Jon Gwinnett Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 On another thread some time ago I mentioned that I thought the RSTower/UK Freemo type modules would be ideal for S&D layouts. For those not familiar with the system, the module specs can be found here: http://rstowerfreemo.wordpress.com/module-info/module-specifications/ Because only the endplates have to meet the dimensions, and it caters for both single and double track, it seems to me to be an ideal way of building up a mainline in bite size chunks. The resulting set-ups can be large - there are plans and pictures on the RSTower pages that show what can be achieved. Given the high quality of current ready to run stock, I think OO would be the way to go, althoguh EM woudl be feaisble. Not sure how P4 woudl cope with all the module joints? Nothing to stop OO-SF being used within modules of course, and perhaps SMP or C&L should be the standard at module ends? I doubt there are many other S&D modelers up here in Scotland, but it might be a more feasible idea further south. Or are we all lone wolves? I think what appeals to me is the ability to both recreate real scenes AND run the result as a real railway. The signallers would be the most interesting job, but driving could be a trial, especially if realistic train lengths and gradients could be achieved. Perhaps a variation on the module standard to give say two or three heights above datum for "mountain" sections. What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted April 5, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 5, 2012 Not for me personally, I'm afraid, if for no other reason than I've got far too many modelling projects in the pipeline/wishlist already, but I wish you luck with it, it's a very good idea. I would point out that the Germans, belgians & Dutch have managed modular P87 very successfully, so it should be similarly possible to make modular P4 work... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler Fan Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I give this just as a general guide:- Andreas Hohl, a swiss model railway enthusiasts, has written a 24 page specification. It goes into a lot of detail for clubs that run ac/dc Marklin K-track with catenary. The spec's for design of the boards are interesting and a good place to start. "Yodelbahn's Modular Railway System" His website is no longer operational to provide a working link. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted April 8, 2012 Author Share Posted April 8, 2012 Hadn't seen that specification before Dazzler - thanks. I prefer the Freemo centered track at module ends as it means modules can be reversed and still work. Also, there's then no restriction on "interior" board joints - one module cna be as many or as few boards as you like, so long as they have the correct end profile and track height. So not the rigid "dominos" favoured by N-trak and the like. If we take Chris Nevard's Midford plan as an example, really all that is needed for it to become part of a modular set up is track crossing the modules ends at 90 degrees and the correct height. So for home use it could be set at whatever height, and connect to whatever fiddle-yard you like, but take it on the road and join up with like minded modelers. I think RS Tower modules will be at Exeter show again this year - even if you have no interest in the US prototypes, its the concept that appeals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted April 8, 2012 Author Share Posted April 8, 2012 I've no particular axe to grind for any given set of standards, either for modules or track gauge. I just think that a line such as the S&D lends itself to modelling in this format. P4 would be superb, as would EM, but I think that the quality and availability of modern RTR means OO would make it easier - spend the time building a railway rather than on individual items of stock. Maybe its something the line society could give thought to, although i gather they have other more pressing worries at the moment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler Fan Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 One member's layout may contain several boards that can go "freelance" with whatever is happening to the route of the track bed itself. Andreas Hohl shows an example of a valley, maybe half a metre deep, with a long arch bridge. Others have factory scenes, station and yard complexes. Features like the Midford Viaduct should not be a problem, and neither the choose of center track bed ends - It is consensus that matters. For the whole to fit together, it is only layouts in multiples of the length, and the very ends of each layout that are required to match up to a standard connection: for clubs at Displays to have continuous running. He also gives spec' for the 90° turns as well as electriclal connection at each end. He does not supply spec for signaling and block control - arrivals/departures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Hi all, i'm not somebody signing up to this as a project, but as one of the folk behind the specs Jon linked to earlier i'm happy to help if anyone is interested - it is a great way to model a 'linear' chunk of railway, and the slow(er) operation of a single track route like the S&D (or the other one I've always thought would be the WHL) would be a good fit - each 'station' module wouldn't be fundamentally any different to a conventional model of that location (and could be used on it's own as such at a show or at home) As Jon says we're at the Exeter show again this year with a big setup (about 150' of running line on modules) - and whilst the operation and style would be somewhat different it shows what's possible if a few reasonably like minded folk get involved - we've not been doing this that long! Interestingly ref the gradient issue the full US Free-mo spec does specify all modules to have adjustable feet to allow for building in grades, i'm not convinced i've ever seen it used though which is why we stripped that out in the simplification process for our version. No reason why a 'Freemo-S&D' would need to match our version though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted April 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 12, 2012 Of course , there is always this project... http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/26725-module-layout-at-swag-members-day/ Currently each module is freelance, but, using the same standards, sections of the S&D could be built to be joined at the 2013 SWAG party... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Ramblin Rich Posted April 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 12, 2012 Of course , there is always this project... http://www.rmweb.co....ag-members-day/ Currently each module is freelance, but, using the same standards, sections of the S&D could be built to be joined at the 2013 SWAG party... Empire building, Stu - got designs on the big hall next time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted April 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 12, 2012 Empire building, Stu - got designs on the big hall next time? If enough members joined in, we might need the bigger hall... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted April 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2012 If enough members joined in, we might need the bigger hall... You mean the 'bigger hall' in Yeovil, that is?.... (or Truro, Accrington, Nemptnet Thrubwell etc. etc.....) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 You mean the 'bigger hall' in Yeovil, that is?.... (or Truro, Accrington, Nemptnet Thrubwell etc. etc.....) Whilst there are two 't's in Nempnett, you need to get them in the right place Mind you, I don't think they'll have a big enough hall for what Stu has in mind... Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted April 19, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted April 19, 2012 Mind you, I don't think they'll have a big enough hall for what Stu has in mind... Er, 'scuse me, but I don't think it was my idea to create an S&DJR modular railway... I was just theorising that it could be done at a Taunton Party, using the same standards as we're using for the project this year, and if enough peeps joined in we might need to utilise the bigger hall. Now, if there were more modules created than the Staplegrove hall could cope with, then maybe a different venue / exhibition might be utilised instead. Or use Muz's idea and stick them along a platform... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Gwinnett Posted April 19, 2012 Author Share Posted April 19, 2012 Er, 'scuse me, but I don't think it was my idea to create an S&DJR modular railway... Guilty as charged m'lud. Shame I'm so far away from Taunton, otherwise I'd be tempted to have a go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzler Fan Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 This idea of Halls not being big enough, I think needs a move from "Lateral Thinking". Clearly there needs to be tables with artistic license that shorten distances and take the line though 90° turns. I helped to build the full length of the WC&P Rly using a modular approach in 7mm in the 1980's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.