FelixM

Some Italian FREMO members have achieved to build flexible scenic modules which would help to make a full loop although I don't know what compromises they made to achieve this. Felix

Being part of Europe is a good reason. Felix

These have all been from northern Germany, but dedicated with a British theme. Some were converted from US modules which makes them having some imperfections but looked not too wrong. I failed to compile a list of UK based FREMO modules. I have found only vague statements on the FremoUK mailing list. After these, there are about 3 to 5 modellers with a small station each and another modeller with a bigger station, a junction and a tunnel too. Furthermore it seems there is a fiddle yard from a club in the South East which is directly compatible but I might have misunderstood this. Kind regards Felix

Had to look into the layout plan of our Rendsburg meeting: 47. Kind regards Felix

IMG_3538 von – FelixM – auf Flickr This is what a regulars table could look like. This is one of the more smaller ones with only 7ish partakers but we have been more than 30 in some cases. Interestingly today more than half of us have been interested in the railways of Britain. IMG_3539 von – FelixM – auf Flickr IMG_3540 von – FelixM – auf Flickr The latest developments in FREMO were detail researches. The first picture shows a German Saarbrücken type ferry boat van in 1:76 scale. The second picture shows a trial to combine Tension Lock and Norwegian Wire Hook coupling. I think I have got your point now. It is difficult to understand people at the other range of interests like Willem has said. There is another modular H0 norm in Germany which differs significantly from the FREMO approach. It is called Nordmodul and really should never have existed and have had the success they now have. But history told us differntly. There have been a number of old-fashioned local model railway clubs at different locations who once started to build analogue double track layouts with return loops at the ends. Trains always ran behind one another. Variations of the norm were stations with trapezial shaped trackplans whose purpose was to exchange the train currently running. Junctions were also possible but needed some control mechanism on the trailing points to avoid collisions. Single track sections were also possible with sophisticated wirings where the point position swapped the polarity of the single line section so that trains could run in both directions on it. With time these clubs extended their layouts by adding more segments but at some point in history started to adopt a common profile and always the same type of electrical connection. So each of these clubs had its own mini-norm eventually. The next step was that the clubs got in touch with each others to gain experiences from each others and simply to make friends too. Then someone had the idea to wire adaptor wires which would allow to connect the plug of one club to the socket of another. This was the birth of Nordmodul. Today there exist standardised end profiles for Nordmodules although traditionally each club is using its specification it always used to. The oldest segments are now more than 50 years old I think and some of the rolling stock too. Detail is not the aim of Nordmodul. In fact the term Nordmodul has become a not-so-nice nickname / expletive within Fremo for people who are mostly desinterested of prototypical operations and I guess that the other way round exists too. A Nordmodul meeting looks like this: http://www.arge-nordmodul.de/Stadthagen/2008_04_24-27%20Stadthagen_Aufbauplan.pdf Personally I am not a great fan of the Nordmodul system. There is obviously no need to paint all modellers black and white whether they prefer realistical operations or just enjoy long running of trains but we need to know from now on that we are aiming at complimentary aims. This does not particularly do favour for this discussion because we already needed 17 pages of RMweb thread to make this clear. I now get the impression that a lot of further pages are needed to get a working set of standards. Operational layouts like FREMO benefit of terminal stations and dead end fiddle yard at the ends of a modular layout and needs prototypical track layouts for realistic operations. Modular layouts for running trains (like Nordmodul) have return loops at each end. Track plans of intermediate stations are rather simple, shunting sidings and mainline tracks takes place almost never. Exhibition layouts in a modular form need 4 90° curves. As someone has stated here module length need to be standardised to get a grid (correct word?) of modules but an alternative would be to require a section of fiddle yard in the same length of the front line layout from each contributor. Anyway predetermined restrictions to the personal creativity need to be made in the norms which would deter lots of people more interested in scenery or the above ones. I do not think we can decide here upon the third type. Standards have to cater for the absolute minimum of rules so everyone interested in Exhibition layouts with 4 90° curves should not watch this space too closely. With skilfulness the first two types can be catered for by a RMweb norm because if terminal stations are included in a layout or instead return loops is up to the meeting organiser. Please if you wish to do at least one thing better than the Germans then do not split the community deliberately between those aiming for running long trains in (dog-bone shaped) circles and those aiming for realistic operations. I am representing the FREMO and FREMO is a club for Operational layouts (the first type) if anyone is unsure. Backscenes add much to the visual impression of a layout but in certain cases can be annoying if they are blocking access to the trains from one side. Neither a requirement nor a prohibition of backscenes are sensitive, just a bit of prudence is needed. IMG_3271 von – FelixM – auf Flickr Kind regards Felix

There are lots of modellers around who model something that does not fit into their homes. It is kind of pushing your boundaries. You can plan independent of your room sizes and get really big stations built. There is a distinction between modules for modular layouts, home layouts and exhibition layouts and all of them have different requirements. If building modules for a module community does not suit you then there is nothing wrong with not partaking and get your own projects done. The average home layout is more beautiful then one would think. Kind regards Felix Edit: I have made the experience that some exhibition layout builders struggle to see the requirements of modules. This luckily is no Brit thing, this has happened with members in Germany too and the first too sharp curves of 00Fremo have already taken out of use in consequence.

I have found three links of interesting little meetings, two of them are FREMO H0 USA. The third is German H0-RE. http://www.westportterminal.de/meetings/unna2011.html http://www.westportterminal.de/meetings/unna2007.html http://www.fremo-net.eu/typo3temp/pics/a65289d1a1.jpg I hope you can get a feel for space, for station sizes and for curves from this. You are completely ignoring the fact that trains comprise more than a couple of vehicles. Wheels to track, vehicle to drawbar and coupling to coupling need to be the most reliable you can get to successful drive trains like these: HST with 8 coaches 4CEP + 4BEP + 4CEP + TLV + MLV Boat train 9F with 30 16T minerals and brake van ... Sharp curves are perfectly acceptable if you wish to use your club modules at home too. This is common practice with FREMO members in Europe. But the club modules with part-time home usage have to be fully comply with the norms. In your post you have exchanged these two requirements and state that the norms for large layouts have to follow home layout practice. This will not work! And why on earth are roundy-roundys going to be part of modular layouts whose aim is realistic operation? Kind regards Felix

I am sorry to inform you that there is no really good concept to deal with wheelchair users even within FREMO. The spaces left between parallel modules are often not wide enough to let wheelchair users pass. A module meeting isn't an exhibition, so the layouts for a meeting generally are not designed to let the public trough. A pedestal / podium may be planned and offered so that at least one wheelchair user can be a "stationmaster". Yes, Weinert Mein Gleis is manufactured by Peco. They can do if they want. Kind regards Felix

My two page document was exactly what it says on the tin: A proposal. I think there is no harm to this thread in making proposals. By no means I am intending to accede Andy York's position. I have asked friends of mine to make photos of British stock on 46 mm track separation at an H0 meeting this weekend. Then I will take comparison photos of the same with 52 mm track separation and upload them here. An German wisedom says "Norm ist, was gebaut wird" which means "The standards become what has been built". As yet noone has written on here that he/she has taken two pieces of track and experimented with the look of different track separations, but exactly this would be how experiences are achieved. Maybe a constant pressure from a scale modular modelling group can make manufacturers like Peco offering more prototypical British track. This is like a chicken and egg situation, if you are going to compromise in the norm from the outset than there is little chance that something will happen. In Germany this worked well with Weinert "Mein Gleis" offering scale trackwork and pointwork. In terms of 009 RTR Peco has shown that they are willingly to take the first step in difficult decisions like this. Not to give any specification isn't a solution. For a British 00 gauge standard which will have a few more follower in the UK than H0 US modelling a height must be defined so why not adopting 1300 mm which removes the hardest obstacle in compatibility to what is already out there. Kind regards Felix

It was a hard time. I was argumenting for two of us, me and Torsten, the inventor of the norm who has given up argumenting in English at some point. But as time has passed the advantages of H0-RE have clearly come to light and we Germans now share the view which the UK based Fremo members ironically always had. Willem can be trusted when it comes to experiences with modular modelling norms. I may repeat myself but there are Fremo members in Kent who are actively constructing British modules in 00 gauge which may be connected to a French or Belgium layout due to H0-RE compatibility. These members have been often enough at meetings on the continents so the knowledge already is domestic. Sadly I have not yet got to know them. Surprisingly the FremoUK Yahoo group has stayed quiet although both it was mentioned here and this thread was mentioned there. I hope that something will come to fruition now. To sum up what has happened after the mentioned UK-German discussion (maybe interesting just for Willem): An experienced H0-RE and H0-USA modeller has taken over the norm and it was completely rewritten. It is now very much H0-RE with the exception of the US valley profile which in the opinion of some is suitable to represent typical cuttings in Britain. The hole position has to be amended though to make it compatible with every possible H0-RE module. Adaptors have been built to bring the track separation from US 52 mm to UK 46 mm, two of them were in use on our meeting in Rendsburg in may (actually fitting in the only 46 mm station into an otherwise 52 mm layout but this will change in the future). Since then we have started lots of detail discussions like developing an 00 scale German ferry boat van or preparing a batch of etched PCBs which enables slotting functionality (splitting signal behaviour between two stations/operators) for signals in signal slots. Kind regards Felix

Hi, I am doing a concrete proposal now. Everyone is invited to discuss and amend it, that's why I give the original file too. In this form it is compatible to 00Fremo. It fits on just 2 pages. I used the words "must" and "prohibited" to male a clear destincions to recommendations, for which I used "recommended", "should" and "can". Happy discussing Felix RMweb_Proposal.doc RMweb_Proposal.pdf

These modules belong together, they will form the now closed station Orwell on the Ipswich to Felixstowe branch. Even though the end profiles don't match exactly because they are considered one greater unit the builder (in this case mentioned Martin) has the oportunity to add scenic material on top to make the difference disappear. A big selection of end profies is a question of taste. There actually is no way to "do it proper" but H0-RE / 00Fremo has 4 different shapes: - asymmetric B shape - flat F shape - E shape with a small embankment (pictures at http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/87665-a-british-modular-system/?p=1508755) - valley shape (scroll a bit down from the link above) Other profiles are welcomed and can be used as much as one prefer, provided there are two adaptors at both ends of such a module group. Alternatively this could be done by profile eliminators instead of adaptors. As I said before, a good norm has certain standards, but let enough play for the single modeller do construct what he wants to. One has to look at whether a prototypical track separation or the mentioned US compatibility is of more worth to the group. After all we are talking scale model railwaying. For different track separations one can always construct adaptors, this is not difficult and can be done in a day. But there is no must to make a whole modular community follow an overscale track separation, this will take its toll later when modellers are becoming impatient and divide the group up. Kind regards Felix

If single and double track modules are strictly to the Fremo norm, double track modules are 46 mm wider than single track modules which is exactly the track separation. So independent to which track you connect the single track module there will always be one edge of both modules that is straight. The other one is staggered. IMG_3316 von – FelixM – auf Flickr This module has an industry as an excuse for a possible use as a single to double track adaptor (although not used as such in the picture). If you look closely you can see that the three way point is from Peco. If you look even closer you will see that the right and left hand blades have been swopped to make the siding a trailing point even in a single line scenario. Martin has done quite some tinkering with it. If I was Clive I would install the single to double track points on small modules outside of the main station area. This would have two advantages: 1) The small single to double track modules could be used in other places too if required and 2) without those small modules it would be a convincing double track station (if constructed with Up Main and Down Main and not to the less common variant with just one Up & Down Main and a goods loop). Answer to your second question: It is more clever to have the centre of a module in a way that permits easily turn-around of each module. This means - single track exactly at the centre - module centre between double track lines Something like this? This is exactly 46 mm and of course homemade. But the other way round it would work, doesn't it? A Belgian modelling colleague who likes British trains and wants to partake but just can bring along his small Belgian station which looks generic enough? You are deliberately going to make British modular modelling unattractive for non-UK inhabitants if there is incompatibility. This will not just exclude people but experiences too. Personally I would see severe damage to British modular modelling in general if something on its own is the outcome of this thread, and I'd pull back of activity realted to this just to not to get bogged down by too much for me. I am aiming at a sensitive norm for 00 gauge modelling and I try to convince the interested that 00Fremo has already done some work on this. The compatibility would be a bonus. I see that this thread often gets bogged down in details just to come back to the really important facts. My opinion is that a lot of you are clever enough to work out a standard which is not imcompatible to 00Fremo, provided the rail top over floor height is 1300 mm. This is the last major point of indecision (at the moment) I spot. 44,67 mm is not a whole number and if 46 mm already exists then why not adopting 46 mm. 46 mm are also proven to be safe in curves with radii of at least 1000 mm. Every sensible norm has such an arrangement. By the way, three and four track lines are deliberately not normed, because - it is very unlikely that one person builds enough modules for a useable, realistic layout on its own and - if this came true however, then there are different variants (think of the position of Fast and Slow lines on the ECML and WCML) that these people will find their own agreement and may publish them theirself for possible attraction of others. Thanks for your open minded post. To be honest I cannot understand why people are thinking that Fremo is complicated. But of course I am a member for over 1,5 years now and have had the possibilities to talk to lots of experienced modellers which makes a huge difference, so no offence here. Fremo norms are extremely bad documented and are difficult to find. There is an important and disadvantageous gap in information between the newcomer and the expert. That Fremo is complicated is a stereotype which results from this. I know this and do my best to pass on my knowledge, but you have to listen if something should come to fruition. I think Free-mo and Fremo are very similar. The only differences are in detail, and here Free-mo seems often to go the way which appears to be more easier in the first place whereas Fremo members try to avoid practices they know they are not appropriate for future development, for example because groups are to grow. Free-mo uses clamps, Fremo uses screws. It is not really important that you decide the way of mechanical joining but to know that normed hole positions won't prevent you from clamping modules together is wisedom of the right kind. Look carefully at https://www.flickr.com/photos/91875255@N05/14105581062/. Do you see the clamp? Free-mo members to my knowledge have used a wireless control system whereas Fremo uses Loconet which is capable of controlling as much locos at any one time as you wish (9999 DCC addresses). Fremo has lots of different end profiles, but this isn't really what I would die for. Furthermore Free-mo could standardise on its in-house developed end profiles. Not much differences you see. To be a niche within a niche maybe is not the right position to rely on feelings. 00Fremo of course has a strange British prototype within Germany, but talking of modelling techniques we are nothing else than part of the H0-RE Fremo group which is the largest within Fremo. I have just counted exactly 1690 Fremo members in 2014, approximately half of them being H0-RE modellers. This means there are lots of people around who potentially can create something worthy for your developing British modelling community. On Wednesday there will be the next regulars table here at Berlin. Two modelling colleagues have announced to bring their track plans for future modules with them, one of them being a double track main station with loops and a total length of 8 m. I recommend to introduce regulars tables for modular modelling in the UK too because nowhere ideas, concepts andprojects can grow better than in a community. Kind regards Felix

Thanks Paul for your summary. That experinces with modular 00 gauge are thin on the ground is a problem, because we here in Berlin have made a similar mistake in the first place: We adopted the Fremo US norm which meant an overscale 52 mm track separation on double track lines. We realised this only when a Fremo member from Kent told us that this is wrong and that with a US norm there is no possibility to join in a future channel tunnel layout going to France, Belgium and the Netherlands. We now have adopted the H0-RE norm which makes all this possible. I would like to convince you what modular 00 gauge layouts look like. The next meeting is planned at the end of october in Berlin. You and everyone else interested is wholeheartedly invited. I will cater for organising an accommodation if desired. Sadly I cannot see coming to Britain with a whole 00 gauge modular layout, this is because I would need a second man for this, the consent of all the module builders to take their "pets" on a big tour and not least the amount of money to hire a transporter for a whole weekend. But if I could I'd come. I see you are on a good way to create a norm for Britain. The input of several experienced people already made this thread to look at what is already there. But I fear that the rail top over floor height is the last hurdle the norm could fall at. Please do not underestimate the needs of scale length trains to make a height difference! Sadly I don't have an example to hand but in a similar manner a modelling colleague recently has calculated the length needed to make a parallel shift of track of 6 mm. This was for a transition module from 52 mm to 46 mm track separation without the possibility to move one of the both tracks due to an already wired point. 6 mm seems to me minimal, but the result was – Surprise! – nearly 30 cm / 1 ft.! Now look at a spiral / helix. It has a radius and gradient combined. This does not do favour to scale length trains, wheelslipping would occur if the radius is too small or the gradient to steep or both. Do you think of spirals with 1 m radius (= ~2,50 metres diameter with safety added)? Did you thought before of the filleting (unsure of correct word) to transition the gradient to level track at the start and end of the spiral, which should once again have a radius of at least 1 m, adding further ~0,5m to the overall length? Wasn't the UK the country with very small halls? Let's talk about rail top to floor height. Exhibition layouts are build to cater for the public, this involves wheelchair users and children. But both are very rare in modular modelling which aim for realistic operations. Of course the 1300 mm height stems from a time when wheelchair users have not yet been on the radar of public attention. To the present day there is only one wheelchair user in European Fremo, he is a popular exception to the rule and there was a donation collection this year to help him with his home layout. I am not saying that inclusion of wheelchair users is not possible but lowering the height of modular setups is the wrong way to go. An operationally interested group of modellers will always tend to squeeze in another branch line instead of letting enough space to let wheelchair users or generally "the public" to pass through the "forest" of modules. Because it is not always possible to have no duck-under modules a wheelchair user is disadvantaged in each case (except the wheelchair user is so small that he will fit under a duck-under module with 1300 mm rail height). If the last paragraph contained inappropriate expressions, please excuse me because I don't intend to be dismissive. It is simply because English is not my mother tongue. Disabled people is a difficult topic so please leave a note with me in this case. 1300 mm is optimised for standing and walking along. It is optimised for mechanical uncoupling and other work on the top of the modules while standing. IMG_3265 von – FelixM – auf Flickr If the height is lower, you always have to stoop which is going to do no favour to your back. Because 00 gauge is a relatively big scale, drivers of trains will have not much time to sit down while driving a train. Stationary "staation masters" operating a station can use special chairs which are higher than normal ones. IMG_3289 von – FelixM – auf Flickr Children use to use footrests or beer crates within Fremo. No, I am not giving up yet, don't worry. My vision is to let this develloping RMweb / British modular standard becoming compatible with what not too far from you away Fremo members have already started. Kind regards Felix

Thanks Jon. I can speak for European Fremo H0-RE = 00Fremo = compatible to H0-USA by adaptors. Floor to rail height is 1300 mm. Module width is recommended 50 cm, can be wider for big stations or narrower for harbour scenes, shunting planks or what you like. Track standard: 16,5 mm. Recommended for 4 mm scale is Peco Code 75 (for the keep it simple guys) or SMP bullhead rail (for the ones who like it). Train control: Modules wired for DCC, no provision for command stations built into the modules. De facto standardised on Loconet with portable controllers who can be plugged in and out, kits available on a batch basis. Compatible to handheld controllers from Uhlenbrock company. No more must-haves in the norm, but a huge amount of recommended practices. Kind regards Felix Edit: Track separation for double track lines is 46 mm, so the module width for double track lines is 546 mm.

1300 mm rail top over floor is the height to go if you are not debilerately going to make incombatibilities to modules already existent in the UK and other European countries. There is a certain secondhand market for modules. Kind regards Felix

H0-RE uses wire that is ~1 inch longer on each end of the module. The wire is then bend up at the joint, so that each wire describes a V shape (bent back). When connecting the modules you first do the mechanical connection, then align the tracks and finally hook in the wires. The last step should only be done when all modules are standing safely and do not any more have to be moved again. Can please someone tell me the advantages of the American Free-Mo system over the Fremo H0-RE norm? To my knowledge there is no modular 00 gauge modelling in Free-Mo. Regards Felix

There already is a standard for OHLE equipment for the H0-RE Fremo group, on which 00Fremo is based on. It is an extension to the already large rulebook of H0-RE. This means that you only will get in touch with OHLE norms if you are really interested in. I can only recommend to base any 00 gauge standard on the Fremo experiences. I have tossed in lots of How-tos in this thread to demonstrate that virtually every question raised has had someone stumbling across it earlier. You will get the whole lot of experiences if adopting the Fremo norm. We are talking strategy now. Take a simple end profile like the valley profile (or sth. else, as you like) and aim at getting the mentioned passing loop, a terminus and a fiddle yard built for the start. Coupled for some plain track modules which follow the space restrictions of your first meeting you wil get a convincing and pleasurable first meeting. There is no point in mixing OHLE and non-OHLE modules. I expect that non-OHLE modellers will be more so the start should be made by them. To get OHLE into the group a few interested should join forces and create a matching OHLE part of the whole arrangement. From then on there will be two layout parts, one with and the other oone without OHLE. Ask Hornby magazine, to my knowledge they have a large Souther Region layout which is too big for them, but the platform lengths of 8 Mk1 is just about right for a mainline station in a modular group aiming for scale length trains. Kind regards Felix

Do you recognise them? IMG_3319 von – FelixM – auf Flickr Compatibility can work wonders. Kind regards Felix

Everyone can choose the track he would like to use. The important fact is the rail top over floor height. Here we have a Peco Code 75 (right) to SMP bullhead (middle) to Code 75 (left) double joint: IMG_3315 von – FelixM – auf Flickr There were no problems with different rail heights in use. Kind regards Felix

First part: Yes, exactly. Second part: Asymmetric profiles are the nightmare of each layout planner, especially if the environment requires a curve and you only have ones that face the other direction. Asymmetric modules can't easily be turned around. But they are popular and demanded by the community. Luckily the layout planners of today can strike back nowadays: May I introduce you to the "profile eliminator": IMG_3339 von – FelixM – auf Flickr IMG_3340 von – FelixM – auf Flickr As you can see there are totally different profiles from each side, but it does not look bad. A profile eliminator must have vertical walls (like a bridge, but there are other possibilities too) to successful eliminate everything from a tall dam to a deep cutting. There are two types around: Very short ones that allow to change the profiles without "loss" of too much length (useful in small locations) or standard length ones that can have other functions too. This one is a duck-under profile eliminator which later will get tunnel portals and a green landscape on the top. IMG_3336 von – FelixM – auf Flickr You could even make a full-width full-length module with a tunnel and scenery on it if you find a suitable prototype with vertical walls and a scale length of ~1 metre. Kind regards Felix

IMG_3529 von – FelixM – auf Flickr These are the two modules I spoke about at midday today (at the top of page 8 of this thread...). Both have laser cut end profiles, but the right one could well be a homemade plank. You can see the additional holes drilled at the meeting in Rendsburg, this was because the adjacent module was narrower and did not have common holes with my one. Both modules originate from a friend of mine who has had plans of H0-USA modelling so these modules aren't fully compatible to H0-RE / 00Fremo modules. That's why some more holes didn't matter. IMG_3311 von – FelixM – auf Flickr You can see a Loconet box clamped to my module here. This is where folks plug in their loco controlers (FREDs within FREMO). Incidentally, the two numbers behind the letter of the profile descriptions in Harald's post are the year in which the profile was normed. Kind regards Felix

There is no precision cut necessary, because the bolts are of 8 mm diameter but the holes are 13 mm. This means you have a vertical play of 5 mm (and horizontally). Only when the nut are fastened it takes vertical load if there was some. When they are just plugged in the holes (without fastening) the whole construction already stands for itself, but is still adjustable. There is no practical way of doing this with clamps. Furthermore the bolts can hold the legs as well, which is not practical with clamps. So you once again need more clamps. Or you can use separate legs, but if those separate legs are screwed on then please tell me why to use two separate methods of fixing on a module? Fixed dowels aren't recommended. I have seen an N gauge module whose surface got wet. This caused the surface to bend and wander upwards, and then there was a 2 mm track "step" at the join without any option to fix it. Not a nice experience for the owner! Kind regards Felix Edit: Got confused with M6 and M8 bolts. Corrected now.

Sorry for hand sketch, but no time for a professional drawing. 20 clamps take the same space of 2 packs of 100 coach bolts or wing nuts each. So you will end up with much more fiddling around if using clamps. No technique without reason within Fremo. Kind regards Felix Edit: Of course there is nothing wrong with additional clamping when after years the end planks of some module start to bend inwards, increasing the gap in the centre of the module where the track is. Fremo usually uses additional screws and has centre holes (not shown in the sketch) for this purpose.

Re6/6, what is the rail over floor height in your norm? Felix