Modular Layout Thoughts
I find the concept of modular model railway layouts interesting. I find the idea of building a small module which can be joined up with those of others to make a much larger whole appealing. Unfortunately I've been disappointed in what I've seen at exhibitions; too many layouts have horribly mismatching scenery, and run a mix of British, American, Continental and Japanese trains on the same layout, which completely destroys any concept of realism. I'm sure it's possible to do better than this.
(At which point those who happily mix British, German, American and Japanese trains on the same layout protest "But it's fun! You just don't understand". Sorry, but to me it's Hurting Wrong Fun - I don't accept the idea that the only valid form of 'fun' is when you throw realism out of the window; I find doing prototype research and then making up accurate trains from a particular time and place is 'fun', but that's an entirely different rant)
The only widely-accepted standard, the American N-trak, isn't really appropriate for British outline modelling, largely because of it's unrealistically-wide track spacing. While this might be appropriate for North American prototypes, it doesn't look at all right for British layouts. And personally I don't like the 3-track configuration; whatever the operational benefits it still doesn't look right to me. Three track mainlines are uncommon in Britain; even if the third track is supposed to be a siding or goods loop.
Various British-outline groups, such as the East Surrey N-Gauge Group, the East Dorset N Gauge Group, the North East Area Group and the Chester Area Group have each been building modular layouts. As far as I can tell, each have rejected Ntrak for at least some of the reasons listed above, and have devised their own standards.
British N needs a modular standard.
I feel the standard should be more of a meta-standard, describing things like baseboard heights and standardised electrical connections, but allow some flexibility on the number and locations of tracks. Individual groups will probably want to choose a more restricted standard track formation for their own modules, and interface modules between the more popular configurations should be encouraged. I would guess that two- and three-track formations will be the most popular.
It should support both "roundy-roundy" formations with four corner sections, and "all-in-a-line" formations with a return loop at each end. "Roundy-roundy" modules need to be fixed length so that the other side of the rectangle joins up; "all-in-a-line" modules don't have to be.
Track standards (code 80 vs. code 55) should not be part of the standard. Individual groups may decide to standardise on one of the other, but I would not like to see a standard that mandates code 80 and prohibits the more realistic code 55.
The standard should neither mandate nor prohibit scenic breaks or end profiles. This is one of the more awkward problems with modular layouts; it's hard to get scenery to 'flow' between modules, and you either get abrupt transitions, or boring flat baseboards that might be OK for modelling the American prairies but isn't so good for hillier areas. My preference would be for scenic dividers between the modules, breaking up the layout into separate 'scenes', although this only really works for large multi-section modules.
When setting up a modular layout at an exhibition, the organiser should be allowed to (and even encouraged to) insist that all modules and rolling stock are from a particular nation and period, rather than be expected to include every module available just because it's there, even if it doesn't fit the theme.
Posted by TimHall at September 10, 2002 03:34 PM | TrackBackOk, here's another Yank trying NOT to flail about like a bull in a china shop. I'm the President of club in St. Louis called the Mudhens. The problems you're having are nearly identical to ours.
We model HOn3. It's great for realism if you don't mind limiting yourself to some older and possibly unpopular railroads from mountain locations. But the equipment is unusual and the scenery can't be beat. We've taken "Best in Show" at our last three GATS. (Great American Train Shows) I recommend you search for it on the Internet. Several of the photos are of our layout! Brag brag brag...
We have more modules than members now. I'd like to share some of our problems and solutions with you, as we were nearly at witt's end on how best to to proceed, and last week held a meeting just to discuss it. Basically, the "physical plant" of our club outgrew the membership's ability to set it up as more and more people are retiring or just loosing interest in trains.
First, decide on the basic principles of when, where and why you'll set up modules. Include age and ability in the conversation. I turn 45 tomorrow and I'm the youngest member out of 24 men. Carrying 1,500 pounds of ill-fitting modules in out of the cold puts a damper on the day.
So, any standard that places personal preference first will yield a patchwork in the end. It also means some will weigh more than can be easily carried and some will be too long or wide for a trailer or van.
We had to identify what conditions or occasions we would put forth the effort to transport them to a common location to set up and run.
Those modules are still a patchwork, but many have been reworked to make pairs that match.
OK, so we've got these dinosours to move around, and only set up for operations at big model railroad shows or conventions. What Kind of layout should we set up?
We started out 20 years ago capable of setting up a great big loop, but have now done that exclusively for the last ten years. In fact we would be hard pressed to set up a point to point layout. That limits the opertunities for setting up. It almost has to be big. We don't have enough room to do it in members' homes, the club isn't big enough to rent space and the nice one-day shows are simple too much work for the amount of time you want to spend running trains.
We decided to set very strict standards that not only limit the module size, but require identical carpentry on every single one. That way the legs unfold the same way, the backdrop is built in, they fit through doors without bashing hands, and we can get twelve of them into the club trailer. We set the rail height at 48 inches and worked down from there. We gave six inches to the table top. That allows for bridges and sub-grade scenery (a real eye catcher). We are making the quantum leap to a DCC control system, ans setting a rail standard to help get rid of operational glitchs.
Here were our priorities:
First, reliable operation
Second, easy transport and setup
Third, uniformity
We will build our second generation of modules in scenic sets of four tables to be called by the name of the railroad or location depicted.
Each "table" will be 2 ft by 6 ft and have a packed height of 2 ft to get them into a rack system on the trailer. Every set of four would include a passing siding and means to turn an engine around at or near one end. That way we can set up a pint to point operation with only eight modules.
Our goal is to go from a six hour set up time to a one hour set up time. We're at four hours now, but typically spend at least that long working on problems. Setting up has been the biggest reson for peole quiting, arguing, and for deciding not to go to a show or convention. So before any membership drive happens we're spending 2004 rebuilding to a new standard.
Best of luck!
Steve Hollenbach
Seven months have passed and we've made some progress over here. This might help you, maybe not. About a year from now the "big" modules will have their last show at the 25th National Narrow Gauge Convention in Dearborn Michigan. After that we're thinking outside the box.
We stuck to the 2'x6'x2' standard and can get lots of modules in the trailer. The track height is 48 inches. For the metric system fans that's about 61CM wide, 183cm long and 61cm high when packed. Track height of 122cm when on their feet. Each has 6 inches (15.2cm) of free space below grade to use for hills and bridges and so on. The backdrops are not built in, but added on the back with thumb-screws. Sounds gruesome!
However, by "bridging" the backdrop between hills we get rid of much of the "crevace" between tables. We also have a standard for dowel pins at the ends for links to the next module. All legs fold and lock the same way, all hardware is standard 1/4 inch by 20 thread. No tools are required for setup.
Haven't laid any rail yet, but that's coming up soon. Ours is HOn3 on a single track mainline. For those in N scale the module size would give great track plan flexability and leave areas to turn trains around.
I've seen lots of N scale settups. Get rid of those three and four track mainlines! That's great for modeling London to Portsmouth, or New York to Boston, but people forget the distant countryside. I enjoy bringing it to them at shows. Give me a lonely little track into the high mountains.
I wish there were an easy way to show off the vast American plains or the sun baked outback of Australia. For me it's narrow Gauge into the mountains.
Thanks and have a great day,
Steve