British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[cromptonnut]

I know this is going to be a question that is going to raise discussion so I apologise in advance... but ... what recommended minimum radius for curves?

[PaulRhB]

Personally I'd prefer "insulfrog or electrofrog", "code 75 or code 100" (as long as the rail tops are flush) as I have a mixture of OO track I can use up.

 

I also assume wooden, concrete or steel flexitrack is perfectly acceptable? On the basis that we aren't going to be able to (at least I hope) prevent people running mixed era and region stock alongside each other (although I would hope that most modellers would attempt to at least model accurate trains ie not a class 66 pulling private owner wagons) we don't need to stick to wooden sleeper all the way through?

No whatever is appropriate to your model goes Andy said code 75 or it must be compatible so if you're worried just make sure it's code 75 at the end.

As to multi period I think there would be a guide to period even if it changes over the weekend or day. You might see some strange inter regional mixes but as you focus on your train and wagons are fairly inter regional it will work. To cover a period all you need is enough stock to run it so you will probably find there's enough members with a few locos that will share them. As they don't have to come on and off all the time there's little handling. Certainly with a modern period I could supply 3-4 locos.

 

One thing not in the standard is the much debated couplings. Obviously 3 link and tension lock aren't inter compatible so that would need agreeing by whoever organises each meeting on the basis that as they organise it they choose

In reality fixed rakes with intermediate non standard couplings aren't an issue.

Edited July 20, 2014 by PaulRhB

[PaulRhB]

45deg and 90deg … err why? Real railways aren't arranged like that (apart from perhaps US city trams where the city is planned gridiron style).

Any angle will work as the curve of the module but ones that add up to 90° help fit it in a hall.

As I said above anything goes but having a few 90° turns of whatever size will help fit it in.

[Andy Y]

One thing not in the standard is the much debated couplings.

I was dodging that bullet.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Cheers Andy, I now have something to revise my unbuilt layout too and create adaptor boards for the ends of the long Warren Lane fiddle yard.

 

just 2 things which others have mentioned before we all dive in; can we agree on banana or 3.5mm jack connectors, and is width for double track boards going to remain 18in with potentially a 1in joggle if a double module is connected to a single or could double track ends ge 20in wide for this scenario? (This is where you get to say 'no. Andy has spoken!' )

 

cheers

[ZiderHead]

As I said above anything goes but having a few 90° turns of whatever size will help fit it in.

 

This sounds like the spare room layout mindset again - trying to fit as much track as possible into a restricted space. Check out the real railway again - no straight lines, no right angles!

[PaulRhB]

I was dodging that bullet.

I thought I passed the buck seemlessly to the organiser

I like it simple and the loading gauge diagram answers a lot too. So that's the Chunnel stock out . . .

[kevinlms]

Do modules get turned around in practice???

That's what I was wondering. Normally I suspect not, especially if a 'module' consisted of multiple boards. Any way it would be up to the builder to determine which way around he/she wanted the module(s) to be viewed.

[Gerald Henriksen]

The rest particularly provision of DCC control outlets seems very over complicated and confusing and a receipe for errors and complete misunderstanding. I am already aware of many DCC control systems out there and we should assume that there will be problems - I already use 2 different ones and have problems. Shouldn't this be simplified? Are operators really going to be following their assigned locos by plugging and unplugging their handsets? !!!

Couple of points:

 

1) some participants may prefer to use their own handset because it offers physical feedback (actual buttons/knobs) and they are familiar with it.

 

2) while unlikely, you can't assume wireless will work flawlessly. Particularly if at a large show there might be enough interference to make wireless unreliable.

[kevinlms]

Brilliant, at last something to start building to!

 

Without wishing to be the first smatrtar*e to want to change things, can you clarify the use of phono plugs and sockets as if modules are rotated through 180 degrees I would think you might change polarity on the track?

 

I had assumed you would have a banana plug and socket on each end which when reversed would still carry the correct power through each rail? - Or have I just had too much to drink???

Think of a piece of Set Track & the rail joiners on them. Reversing it changes nothing.

[Andy Y]

to the organiser

I must have missed school that day when the jobs were dished out.

[ZiderHead]

That's what I was wondering. Normally I suspect not, especially if a 'module' consisted of multiple boards. Any way it would be up to the builder to determine which way around he/she wanted the module(s) to be viewed.

 

Odds are any module will be viewed from both sides.

[PaulRhB]

That's what I was wondering. Normally I suspect not, especially if a 'module' consisted of multiple boards. Any way it would be up to the builder to determine which way around he/she wanted the module(s) to be viewed.

They turn in relation to each other a module can have multiple boards with the inner ends doing whatever you like it's the interface ends which have to be 'standard' in case it needs to go a different way round.

Here are some of the variations with my two 45° US boards.

[Gerald Henriksen]

That's what I was wondering. Normally I suspect not, especially if a 'module' consisted of multiple boards. Any way it would be up to the builder to determine which way around he/she wanted the module(s) to be viewed.

 

Modules in this style (Freemo) do not have a front or back.

 

Both sides are treated equally, and it should be assumed that the meet organizer can decide to orient your module either way - and for that matter any modules connecting to yours can be oriented either way.

[kevinlms]

Modules in this style (Freemo) do not have a front or back.

 

Both sides are treated equally, and it should be assumed that the meet organizer can decide to orient your module either way - and for that matter any modules connecting to yours can be oriented either way.

What you're really suggesting, is that the organiser COULD decide to orientate your module either way, but is unlikely to do so if the scenic finish on the module makes that impractical. I certainly don't see anything on Andy Y's proposals, determining that a module must be sceniced in such a way, that its fully reversible.

[kevinlms]

They turn in relation to each other a module can have multiple boards with the inner ends doing whatever you like it's the interface ends which have to be 'standard' in case it needs to go a different way round.

Here are some of the variations with my two 45° US boards.

image.jpg

Yes, that's how I understand it. The interface ends are what's important. The bit between the interfaces is what the builder desires.

[Gerald Henriksen]

What you're really suggesting, is that the organiser COULD decide to orientate your module either way, but is unlikely to do so if the scenic finish on the module makes that impractical. I certainly don't see anything on Andy Y's proposals, determining that a module must be sceniced in such a way, that its fully reversible.

 

Take a look at the layout plan that started this whole discussion - http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87788-modular-system-operation/ - and consider that the only practical way to run a train on a layout that can have junctions is for the operator to be able to access the module from either side.

 

Look at some of the Freemo layouts on Youtube, and note that they are frequently operated with people on both sides of the modules.

 

One of the key points of Freemo is that you can make up layouts that aren't constrained by pre-determined limits - things like a front/back don't work because you cannot predict how your module will fit into any given layout.

 

A module that is built in such a way that it can only be operated from one side is not going to fit into a Freemo style layout gathering.

[PaulRhB]

This sounds like the spare room layout mindset again - trying to fit as much track as possible into a restricted space. Check out the real railway again - no straight lines, no right angles!

Didn't suggest cramming it in anywhere, in fact using 90° corners meant we had aisles of 10-20ft at the freemo meet, and yes there's lots of 90° corners as well as any other angle you can think of.

Laverstock South Jn, Milford Curve and Redbridge Jn on my home patch all near 90° curves in one go.

If everyone only does 15° curves you won't fit a lot in unless you hire the long rope making sheds at Portsmouth or Chatham as most cheap to hire halls are around the size 30-50ft. We have to accept its a model railway and we do need to be able to fold it around a bit so branches clear each other.

 

Here's a good illustrative photo of the US style by Steve Williams showing a mix of angles from 30-90° proving it doesn't get cramped.

Edited July 21, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

There is of course no reason that 90 degree tight curves need to be fully scenic and visible; you could easily hide 'setrack curves' (or whatever the minimum radius is settled at) in a module designed as a tunnel, for example.

[cromptonnut]

Personally I like the idea of "double sided viewing, no backscene"

[Stubby47]

If you had a double track module, provided there were no crossovers, the 'backscene' could be placed between the tracks, so each side of the module could be a different scene.

[peter220950]

Think of a piece of Set Track & the rail joiners on them. Reversing it changes nothing.

No, I got that bit, it was what I had always assumed to be the logical way to plug and socket things together, it was the concept of a 'standard' making one rail black, and the other red which wouldn't work when you reverse the module that I couldn't follow.

 

I think it's now moved on to two sockets at each end and jack plug jumpers, which means the red/black can be established by the jumpers and track wiring colour under the individual module isn't relevant to the 'whole' layout.

[McRuss]

Hello Andy,

 

I agree with the others, that 4mm Banana plugs and sockets are prefarable.

With the 3.5mm phono plugs you can't turn the modules arround in the arrangement, without

extra adaptor cable.

 

Markus

[Satan's Goldfish]

Control wise, i personally have nothing to operate DCC so i am not familiar with what connections for controllers etc would be required if one of my modules happened to be a small terminating module. I understand the concept of wiring up the DCC bus to run through and can quite easily create an isolated DC system which can switch to the DCC bus for shunting, but would a lack of DCC controller connector create an issue even if the neighbouring module had one?

[cromptonnut]

Lack of a DCC controller shouldn't be a problem as most come with fairly long leads (or you can buy one) - Ebay shows 6 metre ones available without digging very far.  There is also an option of wireless control through some systems so you're then only limited by range from base station.