British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Andy Reichert]

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

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

What you actually need to be certain of is the minimum radius which allows the longest, widest passenger coaches to safely pass each other on the intersection of a double track curve module and a double track straight module. No transition curves.

 

If you have anyone expecting to run working corridor connections, you might have to modify that further.

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

I realize that couplers have been excluded from the standard proposals so far. But, if the min radii are fixed by the PECO turnouts equivalents, then those participants using buffers might experience buffer lock on some crossovers.

 

Andy

[kevinlms]

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

 

Sorry, but should not obvious 'mistakes' be pointed out? Some might take the view that we want to learn by our own mistakes, but others have good reason to expect that if someone knew that it was going pear-shaped, only to be told later, 'Oh, I knew that was wrong, but thought you might like to work out why we don't do it that way'. In other words, wasting their time & energy and putting off. No one likes a smart***e.

 

FWIW Kenton, you offer lots of (correct) advice on wiring layouts, especially regarding the advantages of correctly wiring live frog points, as opposed to 'bodging' the job - relying on point blade against stock rail contact or (gasp), using insulfrog points.

 

How is this different?

 

As far as I can see, Felix & several others have given their collective opinion as to why they're suggesting building modules the way they are. Their advice can be taken or ignored (almost all of it, IS going to be ignored, it seems) and there is nothing wrong with that. The point is, those who advocate NOT building to those suggested standards, then perhaps later find out they were wrong, won't need Felix & others to tell them "I told you so", which would be plain childish.

 

Don't think I agree with everything that Felix & others say, because I for one, can't see the alleged advantage of a 'layout master' deciding which way around a module, or group thereof, is to be viewed from. But that (100% reversible modules) seems to be an essential part of existing European standards.

[Steve-e]

. KISS folks, KISS!! 

Hopefully I'm not the only one who thought what ???(what??? also = OMG WTH!!)   and as I've seen it a few times in this thread I had to google it    .

 

It means Keep It Simple Stupid or at least I think so if there is some other meaning in the modular world please share with us 

 

from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

 

Hope that helps some out....

 

Steve

Edited July 27, 2014 by Steve-e

[Kenton]

 

Don't think I agree with everything that Felix & others say, because I for one, can't see the alleged advantage of a 'layout master' deciding which way around a module, or group thereof, is to be viewed from. But that (100% reversible modules) seems to be an essential part of existing European standards.

I believe I did say way back near the start - all input is welcome. throw in advice and sure qualify with experience but do not try to instil one agenda on what I see as something new. We have two sets of very specific but in many ways different prospectus. The best of it should be very carefully distilled to bring forth a new set of minimalist standards for BritishOO modules. Every proposed/established standard should be interrogated as to why it should be an absolute standard or merely a recommendation.

 

From what I have seen of the Fre(e)mo standards they have degenerated into pages of sections and subsections with no one questioning why or what does this do to inclusivity. It has become a bit of a club of module introverts.

 

We may end up in the same place eventually - but I'd like to believe that we can do it different and find a way around issues rather than trying to impose them.

[PaulRhB]

I realize that couplers have been excluded from the standard proposals so far. But, if the min radii are fixed by the PECO turnouts equivalents, then those participants using buffers might experience buffer lock on some crossovers.

Andy

 

If whoever organises a meeting specifies 3 link couplings then that's something to consider, personally I suspect tension lock and their wire versions will be most popular or possibly kadees for some modern meetings. That's why it needs someone in charge if a meet to make decisions not leaving it to a committee on the day

 

 

 

As far as I can see, Felix & several others have given their collective opinion as to why they're suggesting building modules the way they are. Their advice can be taken or ignored (almost all of it, IS going to be ignored, it seems) and there is nothing wrong with that. The point is, those who advocate NOT building to those suggested standards, then perhaps later find out they were wrong, won't need Felix & others to tell them "I told you so", which would be plain childish.

 

Don't think I agree with everything that Felix & others say, because I for one, can't see the alleged advantage of a 'layout master' deciding which way around a module, or group thereof, is to be viewed from. But that (100% reversible modules) seems to be an essential part of existing European standards.

Andys standards are very close to the RS tower ones with adaptions for UK he's included so although simpler it isn't a completely new direction.

As I said above an Organiser, build or layout master specifying the era, arrangement and couplings will massively simplify getting set up and making it work. That part is common to Fremo and Freemo and is just good organisation.

 

As an example:-

Nick suggested the RMweb Freemo meet, he booked the hall, collected monies and bought the catering supplies.

Martyn collated the module details and planned the layout, collated the stock required from each participant and loco id's.

Peter & Martyn worked the dispatching desk using a PC programme to generate trains and give authority to enter block sections, (timetabling and Signalling for UK)

Melvin was build master checking they were assembled to the plan so it fit and making the decision on any last minute alterations when the paper plan was a bit tight.

Neil linked up the jump cables and dcc supply plus the control bus with existing, (built into people's modules), or temporary X-pressnet panels dotted around.

 

Then we followed the plan and had a very good weekend

Some pre organisation will stop a meeting descending into chaos, people can suggest improvements for the second day or the next meeting, this is going on by email with the US version. Some minor compromise may be necessary but all of us are free to organise a meeting and try it our way.

I'm currently investigating adding alternate power Bus and a Lenz friendly x-pressnet panel system to my Z21 to make it available without relying on smartphones. It will cost a bit but then my layout can be adapted to fit the standard so that money is already spent leaving me to invest a bit towards this as I've seen it work and know my system could be a backup for UK or US RMweb meets

[Satan's Goldfish]

No I think he wants us to kiss and make up........

 

I believe the inside curve of Peco curved points is a 30 inch radius, I agree with the radius suggestions by Andy but also the comment that modules can be tighter than this and labled somehow as such (restriction A!) as my 'junction' module would incorporate Peco curved points on a mainline but the average radius would be 36 inches.

[Suzie]

I don't get this 36" vs 24" radius problem. It's not a problem, even long wheel-based 6-axle US diesels (AC4400's et all) will negotiate 18" effortlessly If any UK stock needs more then 18" radius, it's not suitable for modular use Again, it's another thing that distracts from the "as-many-people-as-we-can-include" standard Andy aims for. KISS folks, KISS!! Don't complicate things too much, just start building, especially if you want to miss the Commonwealth Games

 

It is not about running US stock or light engines without buffers designed for set track - it is about running UK stock with buffers and corridor connectors that look better close coupled, and if the minimum radius is larger they will look better because they are closer coupled.

[Andy Reichert]

No I think he wants us to kiss and make up........

 

I believe the inside curve of Peco curved points is a 30 inch radius, I agree with the radius suggestions by Andy but also the comment that modules can be tighter than this and labled somehow as such (restriction A!) as my 'junction' module would incorporate Peco curved points on a mainline but the average radius would be 36 inches.

 

If the standards minimum mainline radius was 36", then you couldn't comply with a 30" radius curved point if the 30" radius part was in the mainline.

 

A mostly 40" radius curve with a short section of 6" radius in it wouldn't work for anyone, even though the average radius was greater than 36"

 

Andy

Edited July 27, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[PaulRhB]

Well you could if there was a speed restriction on the crossover.
We have several crossovers at Salisbury with 5-15 mph restriction in the Station area and between Up and Down lines at Laverstock.
Just put a note on the diagram saying prohibited for passenger trains

Edited July 27, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Clive Mortimore]

Mr Reichert

 

You have stated that you would not be joining us here in the UK with your modules so I do not think your wonderfully built kit locos that will not traverse anything less than a scale 4 chains curve will have any problems with buffer locking on our train set curves, so please stop worrying.

[The Stationmaster]

What you actually need to be certain of is the minimum radius which allows the longest, widest passenger coaches to safely pass each other on the intersection of a double track curve module and a double track straight module. No transition curves.

 

If you have anyone expecting to run working corridor connections, you might have to modify that further.

 

Andy

Our experience at taunton is that ideally curves need transitions as we have found going from tangent (straight) track on one module straight into a curve on the next can present problems.  Ideally the transition needs to be accommodated within the module with the curve so that boundary with the next module is straight track on both modules.  This will of course also help with sorting the clearance issue on double track as the whole of the curve is within the control of a particular module builder (however he/she might arrange the number of separate boards making up their curved/corner module).

 

Can I also make a BIG plea somewhere among this ever longer discussion are some emerging standards - can they please be pinned (and amended as changes emerge) at the top if this thread, if that is at all possible, as it is increasingly difficult to find them?

[PaulRhB]

Mike, a new topic will appear from what Andy said. I suspect on a work day though rather than a day off, if there is such a thing for the mods on here

In the meantime it's in my signature, page 25 post 610

[Steve-e]

Mike, a new topic will appear from what Andy said. I suspect on a work day though rather than a day off, if there is such a thing for the mods on here

In the meantime it's in my signature, page 25 post 610

 

 

and now also Page 38 post 929

[PaulRhB]

What you actually need to be certain of is the minimum radius which allows the longest, widest passenger coaches to safely pass each other on the intersection of a double track curve module and a double track straight module.

 

Ok organisers another one for the note file, Clearance guru, here's my nomination with his toolbox.

 

Edited July 27, 2014 by PaulRhB

[ZiderHead]

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

 

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

[Stubby47]

If a module ( comprising of one or more boards) is made for a single track set up, how long should any passing loop be ?

 

I'm guessing a tender loco + 3 coaches would be the maximim length needed, but are there any other suggestions ?

[Kenton]

 

Why not minimum 60" for mainline

Do Peco do a range of 60" radius points?

 

 

Its not about trying to squeeze a layout into a spare room or garden shed.

... oh no - here we go again - it is not a layout ... No it is a BritishOO module that can be used at home as well if you want to.

 

 

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

But they do need to be able to cope with the number of participants, their transport and access. Clean loos please!

 

 

If a module (comprising of one or more boards) is made for a single track set up, how long should any passing loop be ?

I would guess this needs to be variable and will depend on sizes of modules and the planning ability of the group design to join up available single into double track modules and double track modules. Some short loops could add some really good shunting interest and timetabling. Edited July 27, 2014 by Kenton

[jcm@gwr]

With respect to the length of passing loops, etc. I guess it's how you

perceive a branch line. Is it feeding an industrial area, is it in an urban

commuter belt or is it a Colonel Stephens style branch line.

 

Each of those would need a different approach/style/build quality.

Not forgetting the holiday resort branch, where, at first glance, the

loops would be way to big, but were put in for that manic 2 week

period!

 

I suppose that ideal solution would be to build the loop over 3 small

boards (making 1 module), then you could use the outer boards for

a light use branch, adding the centre board to increase capacity if

it was deemed necessary.

 

Jeff

[cromptonnut]

Perhaps people making double track stations can make small additional single to double converters so depending on how your module is fitted into the overall plan on the day so you can, for example, go single to double through the station and continue double the other end, or back to single. 2ft and a Y point should be plenty.

[Andy Hayter]

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

I disagreed on post #144 as you stated My comment above refers to Radius 1 points.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

I think the error is yours K.  Peco points  small radius (radius 1 if you will) is nominal 24 inches radius.  Pukka radius 4 (H,B,R) is somewhat less.

 

Dutch master - I accept that much modern image (even 00 rather than HO as per your example) will negotiate 18 inch radius or smaller, but if we look at typical British steam locos with a leading bogie, then either we have to cut out bits of the outside cylinder (which in some case we have so carefully replaced after the manufacturer left them off, and/or we have to put leading footsteps back onto the bogie, where the manufacturer thought we would like them, rather than on the footplate, which is where the actual railway company thought it would be best to fit them.

 

 

In the end it is down to what we want.  If it is modular train set, then I have some sub 1ft Triang pre-ballasted curves.  If it is modular model railway, then we should perhaps be a little more discerning - and perhaps more inclusive.

[Glorious NSE]

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.

 

Our experience - minimum curvature is a tradeoff - we ended up dropping ours to 3' which is considerably less than the specs we distilled from - why?

 

Whilst bigger curves are undoubtably nicer, there are always practical limits to what folk can do, a 3' 45deg curve module can be constructed on one baseboard of manageable size, and a pair of them (so 90deg of curvature) can then be easily transported in an average car. The bigger your curve radius, the bigger the modules* that need to support that curve, and the fewer can be built and transported by a finite number of participants...

 

3' has worked well for us, though as somebody said up-thread, that's with knuckle couplers and no buffers (though probably bigger train lengths...)

 

Remember, it's a minimum though, there's nothing to stop anyone going out and building a 60", or 70", or 200" radius curve if that's what they want to do...

 

(*Or alternatively the lower the degree of curvature attained...)

Edited July 27, 2014 by Glorious NSE

[cromptonnut]

Is 'inclusive' for all or some? That's the balance. Should we try to accomodate the odd person who might occasionally bring along a scratchbuilt Garratt that needs 10ft radius or the 90% using rtr stock mostly happy on radius 2 curves?

[Kenton]

 

Peco points  small radius (radius 1 if you will) is nominal 24 inches radius.  Pukka radius 4 (H,B,R) is somewhat less.

Pukka? I thought the idea was to base BritishOO standards on Peco track?

[Andy Reichert]

Mr Reichert

 

You have stated that you would not be joining us here in the UK with your modules so I do not think your wonderfully built kit locos that will not traverse anything less than a scale 4 chains curve will have any problems with buffer locking on our train set curves, so please stop worrying.

I said I would not ship Oceano over. Who knows what I will be doing a year in the future.

 

As I am a handicapped British OAP, does this mean you would not help me across the street either?