Jump to content

O Gauge Modular Standard Discussion



50 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you be interested in building a module?

    • with a single track standard gauge connection
    • with a double track connection
    • including some sort of narrow gauge
    • nah ...

Recommended Posts

Hi folks, this is a fascinating thread. I have just built a CD/DVD cabinet using B&Q block joiners and it occurred to me that these would make an excellent, cheap, standard fitting to aid the joints of modular sections.


Any chance of some pics?  They sound interesting.


Only 32 people voted, so I would guess this is a non starter.


Yup, this was a non-starter, although it had less to do with the number of people voting and more to do with the number of people building.  Apparently the GOG's own double track modular standard has gone the same way.


A shame given the number of micro O gauge layouts on here, and the success of the SWAGs OO version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

I've come late to this thread but the basic rules seem to miss some of the important dimensions.


Whilst the design of a module is free to interpret there is not enough guidance in the rules.


Placement of the single track for running through. To what spacing from the front edge is the first rail or rail centre? I suggest 180mm to the 1st rail centre


If layouts should fit together to allow a group of modellers to run through trains then this dimension is critical.


Which double track spacing is proposed? 80mm?


If modules where scaled up from the standard box file dimension BUT in direct proportion to O-gauge they may be a little too bijou for anything practical other than O-16.5 or O9 etc.


I propose that dimensions are drawn from four pieces of Peco Set track, would give a double track on a length of 800mm (2'7.5") or single track length of 1600mm (5'3").


Baseboard width does one stick with 450mm (1'3.75") or expand to 600mm (1'11.75ish). Those four dimensions could be mixed and matched to allow a combination for the interested to work with.


Minimum radius I would suggest 1000mm (40")  but there is equal validity in working with 6'(1825mm). Drawing on the Plain Track section of GOG would allow radii down to 24" or 610mm. I would therefore propose that 860mm is a practical ruling radius equivalent to R0 in Peco set-track terms.


Anyone care to comment?


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sturminster_Newton said:

I've come late to this thread

Only by almost 7 years. ;) which tells me this idea was dead in the water a long time ago.


3 hours ago, Sturminster_Newton said:

Minimum radius I would suggest 1000mm (40")  but there is equal validity in working with 6'(1825mm). Drawing on the Plain Track section of GOG would allow radii down to 24" or 610mm. I would therefore propose that 860mm is a practical ruling radius equivalent to R0 in Peco set-track terms.


Anyone care to comment?

The only minimum radius worth considering is 6ft. That will allow for most UK locos and stock, regardless of size. 4ft radius is for short locos & 4-wheel stock. As for 2ft radius, well my American locos can get round that corner but not pulling stock, which would hit each other too - I know what I'm talking about; on my loft layout I had a curve that tightened to 26" radius, but relaid it this year to my ruling standard of 3ft - it's how I get an O Scale roundy-roundy in 17ft x 8ft. But that is US outline with kadee couplers & no buffers. 

Using any radius less than 6ft makes the whole idea worthless anyway - what's the point of joining up modules to make a big layout if big locos and stock can't use it? 

The Freemo or module concept seems to have struggled to develop in the UK in any scale*; not sure why this is given our familiarity with sectional layouts for exhibition; maybe the traditional 'formality' of UK track plans, with lots of rules that sometimes varied between regions and companies, and the size of UK stations, with high platforms, preclude the easy adoption of Freemo concepts..?


*Edit - for British outline that is. There are some very successful US outline, HO scale Freemo groups here.

Edited by F-UnitMad
Link to post
Share on other sites

BIG radius is fine if you have BIG space I don't.


I have a modest landing space roughly 7' x 8' so clearly even a 40" radius curve won't fit other than as a segment BUT a lesser radius makes more possible..


My thought was to have a series of scenes that are built into a modest large scale muddle railway.


Purley for the pleasure of shunting a few trucks from end to end through a few different scenes which is where modular railways come into their own.


A warehouse scene based on Shad River in Southwark complete with crossover walkways between buildings, a station used as a parcels depot with a loco depot to the fore, and lastly a curved baseboard using the R0 as my ruling radius with a small transport/coach depot, backed by the railway.


I have in mind a cassette based interchange I looked at a traverser but feel a few cassettes with a nominal 500mm length are simpler and easier to deal with.


I only aim to run the Dapol Sentinels as locomotion and a few closed vans and possibly a few CCV's.


It might be a bit limited but using modest sized modules allows for an interchange of their order of appearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Yup, this idea turned into a bit of a Norweigan Blue!!  Even the Guild modular concept died a bit of a death.


I still have my module, but I think that is about it.  I'm still working on it, albeit very slowly.


The idea of the original spec was to keep everything as open as possible ... single track, no constraints on widths and joined by bridging pieces ... that way people only had to make sure their module was the right height (6") above table top.  It wasn't supposed to be like Freemo etc where modules are more seemless.


Sadly, I doubt it is going anywhere anyway, but we tried ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

The number of "votes" seems quite impressive to me as a percentage of RMweb members who are into 0 gauge. And 0 gauge has come on a lot in the ten years since this thread (which I had not seen until now) was first started.


Modular systems work better for US-prototype layouts - simply because much of the US is flat. So not so difficult to blend the scenery between people's modules. But one can get round that for UK-prototype by making each scenic module into a separate diorama with a backscene at the end of each (or attached to each end of a non-scenic joining "bridge module"). 


An earlier contributor made the important point. What is needed is a standard end board, laser cut for precision and pre-drilled for connecting bolts. I would suggest that this end board should be 762mm wide but with the pre-drilled holes placed so that the width could be cut down to as little as 300mm width if that was more suitable for a "bridge module" or section of single track scenic module.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

If this took off I'd happily make some removable parts to bring Leintwardine up to 6" high (from the 20mm or so it is) and some Peco tracked bridging pieces if it's 3' radius curves weren't too much of an issue.


I can see laser cut end boards being very useful to join double track modules to create a main line but nobody seems to be very interested in building plain sections of main line that only really work as part of a bigger scheme.  Reasonably well aligned bridge pieces could connect a few peoples branch line stations though, dozens of layouts are potentially suitable for joining in and it would give people a chance to use layouts that are already interesting to operate in a new way.

Edited by Hesperus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...