Right, where's my stable of hobby horses.

Is this the time to have a debate about a new modular system? Its a personal thing I guess, but I'm not a great fan of the 4' by 2' module for 2 reasons;

1) I've carted a lot of them round and unless they are well designed, they weight a ton (could be leveled at any system I guess).

2) the 4' by 2' does not particularly lend itself to insertion in a small layout back home, and at the end of the day you cant actually get that much railway on 1 module.

So, what I propose, is either going to a free-mo style layout set up, where you do not necessarily have to have a loop arrangement, or building a series of small 2' by 1' modules that are more portable (even possibly by air) so there are incresed possibilities for get togethers.

What does the rest of the brains trust here think?

I think that I'd be keen on working to a module standard and meeting up with other like-minded individuals on a regular basis. I notice that there are several other regular contributors to this forum from Christchurch, as well as others from Dunedin, the Coast, and the northern part of the SI. I would also guess that there are perhaps more regular readers in all areas who haven't made themselves known yet...

I really like your idea of aircraft-friendly modules, Head Druff. 4' x 2' certainly is not in that category. I wonder if 2' x 1' is too small though, requiring too many joins in the track that could contribute to "issues" with running? And maybe 1' of depth would lead to the modules feeling cramped? What about something like 3' x 18", or even a metric 1000 x 500mm?

Metric?!?  That sounds far too sensible!

Could be a good time to review the standard.  The current module standard hasn't been as popular as hoped for.  Perhaps dimensions have nothing to do with that, but transport is definitely a consideration.

The current standard has some good points, including hidden return track that can be dis-mounted to use the module in a layout etc, but perhaps it is too restrictive?  To my mind the requirement to have full-height backdrops across the ends certainly limits home use.

Does size matter?

Couldn't a module be almost any length?  I can see the point of standardising on length for things like N-Trak and others where you want a complete circuit, but we are more likely to end up with a point-to-point or loop-to-loop.  I see the FREMO standard allows any length and standardises on a end-plate and height. http://www.fremo.org/module/modul1_e.htm

To a certain extent width is also flexible, but a whole series of different widths could look a bit naff unless at least the distance between the front of module and the front track at the end was set as part of the standard.  In the middle of the module it could be pretty much free-form?

Electrical and control: DCC probably, but what brand?  Current standard uses EasyDCC, but I expect that's not too popular.  Should we standardise on Digitrax, NCE, other???  I for one have Digitrax, but I'm in Auckland so may not end up with a module connecting to SI modules any time soon.

I'm not sure of the history of the standard, or why it hasn't become popular, but I think I would like to stick up for the current standard. It looks to me like a fair amount of thought has already gone into it, and it would be good to establish exactly which issues should be revisited.

I think the loop on the back is a real positive, and I would definitely use it at home. Designing for an end to end modular layout would make the success of the end result really contingent upon how many modules were available for a running session. A a couple of modules joined together would have very little end to end operational potential, while if there was a return loop two even two modules would be workable.

I also read the standard as not designating minimum or maximum lengths. It also tolerates people building multiple modules to model complicated scenes, so long as the outer edges are consistent with the standard. You could also have very short and more portable modules. I think having modules of different depths could lead to some very ugly results. A certain amount of uniformity seems desirable.

The portability of the module very much has to do with personal tolerances for lugging things about I think. I do not really envisage myself flying somewhere with a module. Mostly I'd like to be able to get together with locals and do the occasional display.

One of the things I don't like about the module standard is the module divider. I think these look a bit naff.

I had to modify the standards for the modular layout i'm doing  I'm using the oNe Trak system in that some of my modules won't have a straight edge.

I've been having a look around at various module specifications and I really like the look of the Free-mo module standard mentioned above as an alternative to the nz120 standard. An overview for HO Free-mo: http://www.free-mo.org/about The standard: http://www.free-mo.org/standard

It has a lot of potential for freedom and also seems much simpler than the NZ120 standard. I also like the idea that the modules be viewable from both sides, and also the potential for prototypical operation.

What do people think of this?

 N gauge Free-mo standard here: http://www.wesleysteiner.com/mr/Free-moN/main.html

I'm also interested in the freemo type set up. The flexibility of the system appeals to my underlying chaotic nature. I like the possibilities of having junctions etc.

as for DCC systems, I use Digitrax (a Challenger system I brought in 1995)

heers a link with pictures http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?id=729

The fremo system appeals to me as well.

How many people can build several modules to an exact standard set of measurements accurately so when it goes together makes a perfect layout?. At least fremo allows those who gather, to form a layout to the shape of the display space avaliable. At least the decision is only on the design of the end plates for joining modules.

Point-2-point can be fun. Part of your operation is the breaking down, remarshalling and turning of trains. Spent a bit of time with the Scale rail boys from Palmerston North on 3/16th and thats what they do.

DCC control - sounds good Head druff, as most decoders run on Digitrax or NCE and you can still run analogue locos as well. Simplifies the wiring requirements also.

Cheers

Russell

 i like the idea, can we get something up and running by easter next year for the convention?

Graham

I'm willing to give the freemo concept a go and build a few modules. The n-scale standard end plate below looks good. The only things I would question is whether code 80 track could be used for the main line, and also, is the method of joining tracks by joiners the best idea or should the tracks be butted to the end of the board?

 i was thinking along the same lines, posably code 80 peco.

 Yeah, that would be my preference.

The PECO Code 55 flexi-track is code 80-friendly, anyway. It's Code 80 track buried in the sleepers so the height above rail level is "code 55". So it's compatible with both standards. I'm not sure whether the points use the same rail or not...

I would vote for code 55,as code 80 rail looks absolutely horrible with our models.

The April 2002 Journal has a nifty diagram that shows the prototype equivalent of various "codes" of rail in 9 mil, 1:64, and NZ120 scales.

Code 80 in NZ120 scales at 132 kg/m (266 lb/yd), whilst code 55 is the equivalent of 62.7 kg/m (125 lb/yd).

 Yeah, I've previously seen pictures of how code 80 scales and it's not pretty. But whether or not it looks horrible really depends on the standard of the layout modelling. Functionality wise, does it really make any difference, if as Gummy-Joe says peco code 55 and code 80 are interchangable? I'm happy enough to use code 55 though, I used it on the last layout and kit worked out pretty well.

Grant

Just looking at the Freemo diagram, what is provided for actually physically holding the modules together?

BTW, I do like the idea...I think everyone, no matter how starved for space, can have room for at last one module.

 The modules are held together by G clamps or similar.

Here's an image of the PECO Code 55 profile that shows what I was trying to explain in my earlier post:

The Code 55 can therefore be easily joined to Code 80 if or when required. My only reservation is that the code 55 pointwork is nowhere near as widely available as code 80 points. The flexi track isn't so hard to find however. I might be inclined towards using code 80 pointwork (readily available) with code 55 flex track (looks better) for everything else ...

 i wish i had ave made arangements to meet you when i was at the show.  i think that with either code 55 or code 80 and the standard set we should make the decision to go with it.  i'm all 4 it.  have started to think through ideas?  Greymouth, Rewenui or stillwater.

 Gummy-Joe, the picture isn't working for me. I've got a bunch of code 80 points I'll have to use on one module anyway. 

Assuming this does get going, I'm happy to host running sessions in my garage where there is more than enough space to join some modules together.

I'd also vote for Peco Code 55, but as it is compatible with Code 80 there shouldn't be too many issues in using both.  Just be aware that if you are using a mix along one track (Code 55 flex track and Code 80 turnouts) there will be a difference in sleeper height that may be obvious once ballasted.

To get the creative juices flowing a bit harder and to help sort out a new standard, here's a few links for other popular module systems.  It appears the current NZ120 standard was derived from T-Trak which was derived from N-Trak.  There's also AusTrak and oNeTRAK.

N-TRAK: http://www.ntrak.org

T-TRAK: http://www.t-trak.org/

Australian N Scale Page with links to several standards: http://users.picknowl.com.au/~austnscale/

By the way, if you haven't found it yet, the current NZ120 module standards are here: http://www.nz120.org/article/original-module-specifications

To help facilitate the development of a new modular standard I can install a document area on this site that everyone can edit (sort of like a wiki) once the ideas have gelled a bit further.  Let me know if anyone wants this.

"I might be inclined towards using code 80 pointwork (readily available) with code 55 flex track (looks better) for everything else"

Translation: I have 10 feet of code 55 flex track sat in a drawer, and a bunch of code 80 points --> I've got a bet each way!

Hi there

 I haven't found a problem with getting any code 55 points, if the model store i use don't have them i just order them and they are in store the following week.

Hmmm, the Germans appear to have got their own back...

At least some people saw the image...

One thing I would suggest is using metric instead of imperial for measurements in the module standards. The draft Freemo NZ120 document that was posted to the NZ120 yahoo group is a place to start for the creation of a new standard. Things like plugs and stuff used might need to be changed to reflect whats easily avaliable here in NZ.
After seeing the great One Track Minds layout at the show in Chch I think a similar NZ120 one would be great. What height from floor to railhead would be a good height? 50inches (1270mm) seems a bit high and all the kids at the show in Chch had to be lifted up to see the OTM layout.
Ryan Gibbs

 Wes, a wiki style document would definitely be helpful I reckon.

not Germans, Swiss but here is "another" picture...

<50inches (1270mm) seems a bit high and all the kids at the show in Chch had to be lifted up to see the OTM layout.>
 

it is high but after all we are building these modules for us and not for kids. the higher the modules are the easier they are to handle and operate. (and the less the kids can reach the less they have to touch...  )

Thanks for clearing that up, Steve (what I should have said was "the German speaking people that I "borrowed" the image from...etc ). And thanks for posting "another" picture of the PECO track

If we are going to "set" module dimensions, then metric may be the most sensible option, which the Aussies seem to have opted for. One thing that there doesn't appear to be much scope for in some of the standards is for a sizeable depth from the rail top to the bottom of the scenery on a module. I'm thinking of allowing room to depict the impressive engineering works that dot the network country-wide- the high viaducts in the central North Island, or locations like Staircase on the Midland Line, etc. NZ landscape = rugged. A "flat" looking collection of modules won't really be "hi-fidelity prototypical scale model railroading"...

The distinction between "section" and "module" (a module may comprise several sections) is a good concept, though.

I think a standard should have ample scope to build any sort of terrain. The free-mo standard with only end board standards seems to have most of what we want.

With the tack standads, I would push for the code 55 as it just looks better. We should also remember that US companies also make code 55 track, that is just not overly common in this country.

And just to show I am a bit of a heretic sometimes:

I do believe that 600 is too wide for this sort of module.  It may suit HO scale and major classification yards, but when used in the smaller scales  for single track main line its a lot of real estate to cover with ground foam!  I would humbly suggest 450 (18" in Queen Victoria's money) as still being wide enough to fulfill most peoples aspirations.

Or we just throw caution to the wind and say "you can have whatever length and width module you want, as long as the rail height and wiring matches the standards" and ignore the fact that sometimes the front edges dont line up.....but welcome those who have bought along their shelf layouts from home to run in conjunction with others.

Am_Fet (Soon to suffer the slings and arrows of outraged posters...)

We could have it so that the end plate must be the same as the standard but the module can be any width with the corners cut off, so that the side angles from the end plate width to the full width of the modules. That way the edge would still look tidy instead of sudden jumps with different module widths. This way people modelling just the mainline can do it in a smaller space and people making larger yards and stations have more width to play with.

Ryan Gibbs

Having got out a tape measure to see what 450mm looks like, I think I could go with that, Am_Fet–if a standardised width was to be decided upon. I guess the big question is "what do we hope to achieve from this discussion?". If the final outcome is focussed purely on informal gatherings where a dozen modules can be lashed together to entertain the module owners, then the dimensions probably aren't going to matter that much. If the idea is that we want to present NZ120 as a vibrant, legitimate alternative to Sn3.5 at the public exhibitions across the country, and show the potential of the scale, then a higher degree of uniformity may be more appropriate. The interesting thing I found reading through the Aussie OneTrak book, was how there several "standard" module sizes from which to choose, rather than a fixed sized. They stipulate that the modules should be able to fit in the module-owner's car– I like the pragmatism there.

"but welcome those who have bought along their shelf layouts from home to run in conjunction with others" –LOL

the bigest problam with a group layout is whot to have on it ? to little is boring , to much - train set coming to gether with satisfactory  idea IMPOSABLE?

 I'd also thought that 450mm might be a better width for the modules. I'm not sure I understand your point Manaia1972; do you mean what to run on the layout? 

 i feel that at 450mm the trains are the focus but at 600mm the trains can run through the scenery.  i also feel that the aim of the modules would be to display and prove to the public of the viability of NZ120.  looking at the aims of the one track minds ideas then you can get the overall impression of their achievements.  you only have to listen to the public and the comments that are spoken.

My thoughts/opinions on the subject.

I think a good idea would be to have an endplate of 300 to 450mm wide, but the module/scene could be wider to whatever the builder wanted. Cass was 750 wide, and I think I would possibly go wider to increase the effect of trains in the scenery. Rod Murgatroyds Rolleston layout was originally designed to be more than 1m wide, and this would work for a flat style layout. In others where you have hills as a scenic backdrop the layout would be narrower.

As an example for Paikakariki, I could probably fit everything I want train wise on a 600mm wide board, but will go to 900 wide to get in some of the township as well, simply because I think it will add to the 'trains in the scenery' look. Currently I'm just having a think about viewing from both sides to satisfy photographers demands.

I'd like to see the US N scale Freemo standards adopted maybe with a look at the conectors (possibly USB conectors?) between the sections.

However it is good to see the dscussion that this topic is generating not sure if this would have happened on the NZ120 group

I have created a new "Book" for members to document the new module standard once various items have been agreed.  I suggest to keep that document clean and readable that all debate on what the standard should contain continues in this forum topic.  All members can edit the book content and add new pages.

http://www.nz120.org/docs/new-module-standard

I also like a width of 450mm.  My around-the-walls home layout is designed for that width.

I'm not sure that USB connectors would be able to handle the current for the track circuits?  While there are certainly suppliers with superior ranges of products I suggest we adopt connectors available from Dick Smith as they seem to have the best availability across the country.

For the power bus, these plugs and sockets are a possibility?
http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4accfd1b05be5c662741c0a87f3b06eb/Product/V...
http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4accfd1b05be5c662741c0a87f3b06eb/Product/V...

or the plug and socket specified for the original module is still available:
http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4acd00b501dcf8e8273fc0a87f3b06de/Product/V...

For the control bus perhaps RJ-11 (telephone) connectors as per Digitrax, or the more widely available and compatible RJ45 (ethernet network) connector?

Which ever we choose we would have to agree what end has the male and female connectors, and we might as well do the same as the current standard.

Compatibility with old modules.

Just a thought... it would be nice if any of the modules developed to the old standard were able to hook up to the new one, even if it didn't look quite as good.

The critical dimensions appear to be:

1. "The mainline track shall be 100mm from the front of module to the railhead of the front track"
2. "This pair of legs will be such as to place the mainline railhead (to top of rail) at a nominal 1200mm from the floor"

There's some logic in having the rails 100mm from the edge - derails are less likely to fall to the floor. 

Any reason why we should have a different height than 1200mm?  I've got small kids and constantly lifting them up to see layouts is a chore, but the better shows have some plastic chairs or whatever for the kids to stand on.  A good height like 1200mm is certainly easier on the back when operating and provides a better view for our real target audience - middle-aged semi-balding men from West Auckland or Nelson. (ducks for cover)

May need some adapter cables depending on what electrical connectors are chosen.

 have just added a attachment to the book with the edited fremo NZ120 standards.  as we decide on the standards this doc can be edited to suite.  i've also tried to covert all mesures to metric.

Rather than have a fully compatable system why not just have short converter sections. I personally would strongly resist having to put the track so close to the front of the module as its far too restricting scenery wise. Its not just all about the background, there so much that can be done with the forground scenery wise.

I'd agree; having the track run through the middle of the layout seems a real strength of the Freemo standard.

 
 
The "short converter sections" are a good idea– a shift in alignment from 100mm from the front of an 'old' standard module to align with the middle of a "new" module of 450mm width (for example) is a shift of just 125mm (or 5 inches, if you prefer).
The fremo layout on the link the Head Druff posted earlier appears to make use of such sections anyway
http://www.fremo-net.eu/index.php?id=729
 

what is this freemo standard you guys are all talking about... ?   (yes, I'm playing smart-bum again...)

OK, transition sections would enable old and new modules to be joined if the rail height was 1200mm.  Good point about the central track location. 

I've downloaded the freemo FREMO (Hi Steve)  standard for the americaN flavour (it's in English) which contains a diagram of the end plate.
 

Modules are joined by 6mm bolts with washers and wingnuts in 8mm holes -cheaper and sturdier than clamps.

Tracks go right up to the edge soldered to metal plates - no joiner track sections, no little track joiners, only one joint instead of two at each end of a module.

Rail height is 1300mm. 

They use banana plugs for power connections, Digitrax Loconet cabling run separately (along floor I presume).

hello Wes, I've seen and used these americaN modules in natura and they are really well built and they are light and easy to handle.

we did use banana plugs on our NTRAK Swiss division modules as well (the old Speaker plugs couldn't handle DCC currents anymore) and it makes the modules more flexible as there is no LEFT side or a RIGHT side on the module, they can be arranged more flexible that way. there is one male and one female connector on each side per track, as example the male banana plug always on the right rail on each side...