round so it was totally unecessary to risk knocking the layout. The designer of the layout can think of the timetabled routes and make sure most allow walking alongside with as little walking around to reach a route as possible. Even that isn't too onerous and people with mobility issues can ask for shorter 'jobs' or shunting at a single location.

 

[Suzie]

Minimum radius and track spacing on curves is key before anyone can plan anything other than straight single track modules. This is something that is UK specific and reflects the UK stock which can and cannot be accommodated.

[Talltim]

 I was also thinking along these lines and considered if a 4" end would make things difficult but then realised that even on any scenic change you would be making a cliff edge drop (ala US canyons perhaps) and even then would not be making that within the first say 6" of the board edge. So once again in this unusual circumstance a short adaptor board width between 4" and 6" or greater) ends would fix the problem.

 

The only reason why the 4" becomes of some concern is that the G clamps only have a limited range within the 'G' - but that is covered by the statement "that modules are required to be connectible by G clamps and a recommended depth of 4" and of material ends able to take the force of the clamps"

 

My (US Freemo admittedly) boards have roughly this profile at the modular ends

[Stubby47]

Again it's only the end plates that matter, the module / layout can be 45" deep in the middle

 

If someone wants to model Ribblehead or the Forth bridge they can as long as it has the adjustable feet so the limit is really 1 inch off the floor

 

These sorts of modules, of course, will need a suitable 'No Duck Under' sign...

[cromptonnut]

These sorts of modules, of course, will need a suitable 'No Duck Under' sign...

 

Will we need a warning sign if we have a pond on our modules, with ducks on it?

 

/coat

[Glorious NSE]

These sorts of modules, of course, will need a suitable 'No Duck Under' sign...

 

 

[Grovenor]

 

Will these be big enough? http://www.ebay.co.u...=item2c6751a6ac

No, those are to small, you need to be looking at G clamps around the 4" size, IMHO

Keith

[PaulRhB]

We had 75mm G clamps suggested and they can be had for under a fiver.

[kevinlms]

Will we need a warning sign if we have a pond on our modules, with ducks on it?

 

/coat

Only if module is from Australia/New Zealand!

[Satan's Goldfish]

Well here's the answer to duckunders, a conveyor! Could be DCC controlled too . . . .

1300 and 1134 really don't make much difference in getting under and I'd be much happier if they were designed to walk round so it was totally unecessary to risk knocking the layout. The designer of the layout can think of the timetabled routes and make sure most allow walking alongside with as little walking around to reach a route as possible. Even that isn't too onerous and people with mobility issues can ask for shorter 'jobs' or shunting at a single location.

 

conveyer.JPG

I've just pressed the 'funny' button at that, have I just laughed at the disabled?

[PaulRhB]

 have I just laughed at the disabled?

Nope because it's the able bodied one on the running machine base getting fired under the layout at speed

 

I included the wheelchair to show relative heights in comparison to 45"

[Satan's Goldfish]

It's either the conveyor belt or we all get good at limbo dancing......and make the legs shorter and shorter at successive meets.

[FelixM]

I wonder why some of the loading gauge dimensions shown in the drawing in that link are under scale?  I realise we are only talking about 1mm or less but it strikes me as odd to go underscale and make things a bit tighter rather than, if anything, give a bit more wriggle room thereby allowing for manufacturers who get things a bit wrong (as they sometimes do.

 

The question of six foot spacing is always an awkward one and an over wide (e.g. Peco) spacing does not help the overall appearance in my view although that can be disguised to some extent with visual tricks and again it does help with overwidth vehicles.  But it is almost accurate (slightly narrow) for the six foot between station platforms on former GWR broad gauge lines so it is almost prototypical provided you have matching lineside furniture and the right sort of trains

 

The dimension of this drawing are derived from this drawing:

 

Apart from the 32 mm at the left which should be 40 mm I have not found the multiple mistakes you mention. Can you please help further which one you ment? The drawing needs to be corrected and you are the one who has found the mistake, thanks. 8)

 

 

The designer of the layout can think of the timetabled routes and make sure most allow walking alongside with as little walking around to reach a route as possible.

 

Either you have skills that I don't have, then I wouldlove to learn from you, or you haven't yet experience with modular layouts that are forming a  railway network with multiple junctions. This is an old layout plan which I have drawn some time back as an idea but it will not happen in reality because some modules have been built other than planned at this time. But it serves well as an example.

How would you make the walking ways direct I wonder?

 

Kind regards

Felix

[FelixM]

Thanks Felix, I don't doubt the validity of the stated views with respect to what works for Fremo on the continent but my aim was to see if there was interest in doing something achievable and I honestly feel that overly technical standards will reduce participation. RMweb members who meet up at events have a good track record of cobbling something together which is enjoyable to do - it's the British way and probably the reason we don't have a home-owned car industry anymore (apart from Japanese owned plants who are very good at showing us how it should have been done) but along the way we gave the world Jaguars, Rolls-Royces, MGs etc and people still enjoy driving them.

 

Andy, your proposal is not an overly technical standard. Making 1143 1300 and 50 46 will ensure that after starting up your group will not collapse.

 

I strongly recommend to introduce your planned separate subforum sooner than later because the outward appearance of your modular group suffers by bringing internal discussions to the public as happens in this thread. What is required is a separation between internal discussions and e.g. your standards of which version 2 applies to date. A subforum is well suited to this I think. Pin your current standards version at the top and let the participants discuss the details in individual threads.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 24, 2014 by FelixM

[PaulRhB]

The dimension of this drawing are derived from this drawing:

Brit-Normen.jpg

 

Either you have skills that I don't have, then I wouldlove to learn from you, or you haven't yet experience with modular layouts that are forming a railway network with multiple junctions. This is an old layout plan which I have drawn some time back as an idea but it will not happen in reality because some modules have been built other than planned at this time. But it serves well as an example.

00Fremo 2015.PNG

How would you make the walking ways direct I wonder?

 

Kind regards

Felix

I think you've missed my point a bit. Quite simple in some cases we had it on the US version but some will still inevitably involve walking round, avoiding too many junctions that criss cross the main line between stations is the key. If the train is stopped at the station though that's a good time to be able to walk round a larger section as you're not actually running.

If people are constantly having to go right round you get people traffic problems on top of rail traffic ones

The only really indirect route on your plan is the one across the top of the bridge from right to left. The others are all possible while keeping an eye on the train.

 

Here's a rough diagram of what I mean Felix

In the example on the left the two junctions on one side mean walking all the way round for one journey, simply moving the second Jcn to the other side of a station means you can tie up the train then walk round to the spur on the other side in a relaxed way.

Obviously it depends what you get and the flying Jn board in your plan gives a lot of options of routes not common except in busy areas

Edited July 24, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

I think you've missed my point a bit. Quite simple in some cases we had it on the US version but some will still inevitably involve walking round, avoiding too many junctions that criss cross the main line between stations is the key. If the train is stopped at the station though that's a good time to be able to walk round a larger section as you're not actually running.

If people are constantly having to go right round you get people traffic problems on top of rail traffic ones

 

In addition to this, good planning by the meeting organiser leaving sufficiently wide walking gaps for a 'worst case scenario' of two wheelchairs passing each other should reduce the risk of pedestrian pile-ups. 

 

I can see from some of the existing modular arrangement pictures on the web that some halls are very, very well packed and I don't know whether H&S access regulations that we endure in the UK would have an equivalent overseas.  I know our UK meetings would generally "not be open to the public" hence not requiring exhibition regulations but some basics still apply.

 

The tricky question of insurance also rears its ugly head - is it possible to have an "RMWeb modular insurance policy" that could cover any meetups as I wouldn't have thought it very cost effective for "one off event insurance" by each individual meeting organiser.  A quick and dirty "instant quote" from a specialist model exhibition insurance cover came up as £53.

Edited July 24, 2014 by cromptonnut

[The Stationmaster]

The dimension of this drawing are derived from this drawing:

Brit-Normen.jpg

 

Apart from the 32 mm at the left which should be 40 mm I have not found the multiple mistakes you mention. Can you please help further which one you ment? The drawing needs to be corrected and you are the one who has found the mistake, thanks. 8)

 

 

Kind regards

Felix

The distance between track centre and platform sidewall should be 24mm, not 23.5mm as the prototype distance is 6ft -1/4"

The distance rail edge to edge of platform coping should be at least 11.5mm and preferably 12mm although I suspect in reality this would still result in inadequate clearance from some r-t-r stock even on straight track.

 

The 32mm overhead measurement on platforms is correct but that is the absolute minimum.

 

The bigger error on the original appears to be the bridge parapet which seems to have been taken from the wrong place as it should be 20mm from the rail edge not from the track centre.  Some bridges almost certainly existr with parapets closer than that but even then the minimum clearance for refuges on such structures equates to 20mm from the nearest running (i.e. inside) rail edge.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Mike

 

Are these any help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

I've got the original 1950s details thanks Clive (and used them above) but stuff like this is always useful in my view.

[ZiderHead]

The tricky question of insurance also rears its ugly head - is it possible to have an "RMWeb modular insurance policy" that could cover any meetups as I wouldn't have thought it very cost effective for "one off event insurance" by each individual meeting organiser.  A quick and dirty "instant quote" from a specialist model exhibition insurance cover came up as £53.

 

Insurance for what? As I understand it meetings will not be shows or exhibitions open to the general public but meetings of individuals, much like an unincorporated club or association (which is not a legal entity). 

[Glorious NSE]

Random thought - is it best to allow for modern W10 on main lines - that's not any taller (max height) - it'd prevent "tight" arches, but would allow free running of modern intermodal wagons...

 

I'd also echo the comments above about how scale the rolling stock is - pretty sure I can think of a loco that's a little tubbier than the prototype it represents for example, so it might be wise to not make your clearances too exact to scale!