British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Kenton]

 

From Andy Y's standard:

 

 

Track ends - all track joins at end of the module should be at 90 degrees to the board end>>> And that's it.

So yes of course you can and will have curves across module joins.  It's not a "big restrictive standard" that forbids that.

A track that crosses at 90 degrees to the board simply cannot be anything other than straight at the point at which it crosses.

 

I also thought that was discussed back along in this topic, that this meant that a short straight would be added to all curves at the crossing (3" was mentioned - and is what is used on Kenton's Curve) as this assists the transitioning of curves (with flexitrak in particular)

 

 

Also you might want to re-read my OP. As to "not a problem then", you are saying that you are OK with misaligned rail ends track work that has your wheels climbing completely up and over rail ends in your normal running of model trains - just hoping that they drop back into the track somewhere further on later?

 

To quote myself (sadly)

 

I get trains to cross board joins that are certainly not to such a tight standard and they do not derail.

So if I can do it without a problem and some stupidly small measurement then I guess others can. I have used all sorts of gadgets to line up tracks over board ends - from the Peco gauge, to a vernier, to a mark 1 eyeball all work to an unknown tolerance but work just fine. So my planned double track modules will use the same tools and be tested with my OO gauge stock just to be sure. I have confidence in my abilities, and those of others, which is why I have thrown out all the bibles on standards.

[Suzie]

Only potential problem is: If it's on the main line, and in the outer track of a double track curve, it has to adhere to the minimum radius of 36" +50 mm.

 

Andy

 

As does the diverging curve on the point connected to it which will be the same radius.

[Andy Reichert]

As does the diverging curve on the point connected to it which will be the same radius.

 

If it's on the outer curve, yes. I don't believe that fits the mentioned 36" radius of a PECO large radius turnout.

 

Andy

Edited August 7, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Andy Reichert]

 A track that crosses at 90 degrees to the board simply cannot be anything other than straight at the point at which it crosses.

 

I also thought that was discussed back along in this topic, that this meant that a short straight would be added to all curves at the crossing (3" was mentioned - and is what is used on Kenton's Curve) as this assists the transitioning of curves (with flexitrak in particular)

 

 To quote myself (sadly)

 So if I can do it without a problem and some stupidly small measurement then I guess others can. I have used all sorts of gadgets to line up tracks over board ends - from the Peco gauge, to a vernier, to a mark 1 eyeball all work to an unknown tolerance but work just fine. So my planned double track modules will use the same tools and be tested with my OO gauge stock just to be sure. I have confidence in my abilities, and those of others, which is why I have thrown out all the bibles on standards.

 

The geometry word I think you have forgotten is "tangent". And since you don't like extra restrictions, the 3" straight is not mentioned in Andy's standard. So no-one else needs to do it to suit you.

 

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the thinking or practice  that misaligned track that can raise wheels over the rail head works as well as aligned track. I don't see any need to justify or explain that further.

 

Andy

[Talltim]

I don't disagree that mis-aligned track will cause problems, but what do you suggest to prevent it?

To me, the standard specifying 50mm between tracks is enough. There's plenty of ways for people to achieve that, ruler, vernier gauge, Peco template etc. if they can't, their module won't work and they'll have to try harder

[Kenton]

 

The geometry word I think you have forgotten is "tangent". And since you don't like extra restrictions, the 3" straight is not mentioned in Andy's standard. So no-one else needs to do it to suit you.

 

Sorry, but I don't subscribe to the thinking or practice  that misaligned track that can raise wheels over the rail head works as well as aligned track. I don't see any need to justify or explain that further.

 

Andy

No the word is not "tangent" because a tangent only applies to a curve and the standard clearly says 90' to end edge. I would like to see track where rails are at 90 and yet somehow on a curve.

 

I was not suggesting the 3" either as a standard or that it was part of a standard. All I said was that somewhere back-along it was given as a recommendation and I was using it. The reasons are pretty obvious once you realise that you cannot have a curve at 90' without at least some length of straight track. £" was never agreed on and IIRC disputed by some of the "we have standards that are best and should be applied without question" folk. But I simply wanted to move on and 3", or something, seemed as good as anything. The important thing was that it wasn't going to cause anyone or me a problem. If it turns out over the years that 3" turns out to be a minimum of 4" I'll have to adapt the modules but at least will get there having seen for myself the reason why it evolved that way.

[Kenton]

 

I don't disagree that mis-aligned track will cause problems, but what do you suggest to prevent it?

To me, the standard specifying 50mm between tracks is enough. There's plenty of ways for people to achieve that, ruler, vernier gauge, Peco template etc. if they can't, their module won't work and they'll have to try harder

Don't worry, those of us who are not so uptight about it will still realise that we have a single line module to participate with - and will go home in the knowledge that we have to remedy our inadequacies by measuring more carefully for the next meet. Adapt, adjust, compromise and enjoy the journey. Perhaps that is just the British way.

[Kenton]

 

Even a single track junction module is longer that you would think, because of the need to get the diverging routes far enough apart to have non-conflicting 18" wide module ends.

Once again we get back to the statement that they do not have to be in the centre of the ends - it is, or should be, only a recommendation. It has nothing to do with practicality and only to do with the aesthetics of the group layout. All that should required to join the board is that there is sufficient purchase for a G-clamp (possibly 2) to hold the boards together. So the end plates on a Y double/single junction do not have to have the separation given above. Again we make thing too difficult instead of just doing it.

 

The key thing in planning is to remember that (and should expect) the module you connect to may be centred therefore the arms of the Y may need to have adaptor boards.

 

Also the in the example given above the reason was given that ALL boards must be reversible - I do not see this as a MUST - A terminus is not reversible and so I see no reason why the component boards of a junction should be. Sure it makes life for all concerned easier if they are but there shouldn't be a law that states it - where's the fun in arranging 20 identical straight through boards. I want to see destinations and route challenges in the group setup.

[PaulRhB]

Simple way to get a good track end, use a set square

 

Hold on I said that pages ago

 

I'm amazed we managed to run a train at Armitage with how difficult it is being made out to be!

 

If people are worried about it then don't paint over the end join with weathering at first and someone can bring a toolkit and adjust any joins. Start the day with a Pway operating session

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am pleased to see that my point is not completely wrong.

 

Some of the proposed solutions lead to some very odd shaped boards: very challenging woodwork. And they seem to have rather tight curve radii and no transition curves.

 

Not wanting to have a double crossover junction with short crossings, I did draw out a solution over four modules - total length 15'. But it got a bit "trainset" if I did not want boards of too many different shapes. I will go back to it and have another go. I am sure there must be an answer. I think the point made about drawing the track and then the baseboards is probably right.

[Talltim]

Once again we get back to the statement that they do not have to be in the centre of the ends - it is, or should be, only a recommendation. It has nothing to do with practicality and only to do with the aesthetics of the group layout. All that should required to join the board is that there is sufficient purchase for a G-clamp (possibly 2) to hold the boards together. So the end plates on a Y double/single junction do not have to have the separation given above. Again we make thing too difficult instead of just doing it

 

But to make the ends universally joinable to other modules, they have have to be far enough apart to allow the next module along to join without clashing. OK on a simple straight through module, the next module can be any width and still join. However on a junction module you have to allow enough seperation between ends for the next modules. On the basis that a picture tells a thousand words, imagine that the junction module has ends that are 16 " wide with the track centred. Someone comes along with their 18" wide straight modules and can't connect both at once because the corners (in red) need to be in the same place at the same time.

Similarly, if you have made the ends of your junction module 18" wide, with the track centred, but the ends abut each other, if someone tries to connect a wider module, or one where the track is not on the centreline, you again may get clashes.

 

 

The key thing in planning is to remember that (and should expect) the module you connect to may be centred therefore the arms of the Y may need to have adaptor boards.

 

 

Bit confused by what you mean here. If I read you right, you are anticipating the problem I outline above and saying that you need adaptor boards to extend you module to 18" wide, track centred?

[Kenton]

 

Bit confused by what you mean here. If I read you right, you are anticipating the problem I outline above and saying that you need adaptor boards to extend you module to 18" wide, track centred?

Almost but not as bad as you made it out to be.

 

If the track on the arms my Y leaves close the edge of the board, ie not in the middle then that can be aligned to the two other modules which have track in the middle with much less separation of the arms of the Y. Also remember that those arms of the Y are angled. As I keep saying they do not have to leave in the middle of the end plate and only have to allow another end plate with track in the middle to join them. I reckon that is a saving of at least (18"- width of track) of separation.

 

Sometimes I wish I could draw a picture

Edited August 7, 2014 by Kenton

[Talltim]

Sometimes I wish I could draw a picture

I think you need to...

[Andy Reichert]

No the word is not "tangent" because a tangent only applies to a curve and the standard clearly says 90' to end edge. I would like to see track where rails are at 90 and yet somehow on a curve.

 

Every piece of curved set track from PECO has a 90 deg. to its end edge

 

Andy

[Andy Reichert]

I don't disagree that mis-aligned track will cause problems, but what do you suggest to prevent it?

To me, the standard specifying 50mm between tracks is enough. There's plenty of ways for people to achieve that, ruler, vernier gauge, Peco template etc. if they can't, their module won't work and they'll have to try harder

 

That's pretty much the whole reason US Freemo use little bridge tracks, which don't have to be ugly, or un-ballasted, or in your face noticeable..

 

OTOH, an etched or carefully cut metal strip with rail web slots is more than adequate to use as a set up gauge when building the modules. There's a reason LEGO isn't made of wood.

 

Andy

Edited August 8, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Talltim]

There's a reason LEGO isn't made of wood.

 

Andy

Apart from the LEGO that is made of wood, of course 

Full marks for the capitalisation of LEGO tho'!

[PaulRhB]

whole reason US Freemo use little bridge tracks, which don't have to be ugly, or un-ballasted, or in your face noticeable..

 

I agree to an extent but frequently they are ugly especially as time wears them down. Also I've seen too many people ripping out rails forcing the second side in after not lining it up. Last used it on the club O gauge with the track on pcb plates with ballast on too and they still all looked like square plates to me. As you've probably guessed Not my favourite method Edited August 8, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Andy Reichert]

Apart from the LEGO that is made of wood, of course 

Full marks for the capitalisation of LEGO tho'!

 

I rather prefer Hornby's version of MALLARD

 

Andy

Edited August 8, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[Doc Robin]

You'll have to forgive my AnyRail skills, but this seems to work as a double track Y using 2 boards of less than 18 by 48. I'd make the frames underneath square to allow the use of alignment dowels. The inner join is roughly 90 degrees, but the outer is 45 degrees with 18 inch ends. With hindsight I'd smooth off the 90 degre corners as well to make it look a bit smoother

[Glorious NSE]

Just out of interest, why the oddly shaped board interface? No need for non-modular track joints to be at 90deg?

[Doc Robin]

Just out of interest, why the oddly shaped board interface? No need for non-modular track joints to be at 90deg?

Never having built any modules before, let alone done any soldering to copperclad sleepers or brass nails, I thought my chances of keeping the rails aligned and in gauge might be better like that!

[Talltim]

Never having built any modules before, let alone done any soldering to copperclad sleepers or brass nails, I thought my chances of keeping the rails aligned and in gauge might be better like that!

I understand your logic, the closer to a right angle the track crosses the join the easier it is to align. However if you lay the track across the join, get the rail ends fastened down really well (screws, pcb etc.) and then cut them you should be OK.

[Andy Reichert]

You'll have to forgive my AnyRail skills, but this seems to work as a double track Y using 2 boards of less than 18 by 48. I'd make the frames underneath square to allow the use of alignment dowels. The inner join is roughly 90 degrees, but the outer is 45 degrees with 18 inch ends. With hindsight I'd smooth off the 90 degre corners as well to make it look a bit smoother

 

Having done few close indide corners in the past myself, I'd recommend moving the inner joint more to the left. The clearance as the curve tracks pass by the inner corners is down to the absolute minimum other wise. A train could conceivably strike the any thing or person part placed against the corner.

 

Andy

[switcher 1]

Well, I started reading through this thread, but as with all 'discussions' of this nature, there are those who want to run mainline/express trains & there are those who want to run pickup goods trains.

 

I don't think there can be a compromise between the two. As most of the halls that will be hired will be relatively small, the modules would be best suited as branchline.

 

I can hear all the big loco owners groaning, but if you are up for modular meets, it is best to go with what the majority of people could accomodate.

Most, if not the biggest number of modellers have no space to run long trains, so will have suitable stock from the start.

The most commonly fitted type of coupling is the tension lock, so this should be the standard adopted; this will let anybody join in.

I'm strongly in the DC camp for home operation, but can see the obvious advantage of using DCC for a modular layout.

 

Width wise, I would suggest 15" for branchline modules, & a minimum length of 3ft; (this, again, would be more inclusive to the most people).

[PaulRhB]

Width is already set (ish) and only at the ends, you're free to do whatever inbetween. Modules of 6inch and a foot long work very well so there's no need for a minimum. 298 built one only 12-18 long and it added a really nice feature.

They do need their own legs though so don't rely on those either side to hang yours off it needs to be capable of free standing to ease setup and avoid droop