FelixM

Here is a photo gallery of an exceptional FREMO meeting, the owner of Uhlenbrock (a company manufacturing DCC equipment) has invited in hin private mansion:

http://vorschau.tobi-meyer.de/FremospielenRothspalk/index.html

Shows to good effect setup, running and breakup of a modular meeting as well as the social parts of such an event.

Regards

Felix

Edit: At least two of the pictured persons are modelling in 4mm scale too...

The next modular meeting with operation of British 00 gauge stock is going to be from October 30th to November 2nd in Berlin. Anyone interested to come? I will post photos.

Felix

In FREMO the end boards are there because it is not needed to add something on top. Between the two end profiles the track can be laid on cork which is embedded on a slightly lower wooden structure.

Felix

 

Reversible modules may seem a nice concept, but in practice very few will be truly build that way. Most will have either a preference side or a clear/obvious front side. I've outlined some proposals in this respect, back on page 25, message 611, directly below Andy's proposals Very few participants have commented on these back then, but the matter continues to be discussed debated argued over.

I predict the opposite. Home layouts made compatible with the modular standards we are talking about will be in the minority. There are lots of possibilities to recreate scale (or near to scale) prototype situations that you can only model on modules that are greater than useful for home usage, so this will attract the majority of fellowers.

Kind regards

Felix

 

I used this kind of fixing many  years ago - what a total  s..t  for me. The wooden pegs?  are not made for

rough transport in a trailer over long distances. They opened and the wires hang loose and there was danger to

tear them from the modules during unloading. And it happened. Often :-(

At each setup  I had to solder some (or more) wires to the modules again. (On tour with up to 40 or more

modules - 36 of them in a little trailer)

I only use sockets on the modules anymore and connect the modules with short wires with a plug on each end.

Has proven to be the best thing for me - and for my special kind of rough handling of my  modules :-)

This is an aspect of FREMO I like very much. People deviate from the standards to achieve the same, but in a different way. Cheers Harald!

Kind regards

Felix

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

Paul, I spoke of a single track line with trains going in opposite directions powered by DC. This is possible by Z wiring but came out of fashion in the late 90s.

Individual modules can support both DC and DCC wiring without any problems.

Felix

 

1) If using banana plugs and sockets, are the sockets mounted on the board (module) or free hanging?

 

2) If mounted on the board, whereabouts, top/bottom/side?

 

3) Are both sockets (one per rail) located together, or located on the respective side of the rails concerned?

 

4) Double/multiple track, is there one pair of sockets per track, or one pair for everything? (Assuming DCC, DC would require independent connections)

 

5) Are we wiring purely for DCC or should DC operation be taken into account?

Some tips from me:

1) free hanging on wires that are a bit longer than the module. sockets can be fixed on the modules but this causes problems with too short cables and complicates troubleshooting.

2) and 3) doesn't really matter if cables are long enough

4) separate wiring for each track recommended if some of you have the foresight to see what happens when multiple DCC command stations are used or when two single track lines are in parallel by using a \I-shaped junction.

5) DC complicates wiring extensive and restricts for example shunting in a station in the timeframe when trains are approaching from both sides of a through station. DC and DCC should not be mixed on a layout because by accident, may it be a human error or a technical failure (= human error in the end) DCC can burn DC locos and vice versa. Then there would be the question who is at fault and who pays for the damage.

Kind regards

Felix

Coincidentally I came across a new design of wheelchairs today which would be much more suitable for modular meetings: http://vimeo.com/37309324

Kind regards

Felix

Thanks Felix, I don't doubt the validity of the stated views with respect to what works for Fremo on the continent but my aim was to see if there was interest in doing something achievable and I honestly feel that overly technical standards will reduce participation. RMweb members who meet up at events have a good track record of cobbling something together which is enjoyable to do - it's the British way and probably the reason we don't have a home-owned car industry anymore (apart from Japanese owned plants who are very good at showing us how it should have been done) but along the way we gave the world Jaguars, Rolls-Royces, MGs etc and people still enjoy driving them.

Andy, your proposal is not an overly technical standard. Making 1143 1300 and 50 46 will ensure that after starting up your group will not collapse.

I strongly recommend to introduce your planned separate subforum sooner than later because the outward appearance of your modular group suffers by bringing internal discussions to the public as happens in this thread. What is required is a separation between internal discussions and e.g. your standards of which version 2 applies to date. A subforum is well suited to this I think. Pin your current standards version at the top and let the participants discuss the details in individual threads.

Kind regards

Felix

I wonder why some of the loading gauge dimensions shown in the drawing in that link are under scale?  I realise we are only talking about 1mm or less but it strikes me as odd to go underscale and make things a bit tighter rather than, if anything, give a bit more wriggle room thereby allowing for manufacturers who get things a bit wrong (as they sometimes do.

 

The question of six foot spacing is always an awkward one and an over wide (e.g. Peco) spacing does not help the overall appearance in my view although that can be disguised to some extent with visual tricks and again it does help with overwidth vehicles.  But it is almost accurate (slightly narrow) for the six foot between station platforms on former GWR broad gauge lines so it is almost prototypical provided you have matching lineside furniture and the right sort of trains

The dimension of this drawing are derived from this drawing:

Apart from the 32 mm at the left which should be 40 mm I have not found the multiple mistakes you mention. Can you please help further which one you ment? The drawing needs to be corrected and you are the one who has found the mistake, thanks. 8)

 

The designer of the layout can think of the timetabled routes and make sure most allow walking alongside with as little walking around to reach a route as possible.

Either you have skills that I don't have, then I wouldlove to learn from you, or you haven't yet experience with modular layouts that are forming a  railway network with multiple junctions. This is an old layout plan which I have drawn some time back as an idea but it will not happen in reality because some modules have been built other than planned at this time. But it serves well as an example.

How would you make the walking ways direct I wonder?

Kind regards

Felix

My question would be to ask where are all these UK based OO module modellers? I don't see many other than locally organised groups, we don't see much of them on here anyway but through Stubby and The Stationmaster etc at Taunton  we've seen it can give a lot of enjoyment and creativity. Due to the nature of RMweb we stand a chance of kick-starting involvement within the community and associated persons but that won't happen if it's an overly technical 'standard' before we've created anything. The way things are in the UK I wouldn't see busy cross-channel traffic for participation from either side so we need something that can be broadly accepted first of all.

Andy, thank you of coming into contact with me.

The answer of your question where all those UK based 00 gauge module builder are is simple: They are in thee FremoUK yahoo group: https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/fremo_uk/. It is a bit shocking to me that you had to ask me because it was mentioned here twice at least and also comes up as the first result when "fremo uk" is typed into google (over here at last). If you don't like yahoo groups for whatever reason I can compile you a list of UK based FREMO members, because as a member I have access to their names, addresses and e-mail adresses. This list is of course not going to be published. Some Freemo members are member in this list too as well as some representatives of clubs all over Britain who came in touch with modular modelling and have been interested in Great-BritN developments at least.

These UK based members are obviously not members of RMweb but I think of them of being essential to British modular modelling in general. In closer terms there are two modellers who are very engaged within the British scene of FREMO. Particular of interest is that there have been planned a meeting in South East England for a while now by these twos with a helping hand from Willem who have written in this thread as "wfk". He joined up here after the ask of Paul Hartman, president of FREMO, in the FremoUK yahoo group with a link to this thread. This just shows how much this debate about truly British modules attracts interest elsewhere and, in fact, is embraced.

I agree with you that RMweb is excellent for introducing modular model railways to the public. I also agree that the standard should not be overly technical. But that the approach of FREMO in general and 00Fremo in a narrower sense is overly technical is a stereotype. I have tried on ~30 pages of thread that FREMO is not overly technical. I have shown some simple tips as well as advanced solutions which solves problems for those who bother. The H0-RE rulebook is available in English, so a comparison to your proposals is possible. If it is too much of stuff not appropriate to 4mm modelling for you, then consult the 00Fremo standards, which are available in English too and actually are a simplified and suitably adapted for Britain (e.g. signal position on the left and not on the right) version. There was not much what had to be changed on creating the 00Fremo norm which shows that model railways are far more universal than prototype railways. I tried to make this clear by showing a photo of a nice long train on a module which was built – no, which was defined by the original builder to be German but it does not distort the overall look.

I agree with you that your proposed standards are going to be broadly accepted in the first place. But there are two major drawbacks that have to be sorted NOW if ever:

• Floor to rail top height
• Double track separation

Lets start with the floor to rail top height and let us assume that you are really going to build your modules to a height of 45". At a meeting where continental modellers with an interest in Britain's railways wish to partake with converted H0 modules to 00 gauge there will be a problem: There would be the need of either having an adaptor of 50 ft length (will not fit in the hall), or all British modellers are required do increase their module height to 1300 mm which is not part of your proposed standards so at least one of the British will not have adjustable legs, this will bring unstable temporary solutions like books or similar which will be a major drawback and of course cause disappointment and frustration. So it is clear that the meeting organiser will make the layout height 45" which in practice is outruling for FREMO members because adjustable legs are very thin on the ground on this side of the Channel and so seldom used that they are virtually unknown. To borrow adjustable legs for a venue in UK from other FREMO members equals an impossible task and building further sets of legs is going to eat precious space and modelling time and pleasure. So European modellers are forced to stay at home in future. Is this your vision of "acceptence from all"?

Furthermore you are underestimating the amount of Channel tunnel fans. To connect to a Dutch layout of >300 ft length from the outset is possible within FREMO. The Dutch layout is already there, it is just the British part that is missing. Quite a few modellers I am sure wish not to have to decide whether their modules will be compatible to Dutch modules or to those of their friends. A true Channel tunnel enthusiast can be believed of to travel abroad to enjoy meetings where apart from the H0/00 gauge transhipment station the only scale difference will be the H0 goods wagons sent from the continent. But because of having different scales on both sides of the Channel compromises have to be made. It is only in closer views that the differences become obvious, but when a 00 scale loco is pulling 20 H0 scale wagons and probably the operating fun is dominating then the differences disappear. If this approach proves to be successful than one can expect that there will happen the same in the UK the other way round: A modern British layout of considerable size with a Channel tunnel and a short Dutch branch. You will have made new friends of like-minded after this. Furthermore you will have made British railway modelling more known abroad and hopefully have won new 4mm modelling colleagues.

Moreover the first voice has appeared that 45" is too low for the backs. I don't know how you imagine your personal future Andy, but I was fully aware when I was joining FREMO in 2013 that I will be a member for at least 40 years. Ducking-under is going to be normal and everyday-behaviour after some stage of development because with junctions evolving and lots of branch lines there is virtually never a direct way through the layout to follow your train. UK exhibition modellers are not used to ducking under their layouts regularly because they are often small sized and have one viewing side only. This is to change now, and the height of 1300 mm is the most sensible I have ever seen before. It is the maximum height that is possible without becoming uncomfortable to operate or to work with when set up at home. I wish anyone on here just took a piece of his layout and held it in roughly 1300 mm height. It isn't uncomfortable at all, it may just be unfamiliar to you. A bridge without legs is a suitable duck-under module, I agree with this, but if your track over floor height will stick at 45" then it won't become higher than this.

So there are in sum three good arguments for 1300 mm and just the it-has-always-been-like-this type argument on the other side. I am not deeming the wheelchair user argument valid, because a modular meeting is not going to be suitable for wheelchair users alone by lowering the modules. The main reason for this are the tight clearances between modules which encourage the risk for accidentally get stuck with a wheelchair and all the wiring. Has anyone of you to date imagined how much wiring there will be at a modular meeting? Wiring of the track bus will hang down from the module underside but there is also the DCC bus for your throttles, the wires for communications / telephones (if used), the wires for the necessary clocks (which are the same as the telephone wires within FREMO), of course mains electricity for all booster and potential auxiliary equipment of every module (will end up with a cable clutter under every station but this is absolutely normal) and – what is not obvious at first – cables for three-phase electric power. The last ones are regularly used because all but the tiniest layouts draw much amps due to lots of locos, some boosters and an unlimited amount of auxiliary electrical loads, may it be point control or miniature street lamps. A wheelchair user is unlikely to turn up at a modular meeting intended without public, but if, then there are further actions required then just lowering all modues. Wheelchair users and children are more likely to turn up at exhibitions, and for these I agree that lower heights are more appropriate. Modellers going to exhibit their layouts are going to build adjustable legs either way I learned from this thread but then Andy York should cater for the "true" modular community interested in operating sessions. 1300 mm is optimal for the whole group and 45" is good for those wishing to exhibit their work. But as Andy York stated that exhibition layout building skills are explicitly not necessary to join the community then there is no reason for those not having them to have their (let's say "basic") modules to an exhibition height.

The second point is double track spacing. This is something that could be amended later but will cause frustration and disappointment in this case. The reason is that if you are going to create a British moduar system then the outcome should look British. This is only possible with a near to scale track separation of ~44.5 mm which has been increased by German and UK based modellers to 46 mm because there are H0 gauge modules around with this track separation. I was successful in asking a friend of me to take photos of British stock on 46 mm separated double track. This was the outcome:

"These are just a few quick shots and I had to use what was there at the time. Please excuse the anachronistic appearance of an LNER loco together with the Derby Lightweight. Also both are fresh out of the box and still without any refinements and weathering." he asked me to quote him. Here are another 3 photos, this time from me and bearing an overscale track separation of 52 mm (US prototype inheritance):

IMG_3550 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3551 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3552 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

An unprototypically track separation is actually detering more potential modellers than simplicity can win. I see your problem with Peco Code 75 but sometimes you are forgetting that you aren't the only one on the planet to have this problem. Secretly I am still hoping that Peco (or sb. else) will deliver a fully British track system one day but in the meantime there are actually 4 ways how to live with 46 mm track separation. The first one is the most used anywhere in FREMO and takes into account that we are talking a community to exist in near future.

1) Having your pointwork (or anything else you fear cannot be done yourself due to lack of skills) built by a modelling colleague.

I can almost imagine your surprise but this is really what happens out there. "Yes I want it to be prototypically but No I cannot do it by myself because I am not skilled enough" is a common approach in model railways and especially in the modular worlds. Without communities this would lead to cottage industries taking huge sums to deliver exactly what you want (other examples are kit building services, baseboard construction services, ...). But I am sure that there are kind British out there who are willingly to alter a few Peco points for you. The spirit of modular modelling is to help each other where possible and I am sure the UK is no exception. Only like-minded in your vicinity are needed to make a start. I have seen that proposals for a community map have been made, this is an excellent idea and well working elsewhere.

To complete my list here are the other 3 possibilities but of course they are more restricting than the first. I am sure most affairs can be dealt with with possibility number 1.

2) Use Tillig points instead and alter the sleeper distance.

3) Relinquish on crossovers on short double track modules. Diverging points are not affected.

4) Increase the track separation between the moduar ends of a large composition so that Peco points fit in. This is possible even on multiple segments because the standardised track separation only needs to be obeyed at the outer ends to ensure compatibility.

I think everything else fom your standards proposal is going to work towards easy beginning as well as FREMO compatibility. I see some issues in the far future on which I won't comment at this time to keep emotions low.

Andy, last but not least I fear you underestimate the work already done by FREMO members on UK modular modelling. I have written an article for FREMO members magazine which appears quarterly. It is not in the public domain but yet is read by almost all FREMO members all over Europe so I have introduced your modular standards proposal to about 1300 modellers, the greatest audience I could find. Aim of this is to gain attention to possible interesteds of all sorts, to chronicle happenings to date and to hopefully help establish your standards. I have attached a copy of it but because it is not yet printed I only can give you the raw form. It is not formatted because this is the duty of the editors. Turn to page 3 please to read the English translation.

Felix, if you wanted to make a case for UK modellers to adopt your "FREMO" standard perhaps you should ask someone to spend some time finishing off translating the website into English so those of us trying to understand can at least do so?

full H0-RE standards

00Fremo standards which are in fact simplified H0-RE standards and suitably adapted for British prototypes.

my first version of a modular standard in which I tried to merge your vision of clamping modules together and the FREMO practice into a single norm. Unfortunately what people want are simple end boards and because I called them "rectangular" which combined with some translating mishaps have caused a shitstorm. I originally was intending to put it up for discussion (and correction), that is why I have had inserted the .doc file too, but everyone was busy to make out his personal disfavours and over this there sadly was no discussion.

Having written the article attached to this post, having made a lot of input here and going the trouble to personal engagement in forming the set of standards which are discussed here, I am now in the position not to know how I could help any further. Of course if topics are raised to which I can contribute then I will show any experience already made in words and if possible in pictures. I will certainly be around when it comes to the first modular meeting in the UK. Reading and posting on here is unbelievable time-consuming for non-native English speakers, for example today I started to read the recent postings at 11 pm, was taking the photos at 3:30 am and now it is 5 am (local time, 1 hour earlier in the UK). This is an extreme example but please be aware that I will post less often in the future.

Some people think that my opinion is to persuade every concerned to simply overtake the 00Fremo standards. This is NOT true, I am trying to separate personal opinion and experiences made within FREMO and I am concentrating on the experiences for a while now. I think this RMweb modular group really has potential and I am happy to get involved. I am also happy to accept that there will be differences in FREMO and RMweb practices but if there are more arguments against a detail in the standards than pro, then it should be discussed in-depth. There really is no reason to have an anti-Felix attitude, I am just one of the first friends of which more will come when the world of modular railway modelling will embrace you.

As there is no established uk Fremo group we can go along and see I think starting with this more basic level and working up, making a few mistakes probably, makes good sense.

Completely disagree on not having a UK FREMO group. Basic starting is fine but it is always best to avoid the biggest pitfalls from the outset. Having made many mistakes is the way FREMO grew the last 30 years and this does not need to be repeated. Apart from "Attention to detail" my other slogan always was "Why to learn from one's own mistakes if one could yet learn from the mistakes of others".

Kind regards

Felix

Ein neues Modulsystem in Gro

Crazy idea ref OO9 narrow gauge additions to RMWebOO, and probably jumping far to far ahead of ourselves, but how about RMWebOO9 spec being exactly the same apart from track gauge as the single track RMWebOO spec?! I need to do something with my mixed gauge crossings and Peco crazy track!

What I wanted to point out is that every incompatibility to existing systems that are progressed with bring further incompatibilities over time, 009 being a good example. You are not only going to isolate UK 00 and FREMO 00 and H0 modellers but UK 009 and FREMO H0e modellers. And who knows what comes next.

Felix

Ok here's a comparison of RMweb suggestion compared to FremoOO

 

RMweb in Blue  FremoOO in black, all you would need to do is drill the holes to the spec.

 

rmweb comparison to fremo.JPG

As Harald already has said, the recommended width of modules is 500 mm in FREMO.

  Ah but Britain is not in the Federal State of Europe

 

  not all.

 

Firstly 45" is not my selected height (it is Andy's proposal - for the access reasons mentioned) I have clearly stated that I am indifferent to height (within reason) I vote for adjustable over a range that can include whatever is decided on.

 

The British OO9 modular group can do what they want. This is British OO (not HO, not N, not O) the latter are totally spurious to the discussion unless you are suggesting O gauge stock should be run on OO gauge.

So you are not going to encourage Std gauge / narrow gauge transhipment stations?

Halesworth Station von The Ephemera Album auf Flickr

Halesworth in Suffolk, narrow gauge to the right, standard gauge to the left.

Kind regards

Felix

For the benefit of people like me, what are those things called and where can one obtain them?

On the right "Einschlagmutter" is the German term. They tend to fall out after about a year of regular use though. And in a worst case they can split a leg.

Kind regards

Felix

FelixM - I still think you are trying to make a British system work with a foreign system and I see it as the other way round - there are going to be more British OO modules (in Britain) than Continental modules that will wish to connect to a British OO. So for those few who want to make that effort then new or adjustable legs is the obvious way to go. But still think building adjustable legs from the start is simple and solves every combination. Leaving it down to the group at/before the actual meeting to decide on height. So if a lot of old Continental modules turn up it will likely be 1300 if (as I suspect) the majority are (new) British then it will be 45" (or whatever).

1300 mm is fairly universal in Europe. This height is adopted by N gauge groups, H0 gauge, 00 gauge (as far as 00Fremo is concerned), H0m and H0e gauge (of which the latter is in my opinion a great starting point for 009 modules), 0 gauge and gauge 1 groups. It is an unwritten law on this side of the channel tunnel. Whilst you are technical correct about having more 00 gauge modules in Britain than anywhere else in future, you make few the same than none. If progressing with your 45" height you are forcing future 009 using the same height as well as those with an interest in European railways and modular groups to have different legs for British and non-British modules. There would be a synergy effect if everything is the same height.

 

As for supplying legs from a specific source then just like the imposition of end profiles - I'll do my own thing thank you.

You must have misunderstood something. What do you mean by this?

Kind regards

Felix

Existing FREMO modules already have legs to 1300 mm height. These legs have been built mostly to a common scheme in order to get many of them quickly. Because there was no reason in the past to assume that there will be an alternative height they have not been designed to be adjustable. So if a common meeting with FREMO modules is going to happen then the FREMO modules either need new legs (unlikely to happen) or improvised legs like tables, books (unlikely too) or a long gradient (unpractical) or everyone else at the meeting is required to have adjustable legs from the outset. I don't know how acceptance of a need for adjustable legs from the community is.

IMG_3341 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

How do you think 00Fremo in Germany managed to achieve a 50 m / 160 ft layout in one and a half year? The modules shown are "borrowed" from the H0 Europe group. As you can see they are fairly generous, because the builder wanted them to be part of as many layouts as could be possible, may it Prussian State Railways / Deutsche Reichsbahn / Deutsche Bundesbahn / modern times Deutsche Bahn / Czech layouts / ... and now it came to be that they have became British. The fences weren't originally there, they are Peco flexible fencing which was experimentally fitted with needles and so stayed temporarily yet durable in place. To take advantage of the immense pool of modules on your first meeting to separate your stations is what compatibility is all about. I was never going that a Swedish station iss going to join a British meeting.

IMG_3301 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

It looks good, doesn't it?

Kind regards

Felix

First let me express my congratulations for a reasonable and promising discussion once Andy Y has posted his ideas.

I've been through the whole thread twice to find this link that Felix posted because I really liked it.

 

The basis for the arrangement of modules is a series of spirals. All different sorts of curve radii and angles. It fills the room pretty efficiently, but definitely isn't straight parallel aisles. Mind, you, its a bit of a walk if you are in the middle and you need the loo!

You forget that our modules are at 1300 mm height so we just use the direct way by ducking under. A height of 45" or so is going to cater for a few exhibition layout builders but will pain many backs. Walking along the outside is going to be a problem when the 2nd junction comes into the layout because you then will no more have a direct diagonal walking way. So think again about layout height!

If one wants to connect "our" standard at 45 inches and others at 51 inches then presumably "just build a converter module" with a 6 inch rise?

Taking into account that every modeller should have the opportunity to bring the tiniest loco with him by raising the track by not more than 1 cm per metre a "converter module" is going to be ~15 m (50 ft) in length. So please think again about layout height!

Kind regards

Felix

Yes, Dutch_Master, what you write is totally correct. It is up to the module builder to determine hown long his platforms will be because it's not that each express train is required to stop at every rural or suburban halt. In the future the layout builder may want to let longer trains call at his station if train length grows over the time.

I don't know why you came with your own club as an example for ??? but if you ascribe domination or whatever to me then you are once again wrong.

Felix

Looks good, a nightmare to transport though? In the sense of very wasteful of space.

Not necessarily. The two single line extreme ends seem to fit well on top of each other if turned face-to-face. Same could apply to the other 5 boards.

I just fear that with the board joins as drawn it will be difficult / impossible to lengthen the platforms if at some future time longer passenger trains are demanded by the group.

Me was planning a (near to) scale model of Lowestoft station including Coke Ovens Junction which would total at ~40 ft length. I halted the project though because of some "quality assurance" work with existing modules, raising too tight radii and so on.

Kind regards

Felix

I took it that Glorious NSE asked whether there should be other end profiles too besides the flat profile.

Felix

In the 5 hours since I asked the question in the SECAG area, 6 of us have expressed an interest in attempting something modular once standards have been defined.

An active promoter of a modular group is more worth than his weight in gold.

Felix

In brief Kenton got me right.

Common FREMO practice is to have a recommended width to satisfy all those aiming for aesthetics, but not to have a MUST width to which all has to be. I have found no better photo in the short time, it is N gauge (Great-BritN) and the difference in width from the station and the plain line module in the background is just 10 cm / 4 inch, but it may help to demonstrate the idea:

Edit: There is an abrupt slope to flat profile to be seen in the background. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of having different end profiles.

One small point FelixM, I have very little concern about operation mainly because I see that as fairly separate from the subject of module standards. However, your answers on operation have made the concept much clearer.

I have had the feeling that some folk discussing here wanted to join some sort of stand-alone layouts to have a bigger one, but without knowing what to actually do after the setup (in terms of operation). Willem has said he had no idea why to do so, I haven't either, noone in this thread has have, noone from the Freemo gang and additionally noone with 30 years of FREMO experience. So the chances that Andy Y will come and tell us why are little IMO. However I tried to demonstrate what the fun in FREMO is all about and that rules and standards are just there to ensure that the aims are reached.

Kind regards

Felix

Hi Felix

 

I'm not sure it's xenophobia, more that the concepts behind modular are generally very different to what we are used to.

 

Most UK modellers are used to building "their own little empire" (and I use that word deliberately) where they build it and decide how it's run.  This may of course be: end to end, roundy roundy, fiddleyard to terminus, fiddleyard to fiddleyard, built either individually or as part of a small group, and chosen to operate strictly to a timetable or 'anything goes'.  But at the end of the day, the individual or group have full say over what happens, how it is built and how it is operated.

 

Whereas with the various modular concepts, you build "your bit" and then tack other people's "bits" to each end, whether they are stations, junctions, scenic boards, or whatever.  Someone else plans the meeting and decides in what order the various offered modules are laid out, then someone else plans a timetable and how all the trains run, and if I understand it correctly, much of the time is spent watching trains going by, or waiting for a train to approach your particular section where it may pass another train or gain/lose some wagons.  Then it passes from "your bit of the world" to someone else's and then you wait for the next movement.

 

I don't know how many US or continental modellers use kitbuilt stock, but I would guess that there's a certain proportion of UK modellers with expensive kit built stock that they are nervous about sending off to a fiddle yard 30 metres away where someone who has never touched that item of stock before picks it up to turn it around to "go the other way".  It's ok for their own layout at home, or with a guest operator, or a club layout where everyone knows that particular loco cost £600, but when you have a group of random people, some of whom you'll never have met before, there's a lot greater risk of problems occurring - not to mention the risk of damage caused by a derailment on someone else who may be laying track to a "common standard" but not necessarily "the same standard" as your layout, if you know what I mean?

 

As I mentioned some pages back, there is a (now dead) well known UK modeller called Cyril Freezer - who you may or may not have heard of - who worked with Peco and is responsible for a number of 'track plan books' which I would guess most UK modellers would have owned at least one and built at least one plan from during their younger days. The plans had their quirks, being hand drawn were sometimes a little bit 'ambitious' to actually fit in the space they were meant to but pretty much every one was a self contained project.  Cyril had a huge influence on several generations of railway modellers and it's no real surprise that the idea of 'self contained worlds' is so deeply ingrained in our modelling mindset.

 

Many of us could only look on in awe and jealousy at some of the massive American layouts that would occasionally come across our path, in a basement or barn, with half a dozen stations and big distances between them, where trains ran with a purpose rather than from fiddle yard to station and back out again.  But UK houses are small, so we make do with our little roundy roundys or fiddleyard to terminus in 12ft or whatever because it's that or nothing.

 

I don't think many people have a problem with a set of board standards - interconnectability, wiring etc - but as others have pointed out, even things like bridge and platform clearances are different here, and of course on double track our trains run on the left rather than the right as overseas.  Building things to a standard that can be connected to others working to the same standard makes sense, as most of us dream of larger layouts than we have the space for at home.  We go to shows and see 50ft long club layouts and drool over them because they have the resources and manpower to do things we can't.  But that's just life.

 

I think the real problem here (although I may be wrong) is that the idea of "running to a timetable" and waiting for a train to appear that someone else has chosen to run, is very different to the way we normally do things where invariably we have our own favourite trains - whether a random collection or a prototypical collection of trains that were seen operating in our specific area at our specific time, and if we want to run our favourite again we do rather than waiting for a controller somewhere else to set it out again.

 

I think it's the "our world being a small part of a bigger world" concept that many of us are struggling with, and when the standards are being proposed are based on US or continental prototypes and operation, they simply just do not work for how we have done things for so many years.  Perhaps it's having seen some of the N gauge modular setups where you have American trains passing Spanish trains going through Alpine scenery then a Japanese town that puts people off as much as it might a layout with a modern Class 66 diesel loco pulling 5 pre-war wagons where "it's just wrong", and we're struggling to divorce the concept of running trains and operating a railway?

Cromptonnut, thanks for your honest post. It is my no means a "Brit thing" to have no experience with modular layouts. The same happened in the preparations of our first meeting with an interested from Saxony and the debates were similar to what has appeared here on RMweb. He eventually built a plain single track module and had great fun with us on the meeting but decided for his own that he will not partake in 00Fremo properly. Modular model railways cannot reach everyone, and it is just fine if it is nothing for you. Or for Kenton.

I would like to show examples of what operational interest could mean. Because it took me again until after midnight to read every post I have made hand sketches. I apologise for the quality, especially for the "two circles" which shall show a head and a pair of shoulders of an operator seen from above.

You may have been required to take a goods train from the fiddle yard to the goods station of a local station where you detach the train (far right, bottom track). Because you are driving a Mixed traffic loco your next task is to haul 2 coaches detached from an express train over a branch line. You are waiting and watching another operator coming with it, uncoupling and departing. Then you set back your engine onto the branch portion, whistle and set off.

The arrow indicate a duck-under module.

You may also be a Shunter. Then you have control over the local station pilot (top left on the siding). Your task is now to pull the last two vans of an arriving parcels train (wrongly made right hand driving so apologies and lots of arrows) coming from the left and shunt them on the back of a local train. You can simulate big stations like Grantham like this.

Because I know from the Trade & Products Zone that you are interested in 0 gauge RTR modern traction, cromptonnut, I include two examples of modern image as well (as opposed to the above ones that are more likely steam era). This is a Speedlink branch who serves a lineside industry by setting off (or collecting, as you wish) a rake of wagons. The train does not need to arrive from a fiddle yard and disappearing there afterwards, instead it could be hauled to some exchange sidings where the old class 37ish is o be changed to a class 66ish for its onward journey through Britain. You are required to take care that no goods wagon is forgotten or accidentally taken away. For this you have wagon cards to help you.

This one could be Dovey junction on the Cambrian Line. The timetable you drew requires you to wait there until a modelling colleague of you arrives with a 2x Class 150 DMU from Shrewsbury. The rear is uncoupled and after your colleague departed towards Aberystwyth, you begin your journey towards Pwllheli. On the return leg your DMU is the first at Dovey so you wait for the Aberystwyth portion and continue then to Shrewsbury (which could well be a fiddle yard). The arrows show ducking-under modules.

There really are just limits in your imagination, but not in the technics. And you need a module specification that allows this. By the way, the both Fre(e)mos have good aproaches.

It is obviously bugging me a little that the discussion is being overwhelmed by the Fremo gang trying to impose their standards on British railway modules. Some of their standards may well have a solid base of Eurpean or US layouts but do not stand such scrutiny here. I think the argument that those who are potential participants in a UK module gathering will wish to take part in a US/European gathering is completely flawed. I would suggest that most would not and even question the likelihood of a UK meet.

All that I wanted to point out was that there were some guys who already started to ponder about module specifications. So if the RMweb module outcome is not going to be fruitful one and a half year later then remember me and ask us. For comparison, Berlin has 3 million inhabitants which is triple of Birmingham's but if we take the Metropolitan areas of both with 6 million / 4 million and I got a fellowership of 8 or 9 modellers within 1 and 1/2 year than couldn't it be possible that some 30ish interested meet in Birmingham? All that is needed is an active promoter. Just a thought.

The only thing that is important at the end is that some train sent driven from some far away land can pass through my stationtunnel with a windmill module, perhaps dropping off some wagon in the siding to collect ground flour from the windmill before continuing off the other end/edge of world to some other far away land/module. As long as the operator of the windmill and the driver of the train can have a laugh.

 

So to answer your point, it isn't a case of shouldn't have them just that they should not be imposed (a standard) on those who don't want them.

So welcome to the FREMO thinking. What you describe here is common practice in FREMO, and virtually no rule has not been broken in 30 years of its existance. If you want to make your modules wider or narrower than what the recommendations say then you are still welcome to the community as long as the compatibility is guaranteed. FREMO uses mounting holes whose locations are defined in relation to the track. It is not so easy to define compatibility with G-clamps. In my opinion clamps are neither wrong nor a proper solution – perfect as a stopgap if something went wrong but not a definite solution. Anyone who has bought a RTR loco knows that body and chassis are required to stay attached and for this the manufacturer are relying on screws.

FREMO handles deviation from the norm like this: As long as it is compatible, it's all right. If it is not compatible, then you are required to build adaptors. If not even an adaptor could help, then off found your own group. The latter has happened several times during the existance of FREMO, some members wanting exhibition layout quality for example and FREMO:87 was subsequently founded.

As I've said above I just wish Andy would come up with a firm set of proposals - I could agree or disagree with and then get on with the module or not.

Sadly proposing standards is not all what is required to keep a community of modular modellers going.

Apart from

• making a start, proposing standards (Andy Y's task)

there are engaded souls required who

• organise the locations for the meetings and possibly accommodation and catering for the participants
• plan the arrangement
• create the timetable
• cater for updating the set of standards if errors or better ways of doing things are found and accepted by the group (obviously NOT the task of Andy Y, he is a forum admin and an editor, he cannot be at every meeting in person) (happens at least 10 times with a brand new set of standards, promised!)
• take care of the stock used on a meeting and/or maintains a loco DCC address list
• are responsible for the DCC equipment and a working setup

It would be very clever of Andy Y not only to throw a set of specifications into the (digital) air but to appoint a committee of volunteers to organise at least a first meeting.

Sadly I have the feel that many of those who are writing here seem not to realise that a working community needs to be catered for. It is by no means a sure-fire success but needs some work to do.

I have said right from the start of this topic the precise width is NOT important and the location of a single track across that width is also completely irrelevant - in fact it is even very limiting in the design of the track on the module. There is no reason at all why track, and scenery, on my module cannot be 2" from the front or 4" from the front of any (within reason) width.

 

In the case of double track ends again the width is immaterial. However the space between the tracks is critical. The freemo standard is at odds with both UK double track spacing and PECO double track spacing (which as someone else pointed out above) are different in British OO from Continental HO. The PECO spacing does seem to be the most accommodating (though that may upset those who would want it to be prototypical).

 

As for the rest of the Freemo standards - I'm afraid I just baulked at the words must and width but actually much of the electrics and rest could be also rewritten with more brevity and command and control language.

I agree with you that the width is not important for working, but Harald Brosch has some 600 different end profiles in his catalogue which show that tastes really are different. Don't succumb to the illusion that if a flat profile is set as the only standard (00Fremo has always had a simple flat profile in its standards too) you are going to get all modellers wishes fulfilled in the long run. After all we are talking of introducing a completely new type of model railways to Britain. When RTR manufacturer introduced highly detailed models to Britain nobody could have predicted a whole generation of overcritical "rivet counters" (in need for a better word).

British 46 mm versus Peco 50 mm remains an issue but hopefully it is Peco that at some point will introduce scale track to its home market. A strong modelling community can help about this (as happened in Germany).

This was something I had thought of. A large standard layout (think Gresley Beat for example)  would require van hire and expenses for 6-8 people. An equivalent sized modular layout would probably be 15 cars and people.

Depends on the amound of forethought when building the module. Modules are mostly flat so combining some of the same length to a transport "box" saves an huge amount of space. 3 metres of straight double track fit into a 1 m x 546 mm x ~700 mm box, of which some 8 fit into a medium sized van. If I could make it to a UK based 00 gauge modular meeting next year I would certainly not arrive with less than 15 m length of track!

I don't agree that your track layout is restricted by a central track on the module end either - it would only be so if you built your boards and then decided what you wanted to put on them, try approaching the issue from the trackplan you want to build, then designing a board to support it! 

Commonplace in FREMO is to first imagine what operations you want to have in your station – a junction station with frequent coach exchanges between trains need a different track plan to say a terminus of two lines where each train has to change its loco. Then you start pondering what the best track plan is for you or what the prototype would have done. You don't do this with a particular baseboard or space configuration in mind.

On a more general thought both Freemo and FREMO are providing good aproaches to what a typical British railway network would be like. But thinking further the Freemo party is currently thinking about adoption of their US concept to UK needs whereas 00Fremo has done it already. Furthermore there have been 8 FREMO members with experience in meetings and operations in early 2014 according to my memberlist. FREMO is not dying out though if the need of people with an interest in operations aren't cared for in the future RMweb modular standards.

Kind regards

Felix

Being told that one has no right to partake because one is not British feels like a punch in the face. This is xenophobia.

 

All that has to be said has been said.

Apparently not.

IMG_3545 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3546 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

IMG_3547 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

This is an article from Model railway constructor from August 1980. It proves that modular model railways have been invented originally in Britain. The standards look more like a construction manual than like what Fre(e)mo has. Freedom of module geometry is not granted.

We all know what resulted from this article: Nothing, at least directly.

IMG_3548 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

Part of Model Railroader 1981. Attention to operating principles was in the domain of the Americans at those days. This is a readers letter / contact ad from Otto Kurbjuweit who founded FREMO in September 1981 at the meeting mentioned in the magazine. Model Railroader has been covering operational topics since at least the Sixties if not for longer. It proves that European modular model railways are actual a child of ideas that were born in English speaking countries.

IMG_3549 von – FelixM – auf Flickr

The latest development known to me is Batcombe. This is a modular exhibition layout which comprises of a terminus station, 4 plain line modules (of which 1 is a 90° curve) and a fiddle yard. Noone has cotributed further modules to this layout, and on exhibitions it usually appears in minimal configuration (terminus to fiddle yard) because exhibition managers want many layouts and not big ones. It is DC controlled. The photo was printed in Hornby magazine December 2013.

All pictures can be viewed in HQ on their main flickr page.

Now go to town and find out why the British concepts have not been successful. Try to avoid the mistakes previous designers of standards have already done and you hopefully will be successful this time.

Kind regards

Felix