British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[cromptonnut]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing others modules develop and the basic trackplans - I'm working on a range of basic ones myself but am struggling with "double track" ones - thanks to Peco geometry and the lack of a curved diamond.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Why not minimum 60" for mainline and 36" for sidings? And maybe even 24" for areas designated as industrial? 

 

Its not about trying to squeeze a layout into a spare room or garden shed. Quite apart from issues with close-coupling and long coupled-wheelbase locos it will look much better in the context of a large layout in a large room.

 

Speaking of rooms, since these are not public meetings and won't need to cater for large numbers of visitors (and hence catering, loads of car parking etc.) it opens up a large number of venues which would be unsuitable for exhibitions or shows, many of which will be a lot cheaper. Think vacant warehouses and industrial spaces. All you really need is permission, power and loos

And tea making facilities. Most important, that.

[ZiderHead]

Bring a kettle

[Andy Reichert]

I'm very much looking forward to seeing others modules develop and the basic trackplans - I'm working on a range of basic ones myself but am struggling with "double track" ones - thanks to Peco geometry and the lack of a curved diamond.

 

Ask Clive. He specializes in keeping it Simple and Peco combined.

 

Andy

[cromptonnut]

It may just be trying to get out of the mindset of making things fit standard boards, and that I can have several odd-shaped boards to form a junction, for example, that are functional together rather than one impractically large board.

 

Must remember module is not board; module is self contained unit that may consist of two or more boards.

[Clive Mortimore]

Ask Clive. He specializes in keeping it Simple and Peco combined.

 

Andy

Simple and Peco..............YEAH :sungum: :sungum:

[cromptonnut]

Peco and simple.png

Simple and Peco..............YEAH :sungum: :sungum:

 

Ah yes, the new SLE-38438 ... already got one of those on order.

[Talltim]

I'm waiting for the Insulfrog SL-38438

[Shadow]

If it's not code 75 then you can't use it on one of the modules!

[Kenton]

 

If it's not code 75 then you can't use it on one of the modules!

I think you have got that slightly amiss - All hand built track is welcome (for the truly adventurous) it is just the standards should not exclude the use of Peco Code 75 (or even Code 100) components.

 

Are we there yet?

... are we?

.... are we?

[Stubby47]

  I think you have got that slightly amiss - All hand built track is welcome (for the truly adventurous) it is just the standards should not exclude the use of Peco Code 75 (or even Code 100) components.

 

Are we there yet?

... are we?

.... are we?

 

And if you're really adventurous, you can have it change gauge to P4 in the middle....  maybe....

[Kenton]

I've just been cautiously cutting some wood ... and have a question - is 9mm ply adequate for a clamped end plate?

 

I have checked the thickness and it is 9mm and I would normally be happy for this as a baseboard frame surround but am a little worried that clamping and unclamping it will force it to bow along its length.

 

I see the Freemo folk seem to have adopted 1/2 inch which I guess is nearer 12mm.

 

I could make a 18mm sandwich.

 

Thoughts?

Edited July 29, 2014 by Kenton

[cromptonnut]

I was planning on using my normal baseboard bodge construction methods but to add another piece of wood on the inside of the edge pieces to thicken the clamping area.

 

Internally between boards in my "modules" I  plan to use my normal bolts  as that doesn't matter - it's just the extreme ends of the units that require thickening.

[Grovenor]

I could make a 18mm sandwich.

I would go with that, also allows for a lip at the top to support the trackbed.

Keith

[kevinlms]

I've just been cautiously cutting some wood ... and have a question - is 9mm ply adequate for a clamped end plate?

 

I have checked the thickness and it is 9mm and I would normally be happy for this as a baseboard frame surround but am a little worried that clamping and unclamping it will force it to bow along its length.

 

I see the Freemo folk seem to have adopted 1/2 inch which I guess is nearer 12mm.

 

I could make a 18mm sandwich.

 

Thoughts?

Isn't this sort of thing is why there is a set of standards, which sometimes are quite detailed, gained through practical experience over several years?

[cromptonnut]

There has never been a UK OO standard so there is no prior experience to draw on.

 

However there is a recognition that other standards exist which may have some bits we can copy.

[PaulRhB]

9mm worked fine with the freemo meeting, I did add a 2x1 corner brace though to strengthen the joint, the block can be seen in the photo of the bottom of my module at the bottom of the previous page.

Edited July 29, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Kenton]

 

Isn't this sort of thing is why there is a set of standards, which sometimes are quite detailed, gained through practical experience over several years?

In part that is true. But I would not make this an absolute standard just a recommendation. That is not exactly going to the detail of paragraph 8.1.3

 

I'm only uncertain that 9mm would not work. (that is probably because off the frame it just feels flimsy). As the frame I'm building is not rectangular it feels even more wobbly until all the braces are together.

 

I think I WILL go with a 18mm sandwich ... I'm not short of wood. (there will always be block in corners it is the only way I can make a right angle join - it's the 30' ones that are going to be difficult.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Kenton

[Andy Reichert]

Peco and simple.png

Simple and Peco..............YEAH :sungum: :sungum:

 

Actually I was thinking along the lines of you clearing up the possibility of the OP struggling with a double track curved main, your using the PECO turnout radius as your minimum, and your same min radius PECO turnout as part of the outer curve???

 

Andy

Edited July 29, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[PaulRhB]

 In part that is true. But I would not make this an absolute standard just a recommendation. That is not exactly going to the detail of paragraph 8.1.3

 

I'm only uncertain that 9mm would not work. (that is probably because off the frame it just feels flimsy). As the frame I'm building is not rectangular it feels even more wobbly until all the braces are together.

.

As long as you have two clamps to accommodate an extra 9mm it's not a problem, with the 75mm clamps we used they would cope anyway

The depth of the endplate is much more important and as long as there is room to get a clamp in directly beneath the track(s) it will be fine, my boards had about 9 inch width free to allow clamping which was more than adequate to get your hands in.

[Shadow]

Electrical Interconnectivity.

 

Ok, I know that 4mm banana style plugs and sockets have been suggested, but I was wondering about mounting locations.

 

1) If using banana plugs and sockets, are the sockets mounted on the board (module) or free hanging?

 

2) If mounted on the board, whereabouts, top/bottom/side?

 

3) Are both sockets (one per rail) located together, or located on the respective side of the rails concerned?

 

4) Double/multiple track, is there one pair of sockets per track, or one pair for everything? (Assuming DCC, DC would require independent connections)

 

5) Are we wiring purely for DCC or should DC operation be taken into account?

 

Sure there are other questions, but these are the immediate ones I could think off.

 

Dave

[PaulRhB]

Electrical Interconnectivity.

 

Ok, I know that 4mm banana style plugs and sockets have been suggested, but I was wondering about mounting locations.

 

1) If using banana plugs and sockets, are the sockets mounted on the board (module) or free hanging?

 

2) If mounted on the board, whereabouts, top/bottom/side?

 

3) Are both sockets (one per rail) located together, or located on the respective side of the rails concerned?

 

4) Double/multiple track, is there one pair of sockets per track, or one pair for everything? (Assuming DCC, DC would require independent connections)

 

5) Are we wiring purely for DCC or should DC operation be taken into account?

 

Sure there are other questions, but these are the immediate ones I could think off.

 

Dave

Here's my US board, the wiring is now properly tidied up by the way.

1 mounted on the board purely as it is less likely to get ripped off, it can be free if you want though.

2 Again no real standard but we were using Maplin jump leads that are about 500mm long so had no problems with them on the outer edges.

3 I mounted them apart as I kept the BUS wires apart to avoid any discussion on interference. if they are wider apart there is less chance of cross wiring them during assembly

4 One pair for everything as it's DCC

5 There's nothing to stop you wiring it for DC too as long as all the sections can be switched to connect to the two BUS wires specified.

 

Edited July 29, 2014 by PaulRhB

[FelixM]

 

1) If using banana plugs and sockets, are the sockets mounted on the board (module) or free hanging?

 

2) If mounted on the board, whereabouts, top/bottom/side?

 

3) Are both sockets (one per rail) located together, or located on the respective side of the rails concerned?

 

4) Double/multiple track, is there one pair of sockets per track, or one pair for everything? (Assuming DCC, DC would require independent connections)

 

5) Are we wiring purely for DCC or should DC operation be taken into account?

 

Some tips from me:

 

1) free hanging on wires that are a bit longer than the module. sockets can be fixed on the modules but this causes problems with too short cables and complicates troubleshooting.

 

2) and 3) doesn't really matter if cables are long enough

 

4) separate wiring for each track recommended if some of you have the foresight to see what happens when multiple DCC command stations are used or when two single track lines are in parallel by using a \I-shaped junction.

 

5) DC complicates wiring extensive and restricts for example shunting in a station in the timeframe when trains are approaching from both sides of a through station. DC and DCC should not be mixed on a layout because by accident, may it be a human error or a technical failure (= human error in the end) DCC can burn DC locos and vice versa. Then there would be the question who is at fault and who pays for the damage.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[PaulRhB]

 

5) DC complicates wiring extensive and restricts for example shunting in a station in the timeframe when trains are approaching from both sides of a through station. DC and DCC should not be mixed on a layout because by accident, may it be a human error or a technical failure (= human error in the end) DCC can burn DC locos and vice versa. Then there would be the question who is at fault and who pays for the damage.

 

Wiring for DC isn't a problem as long as it is all switched to DCC on one input, but I'd agree mixing the two isn't a good idea at the same time on any layout due to possible shorts.

My Lulworth layout is wired in dc blocks and all I'll do is switch them all to controller 1 with only that one being connected to the layout. At home I can run a wider variety without having to chip everything before playing trains. Once they are all chipped then the layout will stay permanently switched to one

[FelixM]

Paul, I spoke of a single track line with trains going in opposite directions powered by DC. This is possible by Z wiring but came out of fashion in the late 90s.

 

Individual modules can support both DC and DCC wiring without any problems.

 

Felix