We have made a few adjustments to the corners.

The issue we had is with a 3ft radius and a 2 inch track center there is insurfishant clearance for 89′ cars and large steam loco’s etc. so we decided the track center on multiple tracks on curves should be at least 2-1/4 inches. but module end is still required to be 2′ inch track center.

This gave us a problem on the proposed double track sections planned on the new corners.

We decided it would be easier to make the new corners perminant 90′ degrees instead of 2x flexible 45′ degree corners.

This means Boards 3&4 and Boards 5&6 are now perminantly together as 90′ corners.

Both modules are single to double track on the opersite hands.

Corners 7 & 8 will single track very similar to corners 1 & 2. When they are built that will complete the 360′ degrees.

thats all for now!!!

Over the last few weeks some progress has been make with a couple new modules.

Please click here for the  latest construction photo of Dale Yard.

also

I’ve been building a new end of scene board, It was originally designed to be a head shunt for Dale Yard but can be used anywhere as an end of scene module.  So for now I’ve called it Head Shunt until i think of something better!!!

Please click here for the latest construction photo of Head Shunt.

There are also some more corner boards being constructed at present, I’ll give you an update on this when i have more information.

that’s all for now.

I’ve been doing a lot of musing over the past week or so after a conversation with Mel at our work session last week, the module standard we’re using has vast potential beyond either branches off our main RS Tower layout or small modular switching layouts, the possibilities are pretty much endless.

So time to kick off a bit of discussion on standards then – first some background info to hopefully help you understand where we were coming from when we published this!

The standards used are a combination of the European Fremo (US HO) standards and US Freemo standards – why have we not just copied one or the other?

The US Freemo standard is impressively engineered to allow for main line running, whereas the European one assumes a US branchline with relatively sharp curves allowed – we preferred the US approach, think big, and the capability for running main lines is built in, think small and it will always be a branch line only.

However the US system has a few concepts alien to folk used to UK exhibition/portable layouts, it uses loose rails to bridge baseboard joints where over here we’re used to running rails up to the edge of boards with few problems. We also thought that some features in the US spec were more complicated than they needed to be (electrics) or unlikely to ever be used (ability to add grades).

So, our standards were a distillation of those two sources, and my intention in writing them was to try and keep the rules to a minimum – just the things that MUST be compatible to make modules work together mechanically, and not clash too much visually, whilst leaving as much as possible up to the creative vision of the builder.

So – time for some discussion I think, here’s some starting questions.

1. Have we got this right? Seems to us like we have got at least pretty close to a workable standard, but are there any other views out there – are there things that could do with changing, are there things that are too restrictive or not restrictive enough?

2. One specific issue – our group is currently operating & building modules with a 3″ straight section at the end rather than a 6″ section – the concept of the 6″ section was that when two modules were joined it would leave 12″ of straight track between any possible reverse curves, enough to allow long vehicles like passenger cars or autoracks to be perfectly stable in a long train - so my question is, should we re-write that standard to 3″ (remembering the standards should be the **minimums**) – do we need to run a few tests to see whether there would be a problem in reality with longer vehicles or whether it’s just theoretical, or do we keep the standard as 6″ and just note that certain modules are “semi compliant” and so not to be used together in S-curve configurations if we’re running main line trains? What are folk’s thoughts here?

3. What do we call this thing? It seems a bit wrong (and potentially confusing) to me to just call this standard “Freemo” – I think we need to name it something that differentiates it from both the Fremo and Freemo standards – I did think “Freemo-UK” – which is nice and catchy, but does that imply it’s a UK-outline standard (which the standard might not be completely appropriate for) instead of US-outline? What are folk’s thoughts, any better idea’s out there?

If this concept is to take off it needs to be embraced by more than just our own RS Tower group, so the more external input here the better I think.

You have the floor…

Hiya folks, i’m here as a guest poster after offering to come up with some module idea’s - Module Musings I hope will become an occasional series on here, most of these posts will be random idea’s about module designs that could help with layout setups when used with the RS Tower layout & modules.

Note also there’s no specific intention here that I or anyone else will build any of these  they are really intended as thought-provokers and discussion starters – that said I don’t think there would be a problem building any of them and i’ll give a few idea’s about how they could compliment operation on our existing ones.

The designs will all be drawn on squared paper, each square equates to 3″.

So then, to our first idea – one of the down-sides with the base RS Tower layout is that we have some great industries, but there is only so much development you can do on a fixed sized layout. Certain industries like the cement works are…well…a bit small. I think we (especially Chris & Linda who were responsible for the scenicing of it) have done a great job at making it look like a big plant, but there is only so much operational interest you can pack into an 18″ square end-scene board! Click for a larger version:

18" square cement works...

In rail terms all we have is a short spur to take 2 or 3 cement covered hoppers, there is no provision for any inbound rail moves to the plant, the plant is also stuck in an out-of-the-way corner of the layout that requires a long and frustrating shoving move to serve – so lets see if we can sort some of those issues with 8′ of module to sit between RS Tower and the main layout…

Here’s the plan: http://images.fotopic.net/?id=58946590&noresize=1

Basic dimensions are 8′ long (split over 2x 4′ boards) – it has standard single track 18″ ends but bulges to 2′ wide in the middle.

Whilst this module set would be aimed at always being next to the cement plant it still meets the module requirements and so could feature as part of a set-up without RS Tower if needed.

So what do we have here, I figure the obvious inbound loads would be gravel in open hoppers – Walthers makes a pit with conveyors which would be perfect at dealing with this inbound flow - add a front end loader or two to move the aggregate into storage piles and you’re sorted http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/933-3519

The downside is that pit and conveyor kit is 9″ – meaning the module will have to bulge out slightly to accomodate it – no biggy really (it’s drawn as 6″ of bulge in the middle of the module, but that could probably be trimmed if neccesary)

From following and shooting freight trains in the UK you pick up various other bits of info – such as most cement plants over here seem to have a large appetite for coal to fire the kilns – so the rear track on the backscene side has a shed covering another pit (this one needs to be covered as wet coal isn’t such a good plan) with a conveyor heading off towards the main plant – as we can’t run the conveyor over the board joint it will have to run underground to clear the access road at the end of the board.

In the middle we have a runround track which allows more variety and/or more capacity in serving the plant – I would see it working in one of two ways:

1. The plant has a dedicated switch loco, something like the new Bachmann GE 45t that Neil Roper had at Exeter show would be perfect – a trip freight could then just drop a cut of cars, pick up an outbound cut and leave the crew on the industrial to deal with final delivery. The “runround track” can be used to hold inbound/outbound cars in this version.

2. The loco from the transfer job uses the runround track to runround the inbound cars, then switches loads for empties on all three spurs at the industry.

So – this would add a two new flows and car types (gravel & coal) to the layout plus allow the industry to expand to fill a bit more of it’s potential.

One possible concern for the future is that at Exeter we did have to be very careful to arrange enough moves to get cars to staging to form the other end of their circuits – adding lots more cars and new flows with no planning could make that worse, so one of the things I want to be working on in future plans is ways to relieve that pressure – more next time!

In the meantime don’t hesitate to leave comments and thoughts – it’s always fun to bounce idea’s off other folk. Seeya!

1- The (old) Dale Yard has been renamed Sterling Yard and is now owned by Liam Rogers

2-Liam is also building another new Module called Sterling

This will be small town ship with a Depot, Team Track & Lumber yard

3-Dale Yard (new) will be built by Neil Rogers,

(I decided it would be easier to build a new yard rather than alter the old one).

thats all for now!!!

The latest project that I’m working on!!!

I have two loco’s that require painting, 1st Canadian Pacific SD40-2F (Red Barn) & 2nd Canadian National Dash 8-40CM.

Click here for Canadain Pacific 9022 SD40-2F

Click here for Canadian National 2408 Dash 8-40CM

This is what both loco’s should look like when I’ve finished them.

The models are both made in brass by Overland (OMI).

They are starting to take shape, just got the tricky stripes to add the CN unit, the CP unit is now ready for decals.

I’ve also installed Dcc decoders to these  HO models.

The decoders are TCS A6X, I like these decoders because 1-The price, 2-They are reliable & 3-The output functions are rated for1.5v bulbs.

I’ll keep you posted with more updates soon.

New Modules are being planned as we speak. I will update the site with more info when i have it.

I’m planning to upgrade Dale Yard with a couple of Loco spurs. One each end of yard.

Proposed track plan!!!

I’m also planning 6x more 45′ degree corners to complete 360′ degrees.

2x will be single track (similar to corners 1 & 2).

2x will double track.

2x will be single track to double track, (1x right handed & 1x left handed).

The Gillingham & Shaftesbury show 6th June 2009. 

Layout set up, was from right to left, Cement plant borrowed from RS Tower, Oakdale, 90′ degree of corner (2x 45′ degree modules) & Dale Yard.

More photo’s of the show can be found here

http://neil-rogers.fotopic.net/c1708629_1.html

All loco’s on layout were sound equiped.

Norfolk & Western GP30 549 light engine move from Oakdale to Dale Yard.