British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[McRuss]

Hello Felix,

 

the Great-britN meeting is in at the first weekend at August.

 

Markus

[Kenton]

 

Don't want to get hugely contentious here, but it may end up so.

With DC, can you run infinity cabs, with just two bus wires on a simple plain-track board?

Lets say you wired in 6 cabs, then every module has to have wiring for 6 cabs. 

What happens when it grows and you want to add a 7th cab? Does everyone have to rewire their modules?

Simplicity has a value, and DC is not simple when you apply it to a layout that can be theoretically infinite, and will never go together the same way twice.

 

I was also trying not to be contentious. This is not a DC vs DCC debate. But I do think you completely have failed to understand the DC vs DCC argument.

 

This is utter nonsense about increasing the number of cabs to infinity. The most that is required is 2 cabs. A DC layout of a simple straight through line with a single point branch to a small yard (I hate the term it makes it sound so US railroad) The personal yard can be isolated at the point and at the cross board ends. The yard or just the whole board can be operated on DC in isolation or switched into DCC to allow through traffic. Although any unfitted DC loco will be unable to exit to the rest of the world there would be nothing stopping a DCC fitted loco passing through.

 

Of course 2 or more DC boards could be connected it is pnly a matter of switching controllers in/out - as odd as it may seem those capable of wiring their layouts for DC are capable of wiring a DP switch.

 

I think we should be more imaginative rather than excluding folk. You are excluding because you are saying that unless you operate DCC you cannot join our club. Simply saying that people self exclude is typical of the position taken by a group of people determined to impose their position on others.

 

... and before you start to accuse me of being a luddite or anti-DCC /progress. I operate both DCC and DC layouts. DCC has its place and may well come to dominate but for now it is not what everyone has or wants.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Kenton

[PaulRhB]

Don't think Martyn missed the point Kenton he's just saying it's easier with DCC I've operated big DC layouts on this concept with multiple stations and there was a lot of faffing around remembering to switch sections over as well as points, I found the freemo system far less involved, especially as I was able to use wifi. I had two phones and lent one out as required and could have brought 4 altogether. The focus was on operation not learning what sections to switch in as you progressed. We had 4-5 two person crews working trains at once and there's no reason bigger stations or industries can't have a yard shunter job too.

As I said in a previous post, if you can find someone with a decent sized command station and booster setup, even if others with identical kit arrange to bring theirs, you can quickly get enough kit together and this applies to locos too. In UK dcc I have three modern diesels, two blue era and a couple of steam, not enough to run a layout but bringing just one, or one of each if we agreed to different eras over the weekend, would be easy. You can dcc up a favourite loco for £20 to join in and still run it on DC.

DCC isn't dominant yet but why not embrace the technology and if you choose to wire your module for DC operation at home it's still fully compatible. (Adapting a loco is a lot cheaper than the two nights in a hotel and fuel I used this weekend )

If this takes off I'll certainly try to build an adaptor board and leg extensions for Lulworth to conform so I can join in.

[Andy Y]

As Paul's said it's just easier with DCC. If someone wishes to make a layout for home use which is DC but has provison to be made 'all-live' for connection to a DCC wider world then they've got the best of both worlds.

[kevinlms]

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.

If just an end to end formation, the length wouldn't matter. If it was closed to make an oval (or similar closed loop), then a pair of boards to an obscure length would be required to match up. The concept is similar to Set Track.

[Glorious NSE]

If just an end to end formation, the length wouldn't matter. If it was closed to make an oval (or similar closed loop), then a pair of boards to an obscure length would be required to match up. The concept is similar to Set Track.

 

The concept of ours (and Fremo, and Free-mo) is about creating an operating railway, operating railways are only rarely designed to be continuous ovals. (Even more rarely as geometrically set ovals!)

[Glorious NSE]

Kenton, I struggle with the concept that somebody would build a module to form an integral part of a larger railway network, but can only work their own little bit of it as their engine can't run beyond their own module.

 

I can see that being feasible if (maybe) they had built a large industry that had it's own shunter(s) - but not on more mainstream modules...

 

 

 

You are excluding because you are saying that unless you operate DCC you cannot join our club.

 

Did somebody start a club already?

 

Sorry, no. If you take that attitude then you're also going to "exclude people" by selecting a specific running height that others may not like, you "exclude people" by selecting a track guage that others may not like...in fact if that's your criteria then you "exclude people" by creating any specific criteria for the module standard! 

 

Everyone has the same choice -  "I want to take part in that" or "I don't want to take part in that".

 

There's nothing to stop an N scale modeller, or a P4 modeller, or whatever, from deciding that they want to build a 00 module and take part in something bigger and with a different emphasis than they acheive on their own.

 

In exactly the same way there is nothing to stop somebody who is normally a DC user, from coming along, taking part, helping to operate a layout controlled via DCC.

 

I don't see a hurdle to that beyond experience - and our experience of that is that there's plenty of folk around glad to help.

 

 

 

Simply saying that people self exclude is typical of the position taken by a group of people determined to impose their position on others.

 

Firstly, i'm not trying to impose anything on anyone, I have no "skin in the game" of 00 modules.

 

P.S. Trying to please everyone also imposes a position that other participants may not want.

 

 

 

... and before you start to accuse me of being a luddite or anti-DCC /progress. I operate both DCC and DC layouts. DCC has its place and may well come to dominate but for now it is not what everyone has or wants.

 

So - if you're happy to operate on DCC, then this isn't a problem for you?

[kevinlms]

The concept of ours (and Fremo, and Free-mo) is about creating an operating railway, operating railways are only rarely designed to be continuous ovals. (Even more rarely as geometrically set ovals!)

I meant the method of assembly, using consistent components. I wasn't suggesting Set Track is used, nor assembling into ovals. Although the times I've seen N Trak in operation, its invariably been presented as a large oval, but not necessarily an even one. I do hope that explains it!

[roundhouse]

There were attendees at the Freemo last weekend that didn't have their own locos and / or frieght cars and just as many didn't have their own modules, so even if the operating system (DC / DCC) doesn't suit your rolling stock, you can still join in.

 

I even had my other half giving a hand and Mikes cousin also came along and drove a number of trains around the set up.

Edited July 10, 2014 by roundhouse

[298]

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...

[roundhouse]

On thing that I havent noticed mentioned (apologies if it has), is couplings.

 

With the US outline most people now use Kadee or equivalent knuckle couplers so stock is generally all compatible.

 

WIth many using these on UK outline stock whilst others use tension lock etc a standard would be needed. Luckily most modern stock has NEM boxes which makes it a little easier to swap couplers.

Edited July 10, 2014 by roundhouse

[Talltim]

Apologies, I have no idea what is going in with the quoting. It appears to be ignoring the end quotes.

Our (persistently, except in one instance) problem at Taunton has been with the curved sections although Godfrey produced one which seemed to work well this year - however I remain of the view that to be truly successful the 'curve/corner' boards need to incorporate transitions - and this is going to make them larger  (which need not necessarily be a problem but it is a consideration to be born in mind).  If transitions are not included the change from curve to tangent track unavoidably occurs at the joint between modules and can result in poor running - as we know to our cost.  In my mind this is the area of design where some thought is needed.

The Freemo standard says that the last 3" inches at the module end needs to be straight. This helps resolve the problem of reverse curves. I agree that ideally the curves need transitions.

 

We also know from the Taunton experience that mating the boards is the most challenging part of set-up and can be a challenge to running reliability and this means that jig construction of mating surfaces is absolutely essential for the sort of thing Andy is proposing.

We seemed to manage without any positive alignment between modules, just a straight eye and G clamps. I didn't help set it up but don;t think it was too hard. I would say a single track end is easier to get lined up than a double track one. Baseboard joins within modules would probably benefit from a positive alignment method are there may be multiple tracks spanning the join.

 

I don't think module sizes are necessarily a problem unless the idea is to also ensure a nicely matching view of the base part of the modules. However even then some laxity flexibility would be possible if someone was to produce a pair of modules with teh outer ends matching the party line on appearance but the section between them going distinctly freelance to allow low river beds or deep valleys etc.

A module is not equal  to a baseboard. Obviously a module needs at least one board, but can contain many. It is only the ends of the module that need to need to match, the middle could go tot he floor or the ceiling.

 This is the "standard" that I object to. I see no requirement at all for a standard width.

If there is only one track connecting all modules then the standards required at the connection locus are:
1 - the track gauge
2 - the track height: floor to rail

there is no reason at all why the board height should matter (though it could result in some interesting and unbelievable geography. In theory there is no reason why the track should not enter on an overbridge/embankment and leave though a tunnel/cutting.

Technically gauge and height are all that matter from a physical point of view (and wiring). However the visual aspect is important.
 

 

The track does not have to be a specified distance from the front and neither does it have to be a boring straight length of track. an 'S' or simple bend can still be accommodated as long as the angle of contact to the next module is presented as a surface at 90' to the track - and even that could be worked around by collaborating modules.

Again it doesn't have to be a standard distance from the front, but it looks better having not having steps in the baseboard edge. Having said that Ian/Roundhouses Fort Myers module/layout was wider that the Freemo standard and it wasn't really noticable. What is in the middle of the module is up to the builder, boring straight, S curves, an odd angle of curve at one end, whatever.
 

 

 Although an ideal to have - I think this severely limits participation - take a quick look around any exhibition and see the different take on colour that we all have (and that is so-called exhibition layouts)

Once again this exclusion of modellers because their interpretation of GWR "cream" is different (not up to some ill-defined standard) or that the ballast doesn't look like the ash seen at the prototypical location is simply going to put many off participating. Are we going to say that only steam locos with a certain style of weathering are going to be permitted to run through a module because the infrastructure of that module is "modern day"?

I think you are looking for problems that don't really exist. Most people seem to build modules to be modules. If you want to build a layout that can be a module and are really set on a particular ballast colour, then build a 6 inch long board that fits on the end that transitions from your ballast colour to the 'standard' ballast colour. This also has the advantage that you could have the 'normal' end of your layout however suits you. As an example see the suggestion I made to Roundhouse when he was considering modifying Fort Myers

With regards to what you run, that's really up the group. We ran railroads from all over the place, it didn't really matter, what was important to us was following the switch lists.
 

Backdrops could be done as well as long as they can be on either side of the module and the fiddle yard can break up the sections with and without backdrops

They don't really work. with the way the layout sprawls with various junctions you really need to be able to access both sides.
 

 

local point control would be best with the the main through lines being always available with out point operation

Definitely. Otherwise is just adds complication to standards.
 

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.

Not sure if I've misunderstood, why do you need a Standard Length Unit (1 foot)?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2014 by Talltim

[The Stationmaster]

I can definitely see one advantage in this module business - a completely different lot of locos and stock from 'home'.  Costly but what a way to get into a totally different  prototype - now how much was that .......... (complete to choice).

[Kenton]

 

On thing that I havent noticed mentions (apologies if it has), is couplings.

Luckily most modern stock has NEM boxes which makes it a little easier to swap couplers.

Unfortunately most kit UK stock does not - and I suspect the vast majority shun the Kaydee as being completely unprototypical.

 

Once again I feel this is a "standard" being imposed to make things work in a certain way or to an agenda rather than simply working with the issue. Just as irrelevant as colour - sure it would be great if all stock connected with the same couplings and they were all DCC operated! But let's be as inclusive as possible and not generate "standards" for the sake of it. I bet if I brought 3 link coupled stock there would be plenty of others doing the same (for example).

[roundhouse]

 Unfortunately most kit UK stock does not - and I suspect the vast majority shun the Kaydee as being completely unprototypical.

 

Once again I feel this is a "standard" being imposed to make things work in a certain way or to an agenda rather than simply working with the issue. Just as irrelevant as colour - sure it would be great if all stock connected with the same couplings and they were all DCC operated! But let's be as inclusive as possible and not generate "standards" for the sake of it. I bet if I brought 3 link coupled stock there would be plenty of others doing the same (for example).

Doesnt have to be a set standard but as long as the operations list put together takes inot the type of couplings of all the stock then it probably would work with mixed couplings but it does need to be considered.

[Fat Controller]

Surely the coupling (in)compatability issue is only a problem if you want to run your stock in mixed formations with other peoples'?

[Talltim]

Surely the coupling (in)compatability issue is only a problem if you want to run your stock in mixed formations with other peoples'?

It depends what you want to do with your modular setup. If you want to run trains from point to point as self contained units then you are right. If you want, for example send wagons from yard to yard or industry, then you need them to be compatible. They might not leave with the same stock they arrived with.

Of course if you ran a modern setup, all of your units and locos could have different couplers and be prototypical ;-)

Edited July 7, 2014 by Talltim

[roundhouse]

Surely the coupling (in)compatability issue is only a problem if you want to run your stock in mixed formations with other peoples'?

 

With Freemo this is exactly what happens.

 

We bring along a few wagons suitable for our industry or others industry (the numbers already given to the organisers and not too many either otherwise the set up would be swamped) and they then get added to the operations to get taken to the relevant industries. My freight cars ended up on many different modules and vice versa. All adds to  making the weekend differnet to normally operating ones own layout.

 

Of course the British module system may end up not doing this.

Edited July 7, 2014 by roundhouse

[PaulRhB]

Go for modern units and the real things often have incompatible couplings!

 

I think tension lock as the defector rtr standard would make sense and that's from someone who has mostly converted to kadees. I have enough NEM pocket stock though that I could convert some back.

 

Rather than rant about standards not being inclusive think of ways to overcome it easily. There was a board this weekend with foot long leg extensions bolted onto existing legs, some with adaptor boards and others who brought extra stock to help others out. The concept is about operating not necessarily taking all or any of your own stock. If you want to then it needs to conform much like if you took stock to run on an EM or P4 layout. Does anyone complain when they say your stock needs X back to back and three link couplings as a standard

 

The whole modular concept requires standards for disparate groups to build at home and then get together and it work well and quickly.

If you want to try out operation like this then you do need a coupling standard as until recent times most stock was fitted with compatible couplings.

Edited July 7, 2014 by PaulRhB

[Stubby47]

Just to throw a different hat into the ring - why not do an O gauge modular system ?

 

(I have one piece of O gauge track & one badly made O gauge kit-built 16t wagon, so I'm not suggesting this for my own sake )

[jonhall]

It depends what you want to do with your modular setup. If you want to run trains from point to point as self contained units then you are right. If you want, for example send wagons from yard to yard or industry, then you need them to be compatible.

 

So if I've got the concept right, for example, every module might bring a cattle wagon to a meeting (even if it dosn't have a cattle dock) and that wagon starts the day on the home module, but then that wagon then gets requested by a module that does have a cattle dock to collect a 'virtual load'.

 

Then the 'loaded' wagon is sent by pick up goods train to a module on the network that is nominated as the 'cattle market'. Perhaps a variation in the operating 'rules' might require the cattle to be 'watered' at every module that has a cattle dock en-route, by detaching from the train it arrives on and waiting until the following train in the correct direction?

 

Once the wagon is 'empty' it can either be refilled, or sent empty to either the home station or a different cattle dock for more work.

 

 

 

the same could be repeated for coal mines to local stations or steel wagons to dockyards or just vans in general service from module X to module Y

 

Sounds like it could get quite interesting.

 

Jon

Edited July 7, 2014 by jonhall

[Talltim]

Exactly. As a variation on the watering cattle idea, the Freemo meet had HazChem rules for cars, governing their position in the train.

[Andy Hayter]

 This is the "standard" that I object to. I see no requirement at all for a standard width.

 

If there is only one track connecting all modules then the standards required at the connection locus are:

1 - the track gauge

2 - the track height: floor to rail

 

there is no reason at all why the board height should matter (though it could result in some interesting and unbelievable geography. In theory there is no reason why the track should not enter on an overbridge/embankment and leave though a tunnel/cutting.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to disagree Kenton, but what about

the fixings for connecting one board to another

Electrical connection - you could rely on rail joiners I suppose - but only if everyone uses the same standard and make of track

 

And I am sure there will be other items that I have not thought about

[cromptonnut]

Just to throw a different hat into the ring - why not do an O gauge modular system ?

 

(I have one piece of O gauge track & one badly made O gauge kit-built 16t wagon, so I'm not suggesting this for my own sake )

 

An attempt was made here on RMWeb - there is an O Gauge Modular Forum.  It didn't seem to take off.

[roundhouse]

The height of the modules that matters  is floor to top of rail.

 

There was a brief discusasion yesterday about using helix's to link modules of different heights.

 

As long as the rail goes right to the edge of the board it doesnt really matter the type of track. I had my peco code 75 abutting other makes of track at the weekend (has to be the same gauge though).

 

Freemo uses two wires with banana plugs on the end. Only thing you can really get wrong (as long as the module has been tested by the owner prior to the meet) is cross to those banana plugs over with each other when plugging into the next module.

 

The Freemo meet was the first time that many modules had ever been linked up and as far as I am aware all worked first time they were connected and I dont recall any derailments on the baseboard joints either.