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

How many actual British Fremo/Freemo modules are there out there though?  Let's not forget that on overseas railways many of them drive on the wrong side of the railway like they do on the roads.

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.

That may be the situation with Freemo ... but a British standard may have different operation methods.  We haven't decided yet whether we want to run point to point via points, or a large roundy roundy.

 

In the link above from Talltim there's huge American freight trains. Great for trundling along long layouts with 100+ wagons behind it.  Wonderful stuff and great to watch, even I would probably enjoy watching it.  But if I wanted to operate those sorts of train I'd probably be doing it in N - however that's a different discussion.  I can find pleasure in a humble bogcart trundling through the countryside just as much as a 10 carriage express thundering past.

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.

With the scenery comment I wasn't meaning to be derogatory in any way, it's just that a long thin layout with no backscene built by different people is bound to suspend disbelief less well than a nice deep layout presented with backscene and proscenium arch etc built by an individual or team is. (For some reason I've got Chee Tor in my mind here, other layouts are available)
Thus the emphasis lies less with immersing yourself visually and more with engaging yourself cerebrally by running trains with a reason, in a realistic manner, over a (comparatively) long distance and period of time

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

You don't have to - but at some point or another you're going to want to turn the corner, and if you're wasting a 6ft x 6ft space for a 2000mm radius corner section then if you're working in a typical boxroom then you have maybe 4ft at either end of the curve to do anything else.

 

Admittedly, in your own home you can build your own spec radius 2 corner board to give you a bit more length to play with - but then that board (or boards) are effectively no use whatsoever in a modular setup if they're "outside the standards".

 

I would suspect most people would not build a standalone module that is only ever used when at meetups but a functional layout of some sort, ie fiddle - scenic - fiddle made of three 4ft boards to fit the 12ft room - and thus would possibly put "home playability" above "meetup playability".  For myself, if I was to build a small passing loop station board, that would be my one board to take to a meet.  A purely scenic board, running between two fiddle yard boards, is rather pointless as a "home layout" and becomes rather more a photographic plank.

 

Maybe I'm not understanding this modular concept fully but why would I spend time and money making half a dozen purely scenic boards to extend something that I can never actually use when at home?

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.

1000mm is 39.3 inches, 1500mm is 59 inches, 2000mm is 78.75 inches, for those using imperial measurements

 

Most modern "off the shelf" stock is designed to fit round radius 2 setrack curves which are 17.25 inches or 438mm if you prefer it that way.

 

Whilst larger radius curves are aesthetically more pleasing to look at, hidden corner sections - purely for the purpose of turning the corner incorporating a tunnel, for example, should be perfectly acceptable unless people are bringing kit-built stock designed specifically to go round much larger than a radius 2 curve.  I don't have anything available that I can use to test minimum radiuses on kitbuilt stock but I am sure someone here can explain more about minimum radius for that sort of model.

 

For "continental and American stock", 2000mm radius curves may well be perfectly good - but that means a 12ft x 12ft space is required purely to make a circle.  That's not likely to be within the scope of many UK modellers who don't have the luxury of American style basements, lofts, barns or double garages for their modelling - meaning that their own "corner sections" not 'built to spec' are incompatible and useless for any meet-ups that may occur.

 

Then again, is someone who builds kits to a high standard designed to go round 12ft radius curves the sort of person who is likely to use Peco track and be quite happy to see mismatched trains from different regions and eras passing each other on module(s) that they have built?  I'm not convinced, personally.

 

A classic example of why "a British standard, designed by British modellers" is needed rather than adopting an existing overseas standard which works to a completely different audience, mindset and operating procedures.

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

And if there's any participant in a wheelchair can they get photos of how they operate aththat height too please, All the heights we've discussed seem to make that difficult from my previous research so I'm intrigued rather than trying to define any standard related to this.

 

 

Isn't that made for them by Peco?

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.

Sorry Felix, I didn't see your question until today

 

I don't have a precise measurement. As far as know there isn't one at the moment!

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

As for OO-UK, consensus in the UK has been to simply adopt the existing and well-tested FREMO H0-Europe standard, and simply amend the recommended practices parts as needed where there are specific differences between either H0 vs OO scale, or EU vs UK modelling.  The main reason for doing this is that this standard has been developed for over 25 years, and thus encodes a lot of practical experience with making a modular system work well.  By simply latching on to this, we easily avoid all the common beginner's mistakes.  Technically, there is nothing in the H0-Europe standard that is incompatible with OO scale use.

After we had been talking about this for some time, we found out that there was also an OO-UK group active in Berlin, who had through historical accident taken the FREMO H0-US module as a basis for their own separate OO-UK standard.

So we found ourselves in the rather unique situation that the Brits were following existing continental standards, and the Germans were developing their own new UK standard.  Sort of a reversal of historic precedent.  :-)

We've had some good discussions with the German group on the subject of standards, but I haven't followed their activities lately, so I don't know what they ended up doing.

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

In the first photo, 3 different modules & 3 different module end treatment. A low profile shaped end, higher profile shaped ends & straight end with side blocks of wood. I do find this a disadvantage of a modular system, but I guess in this section its intended as a non scenic section, or is it?

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.

2 inches 50.8mm as opposed to 46 or 44.67mm. Hmmmmmm.

As someone who reduced the Roco standard 6 foot of 66 mm to 50mm. I would suggest we stick to the 2inch spacing. With 9 inches to the edge of the board from the first track. So multiple track boards are (number of tracks x 2) + 18 as the board width. Simple.

I want my boards to be able to run US outline HO and UK OO. The HO will be mainly code 55 single track!

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

Nice picture Felix! 

 

I have a topology/logistics question that Clive's posting made me think of.  How does the "00 Standard", handle the "module standard" track position and assignments (track 1, 2 and 3), for GB style LH running double track connecting to single track working and vice versa? 

 

Andy

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.

Surely double to single track conversion (or vice versa) is handled within a module, so the standard doesn't have to cover it?

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.

That's basically what I am asking about . Clive's single track passing loop example earlier would require another module of the conversion type to be present, if it was part of a (presumably) mixed single and double track set up.

 

Second question. If a single track is specified to be at the center of each module, where are double tracks centered? Or vice versa.

 

Those issues don't usually arise with the US system, because they don't typically operate double track as one handed running. The second and more tracks are operated as just extra single tracks.

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

Presumably if Peco (75 or 100) is settled upon for trackwork, then the handy Peco track spacer gauge can be used to ensure that track space at board ends remains accurate without the need for an extra jig?  It's only about 20p from memoy.

Something like this? This is exactly 46 mm and of course homemade.

Unless we exactly follow another standard, then at some point a converter board will be needed, surely?

 

Personally I can't say I am particularly fussed (and I doubt if my wife will be either...) about giving up a weekend taking a couple of boards all the way to Belgium or some other foreign clime to "play trains" - I know travelling long distances is a big thing within American modular meetups but surely the whole point of the UK is that it's fairly small and we don't need to go a long way - and the whole point of a "British modular system" is that it is designed for British modellers modelling British prototypes, living, erm, in Britain?

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.

Putting in extra features to a modular standard "just in case" a few folk actually make it to anywhere else in the EU to join up with others is surely stretching the whole concept.  And even the doughty few would only be doing it once in a blue moon. 

 

Keep it simple.  Keep it accessible to the majority.  Don't get stuck down dead ends of people with their own agendas, hidden or not.

 

Brian

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.

Making a cross over with Peco points gives you a track centre of 50mm. This is quite wide for British railways, the 44.67mm Stubby has quoted is for the minimum spacing of 11ft 2ins for double track. Note this is the minimum and many mainlines the spacing is slightly wider.

 

Will most people be using Peco points? Do we use their track spacing of a more scale one?  Therefore having to modify Peco points if people are using them.

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.

On Free-Mo in the US single track boards are 24" wide and double track boards are 26", so the tracks are the same distance from each side on double or single. That enables a double track to single track connection with one track dead-ending if necessary - That was one feature we liked and copied from the US version...

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.

Hi Felix - i've been shying away from this, as the decision on which way to go needs to be with the folk modelling OO - i'm going to keep trying to walk that line...our version fulfils our own HO needs very effectively I feel.

 

US Free-Mo is irrelevant, and I don't think anyone is looking at that. 

 

For OO modules - our Freemo I think has some advantages over Fremo, and I think that Fremo has some advantages over our Freemo.

 

I think our Freemo has the advantage of being simpler, with (if you like) barriers to participation that are as low as we can make them. I think it could form a basis for OO modules, i'm very happy to say that it's not necessarily perfect for it though.

 

I think Fremo has the advantage of more developed / more professional engineering, with off-the-peg end profiles, some of which (for instance a shallow cutting) I think will look much better as an end standard for OO than our nominal "plain" will - Plus Fremo has electrical specs designed to cope with mega-sized setups, which our HO modules will never see (realistically we are in a niche within a niche.)

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

I think there's little difference though the UK version of US Fremo has less specifications and maybe seems simpler to some of us. I haven't seen any knocking of the OO Fremo standard but it's not taken off over here and that was one of the discussions we had as to why.

We have already discussed the curves specified and 1300mm is also quite high, a full 300 taller than my layout and 150mm taller than the Freemo I've tried, so I start to question if that is one slightly limiting factor for getting kids involved.

If people want to travel abroad then the OO Fremo is an obvious standard to follow but whatever system is proposed as the RMweb standard it's likely to be fairly compatible using an adaptor board, even if that has to be a spiral

I guess from your responses and helpful discussion you find this slightly frustrating why we don't just follow an existing one but equally a lot of us are fairly experienced exhibition layout builders and have built up our own equally strong opinions on construction.

So it's not necessarily that we think the OO Fremo is bad but we have other options that satisfy our requirements too.

Andy Y is no doubt cogitating all the responses and will propose what he thinks will suit the most members, which may well be an existing standard yet. Whatever it is I'm up for adapting my layout to join in as I enjoyed the US version and don't have room to start a module from scratch for this too

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

You'd probably need to have a standardized wire coupler (tiny and thin metal plate with two close spaced holes). Each hole would have to be large enough to allow for the greatest wire diameter likely to be used. And you have to specify that wire ends would be tensioned at say a 4 oz pull when coupled , with an upwards hooked end and sprung extensibility for coupling of 1/4". Your typical RTR pantograph upward pressure is the factor that would determine the finalized wire tension force. The wire diameter could vary from 26 swg (US NMRA HO Traction) down to 0.006-7" (scale), if it is sufficiently rigid to have a hook formed end.

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.

 

The rest of the track, module ends and DCC/wiring specs can pretty much be just copied from Free Mo.

 

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

The UK has never had anywhere near 80% electrification.

 

As of 2010 only about 25% of route miles in the UK are electrified, and I think less than 20% is via OHLE - so it's a minority. A substantial one, but a minority.

 

Edit that - misread the figures - about 30% electrified, about 20% OHLE.

 

Much of that is relatively recent too, so OHLE fitted modules would be of much less use to folk representing older era's - the percentage of OHLE in 1960 would have been relatively tiny (I suspect in the region of 1% or less) and that would include different, incompatible, electrification systems for instance.

 

Just as an experiment Andy - have a dig through the UK modelling section on here - have a look and see how well represented layouts with OHLE are to take a gauge of how likely it is that there will be high demand.

 

Given that modules don't need OHLE to function as modules.

Given that the majority of folk will not need OHLE.

Given that there's absolutely zero point in just one person building a module with OHLE (where would his/her trains go?)

Given that OHLE on modules is likely to be harder to spec than OHLE on a conventional layout.

Given that the folk likely to want OHLE will more likely be the folk that can work out how to install OHLE than the rest of us.

 

My suggestion would be that it seems a perfectly reasonable plan to not have a standard for OHLE from the get-go - but let standards be decided as an overlay (so to speak) by interested parties themselves at some point in the future if anyone decides it's something they want to do.

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.

I am looking forward to joining in with a single line passing loop station.

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.

Hi Andy

 

So your not joining in but you seem still wanting to tell us what to model.

 

There will have to be some consensus as to area of the country, time period and railways/regions, so we have something that looks to our own eyes a bit better than a train set.  That does not mean it will become a private group. 

 

OLE modellers, strange bunch they are, some want to model LNER 1500v DC, some BR Mk1, others Mk3. I would like to do some BR 1500v DC converted to 25KvA but not the upgraded stuff that is now going up between Shenfield and Chelmsford.

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.

One thing we haven't really touched on is the ability to join larger, more traditionally british layouts into modular setups. The RS Tower layout shows how well this can work, and Roundhouse's modifications to give his layout a place in the modular world show how effective this can be. Imagine modelling your favourite station, but with somewhere for the trains to run that isn't the fabled "rest of the world" of hidden sidings...

 

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

The beauty is you can use whatever track you like on your module as long as it has the flange clearances for rtr stock to run across. Lulworth happens to use SMP code 75 on scene and Peco in the FY.

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

The pre-made FREMO ends seem to be more about a consistent scenery profile. If for example the ground at the end of the module was flat, then cutting a rectangle and drilling a couple of over size bolt holes (which don't actually need to be exactly located due to the slop between hole and bolt) should be within the capabilities of anyone who can build a board.

I'm interested in the asymmetric FREMO ends. I can see that they add to the realism of the scenery, but them being handed limits the connection options. There also multiple end profiles, which must limit the options even more

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

On the other hand it effectively forces you into using precision pre-cut ends to ensure that everybodys bolts are in exactly the right place - you don't need any of that with clamps - there are positives and negatives for all...

Felix, my section on the US layout used dowels and bolts on internal connections but not on the freemo ends. On the internal ones I know the work is all to the same standard and I admit I was wary at first but the clamp has to take virtually no load as the track was aligned using the feet then just 'nipped up' with the clamp to prevent lateral movement. Most layouts I've seen and been involved with at shows that relied just on bolts suffered from drooping joints over a weekend show. As I said before bolts and dowels are great but the tolerance to the track position has to be accurate and that's my concern without a jig if not all built by one person. I also dislike the modular layouts that require a 3 inch free piece of track to join boards as it's so easy to rip out rails and it looks odd having no ballast too.

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