298

It suppose it depends on the board size, there are some nice 45 degree curves I've seen but they can look odd together because of the 2x 3" straight sections at the module ends. But I don't see why a 90 degree curve on two boards cannot be built, as long as they are used together or as end boards. Something else I thought of for you is if "Kenton-mo" goes for a 18" wide board but with a single track 3" from the edge, a curved adaptor module would add a much needed bend and bring the track back on centre (is sketch what I mean but it's past my bedtime).

They might be in danger of drawing criticism over not having a complete train available, as happened when Farish and Hornby both overlooked the Mk3b DVT and made do with the Mk4 (later corrected by Dapol and Hornby respectively). I presume they're now prepared to steal some thunder by doing 90034 in DRS soon unless Hornby give their loco one last hurrah, although I'm sure it'll be after the real Pretendolino is disposed of.

Or a "Great Gathering" box set featuring the four Freightconnection locos...

I'm guessing now but perhaps Freightliner gave them access to a 90, and recommended their current livery (of which there will be more repaints) over grey or green. As for other liveries and variations, I'm sure it'll take them a while to cover the lot...

An agreeable choice and they must have some confidence in their High speed pan. 90023 is interesting, it retained IC livery for long enough to be seen in this livery on Mk4 sets on the ECML, but lost its Pullman rubbing plates in the meantime, so perhaps Bachmann have acknowledged they don't have a complete passenger train go with it and have chosen a freight loco. One of the first 15 with large black numbers would have been a more general choice.

I'm more of a Communist myself. I find you make some valid points, but i think you really have to experience the Freemo concept first hand and drop any pre-conceived ideas regarding modules to buy into it. What I eventually built was quite detracted from my current modelling interest, but partly proved a concept I wanted to explore and is a good entry into US modelling for someone. You can also note that the concept will prove slow to take off, this module spec has been exhibited at TVNAM before, but this was the first full modular meet and still relied on participants travelling hundreds of miles to have enough modules and skill & experience to fill the room. I had previously experienced some negativity when my now defunct local NMRA group discussed a joint project, some wanted this spec, some wanted continental fremo because of the lasercut ends and compatability with European modules, and some wanted On30, which are slowly coming together (no-one mentioned N gauge). All of this sounds like a "jumping on the bandwagon" exercise for some, but I think you really have to see a contribution from an established group to decide whether to join in or not...

Or, do you think the best compromise in terms of cost, availability, appearance, knowledge, etc.... should be to use Peco code 75....?

Which to me does say you're interested, and probably have a few module ideas. As far as building modules is concerned, it's the ultimate therapy for an exhibition critic, if you like a layout but think they could have operated it better or maybe should have included scenic features or more sidings, then you can get involved...! But quite how this is translated into British modelling is still to be seen, I for one would like to see something with full car-forwarding and switch lists, but fear it'll only be used as a big layout as the vocal parties will see radical thought changes as too difficult to change the Status Quo. As for letting your delicate kitbuilt stock trundle off into the distance, only to later find it in pieces, the same could be said for anything running on a club layout at a show and some of my newish US stuff is quite capable of loosing steps and grabs at home on my 6' switching plank, gliding them back on is part of the course. Then again, I wouldn't be offended to see some lesser quality stock in use, from my point of view as a Conductor or Engineer, all I need is something that runs, has useable couplings, and a unique and readable number.

The meet that started this thread was obviously attended by like minded people, so once you've got the desire to take part, "towing the line" isn't really seen as sapping one's creativity. You'll notice a lack of curtains on most photos of modular setups, but when mine was bolted to RS Tower at Peterborough they were used to create a presentable look so having a different colour fascia would have looked awkward and broken the fluidity of the setup. I think the public might be able to accept a lack of curtains and lighting, but there's no reason why they can't be considered, even if it's a strip of hook Velcro along the bottom of the fascia and holes for lighting brackets, both of which could be provided for from a central pool.

A balloon loop could have worked at the end of the Wallingford branch, keeping the Engineer happy as the loco would have stayed short nose forward and all of the set outs and pick ups would have been in the trailing direction. Another option I've seen on a plan in a US magazine and also on a large scale layout over here is a continous loop to extend the running time as the train performs a number of orbits. Nobody has to purely model in one discipline or another. The module concept is obviously new to lots of people (including me 2.5 years ago), and can be an escape from the drudgery of a glorified tail-chasing trainset, or the repitive operation of a branch line. I'd suggest 1300mm is a bit high, purely because over here timber is sold in 2400mm lengths and without going too far into the maths, the standard ought to consider the minumum amount of wasteage and cuts from this stock length. You would add on about 13mm at the top for the track, roadbed, and board top, and about 20mm at the bottom for the foot plus another ~13mm (1/2") of leg adjustment.

Impressive as I find these modules (and I too model traction), one obvious setback from a UK perspective is the fact that they are shown being transported in some pretty big (by UK standards) vehicles. Which is why I like the 18" width, as it is still wide enough for scenery, but fits within our lives a lot better. The distances you quote present an interesting comparison, not least because if I wanted to travel a mere 100 miles, I could go to a quality show or preserved railway event every weekend throughout the year. But other factors usually get in the way, and us Brita are more conservative in travelling such distances, especially when you're paying your own fuel and accommodation costs.

Without picking at the bones of every comment made during the last few hours, one point you have to remember is the concept as developed by the RS Tower team can be used to build or incorporate just about anything of any size, just as long as the end boards are compatable. This, coupled with the general understanding of working to a cohesive appearance across the participants, means that if you want to do something out of the ordinary such as ohle or street running, it is possible to do so effectively as a lone project and to your own standards- the last time we discussed ohle on here, there were as many different methods used to scratchbuild as modellers doing it, and no commercial support. If you even got two modellers together who wanted to build comparable modules, who is to mediate to tell them what to do, especially if a third method that both don't like is suggested...? As for the style of operation, any modular setup, whether it be new builds or modified existing layouts, need some form of regulation and car forwarding, otherwise the layout soon becomes conjested or doesn't live up to its capabilities. Such methods aren't unique to the US, it's just difficult to persuade those brought up on a diet of platform end train watching that there is more to the hobby than running trains at will and for no justifiable reason.

I build modules to get away from modelling OHLE...

I thought the layouts length was just about right, although I can see how longer loops would turn it into a main yard that'd handle 1000' better. When I finally left in the Sunday morning with Dan's CF7, I'd got the place pretty tied up, but the moves worked out well and I'm looking forward to switching it again sometime soon. If anyone is thinking of building an end yard with lots of switching spots and a passenger service too, Fort Myers provides lots of inspiration.

Thinking hypothetically, that's easy to consider from a US point of view where everything has a knuckle coupler and will connect with a bit of prototypical pokery, but even then there isn't a Standard for uncoupling, whether it be by magnet or twizzle stick. Goodness knows how OO modellers will cope, they have so many couplings to choose from, but still use American ones in European spec adapter boxes. Sooner or later, something will gave to be drawn up for anyone bringing stock to follow, such as individual readable numbers and conpatable couplings. Another issue is we all build to different standards, so any module set up will have a weak link, if someone has a lesser atitude then their module might be the one with electrical gremlins or incompatable scenery. The couplings on their stock might be made from bent coat hangers and could be easily damaged whilst in storage, nothing wrong with that as long as they have a height gauge to rework the errant ones, otherwise the stock they've taken so long to build would soon be taken off the layout. Taking a module out of a set up would be a lot harder, so who polices the participants and tells them in a diplomatic way that they can't take part...?

I think the problem is you have to look at US modelling in the UK from a home perspective, if you translated what we were running in British 4mm then the average exhibition punter would have cause to lean on the barrier and rant that loco x would never haul car y. But that isn't what it's about, for me it was running trains to in a prototypical manner with like-minded friends on a layout that I had made a small contribution to, and thinking about how to perform the job in an efficient and realistic fashion. That doesn't mean that what we were doing wasn't accurate, or scenery standards weren't high, or everything was out of the box RTR, but the problem that Andy mentioned in the first post is translating the enjoyment and euphoria from the weekend into a British prototype that ticks all the boxes and still generates enough interest to attract people to get involved.

One issue I've usually witnessed is lots of modules being chucked together, then no running for half a day because of some unknown mystery short that cannot be traced. This Freemo branchline concept means the power districts aren't particulary overloaded with lots of trains running, and wireless throttles avoid the extra wiring needed for plug in points. Organising the electrical infrastructure to do the same with DC so someone can turn up with their module and plug it straight in without suffering at best a voltage drop through being at the end of a 120' branch line. Regarding your latter point regarding the operation side, this still seems fairly new to British modellers, and consideration needs to be made to decide the exact style of operation, which is why I made a point earlier in the thread that point to point running to a timetable might be better than individual wagonload shunting, especially when stock has to have a unique and readable number...!

One reason why I doubt the HO track spacing would be suitable for 4mm is stock overhang on curves- can someone confirm that passing trains will clear on a nominal 3' radius with 2" track centres...?

I didn't take any locos or stock to run, but did have my own controller. I'm typing this message on it right now...

But that's the problem- there isn't a 4mm standard. There are a number of other HO ones but this one is relatively new, correcting what were percieved as difficulties such as the baseboard width and wiring for throttle buses.

I like the idea, but you don't have to be tied into previous standards that all used identical board sizes, as long as a module is built to a Standard Length Unit (1 foot), a section can be any length. Even then, having boards so tightly engineered would only be necessary to create a loop or to ease fitting a plan onto a grid.

Having been at said modular event, first of all there is proof that modules built to this standard can be fitted in, even when the originator hasn't seen a module before, and existing layouts can be used when coupled with suitable adaptor modules, although all that really matters is the rail height- different scenery, ballast shoulders, rail/track type etc. are largely cosmetic but might impact on the running of some stock. US modellers are used to working to train orders, for example I made a train up at one yard, ran to another, dropped off those cars and picked up others from industries, then ran back to the starting point, and all that took 90 minutes. Im not sure what British modellers would have made of that, so perhaps working a representation of a long preserved line with four or five passing loops to a fast clock with train regulation over single line sections using tokens and a fast clock/timetable may be better understood and accepted by those who want to see trains go by. The operations this weekend were about getting cars from A to B, instead of creating a traffic jam at the complex junction shown above or appeasing the train watchers. Scenery....? Hmmmm. The group who started this type of module went for a Mid-West theme, so the flat areas look authentic and have the advantage that they can be used either way round without a backscene in the way or scenery not matching. Would there be enough interest in a preserved railway in East Anglia, to cover many possibilities...? Participation- in order to build a good network, you need lots of plain track modules and curves, and a semi-fiddle yard as shown, the one above was used as a double ended 16', but could be split in half to be used in two locations. Level crossings and bridges might have been a cliche, but can present operational considerations for crews. I suppose like most things in life, if there is enough of an interest from a team of like minded and forward thinking people, it'll happen...

If you are who I think you are, telling you how to build an exhibition layout would be like telling one's Grandma how to suck eggs. I wouldn't worry too much about the van hire cornundrum, large layouts need vans and if you can get by with three operators then that saves the additional cost of a car. Its also worth shopping around for a good deal and telling the hire company what you'll be doing, a van that is carrying your prized posession will be treated better than one that is piled with junk or taken on a booze cruise. Last weekend we loaded up a couple of layouts after a show, the new-ish 7mm scale one going in a brand new Mercedes Sprinter and ironically the 25yr old OO one in a knackered 02 plate Taillift Luton. The daily hire costs for each van were the same.

I had the pleasure of being invited to operate Netherwood for the final hour on Sunday. It truly is a masterpiece and deserves wider recognition and appreciation on the show circuit, although the theory I have that fewer bookings are made through the traditional method of an Exhibition Manager or Scout asking for details bears witness to a perceived lack of interest. I did hear the show organisers apologise for background clatter from the Tinplate layouts, noise at shows is a contentious issue anyway and as much as I like Lionel operating accessories, can't see the point in trains constantly thundering round at breakneck speeds.

A manufacturer would be foolish to ignore such free and knowledgable appraisals, I remember the criticism the Heljan 86 received at the CAD stage and subsequently when the necessary alterations weren't made.