British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Satan's Goldfish]

I have a sneaky feeling that at lest the LH module will be HUGE if you plot it out for minimum main line radius.

 

Andy

 

The initial Xtrakcad drawings i did a couple of years ago were mahoooosive.

 

Has a minimum mainline radius 'standard' been stated? i may have missed it.

[cromptonnut]

I wouldn't expect that every module I built is needed every time I assemble my boards - surely its like bits of setrack on the kitchen table and you can put bits together in different order to have a new layout every time?

[298]

 The best description yet for a straight/curved through single track module.

Probably the best reason yet not to build one. None of us can imagine something more useless as a layout (apologies to all SLT fans).

I'm not suggesting someone builds a plain module as a means of being "accepted" before having something more complicated "let loose" within a setup, but plain modules would always be useful for spacing out other sections and there are plenty of prototypes that add both scenic interest and operational considerations to a route.

 

A plain module doesn't even have to be plain to be considered as such, something like a dairy that could be used more intensively at home, but would only see a couple of trains per day when part of a larger setup.

[Kenton]

 

A plain module doesn't even have to be plain to be considered as such, something like a dairy that could be used more intensively at home, but would only see a couple of trains per day when part of a larger setup.

Let's be clear here my definition (and I believe most other's) of a "plain" module is a simple single or double line and nothing else in between. Literally a pointless track layout in every sense.

 

 

Kenton, you'll find that you actually NEED to have some basic track modules between stations/operational spots.

It is not that I am completely in disagreement here. Some modules with plain track are almost certain to be useful.

 

My point is the apparent lack of understanding here between what is currently accepted in Fre(e)mo circles and the desire to get involved by some British modellers.

 

Starting out (as all this is new to most in the UK) the real novice modeller can make a first step by building a plain track board. In theory this is simple requiring very little thought and is achievable in a relatively small time frame, with minimal cost.

 

But we know only too well most new to railway modelling (and a fair proportion of those with experience) want something they can operate and will always try to cram as much in as possible. Often with the outcome there is no scenic interest and often poor design and ultimate abandonment.

 

Therefore, as a proportion, just how many of these "active" modules are going to actually get built, let alone finished?

 

However, without at least some of the more complex junctions/passing loops/sidings/stations/yards/... one long winding single line is going to be the most boring group session ever - even if the scenery is British.

 

I also believe that having folk quote their experience in a "lording it over" "I'm telling you so" sort of way does nothing to help. Granted some folk on here have experience of the Fre(e)mo system and do have something to offer. But the British OO module scene is embryonic and just like a child growing up will instinctively rebel and want to find their own way. So what if we turn up with lots of "active" modules and no long straight modules to connect them. We may find we actually like that similarity to the British prototype with little distance between "stations" on the other hand we may then go home and start building multiple plain modules to separate the "active" modules. At least let us learn from our own experiences.

 

I quite like cromptonnut's idea of building a plain module for each "active" module. But the active one comes first. That is because I believe that what will drive up participation is not so much the group meeting for the big connect up but is the potential to build a layout at home that can be used in a wider group. There is a subtle difference there which is perhaps lost by those who have experience of groups/clubs.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Kenton

[Andy Y]

Right; curves and minimum radii.

 

PaulRhb put forward a sensible suggestion to me that the minimum radius for the mainline should be 36" which corresponds with Peco Medium Radius points and for sidings 24" which corresponds with Peco Small Radius Points.

 

Would this be agreeable?

 

If we can agree on this over the next couple of days I'll create a new sub-forum and pin the standards and then we can move onwards.

[Kenton]

That should prove to be an interesting challenge for the loco timetablers as there are quite a few RTR locos and probably even more kit built locos that will not negotiate Peco small radius points. So banning the small radius from the main track seems a good idea AFAIC

[Glorious NSE]

I wouldn't expect that every module I built is needed every time I assemble my boards - surely its like bits of setrack on the kitchen table and you can put bits together in different order to have a new layout every time?

 

From my personal viewpoint as someone who's done the layout plan for similar meets, I think at the current stage of development, i'd regard it as not doing my job right if I didn't use all the modules offered for a meet, however folk do need to be realistic.

 

If takeup is strong and space is limited, that may not always remain so.

 

It's also true that we may not be able to use a module in exactly the way it's builder intended, for instance if you have too many junctions and not enough curves, a junction could be used as a curve...

[Steve-e]

  Let's be clear here my definition (and I believe most other's) of a "plain" module is a simple single or double line and nothing else in between. Literally a pointless track layout in every sense.

 

 It is not that I am completely in disagreement here. Some modules with plain track are almost certain to be useful.

 

My point is the apparent lack of understanding here between what is currently accepted in Fre(e)mo circles and the desire to get involved by some British modellers.

 

Starting out (as all this is new to most in the UK) the real novice modeller can make a fist step by building a plain track board. In theory this is simple requiring very little though and is achievable in a relatively small time frame.

 

But we know only too well most new to railway modelling (and a fair proportion of those with experience) want something the can operate and will always try to cram as much in as possible. Often with the outcome there is no scenic interest and often poor design and ultimate abandonment.

 

Therefore, as a proportion, just how many of these are going to actually get built, let alone finished.

 

However, without at least some of the more complex junctions/passing loops/sidings/stations/yards/... one long winding single line is going to be the most boring group session ever - even if the scenery is British.

 

I also believe that having folk quote their experience in a "lording it over" "I'm telling you so" sort of way does nothing to help. Granted some folk on here have experience of the Fre(e)mo system and do have something to offer. But the British OO module scene is embryonic and just like a child growing up will instinctively rebel and want to find their own way. So what if we turn up with lots of "active" modules and no long straight modules to connect them. We may find we actually like that similarity to the British prototype with little distance between "stations" on the other hand we may then go home and start building multiple plain modules to separate the "active" modules. At least let us learn from our own experiences.

 

I quite like cromptonnut's idea of building a plain module for each "active" module. But the active one comes first. That is because I believe that what will drive up participation is not so much the group meeting for the big connect up but is the potential to build a layout at home that can be used in a wider group. There is a subtle difference there which is perhaps lost by those who have experience of groups/clubs.

 

Some good points Kenton.

 

On to Sunday Mornings thought for the day....

 

The way I'm starting to see the UK modular principle is one that caters for all abilities and is one that works with and appeals to a Forum such as this where sharing of ideas and promoting the hobby seems actively encouraged. If this involves starting the whole modular process from scratch then so be. Which I think is where Kenton is also coming from, we can evolve our UK modular set up and find our own problems but the journey will be an interesting one as it has already been.

 

What we should hope for is a group layout with a broad representation of the RMwebbers be it X with his one board with one track with little scenery to Y with his couple of boards with his representation of the UK scenery and perhaps a junction or through station to Z who brings his great fully scenic junction board with all singing all dancing signalling terminus etc.. everyone should be encouraged to have a go and no one should be put down or frond upon for their effort. People will enjoy seeing their board and trains been used in a bigger set up.

 

As long as some basic standards are in place (height to rail, DCC Bus etc ..) then there's no issue, even then if they got something wrong the collective group at a meeting would be hopefully able to sort any issues and people would again go away thinking what a great bunch of people I feel like I belong here...

 

 

Then what you hope for is that x goes to the meet thinks hey this is good perhaps I can make my board look like y's board I'll ask him how he did a,b,c..... then things evolve X turns into to Y, Y turns into to Z new X joins the fun etc... etc... and you evolve the skills , people and the hobby...

 

The emphasis should be on fun and participation.

 

It may work it may not but hopefully it will as again it does in my head .

 

Steve

Edited July 27, 2014 by Steve-e

[PaulRhB]

That should prove to be an interesting challenge for the loco timetablers as there are quite a few RTR locos and probably even more kit built locos that will not negotiate Peco small radius points. So banning the small radius from the main track seems a good idea AFAIC

Yep I agree but then we don't want Pacifics in the goods yard at a branch station so they have their uses

These are minimums not an edict, if you can use large radius in the main and medium in sidings please do as it will look better

 

The meeting organiser can request some ideal size locos and then knows what they are getting when the loco and address are submitted before so you can patch up any holes in the fleet.

One thing for me is that if we do modern meets my 66's are all now fitted with kadees and fixed skirts that reduces the min curvature possible so they might not be suitable on small radii so I'll have to test that even if I swapped tension lock couplers back in. Might limit me to other locos at a modular meeting that's all.

Edited July 27, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Steve-e]

From my personal viewpoint as someone who's done the layout plan for similar meets, I think at the current stage of development, i'd regard it as not doing my job right if I didn't use all the modules offered for a meet, however folk do need to be realistic.

 

If takeup is strong and space is limited, that may not always remain so.

 

 

Lets hope that you are put in this position.

 

I suppose in order not to disapoint if the venue was booked over a weekend you could have set up 1 on Saturday, set up 2 on Sunday but having never been to a meet before I'm not sure how easy this would be so will leave it to you

[Claude_Dreyfus]

I quite like cromptonnut's idea of building a plain module for each "active" module. But the active one comes first. That is because I believe that what will drive up participation is not so much the group meeting for the big connect up but is the potential to build a layout at home that can be used in a wider group. There is a subtle difference there which is perhaps lost by those who have experience of groups/clubs.

 

I agree with what you say, but for some modellers - myself as a case in point - 00 UK outline is not our primary poison; yet we would like to contribute. As a Japanese N (or even H0) system ain't on the horizon any time soon (perhaps amend that to any time, ever!), any contribution I would make would be scenic boards. That's fine for me, my fleet of UK outline 00 stock is too small and perhaps a little too disparate to warrant anything more than this, and as I normally have fairly operational-heavy layouts, turning up at a meeting and just watching trains go by without too much operation sounds like a nice way to spend a day... 

Edited July 27, 2014 by Claude_Dreyfus

[PaulRhB]

I'd stick to one arrangement per meet as setting up will take 2-4 hours depending on the size. Another thing that worked well on the organising side was Martyn arranging a build master who supervised each module being connected in an orderly way. You could assemble the legs and have your module ready to be lifted into position, it also means there are spare hands to help shift larger modules.

 

So for meeting organisers another couple of RS module inspired things:-

A build supervisor and an electrical supervisor following on to hook up the control.

[PaulRhB]

I agree with what you say, but for some modellers - myself as a case in point - 00 UK outline is not our primary poison; yet we would like to contribute. As a Japanese N (or even H0) system ain't on the horizon any time soon (perhaps amend that to any time, ever!), any contribution I would make would be scenic boards. That's fine for me, my fleet of UK outline 00 stock is too small and perhaps a little too disparate to warrant anything more than this, and as I normally have fairly operational-heavy layouts, turning up at a meeting and just watching trains go by without too much operation sounds like a nice way to spend a day...

 

I don't doubt that plain modules will be in the minority initially so any extras will be very useful. I suspect we will quickly find we need more as people can't resist points

Plain modules can have a run and a simple siding that's only occasionally used via a ground frame. Dairy's, a small quarry, transfer siding etc all can be mid section and just have the train drop off and then continue or get locked in to allow others to pass.

[bxmoore]

Kenton, I'm not, to use your words, "lording it over" anyone, or even saying, "I'm telling you so".  Again, I counsel you to wipe the automatic chip from your shoulder, which rather demeans your otherwise useful contribution to this discussion.  You've also contradicted yourself several times when something that you said previously is challenged with fact. A phrase from Little Britain comes again to the fore: "Yeah but, no, but", etc.

 

All I'm doing is attempting to point out, from practical experience, some of the pitfalls that may be avoided through making fixed, prior assumptions; some of which you have stated as supposed fact. 

 

Believe it or not, others, including myself, made similar mis-assumptions too, and learned from them.

 

Do you also have the need to drive a powerful sports car? 

 

I'm now out of this discussion.

 

Good luck to all.

 

Toodle pip.

 

Brian

Edited July 27, 2014 by bxmoore

[Kenton]

 

Kenton, I'm not, to use your words, "lording it over" anyone, or even saying, "I'm telling you so".  Again, I counsel you to wipe the automatic chip from your shoulder, which rather demeans your otherwise useful contribution to this discussion.  You've also contradicted yourself several times when something that you said previously is challenged with fact. A phrase from Little Britain comes again to the fore: "Yeah but, no, but", etc.

 

All I'm doing is attempting to point out, from practical experience, some of the pitfalls that may be avoided through making fixed, prior assumptions; some of which you have stated as supposed fact. 

 

Believe it or not, others, including myself, made similar mis-assumptions too, and learned from them.

 

Do you also have the need to drive a powerful sports car? 

 

I'm now out of this discussion.

 

Good luck to all.

 

Toodle pip.

 

Brian

I take it you are speaking down to a child with your remarks.

 

Some of us like to learn by making our own mistakes then learning to respect those that didn't say "I told you so".

 

As for fast powerful cars - yes that's part of my job - how perceptive of you.

[Clive Mortimore]

Can someone wake me up when something has been finalised as I am getting tired of some of the petty conversations that are going on. In fact it is turning me off the idea.

[Andy Hayter]

That should prove to be an interesting challenge for the loco timetablers as there are quite a few RTR locos and probably even more kit built locos that will not negotiate Peco small radius points. So banning the small radius from the main track seems a good idea AFAIC

 

 

I see a realistic change of heart there Kenton.  [ref post 144 and your use of the disagree button]

[Suzie]

Right; curves and minimum radii.

 

PaulRhb put forward a sensible suggestion to me that the minimum radius for the mainline should be 36" which corresponds with Peco Medium Radius points and for sidings 24" which corresponds with Peco Small Radius Points.

 

Would this be agreeable?

 

If we can agree on this over the next couple of days I'll create a new sub-forum and pin the standards and then we can move onwards.

 

Modules which have the tighter 24" radius sidings will have to be noted with 'route availability A' or whatever so that the restriction can be planned for when operations are planned.

 

We just need to know what the track separation on curves is now - presumably two figures required, one for 36" and one for 24". Do we know enough about the APT-E do do the sums yet?

[Andy Reichert]

Right; curves and minimum radii.

 

PaulRhb put forward a sensible suggestion to me that the minimum radius for the mainline should be 36" which corresponds with Peco Medium Radius points and for sidings 24" which corresponds with Peco Small Radius Points.

 

Would this be agreeable?

 

If we can agree on this over the next couple of days I'll create a new sub-forum and pin the standards and then we can move onwards.

I,m not sure what happens on a Peco double junction, but you might want to specify 30" -50 mm.

 

Andy

[raymw]

Anyone on here actually arranged to meet up with, or even discuss over phone, with another to decide on the first meeting of like minded souls? Certainly there is enough info. to make a start. Perhaps an individual thread for each group, or perhaps not?

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[Kenton]

 

I see a realistic change of heart there Kenton.  [ref post 144 and your use of the disagree button]

Andy, just to clarify - no change of heart whatsoever.

I disagreed on post #144 as you stated

Sadly most kit built locomotives will not negotiate even radius 4.

 

My comment above

even more kit built locos that will not negotiate Peco small radius points

refers to Radius 1 points.

 

Now I don't know about your kit builds but mine will nearly all (only excepting x-8-x arrangements) will negotiate Radius 2. A few will have flangeless wheels to do this perhaps, but not all.

 

I think I am correct - someone will correct me no doubt - but many RTR locos (excluding x-4-x) exhibit the the same running restrictions.

 

R4 radius is a good choice for aesthetics but does limit planning scope. R1 is not a good choice but there are work-a-rounds available (use a small shunting loco - plenty available) but it is not ideal and certainly restricts the main line. Andy Y has come up with a compromise once again to be as inclusive as possible.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Kenton

[Kenton]

 

Anyone on here actually arranged to meet up with, or even discuss over phone, with another to decide on the first meeting of like minded souls? Certainly there is enough info. to make a start. Perhaps an individual thread for each group, or perhaps not?

Best wishes,

Ray

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88140-a-modular-layout/

 

and

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88341-modules-what-can-we-contribute/

[cromptonnut]

Just out of interest, 36" radius is fine with me but should we build to accommodate every possibility of big kit built stock being run on everything? If your stock won't run on 36" then don't bring it along. 10ft curves will rule out a lot of 'build and run the modules at home' people like me who will build things that work in the space we have.

 

I like the idea of mainline and shunting standards and its just a case of marking the standard A or B - main and branch - as surely the smaller locos that can run on tighter curves will work on branch as well?

[raymw]

  http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88140-a-modular-layout/

 

and

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88341-modules-what-can-we-contribute/

So, when any of you actually meeting for initial chat? Or are you too far apart for that? How about the rest of the UK?

[Kenton]

 

So, when any of you actually meeting for initial chat? Or are you too far apart for that? How about the rest of the UK?

That one is entirely cromptonnut's initiative - I'm not even exactly "in area" but it is spirit of 'everyone welcome'. Meeting - well it is a bit too early I guess. We have all been waiting for the standards debate to settle on a release and although I think that is pretty close it is not quite there. As for starting - I am probably going to hammer a few nails in wood this week (between other chores) but I'm pretty slow when it comes to doing things so Xmas is a good achievable target.

 

As for other area groups - well I guess it needs someone in those areas to take the initiative. But I think Andy Y is looking at national meetings - though these may well grow out of the areas.

 

We have to remember there are no modules at BritishOO standard created yet and it will not happen overnight. This is very new uncharted waters for most of us. There may well be (probably are) some Fre(e)mo modules out there which could be used - perhaps with adaptor boards/new legs - so not quite nothing.

 

As for meeting just for a chat - that is best done online through RMWeb or PMs as no travel costs and time issues.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Kenton