British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Stubby47]

Valid point. I personally have no intention of going far with anything I eventually build. What is the Peco spacing anyway?

16.5mm?

 

Edit: 44.67mm

Edited July 13, 2014 by Stubby47

[Clive Mortimore]

Valid point. I personally have no intention of going far with anything I eventually build. What is the Peco spacing anyway?

Making a cross over with Peco points gives you a track centre of 50mm. This is quite wide for British railways, the 44.67mm Stubby has quoted is for the minimum spacing of 11ft 2ins for double track. Note this is the minimum and many mainlines the spacing is slightly wider.

 

Will most people be using Peco points? Do we use their track spacing of a more scale one?  Therefore having to modify Peco points if people are using them.

[Talltim]

Just because the double track is a standardised spacing at the ends of a module doesn't mean it has to stay that spacing throughout a module

[Glorious NSE]

Second question. If a single track is specified to be at the center of each module, where are double tracks centered? Or vice versa.

 

Those issues don't usually arise with the US system, because they don't typically operate double track as one handed running. The second and more tracks are operated as just extra single tracks.

 

On Free-Mo in the US single track boards are 24" wide and double track boards are 26", so the tracks are the same distance from each side on double or single. That enables a double track to single track connection with one track dead-ending if necessary - That was one feature we liked and copied from the US version...

[Glorious NSE]

Can please someone tell me the advantages of the American Free-Mo system over the Fremo H0-RE norm? To my knowledge there is no modular 00 gauge modelling in Free-Mo.

 

Hi Felix - i've been shying away from this, as the decision on which way to go needs to be with the folk modelling OO - i'm going to keep trying to walk that line...our version fulfils our own HO needs very effectively I feel.

 

US Free-Mo is irrelevant, and I don't think anyone is looking at that. 

 

For OO modules - our Freemo I think has some advantages over Fremo, and I think that Fremo has some advantages over our Freemo.

 

I think our Freemo has the advantage of being simpler, with (if you like) barriers to participation that are as low as we can make them. I think it could form a basis for OO modules, i'm very happy to say that it's not necessarily perfect for it though.

 

I think Fremo has the advantage of more developed / more professional engineering, with off-the-peg end profiles, some of which (for instance a shallow cutting) I think will look much better as an end standard for OO than our nominal "plain" will - Plus Fremo has electrical specs designed to cope with mega-sized setups, which our HO modules will never see (realistically we are in a niche within a niche.)

[jonhall]

Putting in extra features to a modular standard "just in case" a few folk actually make it to anywhere else in the EU to join up with others is surely stretching the whole concept.  And even the doughty few would only be doing it once in a blue moon. 

 

Keep it simple.  Keep it accessible to the majority.  Don't get stuck down dead ends of people with their own agendas, hidden or not.

 

Brian

 

Having a module that is compatible with Europe would be a major positive for me, I like the idea of using 'neutral' modules for both European HO and British OO and could see myself building both HO and OO modules, with a shared fiddleyard/neutral staging,  and one of my layout scenarios is to build an oil refinery/chemical plant that would be location independent in itself. Having an extra 'pool' of neutral modules from other standards would also potentially allow British Free-mOO to gain a bit of momentum.

 

Jon

[FelixM]

Nice picture Felix! 

 

I have a topology/logistics question that Clive's posting made me think of.  How does the "00 Standard", handle the "module standard" track position and assignments (track 1, 2 and 3), for GB style LH running double track connecting to single track working and vice versa? 

 

Andy

 

If single and double track modules are strictly to the Fremo norm, double track modules are 46 mm wider than single track modules which is exactly the track separation. So independent to which track you connect the single track module there will always be one edge of both modules that is straight. The other one is staggered.

 

Surely double to single track conversion (or vice versa) is handled within a module, so the standard doesn't have to cover it?

 

IMG_3316 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

This module has an industry as an excuse for a possible use as a single to double track adaptor (although not used as such in the picture). If you look closely you can see that the three way point is from Peco. If you look even closer you will see that the right and left hand blades have been swopped to make the siding a trailing point even in a single line scenario. Martin has done quite some tinkering with it.

 

That's basically what I am asking about . Clive's single track passing loop example earlier would require another module of the conversion type to be present, if it was part of a (presumably) mixed single and double track set up.

 

Second question. If a single track is specified to be at the center of each module, where are double tracks centered? Or vice versa.

 

Those issues don't usually arise with the US system, because they don't typically operate double track as one handed running. The second and more tracks are operated as just extra single tracks.

 

If I was Clive I would install the single to double track points on small modules outside of the main station area. This would have two advantages:

1) The small single to double track modules could be used in other places too if required and

2) without those small modules it would be a convincing double track station (if constructed with Up Main and Down Main and not to the less common variant with just one Up & Down Main and a goods loop).

 

Answer to your second question: It is more clever to have the centre of a module in a way that permits easily turn-around of each module. This means

- single track exactly at the centre

- module centre between double track lines

 

Presumably if Peco (75 or 100) is settled upon for trackwork, then the handy Peco track spacer gauge can be used to ensure that track space at board ends remains accurate without the need for an extra jig?  It's only about 20p from memoy.

 

Something like this? This is exactly 46 mm and of course homemade.

 

Unless we exactly follow another standard, then at some point a converter board will be needed, surely?

 

Personally I can't say I am particularly fussed (and I doubt if my wife will be either...) about giving up a weekend taking a couple of boards all the way to Belgium or some other foreign clime to "play trains" - I know travelling long distances is a big thing within American modular meetups but surely the whole point of the UK is that it's fairly small and we don't need to go a long way - and the whole point of a "British modular system" is that it is designed for British modellers modelling British prototypes, living, erm, in Britain?

 

But the other way round it would work, doesn't it? A Belgian modelling colleague who likes British trains and wants to partake but just can bring along his small Belgian station which looks generic enough? You are deliberately going to make British modular modelling unattractive for non-UK inhabitants if there is incompatibility. This will not just exclude people but experiences too. Personally I would see severe damage to British modular modelling in general if something on its own is the outcome of this thread, and I'd pull back of activity realted to this just to not to get bogged down by too much for me.

 

Putting in extra features to a modular standard "just in case" a few folk actually make it to anywhere else in the EU to join up with others is surely stretching the whole concept.  And even the doughty few would only be doing it once in a blue moon. 

 

Keep it simple.  Keep it accessible to the majority.  Don't get stuck down dead ends of people with their own agendas, hidden or not.

 

Brian

 

I am aiming at a sensitive norm for 00 gauge modelling and I try to convince the interested that 00Fremo has already done some work on this. The compatibility would be a bonus. I see that this thread often gets bogged down in details just to come back to the really important facts. My opinion is that a lot of you are clever enough to work out a standard which is not imcompatible to 00Fremo, provided the rail top over floor height is 1300 mm. This is the last major point of indecision (at the moment) I spot.

 

Making a cross over with Peco points gives you a track centre of 50mm. This is quite wide for British railways, the 44.67mm Stubby has quoted is for the minimum spacing of 11ft 2ins for double track. Note this is the minimum and many mainlines the spacing is slightly wider.

 

Will most people be using Peco points? Do we use their track spacing of a more scale one?  Therefore having to modify Peco points if people are using them.

 

44,67 mm is not a whole number and if 46 mm already exists then why not adopting 46 mm. 46 mm are also proven to be safe in curves with radii of at least 1000 mm.

 

On Free-Mo in the US single track boards are 24" wide and double track boards are 26", so the tracks are the same distance from each side on double or single. That enables a double track to single track connection with one track dead-ending if necessary - That was one feature we liked and copied from the US version...

 

Every sensible norm has such an arrangement.

By the way, three and four track lines are deliberately not normed, because

- it is very unlikely that one person builds enough modules for a useable, realistic layout on its own and

- if this came true however, then there are different variants (think of the position of Fast and Slow lines on the ECML and WCML) that these people will find their own agreement and may publish them theirself for possible attraction of others.

 

Hi Felix - i've been shying away from this, as the decision on which way to go needs to be with the folk modelling OO - i'm going to keep trying to walk that line...our version fulfils our own HO needs very effectively I feel.

 

US Free-Mo is irrelevant, and I don't think anyone is looking at that. 

 

For OO modules - our Freemo I think has some advantages over Fremo, and I think that Fremo has some advantages over our Freemo.

 

I think our Freemo has the advantage of being simpler, with (if you like) barriers to participation that are as low as we can make them. I think it could form a basis for OO modules, i'm very happy to say that it's not necessarily perfect for it though.

 

I think Fremo has the advantage of more developed / more professional engineering, with off-the-peg end profiles, some of which (for instance a shallow cutting) I think will look much better as an end standard for OO than our nominal "plain" will - Plus Fremo has electrical specs designed to cope with mega-sized setups, which our HO modules will never see (realistically we are in a niche within a niche.)

 

Thanks for your open minded post. To be honest I cannot understand why people are thinking that Fremo is complicated. But of course I am a member for over 1,5 years now and have had the possibilities to talk to lots of experienced modellers which makes a huge difference, so no offence here.

Fremo norms are extremely bad documented and are difficult to find. There is an important and disadvantageous gap in information between the newcomer and the expert. That Fremo is complicated is a stereotype which results from this. I know this and do my best to pass on my knowledge, but you have to listen if something should come to fruition.

 

I think Free-mo and Fremo are very similar. The only differences are in detail, and here Free-mo seems often to go the way which appears to be more easier in the first place whereas Fremo members try to avoid practices they know they are not appropriate for future development, for example because groups are to grow. Free-mo uses clamps, Fremo uses screws. It is not really important that you decide the way of mechanical joining but to know that normed hole positions won't prevent you from clamping modules together is wisedom of the right kind. Look carefully at https://www.flickr.com/photos/91875255@N05/14105581062/. Do you see the clamp? Free-mo members to my knowledge have used a wireless control system whereas Fremo uses Loconet which is capable of controlling as much locos at any one time as you wish (9999 DCC addresses). Fremo has lots of different end profiles, but this isn't really what I would die for. Furthermore Free-mo could standardise on its in-house developed end profiles. Not much differences you see.

 

To be a niche within a niche maybe is not the right position to rely on feelings. 00Fremo of course has a strange British prototype within Germany, but talking of modelling techniques we are nothing else than part of the H0-RE Fremo group which is the largest within Fremo. I have just counted exactly 1690 Fremo members in 2014, approximately half of them being H0-RE modellers. This means there are lots of people around who potentially can create something worthy for your developing British modelling community.

 

On Wednesday there will be the next regulars table here at Berlin. Two modelling colleagues have announced to bring their track plans for future modules with them, one of them being a double track main station with loops and a total length of 8 m. I recommend to introduce regulars tables for modular modelling in the UK too because nowhere ideas, concepts andprojects can grow better than in a community.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[kevinlms]

If single and double track modules are strictly to the Fremo norm, double track modules are 46 mm wider than single track modules which is exactly the track separation. So independent to which track you connect the single track module there will always be one edge of both modules that is straight. The other one is staggered.

 

 

IMG_3316 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

This module has an industry as an excuse for a possible use as a single to double track adaptor (although not used as such in the picture). If you look closely you can see that the three way point is from Peco. If you look even closer you will see that the right and left hand blades have been swopped to make the siding a trailing point even in a single line scenario. Martin has done quite some tinkering with it.

 

 

If I was Clive I would install the single to double track points on small modules outside of the main station area. This would have two advantages:

1) The small single to double track modules could be used in other places too if required and

2) without those small modules it would be a convincing double track station (if constructed with Up Main and Down Main and not to the less common variant with just one Up & Down Main and a goods loop).

 

Answer to your second question: It is more clever to have the centre of a module in a way that permits easily turn-around of each module. This means

- single track exactly at the centre

- module centre between double track lines

 

 

Something like this? This is exactly 46 mm and of course homemade.

 

 

But the other way round it would work, doesn't it? A Belgian modelling colleague who likes British trains and wants to partake but just can bring along his small Belgian station which looks generic enough? You are deliberately going to make British modular modelling unattractive for non-UK inhabitants if there is incompatibility. This will not just exclude people but experiences too. Personally I would see severe damage to British modular modelling in general if something on its own is the outcome of this thread, and I'd pull back of activity realted to this just to not to get bogged down by too much for me.

 

 

I am aiming at a sensitive norm for 00 gauge modelling and I try to convince the interested that 00Fremo has already done some work on this. The compatibility would be a bonus. I see that this thread often gets bogged down in details just to come back to the really important facts. My opinion is that a lot of you are clever enough to work out a standard which is not imcompatible to 00Fremo, provided the rail top over floor height is 1300 mm. This is the last major point of indecision (at the moment) I spot.

 

 

44,67 mm is not a whole number and if 46 mm already exists then why not adopting 46 mm. 46 mm are also proven to be safe in curves with radii of at least 1000 mm.

 

 

Every sensible norm has such an arrangement.

By the way, three and four track lines are deliberately not normed, because

- it is very unlikely that one person builds enough modules for a useable, realistic layout on its own and

- if this came true however, then there are different variants (think of the position of Fast and Slow lines on the ECML and WCML) that these people will find their own agreement and may publish them theirself for possible attraction of others.

 

 

Thanks for your open minded post. To be honest I cannot understand why people are thinking that Fremo is complicated. But of course I am a member for over 1,5 years now and have had the possibilities to talk to lots of experienced modellers which makes a huge difference, so no offence here.

Fremo norms are extremely bad documented and are difficult to find. There is an important and disadvantageous gap in information between the newcomer and the expert. That Fremo is complicated is a stereotype which results from this. I know this and do my best to pass on my knowledge, but you have to listen if something should come to fruition.

 

I think Free-mo and Fremo are very similar. The only differences are in detail, and here Free-mo seems often to go the way which appears to be more easier in the first place whereas Fremo members try to avoid practices they know they are not appropriate for future development, for example because groups are to grow. Free-mo uses clamps, Fremo uses screws. It is not really important that you decide the way of mechanical joining but to know that normed hole positions won't prevent you from clamping modules together is wisedom of the right kind. Look carefully at https://www.flickr.com/photos/91875255@N05/14105581062/. Do you see the clamp? Free-mo members to my knowledge have used a wireless control system whereas Fremo uses Loconet which is capable of controlling as much locos at any one time as you wish (9999 DCC addresses). Fremo has lots of different end profiles, but this isn't really what I would die for. Furthermore Free-mo could standardise on its in-house developed end profiles. Not much differences you see.

 

To be a niche within a niche maybe is not the right position to rely on feelings. 00Fremo of course has a strange British prototype within Germany, but talking of modelling techniques we are nothing else than part of the H0-RE Fremo group which is the largest within Fremo. I have just counted exactly 1690 Fremo members in 2014, approximately half of them being H0-RE modellers. This means there are lots of people around who potentially can create something worthy for your developing British modelling community.

 

On Wednesday there will be the next regulars table here at Berlin. Two modelling colleagues have announced to bring their track plans for future modules with them, one of them being a double track main station with loops and a total length of 8 m. I recommend to introduce regulars tables for modular modelling in the UK too because nowhere ideas, concepts andprojects can grow better than in a community.

 

Kind regards

Felix

In the first photo, 3 different modules & 3 different module end treatment. A low profile shaped end, higher profile shaped ends & straight end with side blocks of wood. I do find this a disadvantage of a modular system, but I guess in this section its intended as a non scenic section, or is it?

[Steve-e]

 

 

 

But the other way round it would work, doesn't it? A Belgian modelling colleague who likes British trains and wants to partake but just can bring along his small Belgian station which looks generic enough? You are deliberately going to make British modular modelling unattractive for non-UK inhabitants if there is incompatibility. This will not just exclude people but experiences too. Personally I would see severe damage to British modular modelling in general if something on its own is the outcome of this thread, and I'd pull back of activity realted to this just to not to get bogged down by too much for me.

 

 

I can see where you're coming from and maybe the 'UK' standard should have certain standards of those who have gone before even for just the sake of board sharing within the UK or abroad as the more boards to call is probably bigger and better, as someone said many of the scenic sections could pass as somewhere in the UK after all we were connected many years ago and it would be a shame if we had some Freemo/Fremo UK independence thing in place where we are isolated (or the rest of the world is isolated depending on your view). 

 

Another interesting thing is if there was ever an UK/European get together in the South East, say for example in Ashford the modellers from Brussels (171 miles), Amsterdam (276 Miles) or Paris (229 miles) would actually be nearer to Ashford than most of the UK, myself included (357 Miles) so perhaps having common standards may be a benefit in the future.

 

 

Cheers

Steve

 

. 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2014 by Nes

[Dazzler Fan]

+

I posted a European approach in 2012 from an 1995 paper
My local Markin Club is building to the spec.

/topic/54649-modular-sdjr/ post #3

 

Noel

[The Bigbee Line]

 

2 inches 50.8mm as opposed to 46 or 44.67mm. Hmmmmmm.

As someone who reduced the Roco standard 6 foot of 66 mm to 50mm. I would suggest we stick to the 2inch spacing. With 9 inches to the edge of the board from the first track. So multiple track boards are (number of tracks x 2) + 18 as the board width. Simple.

I want my boards to be able to run US outline HO and UK OO. The HO will be mainly code 55 single track!

[Suzie]

It would make sense to have a 6 foot that matches the spacing between a pair of Peco streamline points with insulated joiners since that is what most people will be using to make connections between double track.

[FelixM]

In the first photo, 3 different modules & 3 different module end treatment. A low profile shaped end, higher profile shaped ends & straight end with side blocks of wood. I do find this a disadvantage of a modular system, but I guess in this section its intended as a non scenic section, or is it?

 

These modules belong together, they will form the now closed station Orwell on the Ipswich to Felixstowe branch. Even though the end profiles don't match exactly because they are considered one greater unit the builder (in this case mentioned Martin) has the oportunity to add scenic material on top to make the difference disappear.

 

A big selection of end profies is a question of taste. There actually is no way to "do it proper" but H0-RE / 00Fremo has 4 different shapes:

- asymmetric B shape

- flat F shape

- E shape with a small embankment (pictures at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87665-a-british-modular-system/?p=1508755)

- valley shape (scroll a bit down from the link above)

 

Other profiles are welcomed and can be used as much as one prefer, provided there are two adaptors at both ends of such a module group. Alternatively this could be done by profile eliminators instead of adaptors.

 

As I said before, a good norm has certain standards, but let enough play for the single modeller do construct what he wants to.

 

2 inches 50.8mm as opposed to 46 or 44.67mm. Hmmmmmm.

As someone who reduced the Roco standard 6 foot of 66 mm to 50mm. I would suggest we stick to the 2inch spacing. With 9 inches to the edge of the board from the first track. So multiple track boards are (number of tracks x 2) + 18 as the board width. Simple.

I want my boards to be able to run US outline HO and UK OO. The HO will be mainly code 55 single track!

 

One has to look at whether a prototypical track separation or the mentioned US compatibility is of more worth to the group. After all we are talking scale model railwaying. For different track separations one can always construct adaptors, this is not difficult and can be done in a day. But there is no must to make a whole modular community follow an overscale track separation, this will take its toll later when modellers are becoming impatient and divide the group up.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 15, 2014 by FelixM

[cromptonnut]

One has to look at whether a prototypical track separation or the mentioned US compatibility is of more worth to the group.

 

I thought the whole idea of a British modular system was to create British model railways, following generally British practice?

 

If you're going to make it compatible with American standards - then you might as well just adopt an existing standard and accept that you'll be always incorrect.  The bridges will be too big, the roads will be too wide, the buildings will look odd, even the scenery, shade of ballast, etc etc will all be wrong.

 

OO is generally accepted as a compromised mess that should never have existed but it is very established for UK modelling and not likely to go away - most of those seeking "more accurate" models tend to migrate towards EM or P4 rather than HO - and that most UK modellers use Peco streamline code 75 or 100 track and the spacing thereof.

 

If before we've even defined a standard for British OO modular boards we're already thinking of splitting it into two, those that actually want to follow UK practice and those who want to build something compatible with larger American modular concepts, then what's the point of even starting?

 

I've seen N gauge modular layouts where you have a UK steam train passing a Japanese bullet train going through Alpine scenery.  Whilst the individual standards of the boards may well be high, something about that "random mix" just really grates me.

[kevinlms]

It would make sense to have a 6 foot that matches the spacing between a pair of Peco streamline points with insulated joiners since that is what most people will be using to make connections between double track.

An excellent suggestion, Suzie. Anything else means taking a Peco point and either trimming a very short section off the curved leg, or alternatively adding adding a similar piece. The latter looks awful & both are a PITA and will all potential module builders be capable of doing so?

Or else the points will be moved away from the edge & a horrible kink put in the track to force alignment.

[bxmoore]

I couldn't agree with Cromptonnut's post above, more.

 

Keep to the basics, and keep to one idea.  Again, I counsel against following the people here who have their own apparent agendas. 

 

If you don't, and there's too much that's required to build a "basic module", then you won't attract the majority needed for the concept to take off.

 

It'll be viewed, rightly or wrongly as elitist, as so many other things are in railway modelling.

 

It's the people who you NEVER hear of on these forums that are the ones you need to get on board, if this is ever going to work.

 

Brian

[Glorious NSE]

If single and double track modules are strictly to the Fremo norm, double track modules are 46 mm wider than single track modules which is exactly the track separation. So independent to which track you connect the single track module there will always be one edge of both modules that is straight. The other one is staggered.

 

<snip>

 

Fremo norms are extremely bad documented and are difficult to find. There is an important and disadvantageous gap in information between the newcomer and the expert. That Fremo is complicated is a stereotype which results from this. I know this and do my best to pass on my knowledge, but you have to listen if something should come to fruition.

 

I would agree with that, and "language barriers" are also part of the mix of why it's sometimes not easy to work out the current standard.

 

For instance - when we were looking at the existing Fremo-US and Free-Mo when we were working out our HO system, the only version of the Fremo-US norm we found in English said that it had been designed for building branch lines and not main lines, it had only a single track end profile, not a double, and it had a 2' minimum radius (actually too tight for some RTR US stock to negotiate - disregarding the visual impact!) - those features were seriously out of step with what the American's were doing with Free-Mo and too restricting for us.

 

I suspect the current version of the Fremo-US norm is not the same as the ones we read a few years back however...

 

 

 

Free-mo members to my knowledge have used a wireless control system whereas Fremo uses Loconet which is capable of controlling as much locos at any one time as you wish (9999 DCC addresses).

 

Actually we currently use a mix of wired and wifi - our original version (deliberately) didn't spec which DCC system and throttle bus as we knew that "DCC wars" are such a contentious subject that if we initially mandated one system then (some) folk that use different systems would be likely to dismiss the standard out of hand.

 

In practice, an Expressnet throttle bus is usually in use (compatible with NCE, Lenz, Roco) - the Wifi provision means that if you don't own a throttle compatible to the system in use at a particular meet then you have a simple and affordable alternative.

 

Again - trying to keep the barriers to adoption as low as possible.

 

 My opinion is that a lot of you are clever enough to work out a standard which is not imcompatible to 00Fremo, provided the rail top over floor height is 1300 mm. This is the last major point of indecision (at the moment) I spot.

 

Almost anything is potentially compatible with a bit of thought - a running height difference is probably the hardest obstacle to overcome, but even that can be corrected by a leg extension - when we started at 45" everybody else doing traditional HO scale "domino" modules in the UK was using 40", several groups went through a phase of having adjustable legs to build modules compatible with both heights before it settled down.

 

Board widths, track positions, electrics can be "cobbled", modified, or taken care of more professionally with a short adapter board. 

[kevinlms]

I thought the whole idea of a British modular system was to create British model railways, following generally British practice?

 

 

I've seen N gauge modular layouts where you have a UK steam train passing a Japanese bullet train going through Alpine scenery.  Whilst the individual standards of the boards may well be high, something about that "random mix" just really grates me.

Indeed it looks terrible. I guess you can still have jarring scenery differences in an all British layout - GWR 14XX & Autocoach for the Scottish Highlands or Glens? Or a Tri-ang Rocket passing a Class 66 on a container train or modern EMU. There is now a period of almost 200 years of British railways to choose from.

 

Of course, its always possible at a meet to have 2 or more separate layouts, rather than a single large layout covering multiple periods. It just depends on space & what modules are available. That would prevent the excessive and wild variations.

[Glorious NSE]

I want my boards to be able to run US outline HO and UK OO. The HO will be mainly code 55 single track!

 

I guess a question would be whether you're planning to build a double track or single track module - if the module you want to use on both systems is single track, then any potential differences in the double track spacing between the standards aren't relevant.

[cromptonnut]

It's the people who you NEVER hear of on these forums that are the ones you need to get on board, if this is ever going to work.

 

It'll be promotion through BRM and other magazines that "gets the word out" but clearly there are a good group of people - of all abilities - on this forum who are interested in starting something up, which then enables opportunities to get other groups together.

[Harald Brosch]

Surely double to single track conversion (or vice versa) is handled within a module, so the standard doesn't have to cover it?

Moin, moin  (mornin - mornin - but used in Northern Germany as greeting the whole day)

 

Talltim             Yes - thats it.

 

A little FREMO history of how the first 2track modules came into beeing :-)

 

Many years ago, someone has cut  existing H0-standard-track 1track modules lengthwise and addet 46mm for the 2nd track in the gap between the 2 parts. The first ever FREMO 2track modules - as far as I know, these  still exist.

And a lot of other newer 2track modules.

 

To enable 1track and 2track modules to be attached to on another - each doubletrack module has 2 sets of the drills used on 1track modules, The middle of the module is exactly in the middle between the tracks.

But almost ever there are special transition-modules to connect 1track to 2track modules.

 

 

Some 10 years ago during an FREMO US-H0 meet in Unna some guys asked me to produce some double-track US-H0 endplates.

But instead of the European 46mm they wanted the 52mm trackdistance Peco Code 75 used. The Peco code 83 US-track wasn´t yet available at this time. Middle of module in the middle between the tracks just as in Europe-H0.

 

I also doubled the drills for enabeling 1track and 2track modules to be attached to oneanother. But I´ve never seen someone doing it. There are always transition-modules in use.

 

 

FREMO-US-H0 in the first years was normally 1track branchline - double-track modules only used for sidings. But mostly  in Northern Germany, Danmark, Sweden and South-West Germany 2track moldules are a common sight in the meantime. NAI (North-American-Industri) uses up to 3 tracks.

 

Catenary in FREMO US is not used (imho) but in H0 Europe a lot of modules were fitted with a selfmade catenary system in the last few years.  But catenary-fitted modules are almost never mixed with modules without it.

 

In the last station with catenary, engines have to be changed from Electric ones to Diesel- and /or Steam-engines for the Rest of the journey.

 

tschuess /  bye

 

Harald Brosch

 

 

( please excuse my misspellings )

Edited July 15, 2014 by Harald Brosch

[FelixM]

Hi,

 

I am doing a concrete proposal now. Everyone is invited to discuss and amend it, that's why I give the original file too. In this form it is compatible to 00Fremo. It fits on just 2 pages.

 

I used the words "must" and "prohibited" to male a clear destincions to recommendations, for which I used "recommended", "should" and "can".

 

Happy discussing

Felix

RMweb_Proposal.doc

RMweb_Proposal.pdf

[Andy Reichert]

RE: RMweb _proposal  (v 0.1)

 

Hi Felix.

 

1. At the end of a module, (the centre of the pattern of one or more tracks ) must be at the centre and at a right angle to the end profile

 

2. Don't define a commercial product (Peco Medium points ) as a must definition. Their specification could change over time. Peco Doesn't make "00" appearance track anyway.

 

2A. I think that the through route of a module must only include the straight route of any turnouts in that path. Otherwise you could be have all sorts of problems with long wheel base or inflexible other owner's trains. You could define a separate, much larger minium "curvature"  or "angle" for any turn out in that path.

 

3. If you define NEM compatible wheels, those probably won't go through ALL UK standard specified track work. Plus I doubt there is a UK product that has NEM wheels. Suggest you use DOGA or NMRA for your "00" wheel definitions. Smaller wheel profile doesn't necessarily mean compatible either. The BB dimension is the most critical for interchange.

 

4. All moving (powered)) vehicles must have DCC decoders

 

General:

 

 One flaw in the "right angle track to end profile" is that it precludes using transition curves on interchangeable curved modules or grouped curved modules that do not form a full 90 degree angle of curve for that use only.  For a definition of "UK-ness" that includes it's signature "flowing trackwork", some rather more creative solution could be a distinct advantage in appearance and running possibilities. You are also testing the limits of long coaches with corridor connections, if you have no transition curves and/or a poor choice of "minimum" radius turnouts.

 

Andy

[cromptonnut]

Regarding end profiles, should we not be looking at a uk based manufacturer as surely shipping bits of wood overseas will be expensive?

[PaulRhB]

Felix

The banana plugs overhanging a bit confused me to be honest, is that the socket overhanging and by how much?

 

AndyR

Specifying the through route to use only the straight path on points means no junction boards.

That's not going to work minimum radius is all you need and points to meet that.

The only must spec I saw involving Peco was the minimum radius of their point.

 

I know Fre(e)mo have done a lot of research but there do seem to be a lot of specs compared to the simple one I used at the US meet. We had rp25 wheels on 600mm min (sidings) and 900mm (mainline) radius and ran a 69 car train with no issues

My under construction uk layout has SMP code 75 and homemade points and I run Bachmann, Hornby & Dapol etc so as long as their wheels clear your choice of track you'll be ok.