Kenton

That one is entirely cromptonnut's initiative - I'm not even exactly "in area" but it is spirit of 'everyone welcome'. Meeting - well it is a bit too early I guess. We have all been waiting for the standards debate to settle on a release and although I think that is pretty close it is not quite there. As for starting - I am probably going to hammer a few nails in wood this week (between other chores) but I'm pretty slow when it comes to doing things so Xmas is a good achievable target. As for other area groups - well I guess it needs someone in those areas to take the initiative. But I think Andy Y is looking at national meetings - though these may well grow out of the areas. We have to remember there are no modules at BritishOO standard created yet and it will not happen overnight. This is very new uncharted waters for most of us. There may well be (probably are) some Fre(e)mo modules out there which could be used - perhaps with adaptor boards/new legs - so not quite nothing. As for meeting just for a chat - that is best done online through RMWeb or PMs as no travel costs and time issues.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88140-a-modular-layout/ and http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/88341-modules-what-can-we-contribute/

  Andy, just to clarify - no change of heart whatsoever.I disagreed on post #144 as you stated My comment above refers to Radius 1 points. Now I don't know about your kit builds but mine will nearly all (only excepting x-8-x arrangements) will negotiate Radius 2. A few will have flangeless wheels to do this perhaps, but not all. I think I am correct - someone will correct me no doubt - but many RTR locos (excluding x-4-x) exhibit the the same running restrictions. R4 radius is a good choice for aesthetics but does limit planning scope. R1 is not a good choice but there are work-a-rounds available (use a small shunting loco - plenty available) but it is not ideal and certainly restricts the main line. Andy Y has come up with a compromise once again to be as inclusive as possible.

I take it you are speaking down to a child with your remarks. Some of us like to learn by making our own mistakes then learning to respect those that didn't say "I told you so". As for fast powerful cars - yes that's part of my job - how perceptive of you.

That should prove to be an interesting challenge for the loco timetablers as there are quite a few RTR locos and probably even more kit built locos that will not negotiate Peco small radius points. So banning the small radius from the main track seems a good idea AFAIC

Let's be clear here my definition (and I believe most other's) of a "plain" module is a simple single or double line and nothing else in between. Literally a pointless track layout in every sense. It is not that I am completely in disagreement here. Some modules with plain track are almost certain to be useful. My point is the apparent lack of understanding here between what is currently accepted in Fre(e)mo circles and the desire to get involved by some British modellers. Starting out (as all this is new to most in the UK) the real novice modeller can make a first step by building a plain track board. In theory this is simple requiring very little thought and is achievable in a relatively small time frame, with minimal cost. But we know only too well most new to railway modelling (and a fair proportion of those with experience) want something they can operate and will always try to cram as much in as possible. Often with the outcome there is no scenic interest and often poor design and ultimate abandonment. Therefore, as a proportion, just how many of these "active" modules are going to actually get built, let alone finished? However, without at least some of the more complex junctions/passing loops/sidings/stations/yards/... one long winding single line is going to be the most boring group session ever - even if the scenery is British. I also believe that having folk quote their experience in a "lording it over" "I'm telling you so" sort of way does nothing to help. Granted some folk on here have experience of the Fre(e)mo system and do have something to offer. But the British OO module scene is embryonic and just like a child growing up will instinctively rebel and want to find their own way. So what if we turn up with lots of "active" modules and no long straight modules to connect them. We may find we actually like that similarity to the British prototype with little distance between "stations" on the other hand we may then go home and start building multiple plain modules to separate the "active" modules. At least let us learn from our own experiences. I quite like cromptonnut's idea of building a plain module for each "active" module. But the active one comes first. That is because I believe that what will drive up participation is not so much the group meeting for the big connect up but is the potential to build a layout at home that can be used in a wider group. There is a subtle difference there which is perhaps lost by those who have experience of groups/clubs.

  The best description yet for a straight/curved through single track module. Probably the best reason yet not to build one. None of us can imagine something more useless as a layout (apologies to all SLT fans). Operationally I can see your point - after all who cares about what you are driving through - one flat US plain looks as boring as the next one - it is all about operating locos and stock after all. I do, in part, agree about complexity though after all a module with a point on it will require a bobby/stationmaster or the driver to get out and do something useful like throw a switch.

but ... good quality tools in the hands of an untrained tool ... I'm starting to see why the Fremo guys went down a supplier for end profiles (though that doesn't remove my total dislike of their imposition in standards)

Yeah got one very similar yet somehow .... they do not work. On a slightly different subject - I've been looking at some of the Fre(e)mo module plans and there doesn't seem to be a consensus/standard on the location of the track bed - some seem to place the board/bed over the end plate while others but up to it. This only makes a difference of the board/track bed thickness (9mm + cork?) and that could be adjusted by position of the G-clamp. But for the aesthetics among us it would also produce a step at the module join (disguised by a Yorkshire stone wall, Devon hedgerow ...)

Thinking about pieces of wood - an obvious standard hit me - the connection end plate must be at 90' to the track/baseboard. I know it sounds obvious but for those with minimal woodwork ability (me) getting a perfect 90' on 4" angle is not so easy as it seems. This may be extra important when clamped as the off degree out could break the back of a long module or exaggerate the track gap at the join. As some board designs may not be the basic oblong some of the sides may well not butt at 90'.

Legs - Neither am I - it can be done later At least one of mine will start at a level to adjacent module and will within about 3" start to drop away (leaving the track on an embankment). Another will end in a cutting. Ultimately as track has to meet track the scope for real scenery is somewhat restricted (gradients very difficult to achieve) Someone somewhere is bound to do a tunnel with a windmill on top .. the portal could start soon after the join - I'm sure there is talent enough out there to do it realistically and no doubt there is a prototype tunnel entrance - somewhere urban perhaps? [Ed] found one http://www.rcts.org.uk/features/mysteryphotos/show.htm?img=67-010-30&serial=42&page=2 just ignore the turntable - the module connected before could even be a big station - I'm sure there are others. So no the end of a module does not have to be flat bland and uninspiring landscape - but it could be - perhaps that makes the meet design more interesting and probably more varied in British landscape.

As the end board width is only a recommendation (mine probably will not be)the next two points are similarly recommendations (which similarly may or may not be met) and the double track spacing still seems uncertain with the Fre(e)mo lobbyists. (Mine will be) Note I accept that a double track that does not end in the decided specification will only b able to be lined up on a single track - which then makes it a single track module with a siding (that ends on the module join) ie it is still a useful module ... even if the siding becomes disused.

Starting is not the problem - I am good at that (especially something new) - it is just committing to finish that is the big problem (put a date on it and it just gets even worse) Hob Knobs

If you think I'm a fussy module builder just wait to you hear what I'm fussy eating. Don't do tea and biscuits, don't do beer and cakes, and don't start to quiz me me on green coloured food or water from the tap. I'll bring my own it's just less hassle for others.

  Doesn't this vary from venue to venue and exactly what we want covered. Act of God and the hall roof collapsing on all participants and layouts vs Hand of God and Fred driving my favourite kit built loco off a 1300mm cliff because he didn't see the stop signal (the controller forgot to change as he was discussing the merits of his bacon buttie with the guy who insisted that it was not cooked to the Fre(e)mo standard). I'm not sure £53 is a lot to pay when it gets spread over quite a well attended meeting - bur when there only 2 people in attendance ... You can insure my car ! In fact anyone other than those named on my insurance policy has to have insurance to drive it (or trade plates and trade insurance) also if my car was for hire you would have to provide insurance. I could even insure your life. Insurance is just a gamble on something happening - you could take out odds with Ladbrooks or ask some reputable insurance company to take your stake against a given risk. Just like Ladbrooks they make a fortune on the bet being in their favour. (not many low/non-profitable insurance companies around)

I was also thinking along these lines and considered if a 4" end would make things difficult but then realised that even on any scenic change you would be making a cliff edge drop (ala US canyons perhaps) and even then would not be making that within the first say 6" of the board edge. So once again in this unusual circumstance a short adaptor board width between 4" and 6" or greater) ends would fix the problem. The only reason why the 4" becomes of some concern is that the G clamps only have a limited range within the 'G' - but that is covered by the statement "that modules are required to be connectible by G clamps and a recommended depth of 4" and of material ends able to take the force of the clamps"

'nut, I am still nowhere near either a fixed width or a track in centre and what I am thinking of as absolutes ([a]either adapting a project with new (peculiar shaped) ends or Module 1 of a triangle from scratch) - but it will be made to work. I agree not enough attention has been made to minimum track radius (R2 or R3)? as this affects track planning. Frame thickness should not be an absolute issue just comply with the absolute of it must be able to take pressure of a G-clamp. Frame depth - well I guess it needs to be able to conceal Tortoise so the defacto depth of 4"/10cm seems to be sensible. Is it so much of a problem for people? Oh and don't forget to come to a meet up with sufficient G-clamps to connect up BTW the Module 1 option has 3 ends 2 single track and one double (half a through station) on 3 sides of a non (completely rectangular) board, is 5ft(1.5m) long. I'm still in this with the ethos "we can make it work" even if it takes a little bit of effort along the way.

But you seem to miss the point that both the Fre(e)mo standards differ on height which seems to make a nonsense already of any "best" experience on the subject. It also paves to way for the BritOO standard to be set at any/ether height. What still astounds me is that we are still debating an exact measurement when the obvious solution lies in adjustable legs. In my case legs will be made when I have a module I can offer to the group and are not high on my priority or preventing me starting. I can use my standard 'A' frames at home during the construction. what is delaying me at the moment is do I start from scratch or adapt an existing project (with adaptor boards) - time out.

Once again we are messing up people's minds by comparing apples with lumps of coal. OO9 and HOe are different - gauge same scale different - so running HOe on HO modules the buildings and little folk work in harmony (the same is true for OO and OO9) but they clash in Lilliput land. I think we need to keep cross-gauge discussions for a different time and place and to concentrate on British OO modules. Just like OHE, it is not being exclusive it is just not high up there on the commonality stakes. So I'm sure someone could make it work but not the vast majority of us.

  FelixM encourage no but I have no problem if someone wishes to do so. At this stage when we haven't even defined British OO standards and desirables - I do think adding in complications for NG at board joins is far too ambitious. Anyway who is to say what the NG inter board gauge should be? OO/14?(Have always thought the term OO9 rather silly as it says nothing about scale and implies two different gauges .. 4=9 would make more sense. 4mm:foot scale on 9mm gauge) Within a module anyone can do anything they want and yes that includes making their own dual gauge track if they want as long as one gauge is OO and the NG part does not trip up a passing train. It would add considerable interest no doubt but is well beyond the ability of most modellers - as many novices will still struggle with Peco.

Just keep enjoying it. Happy Birthday.

  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.

In the spirit of a gathering of modellers of varied skill and experience - Very much so. "Oh I like the appearance of your blue ballast, how did you manage to get it looking so realistic?" Or "I'm not convinced by the heavy weathering of your locos - did you do that working with a prototype photo?" Or "I can never get my brickwork to look realistic, as you see mine always ends up as if it has rained oil. Where am I going wrong?" Just as I said back-a-long in this topic - lets try to crawl before flying. One day there may well be that GWR only module group where all the group can agree on the colour of stone or that LMS group that can agree on the exact shade of Crimson Lake (but I doubt it) let alone what was the "correct" weathering to apply to the 20ft of track outside the west end of platform 1 of Reading station on that wet Monday morning of the 1st June 2014!

Quite possibly - especially up against my blue ballast! But does it really matter - as long as trains can move from one module to another. 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). As for supplying legs from a specific source then just like the imposition of end profiles - I'll do my own thing thank you.

As I said I am easy on what the actual height chosen is - and cannot quite see why it is causing such consternation. Making adjustable legs is a requirement - either that or bringing sufficient old copies of BRM to make the height packing adjustment. Thinking about it - one side of the room could be at one height and the other side at another height and a few connecting modules connected as a gentle gradient ... given the floors in some potential venues I think we could get that anyway unless the is some PW controller going round with his yard stick.