Joined up thinking

Sir Clothem Cap · Post by **Sir Clothem Cap** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:20 pm

I am quite inspired by the article in the november issue of SMT which proposes a set of standards for Modules of track using peco sm32 track. I can see it wouldn't suit all as some do that other gauge but the principle of a build a module and link modules together to build an instant larger layout that can be used for shows or meets is for me a winner. your section can be as unique as you like providing the track goes off the ends in the right place.

What do you think?

hussra · Post by **hussra** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 4:18 pm

Like the idea and would be interested to see how it would work out in practice. The devil is inevitably in the detail and the standards for module height, width and track alignment. In practice I suspect it would work best for a number of modules to be built to go together, to allow some continuity of scenery and more complex track formations.

There has been a fair bit of work done on standards for modular layouts in G scale in the US, see for example

KjellAn · Post by **KjellAn** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:05 pm

I also like the idea of a common standard for modules.

Maybe the 16mm NGMA could help us to establish a standard?
There are some critical measurements:
- width of the module
- distance to center of track(s) from both sides
- hight to top of track from floor-level

I have some experience with modules in smaller scales here in Norway.
I think it is a good idea to have some guiding-holes in the module-ends - situated right under the center of each track.
The guiding-holes is used for bolts and wingnuts so the modules is fixed together. The guiding-holes should be slightly
larger than the bolts to give space for adjustments.

MDLR · Post by **MDLR** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:35 pm

KjellAn:77276 wrote:I also like the idea of a common standard for modules.

Maybe the 16mm NGMA could help us to establish a standard?
There are some critical measurements:
- width of the module
- distance to center of track(s) from both sides
- height to top of track from floor-level
I think it is a good idea to have some guiding-holes in the module-ends - situated right under the center of each track.
The guiding-holes is used for bolts and wingnuts so the modules is fixed together. The guiding-holes should be slightly
larger than the bolts to give space for adjustments.

As I see it, width is unimportant - it doesn't matter how deep a module is, so long as there is a standard distance from the front edge of the module for the through track. If the modules are built up on tables, then "height from floor level" becomes irrelevant. I'm told that the best way of joining modle tracks up is to use standard short joining pieces, and stop the tracks a fixed distance from the baseboard edge - stops rail ends getting bent and damaged.

KjellAn · Post by **KjellAn** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:03 pm

I agree about the width of the module itselves - it does not matter, but the space between double track does.
And I think a guiding-hole right under the center of the tracks will help to connect the modules in the best way.

About the trackends at the baseboard edge - I have build 2 modules for my switch-yard, and the tracks on these are fixed 1-2mm within the ends on both modules.
This gives the tracks a small gap of total approx. 3mm. I think this is not a problem with the 16mm-scale-stock.
This also gives enough space for the tracks to expand in high temperatures.

MDLR · Post by **MDLR** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:33 pm

KjellAn:77285 wrote:I agree about the width of the module themselves - it does not matter, but the space between double track does.

What double track? What NG line is double track? (apart from the Cork, Blackrock & Passage in Ireland?)

For our scale, you'd really only need to set a position for one track...............

KjellAn · Post by **KjellAn** » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:48 pm

MDLR:77290 wrote:For our scale, you'd really only need to set a position for one track...............

I basically agree on that ...

But in a model-world everything is possible - even how many tracks we would have on our layouts.
So when someone would like to make modules with more tracks, it would be nice to make a standard of what distance there should be.

IrishPeter · Post by **IrishPeter** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:01 am

Paired single tracks was a little more common. For example, the western exits from both Douglas and St John's on the IOM looked like double track but were actually paired single tracks to avoid operating problems. Same with a couple of spots on the Fest.R.

Also you have to take account of passing loops, for which Col. Rich (BOT Inspector who looked over the IMR, MNR, Ballycastle Railway and others) recommended 7' or 7'6" between inner rails allowing 3' or 3'6" of air between passing vehicles.

Peter in AZ

Sir Clothem Cap · Post by **Sir Clothem Cap** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:36 am

From gareth jones article I have gleaned that his suggestions are

A height to track top of 900mm

Base board length of 1200mm (4ft) standard length sold in shops

Track ends stop a set distance (to be specified) before edge to allow a joining piece in or buffers if it becomes the end module.

straight single track operation would stop having to limbo under baseboards

G clamp connectin to make easy alignment adjustment without location pegs or bolt holes

I can see this approach growing as it would allow modellers to own and do their own section and be able to instantly join theirs to any that come to the same event. I would suggest that a end module be made by a group to have a yard/set up area

TonyW · Post by **TonyW** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:36 am

MDLR:77290 wrote:What NG line is double track?

Oooh sir, please sir, I know sir!

The Leighton Buzzard Light Railway had a 1-mile section of double track from Stonehenge to Double Arches.

Steven.T · Post by **Steven.T** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:47 pm

I must admit it sounds like a good idea, and one I would possibly think about joining in with.
The only problem I can see with it is if say 50 people turn up with their own section, great, we have a 200ft stretch of line, but what if all said people want to run their loco on it? 4ft would probably not be long enough to fit in an average length train, including points, for a passing loop, so it would be inevitable to have a few sections of double track at some point?

Would be good to see happen though!

Sir Clothem Cap · Post by **Sir Clothem Cap** » Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:55 pm

Yes I think some double track would be reasonable as illustrated in the SMT sketch. two modules with points would make a great passing loop or become end termini

IRON MAN · Post by **IRON MAN** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:34 am

Hi all,

I'm Gareths Son. Very glad to see this has sparked some interest.

What I imagine is a layout that is measured in scale miles and operated like a railway. You steam up at a shed, collect your coaches from a station/yard and work a service from one end to another then your engine gets releived a fresh engine and driver eager to do the same. Maybe there is a branch running to a decent sized terminus with someone thats happy to sit and shunt incoming and outgoing trains as a station pilot?

I think this has the potential to be one of the greats of model railway world. Which would be welcomed by not just Stoneleigh ...(Slip of the finger) Peterbrough but the NEC and Dortmund.

To clear things up As "Sir Clothen Cap" Bryan? has posted...

Think of each persons module as a scene not a four foor section. If you want to make a passing loop scene then its going to have to be 16' plus to accomodate a decent length train (Standard Max train) and points ect. This could be done as a club effort being exhibited on its own as a club layout or as part of the modular system.

Width is a consideration. Personally although Dad has written different I think it would look better if the standard layout end was a single track section eg (loading gauge + a few inches of scenery). Therefore each module would open out to whatever width was wanted. Also trying to 'scenically' match 1' worth baseboard would be much easier the smaller it is.

These are my thoughts I hope it sparks some new ideas, I shall be keeping a close eye on this subject

Best Regards

Dan

MDLR · Post by **MDLR** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:17 am

Hi Dan............. I'm MDLR - not sure what Sir Clothem's real name is!

IRON MAN · Post by **IRON MAN** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:42 am

Hia Brian,

It says Bryan in his signiture?

Might stick with forum names.

Regards
Dan

MDLR · Post by **MDLR** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:23 am

I find it confusing and I didn't realise there were two of us - thankfully the names are spelt differently!

Sir Clothem Cap · Post by **Sir Clothem Cap** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:36 pm

Oh Brian I did hope you would remember my name

Yes I'm the real Bryan.

Dan my local group has expressed interest in the idea of modular scenes and I am rather keen to make a start.

Based on your dads article I presume that the base board he has in mind is the B and Q standard sized 1220mm x 606mm x 12mm chipboard which as he states fits into the rear seat of a standard family car. At 135 mm from the edge to first track center this leaves plenty of room for some being double track to produce passing loops or termini or even a bit of meandering of the line.

so here are some questions that would help clarify the standards.

What height is the wood surround beneath the base board? as this would be critical to G clamp to the next one

What is the double track centre position be in relation to the main line? (if the line stops short to allow sets of buffers if the next module is single track then there is no continuity issue)

I realise that your dad wants to hold meetings to decide such things but I would think that if he just published a set of standards based on his knowledge of the largest bit of stock expected to traverse the rails then most would be very happy to follow them without need of huge get togethers to decide.

Steven.T · Post by **Steven.T** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:00 pm

I've got to admit, I'd be tempted to give this a go if someone said to me "there's some standards, work to them"

Although we definitely need some passing loop method, just incase someone breaks down or something.
You could also operate the line with a token type system, even more realistic!

Post by **Andrew** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:11 am

Hello all,

It does sound like a really interesting idea - it's not something I could contribute to at the moment but one of the idea's strengths is that there's no hurry, sections can be added when they're ready.

One thing that strikes me though is that whilst standards regarding baseboard depth, clearances etc etc are important of course, ideally there would also be some regarding the scenery too. Some would be basic requirements to ensure a decent quality(track to be ballasted, no bare baseboard showing etc etc) but others might help keep the thing looking consistent - the technique for representing grass, its colour, method of ballasting, use of a backscene etc. What might be really nice is a house colour scheme - all railway buildings to be painted in a certain style. Perhaps even a recommended palette for the rest of the scenery?

Which might sound a bit OTT, but I think it would be a shame if an idea with such potential were to miss out on major exhibition invites etc because it developed a repution for being a bit of a visual hotch-potch...

All the best,

Andrew.

MDLR · Post by **MDLR** » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:23 pm

Andrew:77790 wrote:I think it would be a shame if an idea with such potential were to miss out on major exhibition invites etc because it developed a repution for being a bit of a visual hotch-potch...

From my point of view, having a hotch-potch is part of the fun! You'll never build the same layout twice, and if forest ends up next to beach, so what?

Garden Railway Forum

Joined up thinking

Joined up thinking

Son of a ...

Who is online