Glorious NSE

It'd amount to underlay at the track on a flat baseboard top, yes. Suspect you'd want to limit how many variants there were, at least to start with - or you'll struggle to get compatible boards. As you get a bigger group it may be that more could be added if needed? Which ones you start with is always the question... Not sure what height the Tim Horn ones are exactly - on one level however i'm not sure it matters - the laser cut end being overlaid will just be a little shorter/longer than the board it's being attached to if it's a different height. I agree you only need the depth on the 'blue' version, at least physically - but it seems to me the closer the ends are to each other in design the easier it is to work out how bolt holes connect between versions and the more flexible you can be in future with the least number and least complexity of holes. Lets say some variants were shallower and only used the upper line of bolt holes drawn (for example) then you're down to two 'mission critical' bolt holes if you connected, say, an "orange" profile one to a "blue" one. You couldn't use any of the lower line of bolts as they aren't there on the "orange" board, and you lose one of the upper ones to the terrain on the "blue" board. Two bolts will do it - but it gives no leeway if you have a challenging connection for any reason. The deep end also leaves open some potential future ends - if all the ends are that deep design you can do a proper "embankment" end using the lower 3 holes and the upper centre hole and still mate with all other designs with multiple holes in common - but if you try to mate an embankment like that with a thin end you only have one hole in common, which isn't going to be workable.

Adding to the structures available: Kibri - Litziruti station. http://www.gaugemaster.com/item_details.asp?code=KI39497&r=1

Here's a play with profiles, I've started with Jon's end (blue line). I've added a gentler slope option (green), and two alternate takes (purple and orange) to consider for the nominal flat - orange is flat with just a very small roadbed (ballast) hump - purple makes it more of a low embankment. I've mocked in 6 hole positions, the steep profile (and possibly the gentle slope also) would only have 5 of the 6, that would still leave 4 usable holes if two opposing steep modules were joined. I've drawn this with all ends the same depth to the track, that makes the hole locations easier, though it means we're lugging round deeper boards than we might otherwise need for some of the ends? Below is a take on a clamped version based on similar principles - i'm intending that these should be big enough holes to hook a small clamp through and rotate - again with the slope the steep profile would lose a hole compared to the others, down side there is that you'd end up with only one clamp hole if you mated two opposing steep module ends.

Thanks, also a reminder for me to look at 1/148 structure ranges for anything that might help!

Kato makes a station building in plastic (Filisur) plus a kit for a modern platform with canopy and signage (presumably the island platform from Filisur?) Kato and Tomix both make a lot of nominally Japanese structures in 1:150, whilst some really won't work, some of the modern ones would work quite well for urban areas I think, and others might give you a core to kitbash from if you can get them cheaply enough. (Tomix also has a Mercedes Citaro post-bus out at the moment which might be worth picking up whilst it's available!) There are some laser cut kits from Faller of RhB station buildings (Langweis, and Stugl-Suls) which look excellent, I presume these wouldn't look bad - they are branded as "N scale", but I must confess i'm not entirely sure which N scale! They are bigger structures though so even if they were 1:160 i'm not sure they would look too bad, i'm also interested in any thoughts on this!?

So to visualise: We'd use Jon's template a few posts ago up-thread for a steep-ish slope, that would work for the likes of these two: https://goo.gl/maps/gvdwmNy6RNLVTmoGA or https://goo.gl/maps/gPaJczH7KrGP4gzb8 Something like this for a gentle slope: https://goo.gl/maps/eZcx9aVnogCcTofV7 or https://goo.gl/maps/yYu39WzectbxcRKG7 And a "nominal flatness" end like so (but also good for "utility" modules like staging yards): https://goo.gl/maps/TrNN4gW5TVhTuSny9 or https://goo.gl/maps/cSuFkravxfUEvn5i9 (Interestingly I'd have included a roadbed 'hump' as per the HO on that, but both those examples suggest we might be better with track straight on to the board top?)

What about doing Jon's steep profile, plus a gentle slope profile, plus a nominal flat? That's still not too many ends to handle?

Can't see that making up a double track standard is worth it for this, I think only one reasonably long stretch (West from Chur) seems to be double track at the moment, yes there are other bits of double track but none seem so long you couldn't build them within a module set if that's what you wanted.

I'd envisaged F and G being lower than the straight ends, keeping the ends slim? If they were deeper then yes that might work, and a deep end would allow for a symmetrical embankment. (Another trade-off?) The upper one is there to pull together scenery if you get a gigantic chasm, not that much of an issue at a meet but I suspect more useful at a show. You wouldnt *have* to use them, but they give that capability if you needed it. We had a joint back on Rock Springs which needed one up there to pull the scenery together at the top. (And yes, that was also a pain to get to, but it did get rid of the gigantic fault line between boards which showed up at that board joint without it.)

Yep I was thinking you could use that (on the cutting or flat versions anyhow, the slope won't work) with a laser cut end overlaid to give accurate hole spacings versus track.

Hope this works and makes sense, this was what I was thinking, 7 potential holes, though any given end will have max 5. I've only drawn flat, slope and cutting on this, a flat one side and slope the other would be easily possible too but an embankment might not be doable...?

On the comparison of the ends, unfortunately this is the downside of a slightly wider profile is it translates to taller on the asymmetric end! I'd go for a slope between those two, but slightly closer to the INGAnetNG one than the fremo one, maybe take 1/3rd of the difference off? I agree with what you're saying on depth, (though ultimately it'll be down to individual users what they can build, store and move!) but I suspect you can cull the majority of the board "base" from the INGAnetNG one as there is no need for it to connect to anything else down there. The vertical fascia on the 'downhill' side only needs to be enough to give the board some structure, and maybe attach a curtain in case of exhibition use - it doesn't have to be 72 high as drawn? With those mods I think you could lose a lot of that difference.

Virtually every car on the market has more than 3' between the wheel arches, so if we have a nominally 1' wide board you will be able to put 3 pairs across, so a total of 6 boards. You may lose a bit if some/all are curved though. You'd get 2x 18" HO boards across by the length of the clear length of the load bed, so this gives you a third extra module length (ignoring scale difference etc!) over the HO scale. I load my HO Nucor module (3' boards) transverse in a Meriva (small car but decent load bed) and I reckon I'd easily get 4x pairs (8 boards) of 3' x 1' straights in easily, and could possibly push that to 5 pairs*. (I don't have space to store 5x RHB board pairs and my HO ones, so don't expect me to build that much, but....)

Can I just skip back a step to first principles - connections? In HO we use clamps - giving a very simple (no need for absolute precision) end construction and very simple adjustment, the only section of that we have occasional issues (due to precision actually being needed!) is with double track ends. With single track, we can just adjust the joint to take account of any imprecision in the track laying. A deeper module end (such as the asymmetric one) with clamps should be possible but may need a (precision?) slot to get a clamp through. Having the end profiles laser cut gives you a precise end, that gives the possibility of having precision holes for bolts to connect boards. So far so good. BUT - This will mean that the relationship between bolt holes and rails becomes a (reasonably) precision measurement - potentially a track slightly out of level (one rail higher than the other) or both rails mounted slightly high or low relative to the bolt holes could be an issue - are we okay with that? I think it's worth flagging that - but I'm going to move on with this post in the assumption that we are okay with it and that we will choose a bolted connection - we can always skip back and explore the clamp alternative later. Assuming bolted boards, then logically we need to have a minimum number of holes to cover all scenarios. I do think it should be our intention that any two module ends can physically be connected if necessary, even if that doesn't look pretty and we would try and avoid mating mismatched ones in practice. So we should include the minimum number of holes to do that, but not all ends will be able to have (or need to have) an equivalent hole on the connecting module (the asymmetric hillside may have fresh-air on the downhill side where the connecting module has a bolt hole). All joints will need a minimum of 2 bolts, some might benefit from a third (or more) to pull scenery together? The bigger the end I suspect the more holes it will need! Given all that - I suspect the position of those holes relative to the track will somewhat define the majority of what is possible on the symmetrical ends. A "plain" flat or cutting end can both have a straight line of bolt holes across it below track level and be quite compact, and most of the same boltholes will also work on the 'uphill' side of the asymmetric board - but if we ever wanted to do a symmetrical embankment the bolt holes would have to be further vertically from the track - that would force all other boards to have a deeper end also to keep the bolt hole to track dimensions the same - so we need to be careful there, even if an embankment board is not chosen right now, what we do with the bolt holes will define whether it is possible in future by the trade-offs we make now. I'll try and knock up a visual.

Well, some excess HO got sold today and a basic 10-1145 set and unitrack oval was ordered. It's likely I won't be building a module first-off - one of my aims with this is I want to try and give Sophie the chance to build a small layout with me, and that'll give me a good incentive to build some stock (she definitely wants a model of the ice cream container. ) That should let me get my head around it's capabilities before I do a module too, plus give the spec a chance to solidify a bit as well.

Likewise I can't make it - but I hope you get some good interest!

That's potentially even more relevant here - it seems to me there's a very high possibility that multiple participants will all own more or less identical stock, something that's never been an issue in US HO. Not really a problem with wagons or coaches, but it'll be critical with traction units - if 10 people turn up to a meet and bring the same loco we've effectively only got one loco that can run... Food for thought on organising and how it impacts ops.

At Christow, whilst our pair of through trains were provided with a set of loco's each, both of them had received different loco's by the second time they ran - i'd have said no to a through train which wouldn't have been compatible and where you couldn't even run the loco round at the far end of the run without getting hands-on though! In US HO we don't need to make the argument that things need to be fundamentally compatible to work, it's just expected because they (mostly) already just are compatible - this is very different, we have fundamentally incompatible stock straight from the box - yet we'd be modelling a system where most things on the prototype freely intermix on a daily basis - i'd argue that's part of what gives it much of it's character! I think the argument needs to be deliberately made that compatibility is an important thing - i'd argue if that's seen as something desirable (and personally, that's a big yes!) then it'll be easier to build that into the group ethos from the start than try and change it later.

Yes. that's logical, but having at least some 'loose' coaching stock is also desirable for mixed trains/Allegra tail traffic/adding & removing cars from peak trains/tourist trains etc... But the actual mix of fixed and loose coaching stock could be something to think about later, if there was a basis of Microtrains being used for loco's/traction units/wagons and at least coach rake ends already. Not suggesting we use JMRI at this stage, but the likes of that can handle moving fixed groups of vehicles mixed with singles if it came to it, so the practicalities would work of mixing them.

Okay, having inexplicably spent half the weekend googling Rhb stuff and 'cab riding' the network via streetview, I think i'm up for contributing something, though probably it'll be something small, accessible, freight-friendly (and having to also have some elements, at least at home, that work for a 5 year old too...!) I did look at their freight terminal near Samedan, which is just fabulous and allows for seemingly all traffic types you can think of - but that's probably a bit too much to take on without getting rid of other interests! I'm currently a bit taken in by the pocket intermodal terminal just West of Ilanz... https://goo.gl/maps/MKT3mArKcprcHtup9 Some thoughts on what's been put out... Wider than 150mm please - my suggestion would be 300mm/1' - as you can get off the peg boards (including curves) in that size which could form a basis for your boards if you're not into woodwork. (Tim Horn also has 250mm/10" listed as well - and the image on that page shows a curve but he doesn't have off the peg curves to order or i'd have suggested that instead!) I'd suggest 3 ends - a symmetrical nominal flat, a symmetrical vee cutting, and an asymmetrical slope (obviously the latter has to be usable LH/RH) - that would give 4 potential end configurations to any given board end which is plenty to be getting on with! I'd suggest nothing too dramatic for the slope and then it could work as either mountain or meadow? Whilst matching end profiles is good, Fremo use "black boxes" where necessary if two mismatching ones have to be placed together in a setup. A 'black box' might be the kind of thing that could be done as a kit maybe? 1000mm nominal height, variable by increments is fine by me. Whilst precision is great, as long as the variation in height settings is covered by the variation available in the feet adjustment then it should be adjustable to any height in the range in practice? DCC please, much simpler for modules, and it looks as though the rolling stock side is not too difficult to achieve with what's on the market at present. We already know the layout-side DCC architecture is achievable. Operation - this shouldn't be in the standard it should be down to whatever those at the meet want to do - if they want to run fixed train sets between two yards then so be it, if they want something more organised then do that instead. But - I think there might be a case to argue on standardising on couplings to enable operations to happen when folk do want to - for instance if 5 people contribute a mix of freight stock and compatible freight loco's to a meet and between them they have 3 coupler types which can't be intermingled, then it's nigh on impossible to reasonably run it as a railway comprised of loose stock as the real thing is - MT couplings seems like a plausible option if the Kato are't uncoupleable in service? If we end up with a yard (or yards) making up trains to go out, a workable coupler is a must. If we end up with a pair of return loops that trains shuttle between, then having couplers that only work within a train is fine. We won't know the answer to that one yet! Got to say i'm really interested in the potential for operations on these, the ability for carload freight including mixed trains and tail traffic on EMUs is really interesting stuff. I love the whole carload forwarding side in the US HO scale modules, but a RhB modular scenario adds the potential of running an actual timetable for the network created onto that, and with the potential to also allocate loco's and passenger cars in a way that we don't really have the infrastructure (or a tight enough focus) to do in HO US outline. And doing that with much less "land take", both domestically, transport wise and at a meet than US HO too... Minimum loop length seems like really good advice - length proposed seems like a good compromise, presumably that length will also take a loco and 6x GEX cars? Please keep me in the loop, so to speak!

Dont know if everyone knows about this, but this useful passenger train consists site: https://www.vagonweb.cz/ now has coverage of RhB train formations. Obviously only passenger ones, but that includes the mixed trains. I suspect in reality the freight content will vary a lot compared to the plan, but it's interesting as a "style guide" nonetheless, plus a handy way of seeing if it's LHCS or unit based. Examples: https://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak.php?zeme=RhB&cislo=4109&nazev=&rok=2019 https://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak.php?zeme=RhB&kategorie=R&cislo=4307&nazev=&rok=2019 https://www.vagonweb.cz/razeni/vlak.php?zeme=RhB&kategorie=RE&cislo=4011&nazev=&rok=2019 If you find a vehicle type you like, click on the little icon below it and it'll show all the trains that use that vehicle type... (Enjoy!)

Who makes the baggage car Paul? I'm still getting my head around what is available in this scale!

Fascinating stuff Paul - I wonder if I can resist something compatible, especially as more and more stock is becoming available for it. Ref the height - 1000 sounds logical, but is defining a specific height counterproductive if you want gradients? Would it be better to define a range. The Free-Mo in the US has a whole foot of vertical adjustment to allow for this - that was something we culled from the spec for the UK US outline version, but it'd probably be more useful here than it would be for US modelling!

Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! This is the plan - the main line runs from Dale Yard at the top, turns and runs down the hall and back, then turns again to reach the Western Union yard at the other end of the run. There were also three branches (to Fort Myers, Fairhope and 11th Avenue), and both of the yards had local industries they served also. Here's a few more pics: Pan Am railways gathering at the Jillsburgh Depot roundhouse. View from the 'stage' end of the hall, showing much of the main line. Firehouse at 11th Ave, hope they aren't about to put the fire in the loco out... At Emmery, a local freight from Western Union Yard to 11th Avenue swings onto the branch, a unit stone train (with an excess of eclectic CN power) is holding in the siding for it to clear. More pics at: https://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/ModelRailroading-1/2019-05-1819-Christow-Modular-Meet-2019/

Thanks - one day i'll dig out my 08 and BYAs and take a couple of pics. :)