M01 Module Standard

[IanT]

The M01 Module Standard is now available (for download as a PDF file) from the Society's website. I'd be pleased to answer any questions on the subject.

See:  http://www.gauge3.org.uk/#!technical-standards/cfvg

Regards,

IanT

[Peaky 556]

Hello Ian,
Are you saying this is a "done and dusted" revision of the standard, or is it a draft open to comment perhaps?
I'm a bit puzzled by the date of 2011 on it if you have just revised it.
If you are open to comment and suggestion, then I do have a list of points for clarification.
Regards,  Tim

[IanT]

Hi Tim,

It's not a new revision (you are correct it was last revised in 2011). It's simply now available on the 'new' Society website. I may well be looking at some aspects of M01 later this year - so ask/suggest away.

Regards,

IanT

[Peaky 556]

Ian
My observations are thus:
1of 9. Module sizes.
I don't know what raw material sizes were available to the original author, but in my experience board material is sold in either 8' by 4' (2438 x 1219 mm) or the metric equivalent of 2400 x 1200 mm.  My recent purchases of plywood have all been of the old Imperial sizes, but I realise this won't last forever. Whichever of these sizes is purchased, we cannot economically cut out top panels for the modules if they are 900 mm long without a lot of wastage.  For example a quick trial fitting tells me that using the Imperial size I can only cut out five of either twin or single track modules, with wastage in both cases.  If I use the metric size then I can't even get five panels out. This is because saw cuts will be say 3mm wide, and so the tolerance of +/- 1mm cannot be achieved; all panels would be slightly small.
The immediate answer to these anomalies, in the interest of both economies and sensible tolerances, is to revise the module sizes as follows:
Single 800 x 400 mm
Twin   800 x 600 mm
Tolerances on length and width +/- 3mm, or possibly +0, -3 mm to minimise tolerance build up.
This way we can cut nine single or six twin modules out of a single panel, with no wastage.

I can send the other comments by PM if preferred.
Regards, Tim

[cabbage]

[Cough!!!]

Way back when.... I did originally suggest that the modules be 225mm wide, 900 long, and 75mm thick. This being very simple to construct with a tenon saw or a "chop" saw -using 75x25mm planks with a cross batten of 50x25mm every 300mm (if required). Thus one 3.6m length of 75x25mm could make a 900mm module with no waste. One 2.4m length of 50x25mm would supply enough cross battens to make two modules. The module ends could be locked together using M5 bolts.

Nobody seemed to like this cheap idea -but me...

So I continued and anyone visiting the CPR will see the same design module -all One Scale Mile of it! I have plenty of 150mm lengths of 50x25mm length left -stacked up like "Jenga" at the front of my greenhouse should anyone want it. Although the boiler making seems to setting fire to more than one or two of them...

I know that it is my "Sanctions" background -but I hate waste. An efficient design should be easy to produce and not have any waste that cannot be re-used elsewhere in the build. The modules used in my railway are held together using "Glue and Screw" technology. I used Urea Formaldehyde glue and 50mm +75mm screws to unite the planks with whilst the glue set.

Thus to make each module I required:

16 50mm screws,
1 3.6m length of 75x25mm timber
1 1.2m length of 50x25mm timber
Glue (variable depending on how much water in the mix!)

This was of course "scalable" and the four largest "modules" on the track are 4.8m long double track -each one a "multiple" of the basic 90cm module. In case you are wondering 4.8m is the longest length I could get around my house from the kerb(!) One person (in low wind) can build the 4.8m modules like shelling peas.

regards

ralph

[cabbage]

Viz:





OH! Incase you are wondering, the additional 25mm on the width of the 225mm was to put the external 1/2 inch Angle Iron section screwed on the outside to put the bolts through. So the width should read; 12.5 + 25 + 75 + 75 + 25 + 12.5mm =225mm. Four M5 bolts would have been used to connect each length and being at the outside ends -far more easier to align the tops.

regards

ralph

[IanT]

Hallo Tim/Ralph.

I've not been too long back (just got home and I'm going out again) so cannot be long.

The materials I normally use are 2440 mm x 1220 mm (or sub-sets of same). There was much debate about 'dimensions' 5-6 years ago and in my view there is no 'golden' solution. However, I have not found the published dimensions to be a real problem in practice. The practical issues of owning modules lie elsewhere and it these that I have been working on.

But I will make a few quick comments about 'size'.

- Spur II do not define any particular 'length' for their modules but I felt it was useful to do, most especially in the case where an 'oval' track was required (for continuous running) which is probably not a Spur II requirement.

- 'Custom' modules can be any length in practice - but again it is recommended that their total length be a multiple of 900mm - which is easily achieved by an 'adaptor' module designed to make the overall length that multiple. This would only apply to 'custom' tracks that had through running in mind.

- The 1mm +/- is not that crucial in terms of a 900 mm length but becomes more so for 15mm or 66mm. So where smaller measurements are defined - more accuracy is required.

- The Standard allows a great deal of freedom in exactly how a module is constructed. I'm not sure that this is generally understood.

I have to get ready - so must leave it at that.

Regards,

IanT   

[IanT]

I meant to also mention that (in relation to module size) the 'width' is defined as being a minimum of 450mm - so in fact it can be anything over 450mm, which also gives a lot of leeway to the builder.

Regards,

IanT

[Peaky 556]

Ian
In your own time, but you did invite questions!

The matter of minimising "waste" is one matter that Ralph and I happen to agree on, so that is the driving force behind my comment about reducing board sizes in the interest of getting the most modules per standard 8' x 4' board ( or rather using all of the board and not leaving a pile of bits for the log burner!).

I have just realised that with my suggested module sizes, we could get 4.8m of double track or 7.2m of single track from a single board! That compares with 4.5m of either single or double from the current standard.

I don't really understand why something as wide as 450 mm is needed for a single track either, unless it's an insurance against a derailed model ever falling off and onto the floor? Edge barriers might be better.

The standard also specifies the +/- 1mm tolerance on ALL dimensions and so that is another reason for highlighting an impracticality.   I quite agree with you over the need for tight tols on small dimensions, and to relax them for the bigger ones, as I have suggested already.

Depending on your workload, and the Society plans for updating the standard, I can always supply my other points on a slower timescale.  Over to you to drive the pace and depth of any changes.

Regards, Tim

[IanT]

Hi Phil,

My original track modules were narrower at about 150mm. The 450mm minimum dimension came from the Spur II standard and is actually a good width to give a stable connection and physical interface. What width 'in between' is needed depends on a number of things, including what balance you are seeking between a pure "running" track and something very much more scenic.

If you can see the 'Standard' more as the connection point (and less as a baseboard design) it will help I think. Remember that the standard doesn't define very much at all about what is 'inside' those connection points. Nor does it define the level of scenic treatment for instance or try to fix the actual construction of the 'module'. The track 'illustrations' shown are purely for what I now think of as 'running' track - perhaps the simplest of modules. But what would meet the 'standard' and what would not? Let's look at an example.

Suppose I wanted a pure 'running' track - where a 150mm width was acceptable from a cosmetic and functional viewpoint (for instance for test purposes). And suppose therefore that this 'module' was constructed with two end parts (of 450mm as shown in the standard) but that they were connected by a single central beam (only a 150mm wide) on top of which the track was pinned (like a capital 'I' when seen from above). Would this meet the standard? Well it depends how you interpret it but one key test would be to ask; "Can I connect this module to other 'standard' modules" (and would trains run across it?). If the answer was yes, then it probably is a standard module.

Now there would be some that would immediately say, but this can't be a 'module' because it's not scenic. OK then - what about the design described above but built (disguised) as a bridge or viaduct? Would that be any more or less of a 'module' than the first version?

This is the area (of interpretation) that any revision of the standard is likely to address. However, just to be clear, any changes in interpretation will still need to be backward compatible with what has gone before. So if you see the C3 Connector as the 'core' of the standard, I think that will help.

I would like to make one point though. Over the past 3-4 years, there have only one or two members interested enough in 'modular' to contact me directly and discuss it further. One of them (unfortunately) is no longer with us. However, I have listened to (and taken notice of) those people who have actively worked on G3 modules. Both the people I'm thinking of actually built and used them. Their feedback wasn't simply 'opinion' - it was based on real experience (in our larger scale). So whilst I welcome feedback and ideas generally, to be honest I don't really want to get into too much of a Forum debate (e.g. exchanges of opinion) with anyone unless they are serious about actually working in this area.

In that case I'd be very pleased to listen to them and assist them further if necessary. I will be bringing my new kit to the AGM. I'll be happy to discuss the ideas behind it with anyone who is interested then. It's been built to meet my needs (not other peoples) which hopefully it will do very well.

Tim - be assured, my comments above are directed at you personally. Please contact me privately if you would like to or come along at the AGM and chat. I'm not going to be online too much over the weekend, so don't take any silence (or lack of immediate response) as rudeness.

Regards,

IanT

[yamie1900]

Hi would like to add my 2 penith, We i mean me and my Dad have been building Mangapps railway on the moduler system, Dad bought 1 pack of parts for 1 board and i bought another. We then set about building, Dad built 5 boards and i built a further 5, so in all we had 30 feet of layout ( we copied the parts). We both built roughly to standard me folloing to  the letter, but Dad having a smaller car built his only 3 inches deep or 75mm for the youngens . With hind sight 75mm deep is enough.
   Once built we had then to think what we were going to put on them we drew up various plans but nothing really worked, then it came to Dads idea of Mangapps farm railway which happens to be only 45 mins  drive away, it has 2 platforms only a hundred feet long which equates to 50 inches or just over 4 feet, a meuseum at one end and 5 tracks wide. Now with the board only 450mm wide we could not fit in the desired number of tracks with out widening the boards so widened the boards we did enough for 4 tracks  and platform, at 830 mm wide it still fits in the car. At the other end it is just one track and platform.
   Having it 450 wide is a good width to work with, being 1000mm high its stable and offers to be done scenicly,
After we built the layout it all went quite about the moduler system so we altered the single track end to a slight curve as the reel Mangapps railway, then Ian t got in contact with me and mentioned the moduler system once again, with a little chat Dad and i have built a bridge so as to connect to any other module and continue on.
  We will be at the AGM exhibitting our Mangapps so if anybody wishes to have a nose around be welcome.

regards Dave.

[yamie1900]

ps ment to say theres a few photos of the modules completed on the gauge 3 society face book page..