Ultra Fremo Mini-modules

[velotrain]

This idea has come out of Toni's DokodemoModule topic discussion.

 

He has a very specific idea of where he wants to go with it, but I've been thinking that an expansion - and generalization, of the concept can provide a possible solution for creating modular layouts among small groups of "isolated" modelers.  A large part of the impetus has also come from the Totternhoe Mineral exhibition layout, specifically their approach to design and presentation.  As related to JNS, this could be a potential answer for the long-discussed Dutch and Chicago groups, or any other similar discussions from the past.  Toni is using this approach primarily for design ("art") reasons, but it could also be applied operationally among small local groups.

 

I've been involved with a couple of modular groups over the years, and I've just realized something that has always religiously been regarded as the most basic element of a modular group, is also the strongest impediment to starting a new group - module design-dimensions and interface standards.   Toni's proposal of loosely using bridges to connect his modules, has made me see that there isn't necessarily a need to specify any standards at all for the modules.  The basic (and radical) requirement here is that a small group of modelers agree not to have any standards about what their modules are going to look like.

 

If you're thinking that this sounds as crazy as I initially did, there are a few "definitions" that must be stated up front - more about the nature of the group and its members, than the modules themselves.

- This approach is intended for very small groups, say from two to a half-dozen people.

- The greater the number of people and - to a lesser extent, modules, there will be an increasing need for standards and organization.

- This will not work for "rivet counters" and others who have rigidly defined ideas about what a model railroad should be - an open mind and flexibility are essential.

- If you're interested in running long trains across unbroken spaces of continuous landscape, this may not be the approach for you.

 

The only thing that needs to be defined in advance is the scale and gauge.  Toni specifies the track type at module edge, but I'm thinking even this doesn't need to be defined in advance.  Let's say that one person in a given area builds a module - anything they want.  This can be large enough that it allows independent operation on the module - say a runaround track and a few sidings, or even include a loop, and it could serve as a basic home layout.

 

If someone else in that area wants to build a module, they check with the first person.  The two things I see them needing to discuss are railhead height at module edge(s), and type of track.  Unlike traditional modules, there is no need to specify in advance the type or length of (connecting) track, where it should end on the module (X" from the endboard, with a track center Y" from the "front" of the module), or what orientation it should have.  If one module has Tomix and the other has Kato, the owners simply need to determine who will supply the interface section when they get together.  Regarding height, it is essential that the "lower" module can be easily raised to the height of the higher one, OR, that this can be achieved by the connecting track when the difference is minor.  One possibility is to use a 2" piece of foam as a module base - which allows "undercut" scenery or an "island" elevation, and then allow another 3/8 - 1/2" for Japanese sectional track, or cork roadbed and flex track.  Shallower (lower) modules can be built of other materials.  It might be good for evolving groups to specify a maximum module height to limit required future flexibility by module owners.

 

OK - perhaps my basic idea is that small groups or individuals who might be interested in building modules, stop spending time trying to decide upon standards for the modules, and just start building them.  Unlike traditional Fremo, these can be completely free-form.  There is absolutely no need to define or coordinate anything - until a second person wants to get involved.  Indeed, a group of modules by one person could be the basis for a flexible home layout - say a small yard, a station area, an industrial area, etc.

 

Those who may have procrastinated building a personal layout, or even a module because there are no other modelers in your area, can start by building an irregularly shaped module of whatever they most want to model.  If you've never gone beyond bare track, this will give you opportunities for structure building and scenery.  There's no reason why these couldn't be integrated into a floor or table layout.  Larger track concentrations, such as a yard, could be constructed on a more traditionally framed module if desired.  The concept is mix and match.

 

There may be major problems with this idea that I haven't considered, and I'm sure I'll hear about them.  More-so than a traditional module or layout, there are going to be issues of how to attach power and control, and how this is managed across the modules of multiple people.  I see the two main goals as getting those who have resisted building anything "permanent" to start small with room to expand, and as a means for modelers to operate together where there may be insufficient people to form a more traditional modular group.

 

[kvp]

There is an exact category for these free form modules, it's called sectional building. This means everything is free form and only the modules that are connected to each other have to agree on an interface. Usually larger standalone layouts are divided into section for easy transportatation and maintenance. This can even be scaled up to a huge club layout. If you go beyond the sectional interface pairs, you have yourself a module standard.

 

A module standard can involve module-module interface standards, like number of rails and the relative position of the rail tops. Track standards, like minimum rail height and curve radius. Module dimension standards, like length, width and height. These can be added to a new home brewed standard step by step and it can result after an gradual evolution curve in a more widely known of followed standard.

 

Imho a good example for a semi modular home standard what i used for my 2 home modules that are built for a japanese traction layout. The size of the modules are 70x40, which is completly off the wall and it uses Tomix finetrack. But during the construction, i've added Kato unitrack end pieces to the connecting rails, to avoid broken Tomix joiners. This makes them connectable to single track ttrak modules and since both modules are end ones (single track loop modules), they are not restricted by length or depth regulations. Actually this compatibility was accidental and i don't know anyone in my area to have any single track ttrak modules.

 

Also, for small modules that are somewhat compatible, i think ttrak might be a really good starting point and it allows individual groups to extend or remove parts from the standard. It's even possible to build mostly free form ttrak modules too, as long as there is no goal to connect them into a loop. At least it can be used as a good example of a simple module standard, very much like EasyTrolley with Tomix finetrack for trams.

[velotrain]

Hi KVP - Actually, I'm not advocating sectional building, as that still involves standards - if only for a few modules.  I'm suggesting that there is no need for pre-determined standards at all.  I'm saying that each person should go ahead and build their modules as they wish and figure out the necessary connections later.  These islands could be small dioramas as Toni envisions, or even traditionally framed 2' x 4' modules.

 

It was Toni's idea of having interconnected islands that led me to this thinking.  Traditional module organizations are based on sameness, so they look good together and can physically - electronically interface.  T-Trak modules often don't look good together - as Godzilla will be next to a seriously modeled scene, but they do interface.  It was the realization that the modules shouldn't necessarily have to directly interface that makes this possible.  You gain true freedom of design, but you also give up a lot, which is why this concept will not work for many (most?) modelers.  It is better suited to short, perhaps NG trains, and will not satisfy those who wish to see shinkansen running quickly along long, continuous straight track.  Going back to Totternhoe Mineral, it would be as if you cut off the 3 or 4 sections with turnouts and made them islands.  Functionally, I very much see this layout demonstrating the concept, but without the physical independence - separation of the islands.

 

You could create a T-Trak version of this by saying that the modules can be an irregular shape (of about the same current size), with the track(s) located anywhere on the module.  Just as "thinking outside the box" was a popular concept a decade ago, design modules outside the square! If using T-Trak module bases, then the rail heights are already the same and all you need to do is connect the modules at a meet.  Perhaps each person will need to bring a Tomix-Kato connecting "bridge", as well as what they need for their track (Tomix-Tomix or Kato-Kato).

 

I realize this is a very radical approach to modules - as is Toni's original idea.  However, just as his suggestion related to artistry, I think this concept would be most appealing to independent-thinking creative modelers - the focus is on building visually interesting modules, with operations secondary.  The more I think about it, a variation of T-Trak might be the best place to start with this.  T-Trak never interested me, largely due to the small size, but perhaps I should look at it again.  One important note is that this approach is not really suitable for double-track operation, so I will need to see if there is also a single-track "standard".  However, there is no reason that existing T-Trak modules couldn't be joined in this manner, perhaps only using ("bridging") the inner tracks.

[kvp]

There is a single track standard for ttrak, but without setting common base values it wouldn't work.

 

For example rail code as the common ones for N are 40, 55, 80 and the ancient sheet metal 100. Unitrack is code 80, peco fine is 55 and some americans are 40. Many japanese trains will ride on the sleepers with code 40. This is one standard to agree on.

 

Then there is the minimum radius issue with R103, 140, 150, 175. 280, etc. as common minimum values. Even one piece of sharp curve is enough to make interoperability (rolling stock exchange) impossible. This is a second standard.

 

Then there is the loading gauge, both static and dynamic, in straights and various curves. Third standard.

 

Then there is the problem of electricity, control systems and so on. 4th standard.

 

I could go on without talking about module shapes or anything similar. As in the real world, there must be some standards, otherwise it won't work.

 

I'm saying this as someone experienced with lego layouts, where every participant can build whatever they like. Without standards, it was a total mess so we had to define them to be able to get a train across the areas of the participating builders. (ended up with 10 routUnion Switch and Signal Company equipment,e awailability classes just for the standard gauge rolling stock, 3 of which are normally in use: european mainline, branchline and tram) So without pre agreed standards, you can end up with a bunch of isolated islands without any interchange traffic. It's almost as complex as in the real world at the dawn of the railway age.

[kvp]

There is a single track standard for ttrak, but without setting common base values it wouldn't work.

 

For example rail code as the common ones for N are 40, 55, 80 and the ancient sheet metal 100. Unitrack is code 80, peco fine is 55 and some americans are 40. Many japanese trains will ride on the sleepers with code 40. This is one standard to agree on.

 

Then there is the minimum radius issue with R103, 140, 150, 175. 280, etc. as common minimum values. Even one piece of sharp curve is enough to make interoperability (rolling stock exchange) impossible. This is a second standard.

 

Then there is the loading gauge, both static and dynamic, in straights and various curves. Third standard.

 

Then there is the problem of electricity, control systems and so on. 4th standard.

 

I could go on without talking about module shapes or anything similar. As in the real world, there must be some standards, otherwise it won't work.

 

I'm saying this as someone experienced with lego layouts, where every participant can build whatever they like. Without standards, it was a total mess so we had to define them to be able to get a train across the areas of the participating builders. (ended up with 10 route awailability classes just for the standard gauge rolling stock, 3 of which are normally in use: european mainline, branchline and tram) So without pre agreed standards, you can end up with a bunch of isolated islands without any interchange traffic. It's almost as complex as in the real world at the dawn of the railway age.

Edited November 13, 2015 by kvp

[velotrain]

> For example rail code as the common ones for N are 40, 55, 80 and the ancient sheet metal 100. Unitrack is code 80, peco fine is 55 and some americans are 40.

 

Peco code 55 is actually code 80 rail with much of it buried in the sleepers, so my understanding is that the actual rail height is the same as code 80 from other brands.

> Then there is the minimum radius issue with R103, 140, 150, 175. 280, etc. as common minimum values. Even one piece of sharp curve is enough to make interoperability (rolling stock exchange) impossible. This is a second standard.

This a part of the reason of why I am saying that this will only work for small groups, with hopefully similar interests.  This is not about defining some "universal" standard that might potentially need to be followed by hundreds of modelers across many countries.  For that situation, I do appreciate why Fremo et al need to set standards.  However, instead of taking a lot of time - likely with arguments, up front, I'm suggesting that this can be handled at the back end.  To a large extent, the first person to build a module de facto sets the standards.  Perhaps there are multiple small groups with varying modeling interests.

> Then there is the loading gauge, both static and dynamic, in straights and various curves. Third standard.

 

I see this as having very low importance, and largely a non-issue.  I realize it could be a problem among large groups, but that is not the discussion here.

> Then there is the problem of electricity, control systems and so on. 4th standard.

 

Again, the first module defines the standard (for that group).  As I suggested, part of what drives this is the ongoing discussions (how many years now?) of small groups of modelers in a place - be it a city or a country, with some common interests.  It is up to them to define these interests, and these will become their standards.  However, instead of discussing the possibility of some sort of group, one person actually builds something and others can follow or not, as they choose.  Maybe "islands" don't work for them, as they want long, continuous runs for passenger trains.  This is definitely better suited to NG, or trams, or local freight trains - each island could be an industry, a switching location.

 

Driven by Toni's idea, and my prior viewing / knowledge of Totternhoe Mineral, I had the sudden idea to question the "gospel" that modules need to be directly connected to each other - under all existing module systems.  Why?  I understand that this creates certain benefits, but does it meet the needs of all modelers?  You can look at this from Toni's aesthetic orientation - that each module should (can) be it's own sculptural island.  With the connecting bridges, the design and level of modeling quality of each module will be much less impacted by those around it in the viewer's eye.  If each module is designed to be it's own entity, of course there will be some issues when trying to connect it with those designed-built by others, but I don't think these problems would be insurmountable - especially with small groups of like-minded modelers.  I see this as a local approach, so any required "standards" can be casually agreed upon by modelers who know each other, with no need to formally codify and publish them.

 

It's not so much that I'm against standards, but just suggesting a new way to consider modules.

[kvp]

 

Again, the first module defines the standard (for that group). 

So you actually suggest smaller groups to define new standards with an ongoing discussion and by following what is already existing? That is actually a completly viable solution, but in the end there will be a new standard, just the standard of the day kind. (there is a saying: I love standards, there are so many to choose from!)

 

 

I had the sudden idea to question the "gospel" that modules need to be directly connected to each other - under all existing module systems.

This isn't really a must and i've seen various alternative solutions in the past. The only rule is to be able to get rolling stock across. For example, last time we had a lift out bridge across two tables on the joint Lego layout of 3 clubs. The reason was not really philosophical but easy access during construction, however the result was that two separate tables got connected with no scenery below the bridge. It worked nicely for the really flexible Lego layout, but it could work anywhere. I seem to remember a 3 suitcases Z layout, bridged with removable bridges and each suitcase having standalone operating capability, but able to work together. So your idea is good and proven to work if all participants want to make it work.

[velotrain]

_{kvp, on 13 Nov 2015 - 8:32 PM, said:}

_{So you actually suggest smaller groups to define new standards with an ongoing discussion and by following what is already existing? That is actually a completly viable solution, but in the end there will be a new standard, just the standard of the day kind. (there is a saying: I love standards, there are so many to choose from!)}

 

_{Yes, that is close, and I don't know how to explain it any more precisely.  To a very large extent I truly don't feel that "standards" are necessary when such matters can be determined by "agreement" within a small group.  I'm also saying that many of the standards of more formal module groups are only required because they do not know who/where might wish to build a module in the future, and they need to instruct precisely what to do in order to set-up with the group.  I also think there is a much reduced need for standards when the modules do not need to connect directly to each other.}

 

_{Regarding your earlier question about curve radius, I generally don't see that as an issue for the modules themselves.}

 

_{> This isn't really a must and i've seen various alternative solutions in the past. . . .}  

 

_{At all the shows that I have attended in the US, I have never seen any exceptions.  What you describe in the Lego example seems to be more a one-off solution to a local problem, and not an intended part of the process.}

 

_{> I seem to remember a 3 suitcases Z layout, bridged with removable bridges and each suitcase having standalone operating capability, but able to work together.}

 

_{That sounds a bit familiar, but I'm recalling it as a NG layout and all three suitcases were required for the loop.  I also have a memory that this was done by one of the more famous European modelers - possibly French?}

 

_{Here are Toni's "standards":}

 

<sub>The basic rules are:
- Tomix rail at module ends (Min. R140 radius);
- Rail height 55mm (standard Tomix bridge pillar) or lower, depending on the need;
- Every module is an island and has at least one main line through track (except for end modules).
- No size limit. Want to make a tiny 70mm module? Go ahead!</sub>

 

_{The first one is very common in traditional module standards, and is only required if he plans to interface with HOn modules built by other modelers.}

 

_{> at least one main line through track}

 

_{I think this is where any minimum radius should be defined, and I might be inclined to make the main line radius even more generous, say 177 or greater.}

 

_{Since most of the curved track will be used in connecting the modules, that is where the group members might want to discuss things.  However, another option is to use varying connecting track radius based on the situation.  If everyone agrees to a tram evening, then 103 or 140 could be used.  If longer equipment was planned for that module set-up, then a wider radius.  Unlike traditional modules, this approach allows some situational flexibility.}

 

_{I don't think this option would appeal to those who are used to more standard-sized (2' x 4' here in the US), self-supported, modules - such as Fremo.   I see the potential audience perhaps more as T-Trak modelers who want a little more flexibility - less rigidity in the structure.}

[velotrain]

I just realized that there's a third inspiring stimuli to this idea - my father did something quite similar over 60 years ago!

 

My (younger) brother and I were given a set of American Flyer S-scale "tinplate" trains for Christmas when I was 4 or 5.  Even the "wrapping" was spectacular.  We awoke to see an olive drab army blanket draped over an uneven mound in the corner of the living room.  Holding it up was a large collection of shaped wood "blocks" - another present.  We could see a railroad track emerging from tunnel portals.  There was also a large button that may have had a label - Press Here.  When we did, the train emerged from the tunnel.

 

Of course, we acquired additional equipment and track over the next year or so.  When setting up, we distributed the track through all the rooms of our home.  Although it varied somewhat each time, I'm sure we had favorite formations - perhaps dictated by the geography of the rooms and passages.  Since we often set-up the majority of the track in a similar way all the time, my dad decided he was tired of having to join all of the individual pieces each time.  He thought about what combinations of track we used most often, and made plywood bases for them so they would be ready-assembled when we started - modules if you will.  I recall sidings, small yards, a junction, and 180 degree curves.

 

http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-102-october-2010/

Second article down

 

Temptingly, in the same issue Carl mentions:  Closely related is the notion that John Peckham calls “Island Layouts.”  We explored some of what John is talking about in Scrapbook #97a.

 

Sadly, I find no such article in issue 97a, but I did find something somewhat similar in that issue from James Macintyre:

http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-97a-may-2010/

About 2/3 of the way down

 

I find the mini modules much more appealing as separate entities.  When combined into a loop, it mostly looks like someone forgot to finish it.  I largely attribute this to the mini scenes being strictly rectangular, and thus looking as if they were meant to be a part of something else, vs. complete scenic entities on their own as Toni proposes.  To me, it looks a lot like T-Trak, except that it's a single track line and each component appears to have a unique sized base.

 

I have been investigating commercial T-Trak bases, and this inside corner (~ 14.5" x 32.5") has potential for a yard or large industry:

 

 

 

I've also asked a manufacturer if they would consider producing a hexagonal module, and have gotten a quote.  Based on the 60" square sheets that Baltic birch plywood comes in, the optimal size would be either 14-3/4" or 19-3/4" across the flats (parallel edges).  In some ways I think a bare 2" foam slab would be ideal.  I'm not sure that levelers are necessary, as that can be taken care of by the connecting sections.  On the other hand, hexagonal T-Trak bases with the sides painted flat black might be appealing - a la Totternhoe Mineral.

 

I've also been thinking that there is no reason the connecting sections need to be raw bridge sections.  Totternhoe Mineral generally has very narrow, basically sceniced connecting track between the "islands", and these could be built as causeways with island modules.

 

One other thought.  What sort of scenes are most people interested in modeling?  Stations, yards, engine terminals, industrial areas.  Outside of a few UK and continental modelers who are willing to commit large expanses of layout real estate to a single track winding through a rural landscape (usually a prototype), most modeled scenes depict high concentrations of tracks and activity.  Doesn't it make some sense to consider these as islands, and perhaps focus our modeling activity on them, and not bother with the long stretches of open countryside that connect them?  Why do we feel compelled to locate what interests us in rectangular spaces, filling in the edges with non-essential details, that don't necessarily add to the overall scene?  This is what I see Totternhoe Mineral as making a break from.

[katoftw]

An agreement by a small group becomes a standard.  To me it seems you are suggesting that that everyone just make their own standards to run at your local club or with friends.  It is no different to how T-Trak or any other popular standard orginated.

 

A unknown standard/guideline is still a standard/guideline.