British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Kenton]

All the above are mere suggestions of course Once again there is not a defined standard here in BritishOO land!

 

As far as I'm concerned: again just an opinion and based on my usual practice for layouts - which I will apply to my modules and will make every effort to adapt and adopt (within reason).

 

DCC or DC - makes no difference as all my DC layout wiring is DCC compatible so nothing to change. But I think it was agreed a long way back that all modules will need to be operational as DCC with the bus "exposed" at each end of the module. with some form of connector.

 

Banana plugs and sockets - I'm still uncertain what these actually are - some keep talking about them but I have't seen on yet. I currently use plugs and sockets as shown below: (the socket is an 8 way panel - I usually use the 4way version - the inside terminal is used)

 

The sockets are set into the rear face of the boards (depending on layout on both front and back) this is because my controllers (DC and DCC) also use the plugs so it makes the layout interchangeable. IF it turns out that some other spec is decided on I will use a patch lead to plug here and connect to whatever becomes "standard". I use a separate bus for points etc with same terminals and same work around.

Converting DC to DCC is simple throw of section switches.

Due to the modernisation lobby - I doubt if the modules at a gathering will ever be operated DC - so DC remains an option only for home layout use.

 

The most critical thing that is "likely" (if it isn't already) is that the control system is DCC. So all track needs to be tested under these conditions.

 

The length of leads is pretty irrelevant IMO as it isn't beyond the wit of man to connect things - even if it means turning up with extra long flying leads.

Edited July 29, 2014 by Kenton

[FelixM]

Dutch_Master, I don't think you can judge about FREMO practices. For transport reasons wooden clothes pegs are glued under the modules. They hold the cables when not in use. Furthermore fixed sockets are complicated to fix if they are accidently riped off on a meeting. A loose wire is much easier to solder than something on the underside of a module.

 

I did not speak of Single Command station Multiple Booster but of Multiple Command stations Multiple Booster setups. This is necessary if there are more locos on the layout than one command station can manage.

 

Kind regards

Felix

[Shadow]

Phono plugs on the left (like yours Kenton) , Banana plugs on the right

 

 

[cromptonnut]

I know "other standards" use banana plugs but are they really that much quicker than a pair of "screw terminal blocks" on each board, and some short lengths of suitable rating wire to join them?  Certainly they're a lot cheaper...

[Glorious NSE]

I know "other standards" use banana plugs but are they really that much quicker than a pair of "screw terminal blocks" on each board, and some short lengths of suitable rating wire to join them?  Certainly they're a lot cheaper...

 

Yes. Electrical connections made in the time it takes to push two plugs into two sockets.

 

Versus, cut a wire to length, unscrew, unscrew, screw, screw, drat the wire dropped out, unscrew, unscrew, screw, screw screw...

[cromptonnut]

Was just thinking that on a "plain" module the connectors are going to cost more than the track and scenery...

[298]

I know "other standards" use banana plugs but are they really that much quicker than a pair of "screw terminal blocks" on each board, and some short lengths of suitable rating wire to join them?  Certainly they're a lot cheaper...

It does mean you have to scramble around in the dark underneath the boards wiring them in, instead of a few seconds with a plug and socket, times as many connections as the setup has.

 

Bare wires into terminal block are generally frowned upon in industry as they can become loose, plus errant strands can cause a short. I'm not saying they couldn't be used within a local section, but they don't look very professional and no-one has baulked at the cost or availability of banana plugs yet.

[Glorious NSE]

(Again, context of our group)

 

Electrical Interconnectivity.

 

Ok, I know that 4mm banana style plugs and sockets have been suggested, but I was wondering about mounting locations.

 

This is the underside of the join between a pair of my modules - I don't think anything specific has been nailed down for the OO version yet. The R/H board is a dead end hence no onward bus that side...

 

Our small group uses a pair of sockets on each board and jumper cables (these are "ready to run" ones from Maplin which are handily stackable, and wierdly work out cheaper than buying the components!) - but our spec also allows for a version where there is one socket and one lead with a plug on the board end, the two versions are fully compatible. Proponents of the two sockets reckon it's simpler and there is nothing which is capable of being easily damaged in transit, proponents of the lead/socket version say that there is less chance of them going to a meet and leaving their jumper cables behind, plus it uses fewer components so is slightly cheaper.

 

 

Isn't this sort of thing is why there is a set of standards, which sometimes are quite detailed, gained through practical experience over several years?

 

This is the sort of thing we let folk do on their own, as personal tastes with things like baseboard design vary greatly...so long as it can handle what it needs to, we don't care how it's made.

[298]

Was just thinking that on a "plain" module the connectors are going to cost more than the track and scenery...

60p per module:

 

EBay item 330504241961

 

You could even use one plug and a section of brass tube as the socket.

Edited July 29, 2014 by 298

[Glorious NSE]

Was just thinking that on a "plain" module the connectors are going to cost more than the track and scenery...

 

Even at Maplins prices (and there are much, much cheaper sources) you'll need the minimum of:

 

2x Banana Plugs (one to go on a lead each end) - at £1.59 = £3.18

2x 4mm sockets (one to receive a lead each end) - at £1.39 = £2.78

 

So, £5.96. Not a huge investment. One modeller who's posted on this thread has craftily avoided buying the sockets by using a small bit of brass square section instead, that may save a little if you're really watching the pennies on a build...

[cromptonnut]

I was basing the prices on what Maplin were coming up with - once the spec has been defined (soon I hope) I can order some from Ebay.  Still not sure where the funky angle pieces come from in GNSE's picture above.

[cromptonnut]

£5.96 per module may not be a lot but it depends how many module/units you are planning on building.  I have a fair few in mind.

 

However I guess that "internal connections" between boards that make up modules can be whatever you want them to be?

[Glorious NSE]

They are little angle brackets for bracing kitchen cabinets from a pound shop, they made nice supports for the sockets.

 

(Other methods are available...)

[Glorious NSE]

However I guess that "internal connections" between boards that make up modules can be whatever you want them to be?

 

So long as they can handle the power, (they should be rated for at least 5A) yep, whatever you like.

[Shadow]

Currently 10 for 1p (!!) + £1.00 p&p

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SN9F-5-pair-Amplifier-Terminal-Connector-Binding-Post-Banana-Plug-Jack-Mount-/121397464781?pt=UK_Sound_Vision_Audio_Cable_Terminations&hash=item1c43da4ecd

[Suzie]

Yes. Electrical connections made in the time it takes to push two plugs into two sockets.

 

Versus, cut a wire to length, unscrew, unscrew, screw, screw, drat the wire dropped out, unscrew, unscrew, screw, screw screw...

 

... replace terminal block because the thread has stripped...

 

... spend hour looking for short because stray filament of copper from super flexible wire has gone astray...

[Suzie]

There is a need for quality in the connections because there are going to be a lot of them and they need to take the full booster output current (and a bit during overload conditions which for practical purposes should be taken as 10A, not 5A) while not introducing significant voltage drop. Bear in mind that you have a connector for approximately every track foot (assuming average module length of 4') so by the time your train has run 100' the bus feed has gone through 100 connectors, fifty jumper cables and fifty sets of module bus wiring.

 

Connectors need to be designed for the job with proper contact material, not any old brass that will oxidise, while jumpers and module wiring needs to be 2.5mm². DCC people on the whole will be quite used to the discipline of good connectivity, but DC people will not be used to it and will of course not need it when the module is used at home but it must be done right for DCC modular use. This discipline is just as important on intra-module connectors too.

 

The currents involved are similar to a modern kettle, so when choosing wiring and connectors think carefully would you use that wire and those connectors if you had to have a hundred of them cascaded in series with your kettle, if the answer is no then you probably need to think again. Fortunately the voltage is lower so failure will not cause death, but implications for reliability are the same.

[Trebor]

Be Careful, there are different diameter banana plugs/sockets, 2mm and 4mm, I would suggest we standardise on the 4mm variety as were not doing N Gauge :-)

[kevinlms]

There has never been a UK OO standard so there is no prior experience to draw on.

 

However there is a recognition that other standards exist which may have some bits we can copy.

Oh, I got the impression from here, that other standards weren't going to be used, because 'We're British & we'll learn from our own mistakes, thank you!'.

 

No, I don't think that everything does to be copied exactly, but surely there is a requirement for the modules to go together securely (Kenton's question about the width of the timber for the G clamps to exert force on).

Also with intermodule wiring, why can't the Freemo standard be used (whatever it is), as presumably its been proven to work. The interchangeability between Freemo proper & a British OO standard, is almost irrelevant (because of different scales), but the hard work has been done already.

[Andy Reichert]

As have other standards As you've correctly implied, there's virtually no chance Freemo and this new standard (let's give it a working title of Britm00dule   ) will ever interact, so why adopt their standards? Even more so for Continental Fremo. I agree that it's smart to grab back to proven solutions, but by no means adopt them blindly, because as a whole, the needs they were born from then differs from the needs of UK modellers now.

 

I think it was a missed opportunity that Andy hadn't formulated and launched his basic proposals right in his OP, as it seems a number of members are still running round re-discussing (or trying to) a number of points that have already been determined in those proposals. IMO it's time for Andy to carve a number of previously discussed subjects in stone, so that the subject doesn't need further discussion (and any attempts thereof smothered instantly!) and progress can be made on the rest of the standard and its accompanying recommendations

 

I think there is still some confusion between other groups sharing the results of their early on trying out different methods, only one of which was found to be the best way, which they therefore adopted, and "standards", which are really the smallest set of necessary inteconnectivity restrictions. The latter being mandated, so that all modules connect to each other simply, easily and reliably, and the trains on them flow correctly  through all past, present and future moduleswith no problems.

 

I would propose that the name PECO-Mo is most approriate, as that, rather than anything particularly British per se, appears to be major standardizing factor, and the one which is being used to both set the double track distance and the minimum turnout "radii". For example there could well be other 16.5 mm gauge modular systems that are not specified in that way, but which could be equally "Brit" oriented, as well as eventually even UK  EM and P4 systems, none of which would be able to directly connect.

 

I'm also  rather concerned that there seems to still be some confusion as to what the internal peco turnout radius is, if it apparently isn't listed, or known to be constant throughout the turnout. Those used in the main line, automatically affect the minimum track radius, if they are not 50 mm or more greater than that radius

 

Andy.

[cromptonnut]

You will probably find that Peco have issues about their name being used in something they are not actually involved in.

 

Does the name really matter that much?  We could call it "Dave" and as long as it's clear that it's the name for British modular OO gauge projects that's the main thing.

 

As others have said, just because something was "the best way" when it was adopted doesn't necessarily mean it's still the best way as things have moved on.  Using something readily available on the continent, for example, but isn't so easily available in the UK, would mean something more common over here but not on the continent, would be the same issue for UK modellers trying to work with some continental standard. 

 

I'm sure Andy Y and "the powers that be" are sorting out things right now and will soon be along with a proposed final standard document for slight tweaking that will allow the rest of us to get on and start making stuff.

Edited July 30, 2014 by cromptonnut

[Kenton]

 

DCC people on the whole will be quite used to the discipline of good connectivity, but DC people will not be used to it and will of course not need it when the module is used at home but it must be done right for DCC modular use.

While I agree with most of what you say there I find that remark downright insulting and patronising.

 

DCC folk are no better than DC folk and to be honest, no different. I have always wired my DC layouts with the same care as DCC and I will say it yet again - wiring a layout for DCC is NO DIFFERENT from wiring a layout for DC. If done well it should be a case of simply throwing section switches. A poorly wired layout can be just as easy to do in DCC.

 

All this talk of 2.5mm wire of 10A rating - please can we make it clear to everyone in simple to understand terminology that does not require them to go out and purchase their wire from some overpriced DCC "specialist". That flexible mains cable with the outer sheath stripped back to reveal the inner sheathed cables is perfectly adequate. It will be brown/blue/yellow&green and not red/black - but colour is only aesthetics.

 

If you are worried about small bits of wire falling to the floor then tin the exposed ends of the wire (good practice anyway) before clamping it into the chocblock connectors. Though I would not advocate their use as an intermodule connector - simply the wrong tool for the job - a frequently connected/disconnected wiring need a plug and socket with the internal wire soldered. Phono or Banana both work.

 

 

I think it was a missed opportunity that Andy hadn't formulated and launched his basic proposals right in his OP, as it seems a number of members are still running round re-discussing (or trying to) a number of points that have already been determined in those proposals. IMO it's time for Andy to carve a number of previously discussed subjects in stone, so that the subject doesn't need further discussion (and any attempts thereof smothered instantly!) and progress can be made on the rest of the standard and its accompanying recommendations

The key word though is PROPOSALS and I think Andy got it spot on when he introduced Absolute and Recommended standards. Even the Fre(e)mo "standards were/are not fixed in stone and have evolved over time. I do not expect the BritishOO standards to be unshakable from day 1. As modules are developed and refined with experience no doubt the BritishOO will also be refined. Though I would hope that they will be so few that the absolutes do not need too many revisits.

 

 

I would propose that the name PECO-Mo is most approriate

Let's not give them ownership.

 

there could well be other 16.5 mm gauge modular systems that are not specified in that way, but which could be equally "Brit" oriented, as well as eventually even UK; EM and P4 systems, none of which would be able to directly connect.

Ahem! None of them are OO so they wouldn't want to be seen dead associating with anything OO - they would call themselves something like BritishFinescale or BritishUltraFineScale or just Perfectionists. Edited July 30, 2014 by Kenton

[AndrewC]

I was staying out of this but for what its worth, a couple of suggestions from someone that has been there, done that, got blood on the t-shirt when trying to herd a critical mass of cats into creating a British modular standard. (BRMNA Alberta region) We spent years trying to nail down something that was acceptable to everyone. Didn't work. Whinging arguments around ballast colour, code 100 v the rest, height, British modules have to be different than North American ones, Freemo standards won't work on OO, Lima diesels v fine scale kit built, bla bla bla, ad nausea. I've also built 21 modules to one of the NMRA-BR group's standards. 4 of which are being modified to match the RS Tower standard.

 

Keep it as simple as possible. (I know sucking egg time, but..... ) Flat end profiles, 2 wire connection, each "module" has to be self supporting. Basically all you need to enforce is rail height, rail position/centre(s), wiring connector. Beyond that don't sweat it. In reality all that we are doing with a module is creating a custom piece of BRIO track. As long as it connects to the next piece.

 

If you want to make the modules reversible you need to go with single pole connectors. RCA (phono) won't allow for reversed polarity. Again simple, left wire to left rail, right wire to right rail. That way it shouldn't matter which end of a module connects to which end of any other module. Banana connectors are perfect for this.

 

9mm ends are too thin and will be prone to warping. Go for 18mm. Use a good quality birch ply as well. Don't just use crappy soft wood. It will cost more but your module will last longer. I've seen modules recycled many times with the original frames now close to 20 years old.

 

Good luck and have fun. After all isn't that the whole point of the hobby?

 

edit: I think Dave is a great name for the standard.

Edited July 30, 2014 by AndrewC

[Clive Mortimore]

Thanks for everyone’s input to the topic so far. It’s apparent to me that to encourage participation that any ‘standards’ should be as relaxed as possible encouraging ‘modules’ (as in a distinct section of contribution to the greater whole) which can be used at home, as a standalone exhibit or as part of a modular meet.

 

What someone does within their module needs to be relaxed rather than too prescriptive but we do need to make sure there are some areas of commonality are presented to enable the models to be joined together. This also means that there’s a place for plain track (straight or curved sections) and functional junctions rather than just stand-alone exhibits and we need a ‘standard’ which encourages participation with simple but immensely useful boards.

 

Initially I had thought that a standardised end boards with bolt holes, electrical holes etc would have been the way to go I can see from the Freemo approach that this would limit the participation of some and even if end boards were technically precise it wouldn’t mean the railhead is absolutely in the correct place.

 

 

Absolutes

 

Gauge – OO, suggest Peco Code 75 as the maximum code with any variations being 'compatible' at the module joints.

 

Floor to rail height – suggest 45” as a reasonable figure workable for as many people as possible and inclusive of existing Freemo work.

 

Height adjustment - - suggest +/- 1” either side of the Floor to rail height measurement

 

End boards at module joints – Of sufficient thickness (suggest 9mm) and depth (suggest 4”) to enable modules to be clamped or bolted together.

 

Rail centres at module joints – Double track modules to have track centres at 50mm to match Peco.

 

Track ends - all track joins at end of the module should be at 90 degrees to the board end.

 

Track Bus – A common standard for interlinking modules, suggestion of 3.5mm phono leads and sockets. revised to 4mm banana plug/sockets -

 

Control System – A module must be wired for, or be compatible with, DCC control.

 

Point/Signal control – A module operator should maintain and provide a means of local control (via DC or DCC) of all points and signals if used to enable operation through from an adjacent module.

 

Clearances – All modules should ensure the following clearances are met.

 

OO Gauge Clearances.jpg

 

Recommendations

 

Board widths at module joints – Matching board widths encourages uniformity of appearance – suggest 18” width, if a ‘module’ is wider or narrower than this it should be ‘blended’ to match at the module joint.

Track centres – if a centre point of the 18” wide board is taken for the track centre this will encourage modules which can be used both ways round in a gathered meeting. For double track module joints the twin track formation (with 50mm centres) should centred on the 18” width.

 

Board landscape at module joints – whilst creativity of cuttings, embankments, tunnels, viaducts etc should be encouraged it would be helpful to return the ground level to that of the track base at the module joint.

 

So, if the above presents a workable approach it’s a case of tweaking any of the measured elements based on sound advice and then hopefully move forward to getting some content built or adapted and working out when it’s worth a suitable collective getting together.

 

Just don’t ask me about electrical and computer bits!

 

I've tried to keep it simple and inclusive, creating technically exact specifications is unlikely to get modellers to start with the concept but if standards for particular items is needed it could be addressed on a need basis by and with the consensus of those partaking.

 

Off to consider something like Boscarne Junction as a useful junction 'module'.

Since this was written by Andy a minimum radius of 36 inches has been added.

 

Has anything else been achieved in the nearly 20 pages more of post?

 

There have been some that have been useful, Martyn's redraw of Stubby's clay driers was helpful in showing how to make a module design work is an example.

 

Is it time to lock this thread and start one regarding building modules to this criteria?

[Kenton]

 

Since this was written by Andy a minimum radius of 36 inches has been added.

 

Are you sure - there still seems to be confusion and controversy about points on curves, curved points, and the fact that PECO do not do points that meet the proposed standard.

 

It also seems to me that Andy's 9mm thickness is now becoming 18mm?

 

I've made a start on my "plain" module ... I got fed up waiting ... and can't see anything that I couldn't adapt to make work - unless there is a really radical change - like all track has to be hand built.