British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Stubby47]

So, are we all agreed then ?

[Glorious NSE]

Martyn, can you rephrase statement 3, cause it's unclear to me what you're actually mean to say. TIA!

 

Apologies - hows that. If anyone of you 3 who have voted on that one want to change your vote, you can click "undo rating" on the right hand side and re-vote.

 

HTH

Edited July 19, 2014 by Glorious NSE

[Grovenor]

Statement 3 looks very clear to me, it means whatever Kenton wants.

Keith

[Kenton]

 

Would you prefer to see British sleeper size and spacing on the track on British modules?

Andy

Sorry Andy - could you clarify just what you mean by British sleeper spacing - are you referring to Peco track or are you referring to correctly spaced sleepers as would be used on P4 - As it has already been made pretty clear that the gauge is OO there is no RTR track (and points) available to correct British prototype spacing (if such a thing even exists - changes over era/region).

So your question seems to me to be suggesting that hand built track should be used.

[Kenton]

I feel the rest of the world ganging up on me = I guess that is what is called democracy.

 

I feel that the idea of a referendum is a question designed to reach a predefined outcome - I guess that is what is called liberal democracy.

 

I would prefer to have been voting on the actual proposed standards presented by the OP as opposed to some nebulous statements a continuation of the "Fre(e)mo" Chapter.

[raymw]

Concerning 'the overall look' - from Andy's first post, and others, overall it will always look like a demented centipede. I thought the main concern was operational. If you start off with fancy end profiles, then it makes it more difficult for the layout planner, both for the owners of the individual boards and the day/meeting planner, and may stop the flexibility of reversing the individual boards. What do you do with those with boards which, scenically speaking, are work in progress - shove 'em all at one end? After all, it's only a small step from when as kids we took our Hornby track to our mates to build a bigger layout on a Saturday afternoon. KISS usually works to start with, build it and they will come, etc...

 

I can see that with some of the mind-sets I've seen here, it would be a group that many would not want to join, if there are too many rules to start with, and the pettiness that would most likely result.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ray

[298]

I feel the rest of the world ganging up on me = I guess that is what is called democracy.

 

I feel that the idea of a referendum is a question designed to reach a predefined outcome - I guess that is what is called liberal democracy.

 

I'm more of a Communist myself.

 

I find you make some valid points, but i think you really have to experience the Freemo concept first hand and drop any pre-conceived ideas regarding modules to buy into it. What I eventually built was quite detracted from my current modelling interest, but partly proved a concept I wanted to explore and is a good entry into US modelling for someone. You can also note that the concept will prove slow to take off, this module spec has been exhibited at TVNAM before, but this was the first full modular meet and still relied on participants travelling hundreds of miles to have enough modules and skill & experience to fill the room.

 

I had previously experienced some negativity when my now defunct local NMRA group discussed a joint project, some wanted this spec, some wanted continental fremo because of the lasercut ends and compatability with European modules, and some wanted On30, which are slowly coming together (no-one mentioned N gauge).

 

All of this sounds like a "jumping on the bandwagon" exercise for some, but I think you really have to see a contribution from an established group to decide whether to join in or not...

[Satan's Goldfish]

To help clarify (and come a little to Kenton's aid....maybe) about the ###### subject of end board profiles and track positioning, in an early post I mentioned about the difference between specifying something as a 'standard' or a 'recommended practice'. As far as I can see, top of track height above the floor (with +/- a litttle adjustability), depth of end profile for easy clamping (3.5 to 4.5 inches was given as an example elsewhere) and how the dcc bus between boards connects are the only initial required 'standards' to make modules join. End profile width and track position would fall under 'recommended practice' for aesthetic reasons (along with what shade of ballast and grass to use) which you'd probably find the majority of contributors would try and follow. Being just a 'recommended practice' rather than a 'standard' gives the option for an existing layout that maybe wider or narrower than the recommended width with the wrong shades of ballast and grass to be simply height adapted to take part, or for those that have an idea for a module that wouldn't work if it was constricted to a 'standard' end profile to let their creative juice flow and still join in (Kenton )

 

I believe one of the earlier posts did mention that one of the modules in the OP example was a modified existing layout that had wider end profiles than the rest of the modules, but aesthetical it still worked as it was the exception, not the norm.

 

Does that clear things a little?

[Glorious NSE]

I believe one of the earlier posts did mention that one of the modules in the OP example was a modified existing layout that had wider end profiles than the rest of the modules, but aesthetical it still worked as it was the exception, not the norm.

 

The module in question had been heavily modified to get the board edge to line up on one side (which due to the heritage of the module you might call "the front") - in visual terms the offset there was not any worse than when we connect a two track 20" board to a one track 18" board, which is a board mismatch catered for in the spec (and in practice at Armitage the offset was buried on the inside a corner anyhow, so it was even less noticeable) - my take is that what was brought was very much in the spirit, if not the letter, of the spec.

 

I'd be much less impressed if somebody turned up with a newbuild module to a random width with a random track location...

[Andy Reichert]

I guess I'm confused.

 

From Andy Y's OP.

 

<<<. . . . .  I believe there would be the potential to create an approach tailored toward British modellers and even support it through challenges and events>>.

 

I thought I used to know what "tailored toward" meant. Given all the voted for selections,  what is left that is different from all the existing "not tailored toward British" systems?

 

Andy

[ZiderHead]

Your confusion might have arisen from the mentions of votes, consensus, democracy, referenda etc.
 
I hope (and expect) that AndyY, having canvassed opinion, will read all of it, cherry pick the good suggestions, discard the other 99% and propose a sensible, workable minimum spec.
 
Those that get it can start building modules and planning meets where they get together with others and have fun playing trains/operating prototypically on layouts 50 times the size they can fit in the spare room. The rest can carry on arguing or moaning about the specs online. Everyone's a winner
 

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.

[FelixM]

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?

 

Cromptonnut, thanks for your honest post. It is my no means a "Brit thing" to have no experience with modular layouts. The same happened in the preparations of our first meeting with an interested from Saxony and the debates were similar to what has appeared here on RMweb. He eventually built a plain single track module and had great fun with us on the meeting but decided for his own that he will not partake in 00Fremo properly. Modular model railways cannot reach everyone, and it is just fine if it is nothing for you. Or for Kenton.

 

I would like to show examples of what operational interest could mean. Because it took me again until after midnight to read every post I have made hand sketches. I apologise for the quality, especially for the "two circles" which shall show a head and a pair of shoulders of an operator seen from above.

 

You may have been required to take a goods train from the fiddle yard to the goods station of a local station where you detach the train (far right, bottom track). Because you are driving a Mixed traffic loco your next task is to haul 2 coaches detached from an express train over a branch line. You are waiting and watching another operator coming with it, uncoupling and departing. Then you set back your engine onto the branch portion, whistle and set off.

The arrow indicate a duck-under module.

 

You may also be a Shunter. Then you have control over the local station pilot (top left on the siding). Your task is now to pull the last two vans of an arriving parcels train (wrongly made right hand driving so apologies and lots of arrows) coming from the left and shunt them on the back of a local train. You can simulate big stations like Grantham like this.

 

Because I know from the Trade & Products Zone that you are interested in 0 gauge RTR modern traction, cromptonnut, I include two examples of modern image as well (as opposed to the above ones that are more likely steam era). This is a Speedlink branch who serves a lineside industry by setting off (or collecting, as you wish) a rake of wagons. The train does not need to arrive from a fiddle yard and disappearing there afterwards, instead it could be hauled to some exchange sidings where the old class 37ish is o be changed to a class 66ish for its onward journey through Britain. You are required to take care that no goods wagon is forgotten or accidentally taken away. For this you have wagon cards to help you.

 

This one could be Dovey junction on the Cambrian Line. The timetable you drew requires you to wait there until a modelling colleague of you arrives with a 2x Class 150 DMU from Shrewsbury. The rear is uncoupled and after your colleague departed towards Aberystwyth, you begin your journey towards Pwllheli. On the return leg your DMU is the first at Dovey so you wait for the Aberystwyth portion and continue then to Shrewsbury (which could well be a fiddle yard). The arrows show ducking-under modules.

 

There really are just limits in your imagination, but not in the technics. And you need a module specification that allows this. By the way, the both Fre(e)mos have good aproaches.

 

     

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.

 

All that I wanted to point out was that there were some guys who already started to ponder about module specifications. So if the RMweb module outcome is not going to be fruitful one and a half year later then remember me and ask us. For comparison, Berlin has 3 million inhabitants which is triple of Birmingham's but if we take the Metropolitan areas of both with 6 million / 4 million and I got a fellowership of 8 or 9 modellers within 1 and 1/2 year than couldn't it be possible that some 30ish interested meet in Birmingham? All that is needed is an active promoter. Just a thought.

 

The only thing that is important at the end is that some train sent driven from some far away land can pass through my stationtunnel with a windmill module, perhaps dropping off some wagon in the siding to collect ground flour from the windmill before continuing off the other end/edge of world to some other far away land/module. As long as the operator of the windmill and the driver of the train can have a laugh.

 

So to answer your point, it isn't a case of shouldn't have them just that they should not be imposed (a standard) on those who don't want them.

 

So welcome to the FREMO thinking. What you describe here is common practice in FREMO, and virtually no rule has not been broken in 30 years of its existance. If you want to make your modules wider or narrower than what the recommendations say then you are still welcome to the community as long as the compatibility is guaranteed. FREMO uses mounting holes whose locations are defined in relation to the track. It is not so easy to define compatibility with G-clamps. In my opinion clamps are neither wrong nor a proper solution – perfect as a stopgap if something went wrong but not a definite solution. Anyone who has bought a RTR loco knows that body and chassis are required to stay attached and for this the manufacturer are relying on screws.

 

FREMO handles deviation from the norm like this: As long as it is compatible, it's all right. If it is not compatible, then you are required to build adaptors. If not even an adaptor could help, then off found your own group. The latter has happened several times during the existance of FREMO, some members wanting exhibition layout quality for example and FREMO:87 was subsequently founded.

 

As I've said above I just wish Andy would come up with a firm set of proposals - I could agree or disagree with and then get on with the module or not.

 

Sadly proposing standards is not all what is required to keep a community of modular modellers going.

Apart from

• making a start, proposing standards (Andy Y's task)

there are engaded souls required who

• organise the locations for the meetings and possibly accommodation and catering for the participants
• plan the arrangement
• create the timetable
• cater for updating the set of standards if errors or better ways of doing things are found and accepted by the group (obviously NOT the task of Andy Y, he is a forum admin and an editor, he cannot be at every meeting in person) (happens at least 10 times with a brand new set of standards, promised!)
• take care of the stock used on a meeting and/or maintains a loco DCC address list
• are responsible for the DCC equipment and a working setup

It would be very clever of Andy Y not only to throw a set of specifications into the (digital) air but to appoint a committee of volunteers to organise at least a first meeting.

 

Sadly I have the feel that many of those who are writing here seem not to realise that a working community needs to be catered for. It is by no means a sure-fire success but needs some work to do.

 

I have said right from the start of this topic the precise width is NOT important and the location of a single track across that width is also completely irrelevant - in fact it is even very limiting in the design of the track on the module. There is no reason at all why track, and scenery, on my module cannot be 2" from the front or 4" from the front of any (within reason) width.

 

In the case of double track ends again the width is immaterial. However the space between the tracks is critical. The freemo standard is at odds with both UK double track spacing and PECO double track spacing (which as someone else pointed out above) are different in British OO from Continental HO. The PECO spacing does seem to be the most accommodating (though that may upset those who would want it to be prototypical).

 

As for the rest of the Freemo standards - I'm afraid I just baulked at the words must and width but actually much of the electrics and rest could be also rewritten with more brevity and command and control language.

 

I agree with you that the width is not important for working, but Harald Brosch has some 600 different end profiles in his catalogue which show that tastes really are different. Don't succumb to the illusion that if a flat profile is set as the only standard (00Fremo has always had a simple flat profile in its standards too) you are going to get all modellers wishes fulfilled in the long run. After all we are talking of introducing a completely new type of model railways to Britain. When RTR manufacturer introduced highly detailed models to Britain nobody could have predicted a whole generation of overcritical "rivet counters" (in need for a better word).

 

British 46 mm versus Peco 50 mm remains an issue but hopefully it is Peco that at some point will introduce scale track to its home market. A strong modelling community can help about this (as happened in Germany).

 

This was something I had thought of. A large standard layout (think Gresley Beat for example)  would require van hire and expenses for 6-8 people. An equivalent sized modular layout would probably be 15 cars and people.

 

Depends on the amound of forethought when building the module. Modules are mostly flat so combining some of the same length to a transport "box" saves an huge amount of space. 3 metres of straight double track fit into a 1 m x 546 mm x ~700 mm box, of which some 8 fit into a medium sized van. If I could make it to a UK based 00 gauge modular meeting next year I would certainly not arrive with less than 15 m length of track!

 

I don't agree that your track layout is restricted by a central track on the module end either - it would only be so if you built your boards and then decided what you wanted to put on them, try approaching the issue from the trackplan you want to build, then designing a board to support it! 

 

Commonplace in FREMO is to first imagine what operations you want to have in your station – a junction station with frequent coach exchanges between trains need a different track plan to say a terminus of two lines where each train has to change its loco. Then you start pondering what the best track plan is for you or what the prototype would have done. You don't do this with a particular baseboard or space configuration in mind.

 

On a more general thought both Freemo and FREMO are providing good aproaches to what a typical British railway network would be like. But thinking further the Freemo party is currently thinking about adoption of their US concept to UK needs whereas 00Fremo has done it already. Furthermore there have been 8 FREMO members with experience in meetings and operations in early 2014 according to my memberlist. FREMO is not dying out though if the need of people with an interest in operations aren't cared for in the future RMweb modular standards.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[cromptonnut]

Felix, thanks for the explanation.

 

I think one of the big issues is the one you point out - most of us in the UK have never seen, nor experienced Fre(e)mo or a similar modular setup in OO simply because effectively for UK modellers there isn't one.

 

If someone is into American N, for example, they'll have most likely amassed some stock and built a layout of their own.  Then in either reading the American layout section on RMWeb (which, if you're not interested in you probably haven't looked at, very similar to British OO modellers may not have looked at the British O or P4 sections) they will eventually have come across talk of a modular layout, or perhaps seen it in a magazine (again if you have no interest in American N you aren't likely to buy American modelling magaznes).  By your own admission modular setups at exhibitions are also fairly rare, again perhaps at specialist American model shows which 'the average modeller' may not bother to go to.

 

But either way, if you have an interest in American model railroading, you'll come across the modular meet ups.  You may find there's a meet not far from you in a few months time so you make contact with the organisers (predominantly because it's an "exhibition" - I accept the points made that it's not open to the general public so not really an exhibition in the traditional sense) and perhaps have a good time.  You may find yourself "playing trains" on a stranger's module, and 'get' the concept, going home all fired up and ready to build your own contributions in time for the next meetup, having signed up with the group organisers to join their e-mailing list.

 

You may go along, think it's an interesting concept, enjoy yourself, but as you don't personally have that much of an interest in American modelling, pursue it no further.

 

You may think "hey this is fun" but come to conclusion that "the rules" are far too complicated for the build of a module, perhaps beyond your skill level or even just too much of an annoyance to make you want to get involved in the first place ("you used Phillips screws and not flathead screws, that's not to specification").

 

Of course, the people there may be all slightly odd and the attitude of "we are the only proper modellers, everyone else is playing trains (even though we are too but don't like to admit it)" and put off from pursuing it further.  I'm sure we've all come across "that sort of person" before.

 

But I suppose it's like trying a new sport or a new beer at the local pub.  Unless you 'have a go' or see it first-hand, no amount of posting on forums is really going to get "buy-in" from people, you have to experience it for yourself to decide whether you like it or not.

 

Hence the catch-22 situation.  If "it" (in this case a set of adopted UK modular standards) hasn't been defined, then people can't "have a go" to see if they like it and thus build their own modules to join to something that, effectively, doesn't exist yet.

 

What is needed, once the discussions are done and the "specification" nailed down by Andy Y (if, in fact, after 24 pages the temptation to give up hasn't hit) and a small group of people start to build basic modules, arrange a meet somewhere (whether at a large national show although admittedly this is very risky for a first time assembly, or a few village halls around the country so you get groups-of-groups) and then at least people will get that chance. 

[PaulRhB]

Yep Andy was intrigued and came to see the Armitage meet and hence this. Several of the modules there belong to people who model US and UK which is why GloriousNSE, Roundhouse etc see the potential too. Looking beyond your own modelling focus is the main reason I use the view new content as my major way of reading RMweb as it helps pickup stuff you'd never actively search for. I've exhibited with UK, Swiss, German, American and a whimsical UK layouts of friends and mine for the last few years and I'm used to odd people going it's foreign or toy town and walking on. Dismissing it without looking at the detail means you can miss something truly inspirational. Scenic techniques, clever traversers and turntables are ideas I've stored away for future use on viewing recent layouts at shows that have no relation to my own focus.

This may well be slow to start up and one reason the initial meet or two being a RMweb meets as well will help. Bring in those not particularly interested but curious to have a go on a small setup of say 3-4 stations would be enough to see how it works.

[cromptonnut]

I have asked the question in the SECAG area group forum for an "expression of interest" and, if there are sufficient members in our area showing an interest then hopefully we can document our progress and when we get to a point where we are happy with what we have, be more than happy for people who are willing to travel to wherever we are meeting to come along by invitation even if you are outside our catchment area and/or not wishing to join in with SECAG's other activities.

 

Regardless of my own concerns and scepticisms so far (in absence of a defined standard), once things are agreed I will commit to building at least one "plain track" module to help things along with the SECAG modular arrangement.

[Kenton]

 

I'd be much less impressed if somebody turned up with a newbuild module to a random width with a random track location...

That excludes me then ...

 

 

If you want to make your modules wider or narrower than what the recommendations say then you are still welcome to the community as long as the compatibility is guaranteed.

That's me included then ...

 

No wonder even I am confused.

 

... and that is from two "insiders" with knowledge and experience.

 

One small point FelixM, I have very little concern about operation mainly because I see that as fairly separate from the subject of module standards. However, your answers on operation have made the concept much clearer.

[cromptonnut]

One of the ways I think I would develop this would be "modules" as being "self contained sections of boards" or, in fact, self contained layouts.  As long as the extreme ends of the set of (say) three 4ft boards match "the standard" then there's no reason not do more or less "do what you want" within that section so if we stick to a single track at the middle of an 18 inch wide board (for example)  you could then expand out to where the middle of a three board "module" becomes 24 inches wide, with a three platform plus bay station.  Perhaps that's what FelixM means?

 

Maybe we are confusing the term "module" to mean "individual board" whereas every single board being a single track with a straight track in a specific place would actually be very boring indeed, not to mention operationally very restrictive.

[Scottish Modeller]

Hi all,

 

A follow up to my previous postings…

 

As I said, I have experienced the process and thoughts that is gone through when deciding about following a particular standard.

 

In particular with freemo – we went through a painful and extended process that got the group I was in totally disheartened from being very interested.

 

In the end – the group broke up as it wasn’t possible to work with the freemo standards as they were/are.

It seemed that every time we came up with a change that we felt was needed to either improve the operation of or the standards themselves – we hit a brick wall.

 

One of the things we wanted to change was for curved boards to incorporate a degree of transition from the straight modules into the curve sections.

 

As part of this we would have needed to increase the track spacing at the board ends and into the curves to allow for longer stock and for improved visual looks when using them.

 

We came to grief over this as we were met with a blanket response of ‘no you can’t do that – you have the standards and you just need to work within them’.

 

This was the point at which we just gave up on the idea and moved onto other things.

 

As per my recent response – Scottish Modellers are now looking to establish a set of standards for our current and future layouts.

 

If anyone is interested I can post up the initial ideas we had about this - on a seperate thread so as not to hijack this one.

 

Thanks

[PaulRhB]

 That excludes me then ...

 

 That's me included then ...

 

No wonder even I am confused.

 

 

I actually think they both say the same thing, Martyn and Felix both make the point that the interface has to be compatible but what happens a few inches back doesn't matter.

My board that connects my U shape shunting area into the Freemo setup has a faceplate longer than 18" on one end as it transitions straight to the junction leading off to the non standard shunting bit. By making that faceplate long enough to attach to a single or double track module plus some extra too I knew it would work in the majority of cases. It did create a minor planning issue for Martyn as any board that then instantly spreads over 2 ft wide would have interfered with the spur, as a result I'm extending it on that end to eliminate the possibility of a clash. The experiment with the two actual Freemo boards cost me around £30, it was a success and so now I'm happy to spend more on it to sort out potential problems. I'm also making two short bridge pieces so the U shape shunting area can be pushed out a foot to ease tight spots in aisles which we did by moving one straight module in at Armitage.

While my initial design did limit the position relative to other wide modules the plans had to be submitted a month prior to the meeting so it was planned to fit in the best position. The advantage was that it offered something different to the more common through 'stations'.

 

Some ideas on adapting existing layout ends

Edited July 20, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Kenton]

 

I actually think they both say the same thing

 

Not where I am sitting. Martyn is saying a very precise end plate (even profile) MUST be used - only those using that specification will be allowed in his module group. So must be a proscribed width and track in the middle.

 

FelixM is saying anyone can join in as long as it connects. So any width and track position variable.

 

Although I take your point about adding an interface board, I think this is completely NOT essential. All you are doing is forcing everyone to comply with Martyn's view of the module world. That might be a nice thing to have but is not a standard.

 

My proposed 25.3 inch module end with the track at 11 inches from the front will connect to FelixM's world (because of the attitude that we will make it work) but not to Martyn's world as he doesn't want anyone who does not comply to his rigid end plate standard.

[PaulRhB]

As a planner it makes life much easier when they do fit so aiming for close as possible to the standard is always best. Yes Martyn can and does accommodate slight differences but a free for all by all module builders would severely limit the plan and cause delay in setting up. My solution with one of my 45° boards was accommodated in exactly that way but I can now see why it makes life harder so I'm adding a shorty 6 or 12 inch board to fix it, it is separate and won't make the board any harder to transport but it does solve the limiting factor on that join.

No one had a tape measure out and there were slight jumps at the ends of 1/2 inch or so but they were only apparent close up and it all worked.

There's no reason you can't drill Freemo holes in the flat end plate as long as you stick to the 75-100mm deep spec beneath the track so a clamp can get a good grip. The adjusting of the feet got the alignment right so the clamp took no load.

To be honest if people got the legs to the right height with adjustable feet I'd be happy to build a couple of extra adaptor boards of 12" long with a bridge at one end to meet whatever end you had as I can use them in future too. If it saves people risking £20 to see if they like it and can use their layout as is it saves the argument

Edited July 20, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

In the 5 hours since I asked the question in the SECAG area, 6 of us have expressed an interest in attempting something modular once standards have been defined.

[FelixM]

In brief Kenton got me right.

 

Common FREMO practice is to have a recommended width to satisfy all those aiming for aesthetics, but not to have a MUST width to which all has to be. I have found no better photo in the short time, it is N gauge (Great-BritN) and the difference in width from the station and the plain line module in the background is just 10 cm / 4 inch, but it may help to demonstrate the idea:

Edit: There is an abrupt slope to flat profile to be seen in the background. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of having different end profiles.

 

One small point FelixM, I have very little concern about operation mainly because I see that as fairly separate from the subject of module standards. However, your answers on operation have made the concept much clearer.

 

I have had the feeling that some folk discussing here wanted to join some sort of stand-alone layouts to have a bigger one, but without knowing what to actually do after the setup (in terms of operation). Willem has said he had no idea why to do so, I haven't either, noone in this thread has have, noone from the Freemo gang and additionally noone with 30 years of FREMO experience. So the chances that Andy Y will come and tell us why are little IMO. However I tried to demonstrate what the fun in FREMO is all about and that rules and standards are just there to ensure that the aims are reached.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 20, 2014 by FelixM

[FelixM]

In the 5 hours since I asked the question in the SECAG area, 6 of us have expressed an interest in attempting something modular once standards have been defined.

 

An active promoter of a modular group is more worth than his weight in gold.

 

Felix

Edited July 20, 2014 by FelixM

[cromptonnut]

If each of us so far in SECAG expressing an interest follow through with it and can make a meet in our area, building just two 4ft long boards each... thats 48ft already.

Edited July 20, 2014 by cromptonnut