Nm9 RhB modules and standards

[Jim Easterbrook]

What's the current state of play with this? Has it reached the point where a beginner (e.g. me) could start making a module with a reasonable chance of success? Any completed (for some value of complete) modules out their whose owners would like to share some pictures?

 

As an aside, here's a laser cut Rueun station kit I completed recently.

te-miniatur Rueun station kit by Jim Easterbrook, on Flickr

[PaulRhB]

5 minutes ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

What's the current state of play with this? Has it reached the point where a beginner (e.g. me) could start making a module with a reasonable chance of success? Any completed (for some value of complete) modules out their whose owners would like to share some pictures?

 

As an aside, here's a laser cut Rueun station kit I completed recently.

te-miniatur Rueun station kit by Jim Easterbrook, on Flickr

Ah well it all got stalled as Globalrail 2019 was supposed to be the meet up to discuss it but they lost half the building the day before and our stand understandably got the chop as it wasn’t a layout and was a late addition anyway. Then Alan rebooked us for 2020 and Covid stopped us again!

So we don’t have an agreed set of standards although we do have a rough proposal as per the last page diagrams. If you take that as a rough guide you could build a module and then add end adapter modules later to extend it a few inches to match. 

That’s basically the approach I’m taking as I already had my smaller 6” wide module standard so they would just join in with an adaptor module at each end of a run of them. 
This is my thread with the modules around page 7 onwards.

 

 

[JimFin]

This is intended to be be my next project, just bought a bucket of track and points. Intend to make a freestanding series of modules that will provide a layout for my own use but using Paul's end profiles so that, as when we can, try and join them up. 

 

[Gook the Goblin]

1 minute ago, JimFin said:

This is intended to be be my next project, just bought a bucket of track and points. Intend to make a freestanding series of modules that will provide a layout for my own use but using Paul's end profiles so that, as when we can, try and join them up. 

 

Look forward to watching progress, will you post in this thread or start a new one?

[PaulRhB]

If we can keep this one to the joint standard it will help, anyone copying my Bonsai standard is welcome to post in that thread, linked above. 
Sorry it’s not been on the radar as we were hoping a nice relaxing day at a show would be easier to thrash out details. I can demo the concept with my Bonsai modules as I have six now but it’s a narrower endplate to fit in my flat  

I’ll dig out the draft and add it here later this evening to get some ideas and comments going or it will be another year  

 

[PaulRhB]

Ok this should be the first draft, PLEASE DON’T BUILD TO IT YET, it’s purely a discussion document based on this thread so far.

It’s based on the RSTower groups HO Freemo and I’ve adapted it to use in my Freem009 and BonsaiRhB standards which you can find in my signature. 

ok correct version now attached  

RhB Nm9 standard v1.pdf

Edited January 29, 2021 by PaulRhB

[Jim Easterbrook]

For the electrical connections, would it be sensible to help get the polarity right by, for example, saying the left rail shall be connected to a plug on a wire and the right rail connected to a fixed socket. This allows modules to be connected without any additional wires, and the dangling plug can be put in the socket for transport/storage.

 

Also, should the coupler height be specified? On my rolling stock I've fitted MicroTrains couplers at a slightly lower height than they specify, using a Dapol gauge.

[PaulRhB]

21 minutes ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

For the electrical connections, would it be sensible to help get the polarity right by, for example, saying the left rail shall be connected to a plug on a wire and the right rail connected to a fixed socket.

The one suggested has worked well across three other modular systems so I don’t think there’s an issue as long as it’s clear underneath which rail the socket goes to, (It also means all the leads that two of us already have would be available to use). I simply do it by having them facing the end so the left socket is the left rail. At meets we just stipulate that the plugging together is done by one person working their way round so any shorts become apparent as the board is connected. 
 

21 minutes ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

Also, should the coupler height be specified?

Ah that was still part of a conversation as to how it could all operate rather than in the module build specs 

It probably would be to be compatible with the Microtrains standard for stock equipped with them, which I suspect yours still are? What is the height from the railhead?

There’s actually no reason that fixed push pull passenger sets with Rapido / Kato couplers can’t be run alongside as long as that is known to the organiser.

Trying to tie down one coupling type is probably too much as none of the rtr manufacturers have used a nem pocket.  We could even allow block trains through as long as there’s a suitable yard each end so catenary isn’t at risk from people uncoupling a loco. 
On my coach sets I’ve kept the Kato snap couplings inside the set with Microtrains ones either end. I only went with freight stock and additional coaches, to be tagged on for strengthening a set, having knuckles both ends. I did this after using it on my HOm Harz layout and it’s simply to reduce the cost of converting every single vehicle. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by PaulRhB

[Mike Beard]

If you watch the average RhB layout in any scale it seems to be a stage with the players entering and leaving by the wings without stopping in most instances. Shunting is a rareity. On mature reflection I'd tend to fit Kato semi-permanent couplings inside freight stock rakes as well as passenger ones.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Mike Beard

[PaulRhB]

 

 

21 minutes ago, Mike Beard said:

If you watch the average RhB layout in any scale it seems to be a stage with the players enering and leaving by the wings without stopping in most instances.

The point is though this isn’t an average show layout it’s a modular system with operation in mind.

 

21 minutes ago, Mike Beard said:

Shunting is a rareity.
 

If you sit at Disentis, Davos, Chur, Pontresina, Samedan etc you will see a lot of shunting activity. Block trains like the Valser one are a rarity point to point even now. If you model a few industries on different modules they tend to be trip worked to the nearest large station and then formed into a longer train to be split elsewhere. Short two to three wagon freights are also common. 

 

21 minutes ago, Mike Beard said:

On mature reflection I'd tend to fit Kato semi-permanent couplings inside freight stock rakes as well as passenger ones.

 

Unless you build a big Landquart yard style at each end fixed sets severely limit operation

 

Modular setups aren’t usually turned into a roundy with a fiddleyard and while it can be accommodated with the  US style yards and through trains it’s not something common on the RhB.

It’s one of the reasons I’ve left the operation separate from the module standard

 

Disentis

Ilanz

Davos

 

 

Tiefencastel 

Zernez

Preda

Arosa

Chur

 

Pontresina

Poschiavo

Albula

[Jim Easterbrook]

53 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

On my coach sets I’ve kept the Kato snap couplings inside the set with Microtrains ones either end. I only went with freight stock and additional coaches, to be tagged on for strengthening a set, having knuckles both ends. I did this after using it on my HOm Harz layout and it’s simply to reduce the cost of converting every single vehicle. 

 

I've done the same, only fitting knuckles to locos, freight wagons, and end coaches. My couplings aren't much lower than MicroTrains' standard, just enough to reduce fouling on the MDS Haik brake pipes. (I like to run everything through 150mm radius curves, just because I can.)

[PaulRhB]

Yes I put 9” -12” min radius in the spec but only for looks, when the Kato and MDS both cope easily with 6” radius we don’t need to worry much!  

[Jim Easterbrook]

12 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yes I put 9” -12” min radius in the spec but only for looks, when the Kato and MDS both cope easily with 6” radius we don’t need to worry much!  

Ah, my potential Brusio spiral module lives!

[PaulRhB]

10 minutes ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

Ah, my potential Brusio spiral module lives!

 Like I said it’s a guide for looks really. I’m not sure a 7 coach Albula set will like being pushed round 6” radius though

We could limit 6” radius modules to a Arosa/Bernina branch though if there was a big enough group of modules to run long mainline sets. I’m going to build my two big stations, Chur Altstadt & Engadine (Bever ish) to accommodate the 1220mm of a full set in the hope they do them one day. 
Experience with the US modules shows there are some liberal interpretations of certain standards and questionable woodworking but we’ve not had a problem accommodating them and fixing issues. 
The proposed track standard is code 55 at joins but if someone did use code 80 or Kato it would be sorted at the adjusting stage. Self supporting modules, adjustable height and electrical connections are the ones that need to be tighter. 
There’s also some mileage in asking for any addressed Dcc accessories to be separately powered or registered before meets as we don’t want two people turning up using the same address as you’ll have points etc moving under trains elsewhere  

[Jim Easterbrook]

26 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

 Like I said it’s a guide for looks really. I’m not sure a 7 coach Albula set will like being pushed round 6” radius though

We could limit 6” radius modules to a Arosa/Bernina branch though if there was a big enough group of modules to run long mainline sets. I’m going to build my two big stations, Chur Altstadt & Engadine (Bever ish) to accommodate the 1220mm of a full set in the hope they do them one day. 
Experience with the US modules shows there are some liberal interpretations of certain standards and questionable woodworking but we’ve not had a problem accommodating them and fixing issues.

I adapted a Faller Landwasser viaduct kit (193 mm radius) to make a reduced size Brusio viaduct with a 4% gradient.

Faller Landwasser Viaduct kit by Jim Easterbrook, on Flickr

This can fit a track plan with 183 mm minimum radius, which is a lot better looking than 150 mm.

 

A station with a 1220 mm passing loop is going to be a big module! As a complete beginner I want to start smaller than that. Your suggested 610 mm "local line" is more achievable for me, but it might upset the purists if I use my Rueun station building. I'm not a purist though.

 

"Questionable woodworking" - that's me, that is.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Jim Easterbrook
Reduce quoted text

[PaulRhB]

1 hour ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

station with a 1220 mm passing loop is going to be a big module! As a complete beginner I want to start smaller than that. Your suggested 610 mm "local line" is more achievable for me,

 well the two big stations will be 6ft modules made up of two 3ft boards. I’ve also done a local station design and you just put the local in the loop and let the GEX etc whoosh by  

 

1 hour ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

but it might upset the purists if I use my Rueun station building. I'm not a purist though.

As long as you can run trains through it will just look like places like Surava or Stugl  

Edited January 30, 2021 by PaulRhB

[JimFin]

On 29/01/2021 at 16:24, the Goblin said:

Look forward to watching progress, will you post in this thread or start a new one?

Think I will start a fresh one. I enjoy being able to read a thread which runs through the development of a single project rather than one with composites ideas that can jump about a bit.

 

I would also like to thank and congratulate Paul on the draft he has put forward, a great piece of work for us to get to grips with.

 

Essentially, I would be happy to work with those standards. The questions in the Appendix, I would vote for -

 

Height to top of rail - I would be happy with the range proposed, and increments, on p3 of the draft i.e. 1000 to 1300. 

 

Minimum radii - 300 works for me but happy to go with less if that suits other folk.

 

Gradient - I would have gone with 5% but have not experimented as fully as others so if 4% is more practical, so be it.

 

Ballast and scenic - I think this could be left as a recommendation with the material suggested but free to adopt or not.

 

Couplings - happy with the proposal but a question - any idea where can we source the Micro Trains magnetic couplers? 

 

Is it worth adding that each piece of stock used on a combined layout must be indelibly marked on the underside to identify the owner?

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

Minimum radii - 300 works for me but happy to go with less if that suits other folk.

 

I’m open to the majority vote on that but if people can’t fit a module in without going below I think we could accommodate a branchline sub grouping that has to be advised to a layout planner as long as it’s declared as such but with 150mm Radius as an absolute minimum. 

 

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

 

Gradient - I would have gone with 5% but have not experimented as fully as others so if 4% is more practical, so be it.

We might need to alter that as I based it on the 6 coach sets. Probably a few more tests worthwhile with a simulated Albula set. 

 

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

 

Ballast and scenic - I think this could be left as a recommendation with the material suggested but free to adopt or not.

We left it as a ‘rule’ in Freemo and Freem009 and there will be variations but it tends to stop them being extreme. We’ve never had to police it. 

 

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

Couplings - happy with the proposal but a question - any idea where can we source the Micro Trains magnetic couplers? 

I buy in batches from the States direct or via eBay depending on who has stock usually and have had good service. 

 

2 hours ago, JimFin said:

 

Is it worth adding that each piece of stock used on a combined layout must be indelibly marked on the underside to identify the owner?

Yes something for the Ops guide though. Probably paint dots or even stickers are the easiest as most underframes are too busy to write on. Open to ideas. 

[backofanenvelope]

Hello Paul, I’m getting back into the building a module idea and have a question as I go about starting my design.

 

Quote

Minimum loop lengths
Mainline station loop length to accommodate 6 coaches + loco (890mm) plus clearance to pass train.
Note an Allegra + 7 car Albula set is 1220mm long.

So is the minimum loop actually 1200mm as the Allegra sets may become a possibility and may be modelled by people or stick to the 890mm plus clearance.

 

[PaulRhB]

19 minutes ago, backofanenvelope said:

So is the minimum loop actually 1200mm as the Allegra sets may become a possibility and may be modelled by people or stick to the 890mm plus clearance.

Ah you have my smaller BonsaiRhB ends which aren’t exactly the same as this proposed standard as those involved so far wanted a wider end as shown in the pdf. So you are free to do what you want but it can be joined into this once we decide on the module ends with adaptors which I’ll need too. 

The idea of the first draft is to challenge or accept the ideas
To that end if you follow the rest of the ideas in this thread that are still up for discussion feel free to join in. 

On a personal level I think we can leave the possibility of Albula sets for major stations and use the shorter original Albula sets of 5-6 coaches, based on the GEX set as a minimum station loop length?
You could even model some of the smaller stations like Davos Monstein where the shorter old loop is only used for engineering trains or as a freight siding. It’s just a halt as far as service trains are concerned it just wouldn’t be used as a passing place in an operating session. 

[backofanenvelope]

Yes I read the specs and saw the the difference from that to the ones I have. But I see that the internals don’t matter as long as the interfaces are the same. I completely agree about the larger sets and concentrating on smaller locations, which in fact I find far more interesting anyway. I came across an image the other day of a discarded EW1 coach in a siding of an industry, that would make a interesting diorama or module. Anyway looking forward to seeing this progress, when it does.

[Mike Beard]

Somebody at some time pointed me to a document which has trackplans of all the RhB stations together with significant dimensions like loop lengths and track spacings. Does anybody recognise this and could they direct me to it please?

Edited February 1, 2021 by Mike Beard
can't spell "please"!

[Jim Easterbrook]

Another minor point regarding the electrical stuff - instead of saying "Mains cable or 6amp wire is suitable for the main BUS wires" it would be better to specify the minimum cross-sectional area (e.g. 1.5 mm²). Anything else is a bit vague.

[PaulRhB]

5 minutes ago, Jim Easterbrook said:

Another minor point regarding the electrical stuff - instead of saying "Mains cable or 6amp wire is suitable for the main BUS wires" it would be better to specify the minimum cross-sectional area (e.g. 1.5 mm²). Anything else is a bit vague.

We can add that in too  I think the others help with online searches too. 

[PaulRhB]

29 minutes ago, Mike Beard said:

Somebody at some time pointed me to a document which has trackplans of all the RhB stations together with significant dimensions like loop lengths and track spacings. Does anybody recognise this and could they direct me to it please?

This one?

https://www.gleisplaene-schweiz.ch/gleispläne-privatbahnen/rhb-alle-stationen-a-z-ca-1966/
 

They’ve been copied from the Schweers & Wall book, note many larger stations like Filisur & Bever are now out of date due to the modernisation of the last 15 years. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by PaulRhB