British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Talltim]

Reversible modules may seem a nice concept, but in practice very few will be truly build that way. Most will have either a preference side or a clear/obvious front side. I've outlined some proposals in this respect, back on page 25, message 611, directly below Andy's proposals Very few participants have commented on these back then, but the matter continues to be discussed debated argued over.

I'm going to disagree on that point. Obviously there are module groups (I'm not going to say standards) who have have gone for modules that are handed, e.g. the ones mentioned earlier in the thread which are self contained, with back-scenes and ends, but most seems to have embraced the reversibility as one of the key USPs of building modular layouts. 

[Kenton]

 

Red&black come from the NMRA standards for wiring decoders.

Who are the NMRA and what relevance have THEY to BritishOO! and for that matter wiring of decoders has nothing to do with wiring of layouts/modules.

 

Yes, it practice it doesn't matter one iota which colour the isolation has

So we do agree.

 

red+black may be available as common mains cable in Europe but in the UK brown+blue was adopted years ago. Note: I am not saying that brown+blue should be adopted here for modules - I'm only saying that it doesn't matter what is used.

 

 

Reversible modules may seem a nice concept, but in practice very few will be truly build that way. Most will have either a preference side or a clear/obvious front side.

I'm also going to disagree with you on commonly reversible modules. They are the simplest form to build and I suspect very few module designs cannot be reversible. Even a straightforward active module - a singgle to double junction can be reversed by the addition of another similar one reversed, or left as a siding off the single line through. (remember width is irrelevant so the 25mm - half double track separation - offset is no big deal) For most new to modules a simple module is a quick easy and cheap way-in to modules. If we end up with too many they are easy to discard/ignore/bring to the next meeting.

 

I also subscribe to cromptonnut's ideal that one plain module is built for every active module - for those that can and wish to do so.

[Glorious NSE]

Gaugemaster boosters are 8A so limiting to 5A eliminates using a MRC/Gaugemaster control system for a start. It is reasonable to say that 10A will be the max in order to be inclusive.

 

 

Then I apologise - I wasn't aware of their product as MRC have an appalling reputation in the bit of the hobby I frequent!

 

The precise current figure that will be used is not important, what is important is minimising voltage drop because of the large number if interconnections that are likely to be used. You do not want to be in a situation where trains start to slow or stall because of voltage drop in some of the modules. I suspect that boosters will not be particularly easy to obtain in large quantities for meets with most DCC operators not using separate boosters on their home systems so employing good DCC practice when wiring modules is going to be imperative in practice. Having to fit extra boosters to ostensibly plain track sections will be a chore - you want to feed where the concentrations of locos are likely to be

 

 

We'd never put extra boosters just for a stretch of plain track...and yes, we'd work on there being boosters to support bits of the layout where concentrations of loco's are likely.

 

A stretch of plain track is not going to give you serious current draw unless you forsee incredibly long runs of plain track?

 

We probably need to draw on the experience of European meets - how many metres between booster feeds on European setups? With fifteen people coming together for a UK meet each with an activity module and a straight module you are going to be hard pressed to find more than one booster between them for about 120' of run - they are very rarely needed for home layouts nowadays. Setting good wiring standards will minimise any need for boosters.

 

 

Even in a situation where you have 120' of run and only one booster input, if you set it up right then your max length to worry about is about 60', which from experience will not give you a problems in it's own right.

 

I'd personally want that much layout split anyhow, to minimise the disruption when somebody shorts it!

 

I suspect that you will need to allow 250mA per running non sound loco, but how much for each sound loco running or not? average current consumption is likely to rise in time with increased use of sound and lighting - this is a new specification and it can be future proofed now with good practice that does not really cost anything. Plan for the extremes and everything else will just work.

 

If you need more power due to more demand you will eventually need more than the one booster. There's a limit to how much you can acheive just by minimising your losses.

 

A couple of lit and sound fitted 14-car MLV/GUV/CEP/BEP/CEP boat trains passing on a SouthEastern setup would probably draw a fair bit of current alone with eight motors between them as an example of things likely being a bit different in UK modular world from other areas.

I'm sorry, British is totally different. What was I thinking. American modelling never ever features multiple sound fitted loco's on a train!

[cromptonnut]

Thanks for the standards post - a tad confused about track. Peco code 75 at board ends fine but does it mean we can't use code 100 - ie the 'equal' 3 way points - inbetween?

 

I understand not using code 40, for example... but do you mean 75 minimum or maximum?

[Andy Y]

Thanks for the standards post - a tad confused about track. Peco code 75 at board ends fine but does it mean we can't use code 100 - ie the 'equal' 3 way points - inbetween?

 

I understand not using code 40, for example... but do you mean 75 minimum or maximum?

 

I think the easiest thing is to say 'compatible with'. I know as long as rail heights are matched it shouldn't be an issue but anyone using code 40 would soon find some items appearing that would render their module incompatible. I don't see someone using Code 100 as a deal-breaker but it would be preferable to go with similar appearances (please note I've kept sleeper spacing out of it!).

[Suzie]

I've looked at "booster units" - although I have no need for one myself for any of my DCC layouts I did consider buying one simply for "modular setup usage" but they all appear to be over £100 which is money I suspect many of us could easily spend elsewhere.  I have a Lenz setup at home but assume that any booster could be used with any system as it's two wires in, two wires out?

 

As well as thepower input (U and V on Lenz), inputs (C and D on Lenz) and outputs (J and K on Lenz) you also have a common wire of some sort to prevent asymmetrical pickup locos stalling at the break between booster sections when they will take current from one booster and return it via another. On Lenz this is the inverted T terminal next to K that has to be commoned across all boosters, but on other systems it can be one of the track wires or one of the power input wires. On some systems commoning can involve loosing a case screw and using that as a common terminal - it varies a bit between makes but only one method should be used. The other wire to worry about is the overload detection (E on Lenz) which informs the command station that an overload has occured. On modular setups this will probably be left disconnected to prevent total system shutdown in the event of an overload.

[cromptonnut]

I don't see someone using Code 100 as a deal-breaker but it would be preferable to go with similar appearances (please note I've kept sleeper spacing out of it!).

Agreed. The 3 way code 100 point is a great space saver.

[Suzie]

I'm sorry, British is totally different. What was I thinking. American modelling never ever features multiple sound fitted loco's on a train! 

 

North American has moved on recently and you might find a train with eighty sound fitted reefer cars gobbling up the juice now even more than twenty four lit coaches, but American trains will tend to meet at an interlocking where there is likely to be a power feed whereas British trains will probably be passing out in open country with the greater likelihood of double track. :-)

[Shadow]

Agreed. The 3 way code 100 point is a great space saver.

 

Peco also do a 3 way code 75 version

 

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Track-templates/c75/SL-E199%20plan%20sheet.pdf

[cromptonnut]

HI Shadow,  I was aware of the code 75 three way but as you'll see from the plan it's a very different beast from the code 100 one.  I don't know why they don't do the code 75 in that style as well.

[Andy Reichert]

 Who are the NMRA and what relevance have THEY to BritishOO!

The NMRA track and wheel standards are the one Hornby and Bachmann build your 00 models to.

[PaulRhB]

One problem with using an 8 amp booster on OO is you can zap your track with 8 amps which means anyone relying on point blades for contact rather than wiring specifically to dcc could find a short literally blows out a bit of rail. It's designed to be used on the heavier large scale track. That was why I'm looking into splitting the output from my 8 amp booster using lower rated circuit breakers but need to find ones that will work with the Uhlenbrock way of having a common wire.

Uhlenbrock specifically say do not use the 8 amp booster on HO & OO.

Edited July 30, 2014 by PaulRhB

[cromptonnut]

Maybe the NMRA only dictates things to us because we in the UK don't have a "national body for railway modelling"?

 

Until now if you wanted to model modular in the UK you had to adopt an American or continental standard.  Now we have a UK standard established that will grow in the next year or so.  Perhaps it's time we thought about a UK body to represent us instead of simply following an American standard?

[Steve-e]

I've started 3 new topics in the Modular section where we can share images of the Real thing to provide Inspiration for Modules.

 

At the moment there are Modular  Inspiration – Track, Scenery and Industry there are probably more such as stations, depots etc... so if anyone has any photos that you think would make a good module or inspiration for a module then please add to them so we can get some ideas shared.

 

 

Cheers

Steve   

[trisonic]

Moving along quite nicely.

Rome wasn’t built in a day - this is your opportunity to get it right for the years to come.

 

The NMRA still has a lot of uses (from one who was but is no longer a member) like wheel “standards” etc. Pick and choose what you want to use.

 

Best, Pete.

[cromptonnut]

Question... is there a standard - or opinion - on underlay and if so what depth?

 

I've tended not to bother and just lay track straight on the wood (wherever it may be) and I know the standard defines height of rail top above ground ... however I'm not sure whether a "lip" between modules that do and don't have underlay would make a difference.

 

Anyone have any opinions ... or have I missed a decision?

[PaulRhB]

The Freemo boys used 3mm or 1/8inch underlay but the lip will be minimal so I wouldn't worry too much about it if you don't get on with it. I would say though not the soft Peco foam as it doesn't stop vertical movement like cork or the harder foams do.

Edited July 31, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Kenton]

 

Question... is there a standard - or opinion - on underlay and if so what depth?

 

I asked an associated question earlier to do with: should the track bed be on top of or flush with the top of the end board.

 

It was met with the same response - the clamping will take care of that. - I cant say I disagree, but aesthetically it will make quite a difference. 9mm of board + track underlay/cork.

 

As I haven't yet decided which way - flush or on top - I'm still open to an additional "recommendation" soon in the specification. There are pros and cons either way, but could make a difference to those of us who intend to landscape more than the flat plains of IdahoLincolnshire

 

As for underlay - I'll be using the usual (self adhesive) cork tiles - if I can find them.

Edited July 31, 2014 by Kenton

[Kenton]

 

Oh dear, what's the world coming to: I've clicked an Agree to Kenton's post

Ah but which part were you agreeing to ?

 

Does the Fre(e)mo bibles have a - short - opinion on the matter? I am only a day or two away from laying track bed.

[Doc Robin]

I was planning on 3mm or 1/8th balsa or cork track bed, depending on what's available.

 

Robin

[FelixM]

In FREMO the end boards are there because it is not needed to add something on top. Between the two end profiles the track can be laid on cork which is embedded on a slightly lower wooden structure.

 

Felix

[Talltim]

It doesn't matter, the clamping will take care of it No, really, the disparity between two modules, one with the trackbed on top and one with the trackbed flush will show at the lower edge of the module join, not on the scenic surface. Add this to the fact that the end depth is only a recommendation. If you feel strongly about it, and want a four inch high end and the trackbed to rest on top of it, simply make the bit of wood for the end 4 inches minus the trackbed thickness high

Edit: I'm sure Paul's already done this drawing, but I'm not searching through 45 pages to find it!

Edited July 31, 2014 by Talltim

[Glorious NSE]

Does the Fre(e)mo bibles have a - short - opinion on the matter? I am only a day or two away from laying track bed.

 

The two have two different approaches. Ours uses a plain rectangular end, so the track bed goes on top of that rectangular end. Fremo uses custom shaped ends, they by design already include the shape of the track bed.

 

I don't think a OO preference has been stated yet...

[PaulRhB]

A bit of foliage net to cover any difference if it worries you. I'd recommend a base to simulate ballast shoulder as even branchlines usually had a discernible one. Only very poorly drained track and industrial lines tended to sink flat into the land. Ian found that he had to trim some of the grass on his overgrown siding as the fibres were getting flattened onto the track and causing contact problems.

I'm using SMP track so the sleepers are flatter which I'll need to accommodate on the adaptor board.

[Kenton]

 

It doesn't matter, the clamping will take care of it

Yes we are aware of that - and is the reason why clamping (as opposed to bolts was adopted I guess)

But that drawing remains wrong. We are not just discussing track bed (the thickness of the board chosen eg 9mm but also the addition of the additional layer of foam/cork (eg 3mm). The rail tops will always clamp at the same height but the differences in the thickness of board will then make a difference at the landscape join. One person might use 3mm MDF - well supported and no underlay the next module may use 12mm ply and 4mm foam a big difference!

 

I am stressing I am looking not for an absolute standard but a general recommendation because this has nothing to do with operation just aesthetics.