British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[ZiderHead]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

[Joseph_Pestell]

It does seem to be a "given" that with this standard we will be bringing rails right to the edge of the baseboard and then fixing them in some way (soldered to pins/screws, soldered to copperclad.....).

 

That does mean, for doubletrack, everyone working to fine tolerances with regard to the track centres being exactly 25mm each side of the 9" centreline of the module end. Is it not better to have some degree of movement available or, like the FFMF, short pieces of rail bridging a gap.

[Kenton]

 

That does mean, for doubletrack, everyone working to fine tolerances with regard to the track centres being exactly 25mm each side of the 9" centreline of the module end. Is it not better to have some degree of movement available or, like the FFMF, short pieces of rail bridging a gap.

We are not talking P4 type of measurements here (+/-0.01mm) the Peco double track plastic gauge thingy I believe is set at 50mm so using that should be adequate. +/-0.5mm (even 1mm) is not going to be too challenging or disruptive. If it is then one track becomes abandoned or a siding and used accordingly.

 

If it really is that critical then I'm sure some enterprising individual could make and sell us a suitable metal gauge. I really would vote against rail joiners between modules - very impracticable. And any short piece of track between modules just leave an unsupported gap for trains to fall down, will buckle under clamping of endplates and defeats the concept of modules.

[cromptonnut]

  We are not talking P4 type of measurements here (+/-0.01mm) the Peco double track plastic gauge thingy I believe is set at 50mm so using that should be adequate.

 

http://www.ehattons.com/13191/Peco_Products_SL_36_6ft_Way_Gauge/StockDetail.aspx

 

PECO SL-36.  25p each.  Just remember to use the tighter (streamine) side rather than the wider (setrack) spacing.

[Stubby47]

 I really would vote against rail joiners between modules - very impracticable. And any short piece of track between modules just leave an unsupported gap for trains to fall down, will buckle under clamping of endplates and defeats the concept of modules.

 

We used short pieces of track for the Taunton modules and this method has also been used by the YMR forum and the Cheshire group of module makers.

 

How often does a loco fall off the track, whether supported or not ?

 

The problems are more to do with uneven lengths of joining track pieces (guilty !) and the actual plugging together of the modules - once together they work very well.

 

Having said that though, I would suggest the RMweb modules do not use them.

[The Stationmaster]

We used short pieces of track for the Taunton modules and this method has also been used by the YMR forum and the Cheshire group of module makers.

 

How often does a loco fall off the track, whether supported or not ?

 

The problems are more to do with uneven lengths of joining track pieces (guilty !) and the actual plugging together of the modules - once together they work very well.

 

Having said that though, I would suggest the RMweb modules do not use them.

I see the RMweb module as a more sophisticated item than the way we've done it at Taunton but as Stubby has said the Taunton modules generally work well at the 'bridge' between them and unsupported lengths of Code 100 track are perfectly reliable as short 'bridge' pieces.  We've also found, albeit with 'straight' DC, that with most modules interfaces traction current is transferred quite adequately through the rail joints and joiners provided they are well prepared and clean although we do use the intermodule electrical connections to make sure (when we remember to do so!).

[Kenton]

 

We used short pieces of track for the Taunton modules and this method has also been used by the YMR forum and the Cheshire group of module makers.

 

Do help me understand how the G-clamps work in these cases - extra wide clamps and some form of padding?

[Kenton]

 

25p each.

cripes! A model shop not too far away used to hand them out free if you purchase some track - I think the mark-up is pretty close to 250% on those. Mind you if you spent over £100 you also got a 5% "rounding" discount, a cup of coffee and a biscuit! I'm sure most of us are capable of cutting one from a piece of plasticard, having one laser cut in mdf, cast in resin or etched in brass. I even find a steel rule pretty accurate. Just avoid a tape measure (especially one of those where the end stop moves a little to give you a saw cut's width and something to sand down for your trouble)

Edited August 6, 2014 by Kenton

[Talltim]

 Do help me understand how the G-clamps work in these cases - extra wide clamps and some form of padding?

There's three ways of using a short piece of track, with the Taunton way there is actually gap between modules and they aren't fastened to each other;

Other ways are the one used by the US Free-mo, where the rails (but not the sleepers and ballast) stop one inch before the end of the module and 2 inch lengths of rail with joiners are inserted before joining the modules and the variant where the track ends before the end of the module and a short section is inserted using rail joiners, as used by NTrak and possibly others.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Talltim

[Stubby47]

 Do help me understand how the G-clamps work in these cases - extra wide clamps and some form of padding?

 

We didn't use any form of physical connection between the modules, just rested them on the tables. We had considered using cable ties, but even these were deemed not required on the days.

 

  Occasional card packing was used to bring the heights up to match, but there were no instances of the modules being pulled apart and stock disappearing.

[PaulRhB]

Screws or copper clad are both good for securing the rails. One thing with screws though is use the longest small headed ones you can as they are secure in the wood and easier to solder too than large headed ones. I now use copperclad but I used to drill the hole out so the screw didn't split the wood and coat the screw with a thin layer of 5 min epoxy so it was less likely to break out of the end later.

[Kenton]

So it IS clear then using rail bridges would break the BritishOO Module standard of G-clamping end plates together.

 

I still think we are trying to overcomplicate and design out something that doesn't exist. With single track modules then just where is the problem? The G-clamps take care of both height and location across the width. For double track it is a simple measure - with or without tools which, frankly, if someone is incapable of doing then I would seriously question their ability to lay track at all. It is not brain surgery to measure 50mm, there are tools, and so what if the novice to modelling cannot cope with that - they still bring a disused track and single line module to the meet.

 

Yet again I sense an agenda - it was included in the xyz standards so we should adopt it.

 

Quite a sensible question with a simple solution.

[Joseph_Pestell]

So it IS clear then using rail bridges would break the BritishOO Module standard of G-clamping end plates together.

 

I still think we are trying to overcomplicate and design out something that doesn't exist. With single track modules then just where is the problem? The G-clamps take care of both height and location across the width. For double track it is a simple measure - with or without tools which, frankly, if someone is incapable of doing then I would seriously question their ability to lay track at all. It is not brain surgery to measure 50mm, there are tools, and so what if the novice to modelling cannot cope with that - they still bring a disused track and single line module to the meet.

 

Yet again I sense an agenda - it was included in the xyz standards so we should adopt it.

 

Quite a sensible question with a simple solution.

 

As you say, it was just a question that I thought should be flagged up. I don't have an "agenda".

 

As I recall, the FFMF version uses the same method as US Freemo, a short length of rail supported by sleepers and the outside chairs. It works well and avoids people catching themselves on exposed rail ends.

 

My concern was not so much with getting the 50mm right, but centring it accurately. True though that with clamps, the odd mill does not matter; just means that the fascias are slightly out of line.

[cromptonnut]

the fascias are slightly out of line.

 

With my woodworking skills I'd be utterly amazed if my fascias lined up with anyone else's.  But I'm not convinced it really matters, as long as the trains can get from the adjacent board to mine.

[Andy Reichert]

As has just been pointed the very widely and long term used US Freemo has rail bridges. So it's not a case of them not being reliable or difficult to assemble. And they do handle any double track misalignment.

 

The accuracy issue with fixed rail ends for normal 00/HO is making sure that any rail end misalignment is less than half of the .75 mm wheel flange width. (preferably one quarter). Otherwise any end-on wheel flange hitting the offset rail end may well climb the rail instead of sliding by, and cause a full derailment.

 

e.g. the double track 2nd position should be held to within 0.18 mm .

 

Andy

[Kenton]

I do wonder why those who love their Fre(e)mo standards so much don't just go away and build their US/European Ho modules to their wonderful tried and all so perfect standards. I would much rather learn to do things the British way than continually have some other set of universal standards forced on me.

 

I get trains to cross board joins that are certainly not to such a tight standard and they do not derail. The board width again is a complete irrelevance yet it seems to be continually brought up by those who seem to want to push end profiles. Yes, the distance between the double track is important but so impossible that we are unable to measure it. And yes it is 50mm not some other distance to suit the Fre(e)mo standards.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering - and understanding why there seems to be so few others contributing modules in the forum. Waiting to learn from the mistakes and progress of others - perhaps? Or just fed up with the growing complexity and lack of innovation at each stage.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Kenton

[Joseph_Pestell]

I do wonder why those who love their Fre(e)mo standards so much don't just go away and build their US/European Ho modules to their wonderful tried and all so perfect standards. I would much rather learn to do things the British way than continually have some other set of universal standards forced on me.

 

I get trains to cross board joins that are certainly not to such a tight standard and they do not derail. The board width again is a complete irrelevance yet it seems to be continually brought up by those who seem to want to push end profiles. Yes, the distance between the double track is important but so impossible that we are unable to measure it. And yes it is 50mm not some other distance to suit the Fre(e)mo standards.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering - and understanding why there seems to be so few others contributing modules in the forum. Waiting to learn from the mistakes and progress of others - perhaps? Or just fed up with the growing complexity and lack of innovation at each stage.

 

Andy Y did only start this thread a month ago! So not too surprising if there are not yet loads of modules on their way.

 

But it is looking good.

[cromptonnut]

I'm part way through my first module but it's not really in any fit state to have photos taken of it yet.

 

But soon...

[Andy Y]

I do wonder why those who love their Fre(e)mo standards so much don't just go away and build their US/European Ho modules to their wonderful tried and all so perfect standards.

 

I'll say that there's been nothing other than support and sound comment from the UK-based Freemo guys that I saw at Armitage and there was a few valuable lessons taken on board at that meet. I'm standing by making it as simple and as accessible as possible for participate and disregarding complexities at this stage.

 

I'll certainly be building some stuff once I've got Coventry out of the way and I hope to give it some impetus with maybe a challenge and some mag exposure once we're underway.

[Stubby47]

I'm thinking how to build Shepherds Station as a proper module, rather than my own version, but have other projects I need to progress more first.

 

Being so far south, unless there is a local group set up, or the Taunton SWAG Team changes their set up for 2016, it's a big decision I need to think about.

[Steve-e]

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering - and understanding why there seems to be so few others contributing modules in the forum. Waiting to learn from the mistakes and progress of others - perhaps? Or just fed up with the growing complexity and lack of innovation at each stage.

At the moment I'm gathering bits so far 4 male and 4 female banana plugs, red and black bus wire, 4 x adjustable feet, 1x G clamp and a bridge to cross my stream.

1 x 18" by 3ft rectangle baseboard on order and I am watching Tim Horns development of the curved board as a potential future purchase... but....

 

With it been Summer covering bods at work who are on holiday means I will be working nights for the next 12 nights so wont be making a start until after then.

 

But I'm still into the concept.

 

Steve

Edited August 6, 2014 by Steve-e

[Andy Reichert]

I do wonder why those who love their Fre(e)mo standards so much don't just go away and build their US/European Ho modules to their wonderful tried and all so perfect standards. I would much rather learn to do things the British way than continually have some other set of universal standards forced on me.

 

I get trains to cross board joins that are certainly not to such a tight standard and they do not derail. The board width again is a complete irrelevance yet it seems to be continually brought up by those who seem to want to push end profiles. Yes, the distance between the double track is important but so impossible that we are unable to measure it. And yes it is 50mm not some other distance to suit the Fre(e)mo standards.

 

I'm beginning to wonder why I'm bothering - and understanding why there seems to be so few others contributing modules in the forum. Waiting to learn from the mistakes and progress of others - perhaps? Or just fed up with the growing complexity and lack of innovation at each stage.

 

The somewhat roundy pointed tip of the width of the wheel flange hitting a fixed object has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting (or not) Freemo or any other modular system. It's about knowing how to lay track at joints.

 

It's the same as an arrow fired at target. If the point of the arrow hits the target, it's a hit and the arrow stops. If the point just misses, but the side of the point touches the edge of the target, the arrow gets deflected sideways and carries on. ( a grazing blow). The point of an arrow is in the centre of the arrowhead width.  So it's just the simplest elementary school arithmetic to figure out how wide a target (misalignment of the end on rail) has to be, to catch and block a wheel flange tip (arrowhead equivalent) from jus grazing and safely sliding by. 

 

Instead of stopping like an arrow on a hit, the wheel flange shape on impact is like the underside of a ski and will instead ride up over the target, but then the flange tip is no longer below the railhead and can move sideways off the rail.

 

On straight track or the inside rail of a curve, the wheel hitting a too wide rail end and climbing over it might not cause a derailment. But on the outside rail of a curve it's very likely.

 

I don't care who adopts what "standards". I'm just providing corrections to fundamentally flawed technical claims that are popping up in the process.

 

Andy

[PaulRhB]

Well as someone who used the simple freemo standard and within a year had two modules plus a U shaped bit attached to them I think the standards were pretty simple. A lot of the stuff has been about stuff there was no standard for yet people have looked for them. Go back and look how often I've said for the organiser to sort for a specific meet

 

Track height

Module free standing with Adjustable legs

Gauge

Two end board widths, single or double with a recommend depth to use a G clamp.

Two DCC bus wires and banana connectors.

 

That's the basic standards we've proved works and Andy has adopted.

 

Dcc system, couplings and operational method can be varied / experimented with to suit each meet.

 

The recommendations for the DCC system aren't about brand but do offer some solutions that work. There's no reason you can't use whatever you like and work up to its limit of power but you have to accept simpler set ups are harder to trace faults on as they encompass a bigger area. Wireless controllers are either more expensive or touch screen but easier to roam with and don't require lots of cables and panels. You don't have to use them and there are wired options if you can find enough people to build a wired system with what they have. I suspect from the data so far I could offer a full dcc system for a meeting including five throttles as long as people were happy to accept touch screen. If two or three others could bring tablets or smart phones then we could accommodate around eight trains moving at any time with 16 people crewing them. If you had Signalmen at each location you might need another 5-8 then one or two in control. That would be up to 26 people required to work it! We only had around 14 required at Armitage.

 

It might be worth experimenting with Signalmen & crews vs just crews as I suspect being a signalman at a location might be a bit boring at a meet as there are longish periods of inactivity where you couldn't wander off. Realistic but not necessarily sociable The advantage is we can have fun trying all the possibilities if the few basic standards are followed.

From Kentons foray into non standard widths we can see that it can be accommodated, but, if all the modules did that it might make the layout designers options more limited. A few oddball ones will add character and something different but conforming to the standard for another module might help make your oddball easier to use.

So compromise a bit and see how it goes at the first meet then tweak things, add another module, add or remove some track, become a railway baron in miniature!

Alternatively come to the freemo meet next September with no investment in time required and see how it works if you can stand US stock for a bit. It might convince you that with a few simple adaptions it would work for British stuff.

 

On a personal note I've worked on two preserved railways, a comprehensive fully signalled 7 1/4 line and worked three National network boxes and saw the potential in the freemo for British practices like Andy did.

 

If around ten of us provide modules with at least three stations we can have a good crack at this and develop from there. Once that appears others put off by all this to and fro and perceived risk might join in too

[The Stationmaster]

I'm thinking how to build Shepherds Station as a proper module, rather than my own version, but have other projects I need to progress more first.

 

Being so far south, unless there is a local group set up, or the Taunton SWAG Team changes their set up for 2016, it's a big decision I need to think about.

See PM Stu - the bit that is worrying me if I followed this idea (which I rather like the theory of) is that I could find myself working with several not quite compatible standards!

[trisonic]

I like Paul’s comments a lot (#1159) except I believe you must lose the idea of the necessity for too many passenger stations.

 

One of the things I find rather liberating about The Dark Side (layouts to USA prototypes) is that when someone sits down with pen and paper (or computer design programs) the first thing that pops into the US modeller’s head is NOT  that their layout must be centred around a station.

 

I know that it is very hard to get away from this concept, though. Even the very best UK modellers have been known to succumb. 

 

Think about it anyway.

 

Cheers, Pete.