British Modular System - the initial ideas and debates

[Stubby47]

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

 

There was indeed an attempt - but with this idea coming 'from the top' as it were, and as there has already been much discussion as to which standards to adopt / change / ignore, I thought that re-floating the O gauge idea might catch on as a simpler set of 'rules' - plus if there are already N / OO / HO module groups, O might just be different enough to engage people...

[Kenton]

 

Don't think Martyn missed the point Kenton he's just saying it's easier with DCC

Yes and so did I.

The problem remains that not everyone uses it and so forcing it as a "standard" excludes DC layouts without reason.

 

The "standards" selected need to be the ABSOLUTE minimum to get people and modules together.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

who do not conform to the "standard" - tension lock, 3 link, AJ's, S&W ... etc the British modelling scene has a very wide range of (in) compatibles but also many like minds so the chances are there will be someone there who you could connect to. The point I am really making is that it really does NOT have to conform to Frremo or any US take on modularity. It doesn't have to be Kaydees.

 

And it doesn't have to be any particular colour, length, width.

 

The argument on gauge doesn't fit here at all as I am yet to see any item of stock that will run on track of two different gauges. That does not mean that the ONLY modular system has to be OO just that the O gauge modules (N,P4,EM ...) will have to join up with other modules of their respective gauges.

 

For most members of RMWeb (judged by the response of previous Layout Challenges) would be up for participation. However, most would be slow to produce a module (about the space of the 6sq ft challenge) They would be more interested (and more likely to complete) if it was the only layout they were working on and could make use of it in their own home. Very few would be up for spending all their modelling effort on something that only could be put to use at some local or (worse) rare national event. I cannot be the only one who, if building a module, would also want it to look like the railway we want to model and not some take on US style with just "British" stock.

 

Although the ultimate aim might be bringing together the modules AND MODELLERS it shouldn't be the only goal. US railway operation has no appeal for me whatsoever and is probably the reason why I do not have much interest in US style railway layouts. It doesn't have to be like that. In Britain we can do things our own way.

[Kenton]

 

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

Not sure if you really are disagreeing though, or simply adding/expanding.

 

Aligning one board to another is a simple step as suggested above G-clamps can be used. even if dowels are used on one module a face plate can be added. All these things do not require a "standard" just a work around. (so you use carriage bolts for your fiddle yard at home - what's the problem - none - just G-clamp it to the next module. All that matters is the floor to rail head height and the track gauge. Code 100 or Code 75 not a problem.

 

Connection between boards - well my boards are wired for both DC and DCC using a 2 wire bus and that is how most people run their layouts. granted 3 rail or live OHE might have a problem but last time I checked most folk use 2 wires to connect controller to track. There doesn't have to be a standard for this it doesn't have to be a particular company's favourite connector.

[Talltim]

 Yes and so did I.

The problem remains that not everyone uses it and so forcing it as a "standard" excludes DC layouts without reason.

 

The "standards" selected need to be the ABSOLUTE minimum to get people and modules together.

Electrical standard are one of the minima. That standard doesn't have to be DCC, but it is easier to link disparate modules using it.

   who do not conform to the "standard" - tension lock, 3 link, AJ's, S&W ... etc the British modelling scene has a very wide range of (in) compatibles but also many like minds so the chances are there will be someone there who you could connect to. The point I am really making is that it really does NOT have to conform to Frremo or any US take on modularity. It doesn't have to be Kaydees.

For US modellers, the prevelance of Kadees makes it easier to choose a standard. In the UK, I agree that the wide range of couplers in use makes it hard to settle on a standard. But, if you want to be able to interoperate stock freely you have to decide on one.

 

For most members of RMWeb (judged by the response of previous Layout Challenges) would be up for participation. However, most would be slow to produce a module (about the space of the 6sq ft challenge) They would be more interested (and more likely to complete) if it was the only layout they were working on and could make use of it in their own home. Very few would be up for spending all their modelling effort on something that only could be put to use at some local or (worse) rare national event. I cannot be the only one who, if building a module, would also want it to look like the railway we want to model and not some take on US style with just "British" stock.

I was with you until the last sentence. As mentioned upthread, at the recent Freemo meet, the majority of the modules were built purely as modules. However roundhouse's was built as a layout many years ago, and modified to join up, but is still functional as a layout. PaulRhb's module was built for the meet, but is a self contained layout for operating in his spare room too. But there is no reason why a British module should look anything like a US one.

 

I think that maybe people should forget about the US side of things. Andy made the first post because he came to the event and was enthused about the concept, it just happened to be a group of US modellers doing it. Similarly many of the contributors to this thread were also at the event and enjoyed it and so the experience is fresh in their minds.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Talltim

[Glorious NSE]

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.

 

That's the kind of thing. How we actually set it up on the day was that if you had an industry then for every "car spot" the person providing the module would provide two freight cars.

 

So to translate - if you had a small station with a goods yard with a coal siding that you can unload two 16t mins in, a loading dock that you can put one van next to, and a cattle dock that will take one cattle wagon, you'd supply 4x minerals, two vans and two cattle wagons - that way you know there are relevant wagons out in circulation to serve your location, the additional ones cover the routings via yards to other locations or to staging, but you know that you're not overwhelmed by wagons that you've nowhere to send.

[Glorious NSE]

 

 

he's just saying it's easier with DCC

 

Yes and so did I.

 

The problem remains that not everyone uses it and so forcing it as a "standard" excludes DC layouts without reason.

 

So - you're saying that the fact that it's much easier for everybody (which you just said you agree with) isn't a valid reason?

 

 

...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

 

Kenton - Ian said that we use Kadee's. You may have noticed that we run US outline HO scale. The majority of the stock comes with something at least broadly compatible, and is mostly designed to be easily changed.

 

Nobody has even suggested, let alone "imposed" a standard that a OO modular system must use Kadee's. 

[Kenton]

 

Kenton - Ian said that we use Kadee's. You may have noticed that we run US outline HO scale. The majority of the stock comes with something at least broadly compatible, and is mostly designed to be easily changed.

 

That is a given and I was not disputing it but you do what you want in Freemo - this topic is a proposition for something British. So the operation and stock and standards need developing with that in mind. I am sure that if we built a US module to Freemo standards we would all be welcome to join you. But no one is suggesting that. So Freemo standards are not where we should be heading. Though there may be some aspects that could be used or derived from, just that Kaydees are inappropriate just as the suggestion that 3-link or tension locks would be.

[Talltim]

Ironically, coupling type isn't actually mentioned in the Freemo standards...

[roundhouse]

A British modular system may well end up very different to a US style one, but it would be a shame not to take into account  some of the really good points from it in developing one.

 

Ian

[Clive Mortimore]

What is needed is an agreed gauge, ground to rail height, ditance from front of board to track at module joint, operating system, couplings and what pannier tank locomotive class. If you do not wish to join in then there is no need to join the discussion.

[Glorious NSE]

 I am sure that if we built a US module to Freemo standards we would all be welcome to join you. But no one is suggesting that.

We have suggested that folk join in - see the North American section.

[PaulRhB]

Ironically, coupling type isn't actually mentioned in the Freemo standards...

It does in the OO Fremo standard where they settled on tension lock.

[Andy Reichert]

This thread is becoming hilarious.

 

"The Great British (now module) Standards Agreement, errrr, Argument".

 

Looks the historians were wrong. Stonehenge is clearly the site of the original GB Module exhibition

 

Andy

[peter220950]

 

May I suggest, before things get out of hand too far, that someone (read as: Andy Y ) cracks some nuts and makes the decision about the basics discussed before: regular 00, 16.5 mm gauge, DCC, height of the railhead above the floor at 4', boards have adjustable feet for 2" total (1" each way), length not specified, width 20" at the join, red&black for the DCC track bus, points only locally controlled (no points connected to the track bus, in case of a short you can still operate the other side). Anything else can be discussed as and when it becomes urgent

 

Agree with that, people like you who have experience in the field are the last people to 'stay out' of the debate, you have the experience, the main parameters listed are pretty much essential to hanging a series of modules together in a working manner. The rest of us are usually the 'empty vessels' making a lot of noise without necessarily adding anything to the debate. 

 

Anything else can be treated as a 'Recommended Practice', not essential to comply with, like couplers that can be 'worked around' with adapter wagons etc. it's not a show stopper if someone strays from 'recommended', unlike track height!

 

One thing I don't understand though, (being a bit thick,) is what you mean by 'no points connected to the track bus' - can you clarify, if this is taken to the logical conclusion all the traffic will stop at the first point! - I know that's not what you mean, but I'm struggling to see what you mean? I usually switch the point frog with the point control, which involves wiring the bus through some sort of switch.

 

Are you also only advocating a single track? - I'm happy to go with the flow on this, but just unsure if that's your proposal, presumably track position(s) at board ends are another 'basic'?

[Fat Controller]

I once had the good fortune to meet Jacques Pore, a former president of the IRSE. As well as being a 'personage', as the French call them, in real-life signalling, he was also part of the group that established the ' Normes Européennes de Modélisme'. He said it was much harder to get modellers to agree on standards..

Edited July 7, 2014 by Fat Controller

[Andy Y]

Several people have suggested today that I/we should just take a lead and come up with something sensible. I'll endeavour to do that in a few days and then we can debate some more specific points but it's worthwhile listening to different viewpoints and also take time to look what's good in other existing standards and hopefully find something that suits UK modellers.

[PaulRhB]

It was so easy at the weekend do because we had a set of criteria already that you could just say ok I like that I'll join in

[Kenton]

 

Well, I was trying to stay out of this one, I've failed Having 20+yrs in modular railways as member of a club that does the same for 30+ years, my tuppence worth:

 

May I suggest, before things get out of hand too far, that someone (read as: Andy Y ) cracks some nuts and makes the decision about the basics discussed before: regular 00, 16.5 mm gauge, DCC, height of the railhead above the floor at 4', boards have adjustable feet for 2" total (1" each way), length not specified, width 20" at the join, red&black for the DCC track bus, points only locally controlled (no points connected to the track bus, in case of a short you can still operate the other side). Anything else can be discussed as and when it becomes urgent

 

For those using DC at home, I see no problem in building a module one can use at home, but with the mainline(s) electrically separate from any sidings you want to use for DC shunting. You could even include the mainline(s) if you provide a safety mechanism to prevent a DCC loco entering your module while you're shunting via the mainline(s). But that all has to provided within your module. That module may span several segments though, like much of the Freemo setup that inspired this thread

 

Oh, one more thing: instead of looking at specific issues as "problems" you may want to see them as "operational challenges" (hint: couplers )

I was simply going to click the Agree button

 

... then spotted the mistake

width 20" at the join,

WHY - it just doesn't matter!

 

Anyone remember the long debate (discussion/disagreements) over the RMWeb2 Layout Challenge - was it really nearly 8 years ago .... I feel old! ... I wonder how long it is going to take to come up with the rules for participants in the British Railroad Module Challenge?

[Andy Reichert]

Several people have suggested today that I/we should just take a lead and come up with something sensible. I'll endeavour to do that in a few days and then we can debate some more specific points but it's worthwhile listening to different viewpoints and also take time to look what's good in other existing standards and hopefully find something that suits UK modellers.

 

The US Free-Mo is just a slight tweak to the original European Fre-Mo. I forget what changed, but it may be on the Free-Mo web site. I can ask Chis Palormarez if it isn't .

 

The only only advice I would respectfully proffer at this stage is that "If it ain't broke - don't fix it".

 

Andy R

[peter220950]

This thread is becoming hilarious.

 

"The Great British (now module) Standards Agreement, errrr, Argument".

 

Looks the historians were wrong. Stonehenge is clearly the site of the original GB Module exhibition

 

Andy

Andy,

 

Be fair, we Brit's need to have a free and frank debate to produce great innovation.

 

This is best demonstrated by the discussions that were held to settle on the dimensions of 'Standard Gauge' , and what a great result that turned out to be.  Two Standards one at 7' 01/4" and one at 4' 81/2" - Perfect!

[trisonic]

No wonder we ended up with different standards to cover OO, TT and N.......................................   We’re incapable of anything else....

 

Best, Pete.

[roundhouse]

 

I was simply going to click the Agree button

... then spotted the mistake WHY - it just doesn't matter!

Anyone remember the long debate (discussion/disagreements) over the RMWeb2 Layout Challenge - was it really nearly 8 years ago .... I feel old! ... I wonder how long it is going to take to come up with the rules for participants in the British Railroad Module Challenge?

It does look neater being the same width but I wasn't stopped connecting the Fort Myers 20" boards up to the Freemo 18" boards.

I do intend to make some converter boards about 6" long so it looks tidier but that's my choice.

 

Ian

[Steve-e]

Not been a member of any model railway club (other than the RMWeb club) it gives the at home modelers with limited space an opportunity to attend exhibitions as exhibitors and play trains which appeals to me.

 

The benefits are hopefully if there are enough members up for it is that you could exhibit under the RMWeb banner at various events to show the public that you don't need a huge amount of space to model a line and the basic 1 or 2 lines on a board shouldn't be beyond the beginner. 

 

The problem I see is that people (me included) may be worried that they build a module and it doesn't fit hence my post earlier about a Baseboard Kit with legs that would be to the standards.

 

Another problem is that if we were to exhibit somewhere Coventry Ricoh 2015, York 2016, Glasgow 2016 etc your limited to space or how many modules would commit so maybe need some backup boards. The other alternative is along the lines of Taunton RMWeb members day but on a more National scale to bring together those with modules and RMWebers in general.

 

but overall Its a very interesting idea and one to watch how it goes.

 

Cheers 

Steve

[peter220950]

Peter, many/most modellers think it's essential to control ones point with DCC if one converts from DC. It's not! It's perfectly OK to continue to control points via the "old" analogue system. In fact, it's better to do so, 'cause when someone runs a loco against the point a short occurs (on a properly wired point!). If you control the points via the same DCC bus (the track) you can't change he points anymore, because of the short!

Thanks, I understand now, been there, done that!

 

I use a separate bus/booster for control on DCC, but agree it's best kept simple and to use separate control for modules.

[Andy Hayter]

  Not sure if you really are disagreeing though, or simply adding/expanding.

 

Aligning one board to another is a simple step as suggested above G-clamps can be used. even if dowels are used on one module a face plate can be added. All these things do not require a "standard" just a work around. (so you use carriage bolts for your fiddle yard at home - what's the problem - none - just G-clamp it to the next module. All that matters is the floor to rail head height and the track gauge. Code 100 or Code 75 not a problem.

 

Connection between boards - well my boards are wired for both DC and DCC using a 2 wire bus and that is how most people run their layouts. granted 3 rail or live OHE might have a problem but last time I checked most folk use 2 wires to connect controller to track. There doesn't have to be a standard for this it doesn't have to be a particular company's favourite connector.

 

G clamps work well with solid thick timber ends.  Anyone using double skin thin ply separated by blocks and open frame will confirm that joining boards with G clamps is only likely to deform the inner ply beam.

 

It may not seem obvious to you but I can see the need for standards being set in addition to rail top height above ground and track gauge.