View of a US Freemo modular meet in Germany

[shortliner]

http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/19709

[Andy Reichert]

The obvious serious pre-planning of this is something that I think has been overlooked by the RM Web modular project.

[Steve-e]

The obvious serious pre-planning of this is something that I think has been overlooked by the RM Web modular project.

You are comparing something that's been going since 1996 Freemo.org  (18 Years) and 1981 fremo-net.eu/ (33 Years) with something that is trying to get off the ground in the UK. I'm sure both had their issues at the start and if in 18 years time we have a set up that's like the original post then great if not then you can justifiably make your comments then.

The UK Standards and set up was discussed at length and it was decided not to copy existing groups but to go it alone so we can make our own mistakes and if we do along the way we would have fun making those mistakes. 

 

Shortliners post shows what is possible so hopefully people do embrace what the UK modular thread is trying to do.

 

Regards

Steve

[Talltim]

That setup is N gauge isn't it? Have to say the modelling is so good I didn't realise for quite a while

[PaulRhB]

The obvious serious pre-planning of this is something that I think has been overlooked by the RM Web modular project.

Do you always have to be negative?

 

Some of us have already done a US modular meet that was a resounding success and is already booked to repeat next year.

Here's our obviously disorganised meet

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73182-freemo-extravaganza/page-21

I really don't see a problem though I don't expect the first meets to be big or polished, even if we adopted the Fremo standard there would be differing interpretations to tweak.

 

Great to see that set up and I look forward to the threads on RMweb ones

[switcher 1]

That's some trainset......

[Andy Reichert]

Do you always have to be negative?

 

Some of us have already done a US modular meet that was a resounding success and is already booked to repeat next year.

Here's our obviously disorganised meet

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/73182-freemo-extravaganza/page-21

I really don't see a problem though I don't expect the first meets to be big or polished, even if we adopted the Fremo standard there would be differing interpretations to tweak.

 

Great to see that set up and I look forward to the threads on RMweb ones

 

That's done to US "model operations" practice. 

 

No LH-RH double track working, no commuter passenger service, probably no actual regular passenger service at all. No time critical timetabled sequence of trains. Operationally it's perfectly reasonable to switch and /or run a freight train from anywhere to anywhere else, at any time, because those trains are operated effectively autonomously compared to UK practice. And all that's possible because all the allowed "routes" are merely the entire connectivity of the modules.

 

So yes I'm in disagreement (sorry, but that's quite different from negative)  if you want to seriously compare that to running a clearly UK modular setup, where there are (IMHO should be) multiple passenger stations, obvious, sensible, end to end passenger routes using some terminii modules and several passing stations, with all sticking to a UK typical logical timetable for arrivals and making connections. And a lot of passenger speed double track working.  Show that as a goal and my enthusiasm will be boundless. So far nothing in the proposed standard" seems to encourage any of that. Certain none of the apparent participants seem keen on, nor have mentioned, any part of it.

 

Since the "standard" was supposed to be "inclusive" and "British", the possibilities above should be includable in the vast majority of your proposed meets, particularly if you want to "prove" the standard to any extent at all.  Sure you can have lots of single track modules and UK style freight industries and destinations. But those too should be also includable, not instead of.

 

I'm not optimistic about an increasingly interesting modular model passenger network becoming developed (or even learned how to be developed) by a few folks attending unplanned meets. Why not just try actually getting and working together and jointly planning one first,  and so save a few years of little progress and lots of frustration?

 

Andy

[PaulRhB]

The comment about negativity was as a result of your apparent talking about organising the meet not the operation of the model.

"Obvious serious pre planning"

 

Initially any group taking on any standard new to them are going to have a steep learning curve. If Fremo was well established in the UK that would be an obvious way to get the experience quickly. It isn't so we chose a simpler standard

Having built and operated on two uk modular narrow gauge layouts I see no difference to any SG branch line. A basic passenger and freight timetable are easy to build once the available stations and industries are known. Double track is included and ideal with a few modules to make a mainline so I see no problem working with both together.

Hey ho we will see and if the first few meets are more like mini RMweb days, like Taunton, where various ideas are explored and bugs ironed out then ultimately it's a success. I hadn't noticed an actual operation plan in the Fremo GB standard, is there one?

[Glorious NSE]

So far nothing in the proposed standard" seems to encourage any of that.

 

 

 

No, neither does it discourage it, which is entirely as it should be. The point of the standard is to ensure connectivity, the point of the standard is not to try and force folk to model something that somebody else wants them to.

 

In the same way, it's entirely possible for a group to model a big chunk of CTC mainline within the framework of the US spec **IF** that's something they feel inspired to do.

 

Certain none of the apparent participants seem keen on, nor have mentioned, any part of it.

 

 

Surely it's down to the participants in this to decide what they want out of it, rather than folk outside telling them how they are doing it all wrong...? 

 

That's done to US "model operations" practice.

 

Yes it is, but you would be wrong to assume that how that specific layout operated is how our US meets always operate, I would, when I organise one, tailor the operations to the layout we will have available. To do anything else is to invite failure.

 

There is no fixed written down operating plan that *must* be the way you run, as operations on a small layout with 2 or 3 modules can be very different to operations on a layout with a staging to staging "main line", which would be different again to the "Shortline hub" model we used at Armitage. 

 

For the record, timetabled commuter operations have taken place in US outline meets, and, assuming the infrastructure is available to support it, I would definitely do it again.

 

I'd also make the point that we're also all still learning here, virtually every meet we run with the US outline we will be trying something different operationally, trying to make the operations better.

 

Given the fact that we're several years down this road and we're still experimenting, I would suggest cutting the British outline guys some slack given that they haven't even had one meet yet. They will get there i'm sure.

 

[bxmoore]

And here indeed is a timetabled commuter operation that took place at the Kingsteignton meet a few months ago.

 

Brian

[cromptonnut]

I'm not optimistic about an increasingly interesting modular model passenger network becoming developed (or even learned how to be developed) by a few folks attending unplanned meets.

 

At the end of the day, it is up to those attending the meeting to decide what they want to do with their day.  If it's just a case of "play trains" then so be it; if we want to try and operate to some sort of rudimentary timetable or even a "fast timetable", then we'll have a go, and if it all goes horribly wrong then so what, we're still playing trains.

 

There won't be any "unplanned meets" happening - even if we just pick a date and a venue, then that is an element of planning.  Granted ten of us meeting in a village hall may not take as much "planning" as one of the US meets with 100+ attendants, but we will learn as we go.

 

Does Freemo have a "how to organise a meet" manual available that everyone works to?

[Glorious NSE]

Does Freemo have a "how to organise a meet" manual available that everyone works to?

 

We certainly don't, though it's been mentioned. I think one issue is how do you write something to cover all meets everywhere, when "a meet" has potentially near unlimited variables. I could see such a thing ending up so vague and wooly that it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

 

I don't recall (and a quick google doesn't reveal) anything similar for our American Free-Mo cousins either. 

[cromptonnut]

That seems reasonable and a realistic solution.

 

That's helpful because that means our meets won't be organised "by the book" if there isn't a book to organise with.

 

I'd guess that, large or small, would follow the same process.

 

1) See if there's enough interest.

2) Pick a date, location and which DCC system will be used, and invite people to sign up.

3) Attendees provide details of modules they are bringing, and their contribution towards the costs in advance by a cut off date.

4) Organiser works out the best plan of modules and informs people what to (and not) bring where relevant, circulating to all for discussion if necessary (rinse/repeat)

5) Turn up and enjoy the day.

[Glorious NSE]

Pretty much it - I think 3) might potentially work differently depending on size and costs, though the "booked in" nature of doing it in advance I think does have the advantage of helping focus people's minds on their commitment towards the day.

 

I'd just add...

 

6) From the experience you gain of doing them, update the process for next time as needed...

[bxmoore]

I think it's also useful to have some sort of agreed plan as to what you want to achieve on the day, even if you only learn afterwards that it was unachievable. 

 

In my own experience of playing with modules for the last few years, there won't be a lot of extended fun in shuttling/shuffling fixed passenger rakes between a few locations.  This seems to be something that at least a few of the UK guys want to do (and you never know, it may float their boats, which is fine). But more likely, the lack of anything to do at the stations, and the extreme lack of appreciable distance between stations, will probably make it as much fun as watching paint dry after a few runs.  Therefore, think of extending the run by the attaching of a milk van or another coach, etc.  With sound-equipped locomotives, even such a thing as simple as that makes it a really enjoyable experience, especially if you have to interact with the controller/signal box, and use your whistle/horn to signal. 

 

Also, an agreed method of how to control the trains, even a very basic one.  Otherwise, the whole thing will come to a juddering halt, even on a double-track, and at least a few people will get very annoyed at a few others' complete lack of etiquette (we've all been there, and I've even heard one annoyed attendee ask if the club keeps two sets of boxing gloves handy).

 

Brian  

[PaulRhB]

I think the operational aspect would significantly increase the interest especially on a small setup. At the two day Armitage meet I think I ran about 8 trains with different 'jobs' taking from 10 -90 minutes to complete. The passenger train was the simplest with a priority run past goods trains but it was something different again so still interesting to work.

Thinking of it as a series of shunting puzzles for goods trains gives an idea but rather than re shuffling cards you move into another location giving it a better illusion of a real purpose. For passenger trains adding coaches or luggage vans, milk tanks etc and including run round and loco servicing at a shed helps increase the fun.

We started at 8am and were running by 12 on a huge set up and carried on until 9pm on the first day and from 9-3ish on the second so that's one thing to consider for planning, whether the hall time is available to get the most out of it in one day or if two is better?

[dave1905]

 

 

That's done to US "model operations" practice. No LH-RH double track working, no commuter passenger service, probably no actual regular passenger service at all.

 

Actually LH/RH running is US practice, Rule 251, it was the most common method of operating double track .  Part of the UP's transcontinental main line is still current of traffic operation.

 

 

 

Operationally it's perfectly reasonable to switch and /or run a freight train from anywhere to anywhere else, at any time, because those trains are operated effectively autonomously compared to UK practice.

 

That's not US prototype practice.  Real US trains have set schedules and time tables (except for bulk trains, coal, grain, rock, oil, etc).  Railroads don't just run random trains in random directions.  As a matter of fact latter this afternoon I will be spending a couple hours in a meting trying to problem solve how to get a poor performing general freight train back on schedule.  The schedules exist, they just aren't publically published and don't convey authority to operate on the main track.

[Talltim]

In practice, especially with an inexperienced team and new layout (which the modular concept means it will be at pretty much every event) its probably better to have a sequence than a schedule/timetable.

[Dr Gerbil-Fritters]

Maintaining standards is clearly important with modular layouts...

 

 

[highpeak]

In my collection of Maine Central memorabilia is a little book entitled "Freight Train Symbol Book" from October, 1965. The book details what work each train is supposed to do. It sets out departure and arrival times, and describes the traffic to be handled and any pertinent instructions.

For instance, YR 1 St. Johnsbury to Portland Rigby yard should consist of "Cars from CP and St. J & LC and local cars". The train picks up traffic at Lunenburg dropped by the Beecher Falls branch trains and is expected to get to Rigby to connect with trains for Bangor, Bath, Lewiston Lower and Rumford.

There is also an instruction that YR 1 should hold at St. Johnsbury to protect the connection with CP train 904 and St. J & LC train 74 allowing interchange of cars up to 3:30pm. Finally the book noted different departure times and connections at Rigby on Saturdays and Sundays.

 

I would have thought the planning of a big modular operation ought to aim for something like this. A modular set up of a significant size gives the opportunity to model flows of traffic rather than random sequences of trains.

[Glorious NSE]

My personal current starting point (assuming the layout has infrastructure that can support a reasonable passenger service) would be freight organised via JMRI, effectively running freight trains in a continual pattern (though not in a rigid order) - but passenger moves run on an actual hourly timetable. 

 

As per Brian's pic above (waiting departure from Rockwood) - at Kingsteignton we had the infrastructure to try this out, we used that SP commute set (with an RDC providing an optional second train set to allow for an additional "peak hour" diagram) - as it was loco hauled not push pull it allowed for the passenger diagram to have the option of a loco swap or shunt release at one end, and a runround move at the other, those things and keeping timings fairly tight meant that I thought it was a nice challenge of a job. The "peak hours" diagram created a timetabled meet at Wolter Springs on the return.

 

Here's the "every hour" diagram that the crew had*.

 

 

The person assigning crews can assign you to either the next freight turn, or the next timetabled passenger, as needs be - unlike the real world there is no real problem in arbitrarily cancelling a passenger turn if either you don't have a crew at the right time, or it's out of position, or if there's congestion where adding another train would cause a serious problem, they just don't feel like it...

[Glorious NSE]

I would have thought the planning of a big modular operation ought to aim for something like this. A modular set up of a significant size gives the opportunity to model flows of traffic rather than random sequences of trains.

 

That's exactly the kind of thing I try and do for freight traffic via JMRI.

[Glorious NSE]

Just to expand on that - this is the final layout (barring a couple of minor swaps of plain track modules) from Armitage:

 

 

Dale was the main hub yard, with yard tracks at Lloyd Yard and Fort Myers also providing some interchange locations.

 

Freight trains were:

 

DALBRC - Dale Yard to BRC Chicago (IE staging - as we didn't have a dedicated staging location the plain track on the 45deg curve beyond Blind River was used)

BRCDAL - BRC Chicago to Dale Yard (run straight after DALBRC bringing the majority of cars back with loads/empties swapped as necessary)

DALLLO - Dale Yard to Lloyd Yard turn (switches industries at White Rock, industries at Lloyd, and the interchange at Lloyd)

DALBLI - Dale Yard to Blind River turn (can set out at Sammys outbound, switches Wallingford and Blind River - cannot be run whilst DALBRC or BRCDAL is operational!)

DALFOR - Dale Yard to Fort Myers turn (can set out at Sammys outbound, switches Fort Myers)

FORBRO - Fort Myers to Brownville turn (runs round and switches interchange only at Lloyd Yard in both directions, picks up at Sammys on return)

LLOSUN-1 - Lloyd Yard Interchange (only) to Sunnydale, shoving, working facing spurs (no runrounds, can't run at the same time as LLOSUN-2)

LLOSUN-2 - Lloyd Yard Interchange (only) to Sunnydale, shoving, working trailing spurs (no runrounds, can't run at the same time as LLOSUN-1)

 

I think most of the time I managed to have 4 or 5 operational crews out there at the same time with those, in addition we had a permanent switch crew on duty at Dale, and I have a feeling there was a kinda unofficial switch crew on duty at Fort Myers as well, as train lengths there were at times a little hard to handle with just the train loco!

 

Unfortunately most loads went to/from Staging, but I managed to create some "internal" flows of pulpwood between Wallingford and Lloyd (interchanging at Dale), paper from Lloyd to Fort Myers (picked up from Lloyd via DALLLO and either moved to the interchange track at Lloyd for FORBRO or back to Dale for DALFOR), and cement from Sunnydale to Fort Myers (interchanging at Lloyd), and a couple of other bits and pieces.

[Andy Reichert]

And here indeed is a timetabled commuter operation that took place at the Kingsteignton meet a few months ago.

 

Brian

 

Please understand, I'm thinking in my familiarity terms of UK city to inner suburb commuter service. For example, my own local line, one branch of three, that merged together at a junction further in, was steam operated, with fixed rake10 car trains at the rate of 9 trains per hour, just on my own branch, in the same direction during rush hour and 3 trains per hour otherwise. Similar schedules operated on the other branches. Separate locomotives for inbound and outbound were switched at the terminals, to avoid the time and trackage needed to have run-arounds. Outer suburban services and longer distance trains also merged into a single city terminus for them all. So the terminus throat trackage was busy indeed. And in the pre-Beeching era, a little mixed freight ran in the late evenings, and off peak.

 

To me and a very high percentage of all UK railway travellers, that type of operation was the essence and image of British Railways.

[Glorious NSE]

Travelers and modelers aren't the same thing though. The bits that are the most popular modelling fodder from the pre-Beeching era are the bits that didn't in all honesty have that many travelers!