Modular layouts?

[grovenor-2685]

Following on from the thoughts spurred by the Balcombe topic perhaps we could have some discussion on the value or otherwise of a modular standard for P4.
Even if scenic consistency would be difficult or impossible would it be a practical means for those who only have minimal space to get together to run a decent sized layout on occasion.
Would enough people take part to make it worthwhile?

Would the results be limited to exhibitions or is there scope in the UK for Fremo style meets, by the members for the members?
I could probably adapt sections of my layout into modules.

Regards
Keith

[ClikC]

I'd be interested if a standard was developed for P4.

I'm no expert, but I'd imagine the biggest issue would be ensuring that separately produced individual boards would work together, due to the finer tolerances of the P4 standards. I'd imagine a simple answer would be some kind of CAD-CAM produced baseboard ends used in conjunction with a pair of standard size (1 inch / 25-mm) pattern makers dowels.

Judging by http://free-mo.org/standard there is a lot to think about.

Regards

Matt

[James Moorhouse]

The concept of modular P4 layouts was considered 40 years ago.

See Precision, issue 1, pages 6-7. Accessible via s4-news.php

[grovenor-2685]

The concept of modular P4 layouts was considered 40 years ago

Indeed but there was no follow up whatsoever, AFAICR not even a letter. I often thought that item (5) would have been an interesting project.
Things are easier now with DCC, perhaps its time to revisit the ideas.

Regards
Keith

[LesGros]

I like the idea of a scalefour boards connector standard, preferably with an option for dual and single tracks as proposed in the 4-way interchange plan.

It would make sense to produce some kind of standard drilling and rail positioning jig as was suggested in the Precision article.
Such a jig could also be beneficial for anyone who is wishing to make baseboard joints, wether or not they intend to connect to other builder's boards. Perhaps with the society currrent membership, it could become reality?

Regards

[Tim V]

Does it assume that all layouts are the same depth? Something I could never agree to.

[ClikC]

Does it assume that all layouts are the same depth? Something I could never agree to.

The Freemo standard is 6", with no method of connections other than clamps.

In theory, as long as baseboard ends fitted with dowels of some kind were produced to some standard, and the track bed likewise to a standard (Freemo states rail head being a minimum of 50" from the floor). Baseboard depth would be immaterial. Although I think a Minimum and/or standard stated dimension would be best.

[LesGros]

Does it assume that all layouts are the same depth? Something I could never agree to.

Hi Tim,
At this stage, I do not think that it assumes anything, other than the possibility of establishing an agreed standard arrangement of locating peg/dowels with a specific relationship to the rails. Perhaps an agreement could also be reached on a minimum depth required to accomodate connections, participants being free to choose/use their own existing preferences. I am inclined to think that continuity of scenery through an interchange board, though desireable, may be too restricting in practice. It should, perhaps, be regarded as one of the essential compromises that we make to ensure that layouts work. As Keith indicated, the question of electrical connections would also need to be considered along with the method(s) of supporting modules at agreed height(s) above floor level.

My earlier suggestion, that Rod Cameron's solutions be regarded as a de-facto interim standard, could be a useful starting point from the basis of an up-to-date practical experience of what works, and equally important; what pitfalls are lying in wait to bite unwary.

Perhaps the Scalefour Society Committee may be willing to consider the opportunities for flexible collaboration that such an agreed set of standards could stimulate?

regards

[Tim V]

I was referring to depth - front to back of the layout. My own layout is about 6' deep. All these modular systems (the only one I think I've seen in the flesh was from the 15" group) are too shallow for my style of modelling. Two feet is not enough.

[Richard.Ough]

A first post to the S4Webforum and probably putting my foot in it already.

I have spent many years modelling in larger scales, and have tried the modular approach to layout building.

In my experience, it does not work, especially if you want the railway to flow naturally.

Some years back a group of us decided that a continuous run narrow gauge layout at a scale of 1:13.7 (7/8" to the foot).

All the members elected to build a 12 foot (three 4x2 boards) section which could be mated to 4 sets of quadrant boards with a 4 foot radius plain single line curved track. We could swap various modules in and out to make the layout look different and it could go from a terminus to fiddle yard arrangement through 20 x 10 continuos to a 20 x20 by inserting the various modular units. The length could also be increased in 12 foot increments! We chose 12 feet as the idea was that due to the large size of the models you needed 12 feet to be able to put in a realistic section of track such as a small loco servicing point/MPD or a viaduct. What happened within the 12 feet was up to you, but the outer pair of boards had to have the track at a certain height from the ground and at a set centreline to link up with either a second module or the curved end boards. (A largish radius trailng crossover will take up the full length of a 4 ft long board)
Despite drawings and emails going out to the various parties involved as well as many lengthly discussions we had people going off and doing their own thing which culminated in a layout which when erected for the first time at a show, in true modular fashion (turn up and we'll fit it into the frame) had issues with track alignment due to some using 45mm gauge and others using the more correct 1.75"; differing rail profiles at joints, including one guy who decided to lay in code 215 rather than code 250 rail.

The same guy also decided to build a station on a curve, fantastic modelling, but completely screwed up the plain curved boards concept!

Worse was to come, when it was all bolted together there was a rather large gap at one end caused by some suspect joinery! So I spent a rather sleepless night making a drop in level crossing to bridge the gap.

Of course as you can imagine the layour required packing up as none of the legs built by the various members were of the same dimensions.

However, we did not admit defeat, and got the embryo disaster sorted out pdq, and we went on to display it for a couple of years before, dwindling operators caused it to be scrapped in favour of a smaller more manageble project.

There is no doubt that I learned a lot about modules from that and any projects since have been much better managed from the outset.

Some time ago I read, and I can't remember the source, that the late Cyril Freezer, said that the British invented the module system and gave up on it many years before the Americans even considered using it.

It may well work in N gauge where the board is so much 'longer' in real terms, but as the scale increases you do tend to get the toy trainset effect of long straights followed by 90 degree right turns in about 18".

Regards

Richard

[David Knight]

The freemo concept does work but only if it is not too free if you get my meaning. Apart from the end of boards standard which is easily obtained there needs to be some uniformity with the scenery and scenic style so you don't get dyed sawdust sitting next to static grass next to teddy bear fur . I post again the link I posted in an earlier discussion; http://www.casofreemo.org/ as an example of how it can work well. The photo gallery could have stood some editing but I think you'll get the idea. I'm not a member of CASO BTW, I've just seen it grow at various exhibitions and think it's a good idea.

Cheers,

David

[Gurra G]

I do think it will work in P4. The depths of the modules are free on your own layout but perhaps you build an adapter module to get the right depth for the incoming module. The biggest problem with modules is that everybody wants to bring their station but very few brings a main line module with only one track going trough.

But the advantage with a module system is the possibility to run a timetable between two, three, four or more stations. The possibility to do this is for me the biggest advantage with modules. The biggest disadvantage is the gap in time, location and rolling stock. In Sweden the most popular era is 1955 and preferring an autumn day. But some likes US, some the era 1990 or even later. This gives a not so good looking set of modules even though al the modules are the top of the tops not to mention the rolling stock that will be to spread out through time and country.

If there should be a module system the best way would be to set the year for the modules to portray and the time of the year. In Sweden we like autumn due to the colours in the landscape.

I do think that it will work but the question is who would like the less glamourus work building the main line between the stations? Perhaps this could be the next competition for Scalefour 2011. “Build a module with one track 4 feet X 2 feet portraying an autumn day in the year 1939”

Here are some pictures of how the MMM meeting looks like.
http://hakang.zmn.se/A107791

http://hakang.zmn.se/A120155

Gustav

[grovenor-2685]

I to think it could work but the compromises needed for modules are different from those for self contained layouts. The period, company, scenic area etc has to be more flexible with more emphasis on operability in compensation. If the rules require strict following of a place and time then the number of potential participants will be much reduced.

“Build a module with one track 4 feet X 2 feet portraying an autumn day in the year 1939”

Just for starters single track railways are very restrictive in UK terms, I think the benefit of the module concept is to get away from the branch line so I would require standard UK double track.
Generally we had a longish period from the 1920s to the 1960s when the general railway environment did not change a lot, especially in the plain line so I would not see a specific year as important, just the general period.

Perhaps the Scalefour Society Committee may be willing to consider the opportunities for flexible collaboration that such an agreed set of standards could stimulate?

I don't think this needs any committee action at this stage, we have the forum here, what it needs is enough people who would like to be involved and would be prepared to compromise their personal views enough to make it work, to get on with a discussion followed by some action.
Those who know it won't work or only if their personal concepts are followed should watch from the sidelines, for anything to happen it needs positive thinking.
Regards
Keith

[Richard.Ough]

Keith,

I'd be pleasantly surprised and would fully embrace a modular concept of layout in P4, but you state that in order to do this there would need to be a degree of compromise!
P4?
Compromise?
"You're 'avin' a laugh"

Regards

Richard

[LesGros]

P4?
Compromise?
"You're 'avin' a laugh"

Come off it Richard, Every model railway ever built is shot through with compromise.

However, I do agree you have a point to make. The history of P4 seems to have been bedevilled by instances of confrontational sticking points. How about if all those members who could contribute support to the idea bury the hatchet? and bury any egotistic pride with it. Also, anyone who wishes only to stand on the sidelines and carp, kindly refrain. Constructive criticism of detail is healthy; destructive comment is best avoided..

The society would appear to have a lot of able modellers, and some, like myself less able, but still able to contribute ideas. We would be wise to use this thread as an on-line brainstorm session to gather together positive aspects of modular co-operation whilst remaining aware of the limitations. If we do this, there is a chance to move forward and benfit from the synergy of group activity. After all, look at the successful colaboration which has produced so many outstanding P4 exhibition layouts.

I would commend those interested in joining in the modular project to read Bernard E. Weller's article on the Idea of Layout meetings. Then, and on the basis of experience of what works, please post suggestions about the detail, with dimensioned sketches.

It occurs to me that Keith's transition board idea could also include a scenic transition from the owner's board to the P4 interchange board; Just an idea; to go into the pool of suggestions to be considered later, along with all the other ideas which may be forthcoming.

I'll get off my soapbox now chaps, thankyou for reading thus far.

regards

[Mike Garwood]

The society would appear to have a lot of able modellers, and some, like myself less able, but still able to contribute ideas. We would be wise to use this thread as an on-line brainstorm session to gather together positive aspects of modular co-operation whilst remaining aware of the limitations. If we do this, there is a chance to move forward and benfit from the synergy of group activity. After all, look at the successful colaboration which has produced so many outstanding P4 exhibition layouts.

Errr, what exactly are we aiming for with this. For every P4 layout to join with every other P4 layout? Or perhaps in the future that this will happen given a set of adopted standards?
Sorry losing where this is going a bit.

Mike

[Richard.Ough]

Les,

Please stay on your soapbox!

I joined the Scalefour Society when I realised that I was never going to build a Gauge 3 branchline in the Garden. not that I couldn't, but realistically in terms of space, finance and the time to build everythiing it was a non starter. I considered going either 2 or 3 mm, but decided that old age and failing eyesight would leave me very frustrated. So I opted to try 4mm again, something I had not done since I was in my early teens. I was all set to go down the OO route when I stumbled across Paul Gittens and his Enigma Sidings at a show in Wakefield. I was hooked, and a quick e mail exchange about minimum radii with Keith got me very fired up about building a 4mm layout to P4 Standards. I apologize for getting off topic here............

You are quite right about compromise, and ultimately we have to compromise through sheer lack of space, no coal in the firebox or steam in the boiler etc. However, laying all the compromises aside, you can pack more OO into say a 14ft x 10ft shed than you can in P4. Because I am still getting to terms with the finer tolerances required by P4, my brain tells me the biggest problem we face in minimum curvature and what locos and stock can run around these curves.

This art of conpromise is well illustrated by Tim V's brilliant 'Clutton'. The compromise being the 3ft(?) radius curves at either end. I have only seen this layout once, although I have seen many photos, and I was and still am, captivated by it. It has become the benchmark for my future layout.

Now let's get back to the saga of P4 modules.

Within our Society, I know there are many fine layouts, all laid down to the same tolerances and standards, with locomotives and rolling stock to suit; but I don't think I'm wrong in saying that there are certain locos and rolling stock that could not run around tight radius curves without modification, although they are quite capable of operating on their owners layout. Is this the reason for so many terminus or fiddle yard to fiddle yard 'straight' schemes?

If we take as an example, Llanishen, just north of Cardiff, one of the stations I am currently looking at with a view to modelling, we find that the station and the overbridges to the north and south can be fitted into approximately 12 ft. because the whole site is on a curve, a pair of transition boards would be required to bring everything into line for the next set of modules. That brings us up to 20 ft, and as of yet we don't know what the next section of double track is going to be. Assume it is an ex broad gauge station with a goods yard, so we are probably looking at least 20ft in length. But since the track spacing is different (ex BG) then we will need another 8 ft of transition boards at either end to get back to the standard end of module track spacings.

Those who are good at maths will realise that we are now up to 48 ft in length and we are still going in a straight line. Do we run fiddle yard to fiddle yard, and if so how long. We could be running anything from 6 suburbans or a 60 wagon coal train to the full 14 up behind a King class.

Of course we can turn the corner but what is the minimum radii going to be? Tim V would probably be happy with 4 ft, but there are those with the 'straight line' engines who could never get around such a curve.
even allowing for such a curve the baseboard is going to be somewhat bigger so could assume 5 feet at either end. If we assume that these curved boards are going to bring the railway through 180 degrees we are left with a footprint of 58ft x 10 feet, which is big, but not huge. However, look how much of that space is dead, taken up by transition units or curves, none of which are 'scenic' boards. (I make it 26 ft of transition or curved boards).

Conversley the back straight might contain an MPD and a fiddle yard, both of which do not require any transit boards so we only lose 10 feet for the end curves.

Of course this is hypothetical, and the variations on this are enormous; differing radii for end boards; junctions, perhaps even a flying junction! Some might want to build something on an end board, there are many variables. All this takes up a huge amount of space, and half a dozen members interested in such a concept could easily fill a small barn with their combined efforts. In any case it is a massive undertaking.

Despite my apparent negative attitude from what I have stated above, I'd love to get involved in making a modular system work. From my OP you can see why I do have misgivings, and this is why I think the majority of modellers who want a group effort become involved in layouts such as 'Mostyn' (Couldn't get near it at the Stafford show! Such was its appeal.)

With a bit of wrangling I could make my layout longer, but finish off with exits set to whatever the module standard was decided upon. With a suitable exit strategy, there would be no requirement for transitional boards. At home I could run fiddle/station/fiddle, but the locos and stock would all be built for, say 4 ft radius minimum, so at module meets, I might get the opportunity for some round and round and watch the trains go by.

In essence there are a lot more factors to be taken into consideration because of the finer tolerances we work to in P4.

If anyone would like to start, once the standards have been agreed upon that bare baseboards be presented at the first module meet, prior to the laying of any track; then at least we could see if everything fitted together. Although this might sound a little bizarre, after my last gathering like this I'd be a lot happier about it. I suppose it is like the old saying: 'measure twice and cut once'.

To finish I ought to blame the recent digest on researching the prototype, for my total lack of layout building to date. Far too much research to do!
(My brother who is an historian, took one look through the aforementioned digest and proceeded to borrow it)

Regards

Richard

[grovenor-2685]

because the whole site is on a curve, a pair of transition boards would be required to bring everything into line for the next set of modules.

This assumes that modules have to be straight. That is not necessarily the case, look at some of the Fremo examples.

Tim V would probably be happy with 4 ft, but there are those with the 'straight line' engines who could never get around such a curve.

Actually I think that stock that cannot manage a 4 ft radius curve will be relatively rare, as the module spec. will need to include a minimum radius such stock will not be run.

However, look how much of that space is dead, taken up by transition units or curves, none of which are 'scenic' boards.

What prevents transition boards from being scenic? One of the aims on the module concept is to get more length of run and transition boards needed to match up non-standard parts will contribute to that.
No-one has yet discussed the question of the feasibility of having layout meetings in the Fremo manner. Would it be a goer? DRAG seem to be managing something similar on a smaller scale for their test track.
Keith

[David Knight]

You could do worse than have a look here; http://www.free-mo.org/standard . The standards would have to be modified to suit 4 mm scale and UK practice but the idea would be the same. Note that there is a standard for both single track and double track mains. The first step would be to produce a template for the interchange ends, remember that between these points you are free to do as you please so widths can vary as can track placement as long as you come back to the standard by the time you reach the end of your modular section.

HTH

David

[Richard.Ough]

[This assumes that modules have to be straight. That is not necessarily the case, look at some of the Fremo examples.

Sorry Keith, I've tried to simplify things here. Of course you can have bendy bits, and there is no reason why the modules have got to link up to form a complete circuit. as we all know, most prototype railways go from A to B and not turn back on themselves. I have been fooled into thinking that this is for exhibitions where a compact footprint is needed rather than sprawling around the exhibition hall like a demented octopus. For a private gathering this would not be an issue as it could go where it likes providing it fits into the chosen venue.

Actually I think that stock that cannot manage a 4 ft radius curve will be relatively rare, as the module spec. will need to include a minimum radius such stock will not be run.

Thank you for clearing that point up, I have been misled by the apocryphal tales of P4 engines that run perfectly on the owners layout, but fail to perform elsewhere.

What prevents transition boards from being scenic? One of the aims on the module concept is to get more length of run and transition boards needed to match up non-standard parts will contribute to that.
No-one has yet discussed the question of the feasibility of having layout meetings in the Fremo manner. Would it be a goer? DRAG seem to be managing something similar on a smaller scale for their test track.
Keith

I would fully expect the transition boards to be scenic, I recall spending hours standing on the fence at Peterston waiting for the next train. All I could see was plain track, The majority of the railway infrastructure is just a narrow ribbon of track(s) stretching off into the distance. My concern would be how these transitional boards would be styled? As an extreme example, running from a South Wales valley where the railway is running along a hilly ledge straight into Starcross, Devon. Yes it can be done by the scenic wizards, but the next time around, Starcross has been replaced with Berwick on Tweed. Complete with OLE.

The Free mo concept appears to state that scenery comes down to datum at the end of the modular section you have built, there is no problem with that, and I can see that they have gone to the trouble of getting the continuity right by specifying the scenic materiel needed to blend one persons modules to another.

The DRAG test track may have standard size boards, but it is more of a group effort, and to my limited knowledge they haven't planned on joining their test track up with another groups....Yet!

This topic does seem to by creating quite a bit of correspondence, as i have felt that sometimes the forum could be very quiet. Perhaps it is just that all the participants have just returned from their workshops after a winter of non stop modelling, unlike myself, who has just come out of hibernation.

Regards

Richard

[Tim V]

Of course we can turn the corner but what is the minimum radii going to be? Tim V would probably be happy with 4 ft, but there are those with the 'straight line' engines who could never get around such a curve.
Richard

4' would be luxury for my stock

[Brinkly]

Of course we can turn the corner but what is the minimum radii going to be? Tim V would probably be happy with 4 ft, but there are those with the 'straight line' engines who could never get around such a curve.
Richard

4' would be luxury for my stock

Isn't your layout 3ft 6" Tim?

Regards,

Nick

[ClikC]

Well, i'd be happy with a 4-ft minimum radius. The freemo concept states that "Track on the through route must be perpendicular to the endplate for 6 inches from each end of the module." Perhaps this size should be increased inline with the scale increase from 3.5-mm to 4-mm.

Perhaps an endplate profile can be drawn up from the recommended standards shown in Digest 62.0 (The Permanent Way in Miniature - Prototype Considerations) http://www.scalefour.org/forum/digests_download.php?f=62-0v1.2.pdf

Regards

Matt

[grovenor-2685]

"Track on the through route must be perpendicular to the endplate for 6 inches from each end of the module." Perhaps this size should be increased inline with the scale increase from 3.5-mm to 4-mm.

For our purposes it is desirable to have transitions into the curves, I would prefer to eliminate the straight section as wasting space but require a transition so that the board end is at the start of the transition.
Good suggestion on the profile.
Personally I suspect that with boards from many members using patternmakers dowels or similar to line things up is likely to be a problem. i think its much easier to use loose holes with bolts through or even just g clamps to hold the ends then adjustment is simple and all that has to be accurate is the distance apart of the rails.
Looking at the two 90 degree corner boards I have, one single track and one double they are around 8ft long and to make corner modules would need to be cut into two for portability but the intermediate joint would not be useable as a module end as there would be no transition.
Keith

[Tim V]

Isn't your layout 3ft 6" Tim?

Regards,

Nick

3'6" is the radius of the curved board, to get the layout inside a 7' footprint. The radius of the track is 3'.

I'm all for a long layout with plain track on it, railways were linear things, and to see trains passing through scenery is what I remember. Just got to get the steam, smoke and noises right.....

DCC or DC for the modular layout by the way?