British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[McRuss]

Hello I've got a reply from some of the participants of the Rendsburg meeting. According to them the smallest radius was about 2 feet on the main line.

These was at the 90° section on one of the junctions modules. But I think smaller isn't preferable. And regarding small exhibition hall. For that someone

could provide curved modules with smaller radius. At Great-britN we have three 90° modules with a radius of 18inches. These is aprobriate for small

exhibitions or at home. But we also have curved modules with larger radii of 70, 90 centimetres or more.So you could go round the corner quite sharply,

but on the rest of the modular layout you have flowing curves.

 

Markus

[cromptonnut]

. All would be subjects I'd never build for a home layout but would be interesting to see as part of something bigger.

 

I can think of a number of things that I'd never use in a "home layout" - mostly due to lack of space - an 8ft unit of Cannington Viaduct on the Lyme Regis branch would be an impressive piece of work, for example ... but when you only have 12ft total it doesn't leave a great deal of space for anything else!

[cromptonnut]

Hello I've got a reply from some of the participants of the Rendsburg meeting. According to them the smallest radius was about 2 feet on the main line.

 

Most  ready to run UK stock is designed to run on "radius 2 setrack curves" - 14 5/8" radius or 438mm if you prefer it that way.  Radius 4 is just under 2ft radius.

[The Evil Bus Driver]

Another thing that might come in handy would be the design of various jigs, such as a template for board ends etc. That would cut out much of the measuring.

[McRuss]

Here are some pictures from the different curved modules we have at Great-britN.

First one of the 90° curved modules with 18inches radius.

 

 

And here I think these modules have a radii of about three feet in N scale.

 

 

And here the layout arrangement for our Great-britN meeting in about 4 weeks. As you could see the room is about 22 by 18 feet.

 

Aufbaum

 

At the top right corner you could see the 90° curved module.

 

Markus

 

 

[Talltim]

Another thing that might come in handy would be the design of various jigs, such as a template for board ends etc. That would cut out much of the measuring.

It depends on what (if you do) standard you go for for board ends. The Freemo standard (which I am using as an example, not putting forward as a British standard) is a rectangle between 3.5″ and 4.5″ high and either 18" wide for a single track end or 20" wide for a double track end. Not sure you need a template for that! Edited July 8, 2014 by Talltim

[FelixM]

Felix, the Fremo OO standard is very good the only stumbling block is the large radii specification. It seems you have access to some much larger buildings than are common in the uk. Hiring school halls and sports centres is very expensive as they all want business rates. Village and church halls are significantly cheaper but obviously limited in space. Maybe because of the established and busy exhibition circuit we don't see it growing to the size it has in other parts of Europe to build the vast set ups we see. I think the eventual outcome will be a slight variation of an existing standard not starting from scratch just the discussion is ranging all over the place as it's new to most on here

 

These are lessons learned. With radii under 1000 mm you restrict yourself to a maximum of ~5 coaches to be operated safely, especially if manufactured by Hornby and coupled with tension locks. The close coupling mechanisms of Hornby coaches tend to become locked in the outermost position with the train derailing every second pass through that curve. A meter radius means that you can turn around a route in 2 m width, don't tell me that your halls are narrower than 2 m!

 

We have started over here with 4 90° curves with 600 mm radii and they are now out of use because 600 mm radius is simply too sharp.

 

Funding meetings by the participants is essential to modular meetings, so there need to be a "club" or "association" either way.

 

One reason why I doubt the HO track spacing would be suitable for 4mm is stock overhang on curves- can someone confirm that passing trains will clear on a nominal 3' radius with 2" track centres...?

 

Yes, no problems with 46 mm track separation above 600 mm radii.

 

Felix

[298]

I've never really considered the Freemo style modular set up before. Those I've seen at shows leave me decidedly cold due to the mish-mash of scenic treatments and the whole lot failing to gell visually.

I suspect I've probably missed the main point though in that the Freemo type concept is more about operation and cooperation between people to build something interesting to play with. Sounds like there's a strong social side too, without the 'pressure' of entertaining a paying public.

One issue I've usually witnessed is lots of modules being chucked together, then no running for half a day because of some unknown mystery short that cannot be traced. This Freemo branchline concept means the power districts aren't particulary overloaded with lots of trains running, and wireless throttles avoid the extra wiring needed for plug in points. Organising the electrical infrastructure to do the same with DC so someone can turn up with their module and plug it straight in without suffering at best a voltage drop through being at the end of a 120' branch line.

 

Regarding your latter point regarding the operation side, this still seems fairly new to British modellers, and consideration needs to be made to decide the exact style of operation, which is why I made a point earlier in the thread that point to point running to a timetable might be better than individual wagonload shunting, especially when stock has to have a unique and readable number...!

[FelixM]

I happily volunteer to create the timetable. In Rendsburg we had a Heart of Wessex line scenario between 1962 and 1964. Our 3rd rail station masqueraded for Yeovil Pen Mill and the Irish junction was the branch to Toton. There was one daily pickup goods majorly remarshalled at the shunting yard at the Airfield (which the real Yeovil never had, but no point in disaccepting offered modules at a meeting).

 

Banana van always behind the loco when travelling loaded, cattle truck as far at the front as possible, brake van always at the rear even after reversing. Quite some challenges for a timetable planner. The semi-fast trains regularly left two coaches for the Airfield branch which was worked twice daily.

 

Edit: Simulation time was 5 times quicker than normal time, startin at 7 am and terminating at 9 pm. This gives you roughly 3 hours for an operating session. Breakfast, morning session, lunch, afternoon session, some freetime, dinner, evening session, bedtime.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 8, 2014 by FelixM

[FelixM]

Don't get me started on operations!

 

IMG_3360 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

Track numbering diagram, this one was handdrawn by me because I forgot the printed one at home.

 

IMG_3362 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

The timetable for the "Station master". Trains without comments simply pass by.

 

IMG_3361 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

The pile of timetables in chronological order. Everyone who wants to drive a train simply takes the uppermost. It says when to be where and what train you'll drive.

I know that 57xx Classes were not push-pull fitted if anyone bothers. The 14xx did not get ready in time so the Bachmann pannier was a stopgap, masquerading for outwardly similar push-pull fitted panniers.

 

IMG_3402 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

A special timetable for the Goods Guard. The pickup train was manned by two, the Goods Guard essentially wore the trousers. Every shunting goal was described in it, but how to achieve this I left to the individual when I designed the timetable. Of course I had the track plan and thought before how I would do the moves.

 

IMG_3359 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

Fuel for the aircrafts. You can see wagon cards with attached waybills. At Rendsburg we used the easiest method with virtually no destinction between these two. Each wagon made a loaded journey and an empty return working. There are methods of refine this by sequences like A to B loaded, then empty to C and back to A loaded once again. For this you can use wagon labels with rotary imprints, so you have to turn the wagon label after each journey. But this is too complicated for the start as long as easier methods exist.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[sparks]

My own thoughts have been leading me down a similar route recently. Initially due to learning about Japanese railways and therefore modelling, where N gauge modules are popular. There is even a Japanese modelling group here in Melbourne who usually turn out an attractive modular layout for the local exhibitions, although always in a slightly different configuration each time. I have been particularly inspired by this narrow gauge layout, which I think is Japanese H0e (1/80th scale) and I had wondered if something similar was possible for H0/00 (not being aware of Freemo until now):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUWnTy5BWLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9duKWxbyfI

 

Concurrently, being only half way through my 'quickie' APA box project a year later has made me realise how much work is involved in completing a layout. Being both time and space starved I had come to the conclusion that any future 'layouts' would probably be more achievable as simple modules (around 4'x1') of the various different prototypes I would like to model, and if I ever gain a study/railway room I could set them up on bookcases with a simple unsceniced loop around the room to create a somewhat eclectic roundy roundy (I have also realised that I prefer creating to operating!).

 

Having read the Freemo Extravaganza thread on the weekend and now this one, the logical thing to do would be to build any such modules to a recognised standard so they could also have a life outside the study. DCC is not my thing but I recognise it's advantages for a large modular setup - it should be reasonably easy to wire 'my' modules (which would always be a simple trackplan) with this in mind.

 

(Edited for grammar)

Edited July 8, 2014 by sparks

[The Stationmaster]

Regarding your latter point regarding the operation side, this still seems fairly new to British modellers, and consideration needs to be made to decide the exact style of operation, which is why I made a point earlier in the thread that point to point running to a timetable might be better than individual wagonload shunting, especially when stock has to have a unique and readable number...!

And also important is the difference between US prototype operating and the British approach - this possibly reflects in the way the modular layout can be so effective in US outline modelling and might be one reason why it has not caught on previously in British modelling although Spams point about scenic treatments  is possibly another.  Adjusting the concept to British outline - where we are more inclined to run trains and where shunting a wayside station is very different from what goes on in many parts of the US mean differences in approach which need to tackled in a different way if operational realism is what is being sought.

[torikoos]

  I was simply going to click the Agree button

 

... then spotted the mistake WHY - it just doesn't matter!

 

Anyone remember the long debate (discussion/disagreements) over the RMWeb2 Layout Challenge - was it really nearly 8 years ago .... I feel old! ... I wonder how long it is going to take to come up with the rules for participants in the British Railroad Module Challenge?

 

Technically, you are correct, Width doesn't matter per se, BUT, the reason several modular systems out there chose one is to make the whole layout look a bit more uniform, at least at the joints. It is often also based on the average size people can handle comfortably when transporting , loading / unloading.  Also there are set ups where a set of boards join up with a set of curved boards that make a 180 degree turn and come back in parallel on the other boards. Using various widths could have a consequence that people have trouble passing , particularly if two operators are back to back.

 

So why there is no reason why you can't build one that is 12" wide, or 24" or any other number you care to dream up, and successfully join up with a board of another width, it won't look very pleasing to onlookers, particularly if the set up in question is open to members of the public to come and watch the fun, in the hopes to promote it to a wider audience for example. 

At the very least, have a uniform agreed width at the joints, and what you do in between is entirely up to the owner/builder, most existing modular systems provide for that freedom. Adapter boards can be used to do the same.

 

The current set of standards developed by the NMRA-BR for example are based on those of RS-Tower. These happen to be  US outline, and besides a few basic needs, and agreements, the standards are largely 'recommended practices', and leave a lot of freedom to whoever builds boards/modules. (the definition being that a  'module' can be build up out of 1 or more boards(segments) ).

British outline modelers might have different needs and wishes, and that's why Andy started this thread. 

However, have a good look at what's already out there, and the reasoning behind 'standards, and 'recommended practices' , before re-inventing the wheel.  As Bruce Lee said , 'Absorb what is useful, Discard what is not, Add what is uniquely your own'.  

 

As for DCC, even within that, everyone is free to choose the DCC system of choice for their own personal use at home.  A meet organiser is usually the one that supplies the DCC system of choice for that particular meeting, with those that have compatible equipment bringing these along.  As long as you make provisions to be able to hook up to a DCC system (at the bare minimum that's 2 wires only!), your modules, can happily participate.

In some cases, adapter wires / cables might be needed, but those are all items that can easily be overcome without a lot of expense.

 

Just my 2Cents. :-)

Edited July 8, 2014 by torikoos

[Kenton]

 

Technically, you are correct, Width doesn't matter per se, BUT, the reason several modular systems out there chose one is to make the whole layout look a bit more uniform, at least at the joints.

I do see the aesthetic point of view. My gripe is really to do with imposing "standards" something that must be adopted. And width is definitely not one of them (along with track distance from board front/back), along with colour/ballast/scenery/ or "modern" vs "old" style modules. The must have standards need to be absolute minimal to get things started. Nothing against a preference being suggested/popularised but NOT a "standard" something which imposed because it has to.

 

Present 2 bus wires at the end of the (single) track - seems fine as it doesn't prevent DC - away from the multiple module environment.

[Andy Hayter]

Most  ready to run UK stock is designed to run on "radius 2 setrack curves" - 14 5/8" radius or 438mm if you prefer it that way.  Radius 4 is just under 2ft radius.

Sadly most kit built locomotives will not negotiate even radius 4.

[roundhouse]

Torikoos

 

These days there is another big advantage with a DCC. At the Freemo last weekend apart from the main Lenz system, JMRI on a laptop together with a wireless router meant that those who had and preferred to use them could drive their train wirelessly which was great for moving about the modules.

 

It's also a cheap way of getting involved for those with smartphones or iPods /iPads/ Android tablets who may not have a suitable dedicated controller especially if they normally run their module on DC elsewhere.

 

Of course there are those who do prefer such controllers and they used them via the temporary or permanently fixed plug in points.

 

Ian

Edited July 8, 2014 by roundhouse

[torikoos]

True Ian, and I've done just that on occasion. The freedom of not being attached to a wire is very liberating. Smartphone in one hand, waybills and/or uncoupling tools in the other :-)

 

Koos

[torikoos]

 I do see the aesthetic point of view. My gripe is really to do with imposing "standards" something that must be adopted. And width is definitely not one of them (along with track distance from board front/back), along with colour/ballast/scenery/ or "modern" vs "old" style modules. The must have standards need to be absolute minimal to get things started. Nothing against a preference being suggested/popularised but NOT a "standard" something which imposed because it has to.

 

Present 2 bus wires at the end of the (single) track - seems fine as it doesn't prevent DC - away from the multiple module environment.

 

 

That's why I mention 'recommended practices'.  That said you will need a minimum set of standards to adhere to if you want to develop a method that many people could adopt and you could participate. You're never going to please everyone, and there will be pro's and cons.  Issues like the base colours of scenery, ballast etc do not need to be standardized. Neither do you need to prescribe a certain make of track per se, as long as it is compatible and robust enough that it isn't going to cause problems. 

 

You will need to have standards for height / distance from floor to top of the rail . How you get to that height is not standardized, just the height.  

You'll need to agree on a way to transition from one module to that of another person. (what you do within the limits of your own doesn't need the standard applied, but makes things easier) Will you use rail joiners, transition pieces of 6" track , or rail heads coming up to the edge of the module, with some form of sturdy and damage proof method of fixing it in place so that humidity and temperature doesn't cause misalignments etc . 

 

A minimum wiring standard would be to have two track bus (track power) wires running from one end to the other. This will facilitate transmission of track power reliably along the length of the layout, and onto the next board. 

Any other wires that add to this, can be 'recommended practices'. 

For example you might not need power for accessory items such as lights, or point motors etc on your board, so you don't need to wire them up. However a good practice is to bring along a cable so your boards can be 'by passed' in case the adjoining boards do need this.  

You will need to agree on a certain common method of hooking these wires together from one to the next module (what connector type to use, which colour perhaps, depending on the type chosen, to facilitate anyone being able to help in set up, and to make any troubleshooting that WILL happen sooner or later, easier), another standard.

 

 

There are multiple reasons why certain things have become standards on many modular systems, generally because they work. Not because it is to impose a certain idea onto others. It just is there to ensure that modules fit together and can be up and running, as not to detract from the reason why you got together in the first place, RUNNING TRAINS, and have fun sharing that with others.  

The last thing you need is to spend hours troubleshooting, making all kinds of adapters to fit someone in that didn't build to the standard etc etc. You get the idea. That is also why certain systems have decided to have a certain width, some even lengths or fractions thereof (in case you decide to build in the provision for a geometric oval shaped layout for continuous running).

It's for geometric reasons, clamping/fixing methods, ease of construction and setting up , transportation, storage, etc etc.

 

We all agreed to drive on the left in the UK, and follow the highway code, it's what makes it work (most of the time) , but we're not all driving in the exact same cars,but they all adhere to certain minimum rules.

 

You need some minimum form of standardization in any modular system, whatever form it may take, and I think you agree.

Within most standards, there still is an enormous amount of freedom, and the most important one is the choice to participate or not, and to help developing them into something that works for the many, not for the few. 

 

Koos

Edited July 8, 2014 by torikoos

[FelixM]

I see another trap coming. WLAN and other remote systems do not have the bandwith to support much controler like smartphones or others. If you are going to become more and more module modellers over the time, you will de facto need a wire system, for example Loconet. I'd say more than 10 wireless controlers aren't possible.

 

A sketch from our norm:

 

On the left it says banana plug and socket (does this word exist in English too?),

on the right it says that the plug is always for the right rail and the socket for the left one.

 

Kind regards

Felix

Edited July 8, 2014 by FelixM

[PaulRhB]

My Z21 recommends 10 max wireless but says in theory 253 ip addresses are possible. We were only running 4-5 wirelessly and the rest wired using a Lenz system this weekend. For station shunters or industrial sections like the industrial park I built a wired controller is easy and you can keep the wireless for the inter station trains so I think ten will be adequate for the vast majority of set ups. Ten trains all running out on the main is unlikely and you can always leap sockets like most did this weekend so the option is good but Z21 which is exclusively wireless might not be the best master unit as a result.

 

On connections they recommended fitting sockets and using the jump leads which gives the option to have plug or socket at each end as required as the jump leads have a socket on the back of the plug

[PaulRhB]

. A meter radius means that you can turn around a route in 2 m width, don't tell me that your halls are narrower than 2 m!

 

 

Felix

The piece on page 3 on curve radii here suggest 2m radius not diameter

That's all I was quoting, 1m radius sounds fine

http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1404930245&hash=0ef557e971f7a7bd8228e692156af9336aac9f29&file=fileadmin/redakteure/felix.moering/Norm_UK_EN.pdf

Edited July 8, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Andy Reichert]

Felix

The piece on page 3 on curve radii here suggest 2m radius not diameter

That's all I was quoting, 1m radius sounds fine

http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1404930245&hash=0ef557e971f7a7bd8228e692156af9336aac9f29&file=fileadmin/redakteure/felix.moering/Norm_UK_EN.pdf

 

If you allow sharper radii for main line modules, the results can start to look very toy like in a larger hall.  The return loops here on the SLO-Mo Modules were made 48" radius and they still look tight when laid out, compared to a realistic bend in the track.

 

 

Here is my testing oval shown from above for an idea of what that looks like. The inside radius is 48". The  bae boards are all modular 30" x 48" and set to the Free-MO height.  Note. I still had to replace the chair shown with a standard lowered office chair on castors to be able to quickly and safely roll in and out under the layout entry point.

 

Andy

Edited July 8, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[PaulRhB]

I agree bigger radii are best but again I'm thinking of the types of hall local groups of RMweb members are likely to hire based on the Taunton and Armitage events I've been to. Bigger radii can be used but I've run 12 coach trains on 36in radii with no problem on a friends layout and the only issue we had was a Javelin flying off the outside when doing a scale 350mph

[Andy Reichert]

In the several years I've been participating in US-outline HO DCC&modular&ops sessions (which we perform every month at our meet in Plymouth, and have a most excellent time), I rarely if ever use more than one (or one lash-up of two) medium-sized locomotive the whole day.  This is the beauty of the idea. 

 

 

I append a poster used by the NMRA(BR) which sums the whole thing up.  Replace that SD7 with a Class 08, and just add some four-wheel wagons. 

 

I confess that, if I didn't find Kenton's views on the matter so amusing, I'd probably have chucked myself under a train. And while he's telling everyone all the negative stuff, we just get on with it and have a hoot.

 

Brian  

 

Just actually read through this somewhat confusing ad. I'm wondering how it  bears comparison with the NMRA official statement on their web site saying that the  NMRA is for "scale model railroading"? It seems to sound more like it is for running "operations" with purchased RTR equipment .

 

Another detail I am unsure of is the NMRA GB's  equally negative descriptive term for a hobbyist who apparently doesn't worry about whether his model trains and track look anything like the items he/she calls his/her stuff a "model" of?

 

Perhaps the ad is a spoof? Or does it really "Sum things up"?

 

Andy

 

Past member NMRA standards group for ~ 15 years

Edited July 8, 2014 by Andy Reichert

[torikoos]

Hi Andy,   The poster Brian posted, is one of many different ones the NMRA BR has issued, to highlight the various aspects of model railroading. in this case it was about sharing know how (our recurrent theme) in regards to modular railroading and running trains in a realistic way, not just aimless circles etc,  one of many ways this hobby can be enjoyed and highlighting the social aspect of it, which we fear is getting a little lost due to the advance of the internet (despite the many pro's it has too)

Others emphasize scenery building, yet others about kit bashing etc etc, they are all intended to introduce the 'public' , and those new to (north american) model railroading to the many facets of this hobby, without 'scaring them off' with craftsman quality modeling, giving of the (false) impression that we are all master craftsmen, and prevent them from thinking 'I could never do that, this is not for me'.

It was a stigma we felt the NMRA-BR was suffering from. Yes there are great modelers amongst us, but they didn't get there overnight. We want everyone to enjoy this hobby, each at their own pace and skill level, and in the process perhaps pick up a tip or two.  

 

I hope that looking at it in that context, the poster/flyer makes more sense?

 

Koos

Edited July 8, 2014 by torikoos