British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Doc Robin]

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).

To me this misses the point of a modular meet. Whilst most halls may be small, they'll be much larger than most peoples houses, so those "plain" modules betweeen the stations / yards will allow those who want to run big locos or modern freight trains to do so, whereas they don't have the space at home.

 

I've investigated my local social club - 200 square metres of space for rent, so much bigger than home, even if the domestic authorities allowed me to use all of it!

[cromptonnut]

It is possible to mix the two - if you use junction modules you can have a 'main line' with expresses running long distances between stations but you can also have a 'branch line' where there is more room for shunting and pottering about at a much more sedate pace.

 

Of course, the big issue will be what people choose to build. We may end up with too many of one and not enough of another.  But I'm sure "other modular systems" spent years getting it "right" and settling into what worked for them.  It may even be that if there are sufficient modules people organise 'themed meets' such as a "GWR branch line weekend" where you can only bring your module(s) if they can work with that theme. 

 

Or, in the case of SECAG, there are discussions of whether we look to create a 'regional modular arrangement' capable of functioning as a complete unit (ie we don't end up with 10 stations end-to-end and nothing inbetween) but of course the individual modules can be used at any modular meet  in any combination.

 

Me, I've just got the one module at the moment under construction to test the principles, with future modules "to be decided".  Whilst I love the idea of twin track main line expresses thundering round the hall I have to be realistic and accept that it's not something I can achieve myself, and it's going to be a long long time until 'we' (as in the forum) get that far advanced to be able to consider it. 

 

But... the Waterloo-Exeter main line west of Salisbury (my 'home') is undoubtedly classed as a main line - albeit a secondary one - and singled for large parts of it.  Maybe we don't need double track after all, we just need a variety of modules and a 'fast timetable' operating sequence.

[PaulRhB]

 

 

But... the Waterloo-Exeter main line west of Salisbury (my 'home') is undoubtedly classed as THE main line - albeit a secondary one - .

There that's better, I agree with the rest

[jburgt]

See the Fremo-OO standard measurements:

http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1407654788&hash=54a6432eceecf1545314aa3964ce58249e789332&file=fileadmin/redakteure/felix.moering/Norm_UK_EN.pdf

 

Grzz, Hans

[rcmacchipilot]

I know coming from half way around the world I don't have much of a say in anything within this. Although I am following it with lots of interest. The ability to run a group of modules as a full railway really appeals to me.

Anycase just a thought -  With DCC being adopted and the potential for DCC controlled points, is it worth setting up a register of turnout numbers, so those that choose to operate points via dcc decoders don't rock up at a meet and have sets of points being programmed with the same numbers?

 

May have been mentioned before, and I am not entirely sure what the range of available point decoder numbers are, But just a thought which might prevent some pain in the future.

[Glorious NSE]

Taking things to extremes, big loco's on short trains isn't an unknown thing - arbitrary banning of "big" engines is a bit short sighted.

 

http://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/SR-and-BRS/Original-Bulleid-locomotives/i-VWbmgcm

http://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/SR-and-BRS/Original-Bulleid-locomotives/i-Htps6kC/A

 

In fact, i'd suggest not doing anything that artificially restricts what you can achieve in the future...

[rcmacchipilot]

Somerset and dorset comes to mind to for short trains with big locomotives.... as they say its not about the size of the train its the way you use it

[PaulRhB]

Yep no reason to restrict your plans. If someone builds a big station we can use it alongside a batch of branch modules and still operate the big station as the source for all the branch traffic. Think of Bath or Bournemouth with the rest being the S&D, Salisbury with the line to Ringwood and Wimborne and many other locations around the country

Big station modules are just as easy to use as small ones as you don't have to allocate services to serve all the sidings if it would require too many trains. They can sit their just stocked with a couple of wagons and no one will notice they don't get served as they are concentrating on their train.

[cromptonnut]

Taking things to extremes, big loco's on short trains isn't an unknown thing - arbitrary banning of "big" engines is a bit short sighted.

 

http://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/SR-and-BRS/Original-Bulleid-locomotives/i-VWbmgcm

http://mikemorant.smugmug.com/Trains-Railways-British-Isles/SR-and-BRS/Original-Bulleid-locomotives/i-Htps6kC/A

 

In fact, i'd suggest not doing anything that artificially restricts what you can achieve in the future...

 

http://www.asgq57.dsl.pipex.com/3218/scotland/660818-B209-90547.jpg

 

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5105/5644033572_ed3a697e72.jpg

 

... or possibly the shortest ever? http://www.luxsoft.demon.co.uk/village/hst.html

[Joseph_Pestell]

When I mentioned, a few days ago, that I was struggling a bit to draw modules for junctions, someone made the useful (and, on reflection, obvious) suggestion that I should draw the track and then fit the baseboard to it.

 

I have not done the junction drawing yet but I did spend a few minutes today drawing up a baseboard for a 45 degree curve at 36" radius. It comes out as quite a neat little board: 3ft3 long by about 16" wide, isosceles trapezium shaped with 67.5/112.5 deg angle at each end. That was for a single track.

 

It might be worth tweaking a bit so that I have a standard module size for double-track (which would be just slightly longer) and then use that for single-track/converter modules as well.

 

My preference would be to aim for a radius of 5ft. I have not done the maths yet but I suspect that means 45 degree modules would be a bit long (logically 66% longer) for easy transport and it would be better to do 30 degree modules.

 

Alternatively, I could take a view that I want this to be a low-cost project and make the modules to the best size to get out from an 8' x 4' sheet of ply, probably 4 per sheet. I guess that would give 45 degree curves at about 42" radius.

[cromptonnut]

I had a little inspiration earlier for a module based on the end of an airport runway, a bit like at Gatwick and Southend where the railway line is close to the perimeter fence, and I thought a suspended plane a foot or so above the module, with the flashing approach lights and suchlike might be an interesting scene - like http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02754/gatwick_2754602b.jpg

 

Then I discovered an Airbus A-320 was about 2ft long and 2ft wide in OO scale.

 

I guess I won't be pursuing that little idea...

[Stubby47]

Maybe a Sopworth Camel instead ?

[cromptonnut]

Maybe I need a little Fokker like this one.

 

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/415034921881333878/

Edited August 11, 2014 by cromptonnut

[Joseph_Pestell]

I had a little inspiration earlier for a module based on the end of an airport runway, a bit like at Gatwick and Southend where the railway line is close to the perimeter fence, and I thought a suspended plane a foot or so above the module, with the flashing approach lights and suchlike might be an interesting scene - like http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02754/gatwick_2754602b.jpg

 

Then I discovered an Airbus A-320 was about 2ft long and 2ft wide in OO scale.

 

I guess I won't be pursuing that little idea...

 

Why not? If you are modelling the end of the runway, you could suspend the plane model above the module.

 

Perpignan-Rivesaltes (Llabanere) airport is a bit like this to the extent of having special low-height catenary gantries.

[PaulRhB]

Current Model Rail has a fuelling point next to an airport, could easily be a module. You could have the fence near the edge then a flat board attached to the side with the Tarmac on as part of a taxiway. Hold it up with one leg and then a selection of civvy and military aircraft to match the eras?

[Andy Reichert]

 
I think that's a more suitable US Fremo module theme.  Burbank Mar 6 2000
 
Burbank Airport next to West Coast Main Line RR station map

 

 

Andy

Edited August 11, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[cromptonnut]

Oh there's plenty of prototype locations that work just like that... it's just OO (or mostly HO, not that it matters) commercial planes are rather large and I think it might become rather unwieldy a module for a single person like me to create and/or handle.

[PaulRhB]

Well the Tarrant Valley lads managed on their modular 009 in 4x2ft, admittedly the Lanc looked a bit daft compared to the biplanes it was designed for but adding a lightweight flat board to extend the scene would easily sort that out. There are several good commercial planes in 1/87 to 1/80 that you simply slot the wings in and would look fine, I could manage a military one from Sopwith Pups through Spitfires, Canberras and Lightnings to a Red Arrow! Now I want to make one as a module!

Edited August 12, 2014 by PaulRhB

[TheQ]

You could always model RAF Ballykelly where the runway ran across the railway. ( the railway was there first)

Trains had right of way  except in an emergency, and there was a direct link from air traffic control to the signal box.

 and then model a small visiting aircraft as the Shackletons would be rather large.

The Q

[cromptonnut]

An A-320 kit for £120... http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/WHMJ7204 ... although there are fairly mixed reviews online of this particular manufacturer.

[Glorious NSE]

You could always model RAF Ballykelly where the runway ran across the railway. ( the railway was there first)

Trains had right of way  except in an emergency, and there was a direct link from air traffic control to the signal box.

 and then model a small visiting aircraft as the Shackletons would be rather large.

The Q

 

Or Filton, where there was an aircraft level crossing...  

[The Stationmaster]

Or Filton, where there was an aircraft level crossing...  

And that one actually had level crossing 'gates' on the aircraft taxiway (mind you quite a wide road footprint as in it later years it was widened to take Boeing 747s).

[Joseph_Pestell]

When I mentioned, a few days ago, that I was struggling a bit to draw modules for junctions, someone made the useful (and, on reflection, obvious) suggestion that I should draw the track and then fit the baseboard to it.

 

I have not done the junction drawing yet but I did spend a few minutes today drawing up a baseboard for a 45 degree curve at 36" radius. It comes out as quite a neat little board: 3ft3 long by about 16" wide, isosceles trapezium shaped with 67.5/112.5 deg angle at each end. That was for a single track.

 

It might be worth tweaking a bit so that I have a standard module size for double-track (which would be just slightly longer) and then use that for single-track/converter modules as well.

 

My preference would be to aim for a radius of 5ft. I have not done the maths yet but I suspect that means 45 degree modules would be a bit long (logically 66% longer) for easy transport and it would be better to do 30 degree modules.

 

Alternatively, I could take a view that I want this to be a low-cost project and make the modules to the best size to get out from an 8' x 4' sheet of ply, probably 4 per sheet. I guess that would give 45 degree curves at about 42" radius.

 

Another quick drawing (or sketch really) on the old laptop using Trax2. This is for a double-track 45 deg module.

 

Using the 4' (122mm) width of a sheet of ply as the length of the longer side of the trapezium, I managed to get the inner track to be: 2" straight, 6" at 60" radius, a length at 39" radius, 6" at 60" radius, 2" straight. Cutting down the 60" transition to perhaps 54" may give a better overall result.

 

Looks quite good and rather easier to make than curved baseboards. The downside is that there is not much  scope for scenery on the outer/longer edge of the board as the track gets to within about 3" of the edge.

 

If I can get the old laptop to talk to the new printer, I will post some the sketches here. Onto junctions next.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Another quick sketch done for a junction where a double-track splits into two single-track branches.

 

Going down to the minimum 36" standards, including 36" pointwork, I can get it onto a board with maximum dimensions 60" x 36", which is a bit bulky but not completely unreasonable. I don't know if there is a proper geometrical term for the resulting baseboard but in layman's terms it is coffin-shaped.

 

By adding a second rectangular board, 60" x 18" (to box up with the first for transport), I can create quite an interesting  set up with exchange sidings etc.

[Steve-e]

Looking at Tim Horns Flickr site he's started on testing some straight boards to the RM Modular spec

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timhorn/15007031775/

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/timhorn/15006645832/

 

http://www.timhorn.co.uk/

 

I like the lines to aid track placement.

 

 

 

P.S No connection to sites at all just following developments.