Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13In various states of construction I have 3 that are 00:
- A junction - On the drawing board, hoping to start construction shortly - A station - Construction started, Parts being sourced. - A tunnel - Under construction.
I also have some single track modules that I started building with Wfk, that I hope are sufficiently generic that they can be UK or German.
This is respectable and comparable to what is average to our modellers.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13Not quite. It's not just international traffic, the hope would be that there is the full range of traffic, just like there is on the Dutch section of the H0-Europe layout. So you still have the local pickup goods trains and the like, but also a the occasional train through the tunnel to the continent.
[...]
Whilst the existing tunnel dates from the 90's. There have been multiple efforts over the year to build a channel tunnel. Including one attempt in the 50's. My idea is largely based on the "what if?". What if they did build the tunnel in the 50's? Yes it's a bit of modellers license. *BUT* the aim here is to integrate with the rest of Europe, to be able to run prototypical length trains, on long runs through beautiful scenic modules.
I cannot follow you. The connection with Europe is a fictional idea of you, just to integrate with it and to have long trains which have long runs. We are also aiming getting long runs through the British countryside, and we are also having long trains. At Rendsburg our prestige train will be an eight coach train of Mk1s hauled by a WR hydraulic. But we haven't had the approach that connection to European layouts is necessary. We are aiming to be a standalone major arrangement, and except from Rendsburg and the follow-up meeting in August where we will be a small layout we were planning to have a standalone layout in april next year, when we presumably will get ready the new big terminus of Daniel (LMS on here) "Bowling Green". Then we would have been able to prove that a complex arrangement to a British prototype is possible in Germany.
Ballykillen Junction is now at an embryonic state, and plans were already sketched out to extend it to a grade separated X-shape junction with two connecting curves, a single track line bridging over the double track line. This junction together with Bowling Green, which in turn is planned with one single track and one double track line ending in a big terminal station, would give a layout with three single track lines branching off the main line in different directions.
It is now a bit disappointing that we are forced to give up thinking of a main layout just because you favor the idea that there should be a fictional tunnel to Europe. We had hoped that we get support from UK modellers to support our arrangement to further develop and to cement our status as a main layout. I had planned to spread the idea of modules in the UK and to approach model railway clubs and privates who were interested in prototypical operation, so that enough domestic modules could be built to justify meetings in your country. For this in my eyes our norm provides a good basis, and after correction of the track separation there should be no problem any longer.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13The use of ferries as a way of "connecting" the British prototype modules into the H0-Europe modules has been discussed at length. The problem with that route is that you get into a situation where if we do that. What benefit is there to me travelling to Germany to play trains, if I'm gonna be stuck on a tiny layout in a corner somewhere. Fremo is about integration and large layouts.
As I tried to express above we are no longer just trying to survive. There is light at the end of the tunnel that we are to become a group which has its own meetings. And Fremo is not about large layouts, there had been several problems with the mega layout of Braunlage 2010 (not sure if correct, will check when I am at home). For example take H0-RE and H0fine: H0fine has established high quality operations due to limiting itself on branch lines and on "Zugleitbetrieb" where signals are not necessarily needed. Opposite to this H0-RE is a large group taking everything what they can get, quick-and-dirty built modules as well as the occasional "wallflower" prime example of high quality. The question now rises whether your fictional idea is mainstream and should in every respect be looked after in the next version of the norm, or whether you are very much the exception. Your idea of a tunnel implies the requirement of H0-RE compatibility, but you were the only one who would really have a use for it. I am not so sure if it would be a good idea to change that much to our norm. Instead I can imagine that for the special case of having a tunnel module to a H0-RE layout, the tunnel itself should be disigned to be an adaptor which fits to both systems.
Please when reading this, can you please put aside the issue of track separation. We have done a mistake, and it should be corrected. But 1V13, 2V13 and XF13 would also work with 46 mm. I am mainly asking you if you can imagine a solution where you provide 3 adaptor modules for your station (2) and your tunnel (the 3rd). Let's also imagine that the exact valley shape of 1V13 and 2V13 are to be reviewed, for example to make it steeper as you suggested previously. There is no real obstacle in designing a new profile which combines a British shape, 46 mm track separation and the 5 mounting holes we curently have as a norm. Would this be a compromise?
I will try to give a first impression how such a profile could look next weekend.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13Not at all. As previously stated I am working in the 50's/60's (European Epoch 3). The most modern loco I am currently intending upon is a class 33. In the long term, I have plans for a 3rd rail based station, set in 1962, but again, still firmly in Epoch 3.
This is a surprise to me, mainly because those traditional 9' or 10' wheelbase goods wagons look very wrong when placed next to H0 freight stock of the same era.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13If there was stock available in British H0 outline, I would model in that. But alas, it's unlikely to ever happen. 00 Trains side by side with H0, to me are not a major issue. The loading gauge is so different that they don't look out of place.
This is not true. There is the British H0 society (www.british-ho.com) and there is Golden Valley Hobbies who does provide the modeller with British liveries on continental H0 freight stock. Torsten has evaluated their potential, he owns a Golden Valley tanker and has built a Dapol Interfrigo van kit, a subject of H0 scale too. We came to the conclusion that these very valuable items when it comes to representation of Great Britain in traditional FREMOdern meetings which take place now and then and usually have a Harz/Brandenburg/Berlin/Poland theme (as far as I know).
This was our try on our first meeting to incorporate a bit international traffic. It was a single wagon in H0 scale which after a coupling change did run on our small layout once in each direction. It certainly was interesting, but the difference in width is really visible. Also the height of people which becomes obvious with this type of wagon is different and that deranges the eye additionally. These three examples shall show you that it is possible to do British H0 scale and that we have been experimenting with mixing scales and felt it causes problems. The picture is Torsten's.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13I don't The island mentality of the British is something that drives me insane. If I want the island mentality, I would read the Daily Mail. I don't, that's why I spend my holidays travelling to the Netherlands and Germany to play trains with friendly people.
I cannot comment much on this. Britain is Britain and when sticking with past eras it will always be.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13The reason for being adverse is primarily: it means we can't integrate with the rest of Europe. The 52mm spacing is very overscale. It goes against what is sensible in terms of standardisation practice, as well as integration.
Provided we can leave the H0 USA origing behind us and find us with a situation where we are a 3rd system next to H0 Europa and H0 USA (like I concepted the website of 00Fremo: http://www.fremo-net.eu/00fremo.html) but with a certain degree of compatibility to the two mentioned before, would this not be a big compromise for all of us? 00Fremo was never designed to be a sub-specification of H0 USA but to exist on its own. I admit that this may have not become clear in the English version of the norm and maybe not even in the English version. There really is no need to decide whether we want to be a part of H0 Europa or H0 USA. Let us all come together and ponder about what we really want to have as an outcome and then write a norm about this. Don't let us argue about whether H0 Europa or H0 USA is the better way of making British modules.
By now a possible and my favorite solution would be to retain proven profiles from our norm and to add more appropriate somes from the H0 Europa norm. Please see below for my detailed suggestions. Meine bevorzugte und techisch durchaus mögliche Lösung wäre die Beibehaltung von bewährten Profilen aus unserer Norm darüber hinaus eine Ergänzung mit sinnvollen H0-Europa-Profilen. Bitte siehe unten für meine detaillierten Lösungsvorschläge.
That could work.
I add this to the to-do-list.
Zitat von Julia im Beitrag #13Of all of the standard as you have it, the 52mm spacing is the one area I have most issue with. Everything else is compatible enough.
Zitat a) In the case we can approach each other in our basic aims we should heavily modify our norm so that your modelling activities are covered with. Favored. In dem Falle, dass wir uns in unseren grundsätzlichen Zielen annähern können, sollten wir unsere Norm gründlich überarbeiten und die Aktivitäten von Julia mit einbinden. Das wäre mein Favorit.
That would be most sensible.
I intended to polarise the discussion. Of course there is no better solution than to unite effords in Germany and the UK. But, as you came along with heavy cricism about our norm, mainly the track saparation – and you were right with this! – it must be allowed to ask the question whether the connection to the continent is that much important that in consequence a new basis for a new norm has to be worked out.
To-do-list
As far as I can tell, we now have common ideas of what is wrong with the 00Fremo norm and what should be corrected. Soweit ich die Lage überblicke, haben wir nun einige Punkte herausgearbeitet, die überarbeitungswürdig sind.
- Track separation
Should be amended to 46 mm. Der Gleisabstand sollte auf 46 mm heruntergesetzt werden.
- Module profiles
Careful review of 1V13 and 2V13 profiles should be done to check whether we can do better. Julia has given recommendations which profiles would be more prototypical. @Julia: Could you put the links to the two profiles you have given in the Fremo UK group on here? Thanks. Wir sollten schauen, ob die Profile 1V13 und 2V13 nicht durch bessere ersetzt werden können. Julia hat schon Empfehlungen gemacht, welche Profile mehr vorbildgerecht wären.
- Module system / mounting holes
H0 USA use two holes 300 mm apart. H0 Europa instead uses three holes of which one is in the middle. Our norm currently has the two holes of H0 USA and the middle hole of H0 Europa plus two holes in between. This provides a basic compatibility to both systems. Can we do better and add or leave away further mounting holes to improve flexibility in layout arrangement planning? H0 USA benutzt zwei 300 mm entfernte Löcher, H0 Europa dagegen drei Löcher, von denen eins in der Mitte liegt. Unsere Norm hat beide US-Löcher und das Mittelloch von H0 USA plus weitere zwei. Somit sind wir in einem gewissen Umfang kompatibel zu beiden Systemen. Gibt es noch eine bessere Lösung? Können wir weitere Löcher hinzufügen oder entfernen, um noch flexibler planen zu können?
I would very much like to retain downward compatibility to our norm in its present state as far as possible. Ich möchte Veränderungen an der Norm unbedingt abwärtskompatibel gestalten, soweit möglich.
auf das meiste habe ich schon im vorigen Post geantwortet. I did answer mostly in the previous post.
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15You may not be aware that back in the 1950/60s there were already plans for a channel tunnel, and construction had already started when it was canceled in the last minute. Our "channel tunnel" idea was basically: "how would things have been if they had actually built the thing back then". Vielleicht war es dir nicht bekannt dass es schon in den 50/60er Jahren Plaene gab fuer ein Channel Tunnel, und Konstruktion was bereits unterwegs wen es in letzter Minute abgebrochen wurde. Unsere "Channel Tunnel" Idee war eigentlich: "wie waere es gewesen wenn die das ding damals tatsaechlich gebaut haetten".
Das war mir schon vorher bekannt. Es gab auch schon Pläne vor 1900. I knew that before. There has been plans well before 1900 too.
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15Agreed, not everybody will like the idea of mixing scales. But many others will be pragmatic about it. I wouldn't expect 00-UK rolling stock to be traveling all over the continent, but modelling border traffic, and thus integrating the UK layout with the rest of Europe seems an interesting idea. Zugegeben, nicht jeder wird so eine Mischung moegen. Aber manche werden es pragmatisch hinnehmen. Ich wuerde nicht erwarten dat 00-UK zuege quer ueber das Kontinent fahren, aber das Grenzverkehr zu modellieren, und somit das 00-UK Arangement in das Europa Arangement zu integrieren, scheint mir eine interessante Moeglichkeit.
Interessant für wen? Soweit ich weiß ist das unter den Modulbahnern niemals in Erwägung gezogen worden. Interesting for whom? As far as I know this was never seriously considered amongst module modellers.
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15We are not averse to the H0 USA standard. It is a perfectly good standard for modeling USA prototype. However, it is most decidedly not a suitable standard for modeling UK prototype, and besides, 00Fremo is not a copy of the H0-USA standard with a few minor changes, it is very loosely based on it, and certainly not an improvement of it. What we are trying to avoid is ending up with a standard that is not really suitable for the purpose of modeling 00-UK, and that lacks many of the relevant good qualities of other Fremo standards, such as H0-Europa. Wir lehnen die H0-USA Norm nicht ab. Es ist eine sehr gute Norm um Amerika darzustellen. Fuer das darstellen von der UK ist sie aber besonders ungeeignet. Dazu kommt das die 00Fremo Norm nicht eine Kopie der H0-USA Norm ist mit einige wenige anpassungen, sondern nur teilweise darauf basiert, und in der Rest nicht wirklich eine Verbesserung dessen. Was wir zu vermeiden versuchen, ist das wir im Endeffekt eine Norm haben die fuer das modelieren von 00-UK nich wirklich geeignet ist, und viele relevante gute Eigenschaften von andere Fremo Normen, wie H0-Europa, leider nicht teilt.
Bitte werde konkret. Wir können über jedes Detail reden. Für Julia schien es hauptsächlich die 52 mm zu sein. Please become more concrete. We can talk about every detail. For Julia it mainly was the 52 mm.
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15As I said before, we should certainly look at a good way to retain proper compatibility with the existing 00Fremo modules, but for the future, it is perhaps better to look at the H0-Europa standard as a guide. Wie ich schon gesagt haben, wir sollten sicherlich ueberlegen wie wir Kompatibilitaet mit existierende 00Fremo Module gewaerleisten koennen, aber fuer die Zukunft ist is moeglich besser sich nach die H0-Europa Norm zu richten.
WARUM? Why?
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15I don't think she ever demanded you do so, so this seems a red herring. Ich glaube nicht das Sie das jemals von euch gefordert hat. Somit scheint mir dies eine Finte.
Sie schrieb von Versionierung, im selben Satz klang es aber in meinen (untrainierten, wenn Englisch lesenden) Augen aber so, dass die Änderungen so schnell wie möglich passieren sollten. Das ist jetzt aber nicht mehr wichtig. She suggested versioning and in the same sentence made it sound to my (not reliable, when dealing with English) eyes that changes should happen as soon as possible. But that is no longer of evidence.
Zitat von wfk im Beitrag #15I do realise that we have just jumped in here and the first thing we do is suggest changing the standard. That seems impolite, yes. I do understand the sensitivities around this, as you have spent significant effort over the past years to develop this 00Fremo standard. I do hope, though, that our input is considered as constructive criticism. Ich bin mir bewusst das wir hier einfach so reinstolpern und gleich von aenderung der Norm sprechen. Das kommt euch vielleicht unhoeflich vor. Ich kann gut verstehen das es hier in dieser Sache Sensibilitaeten gibt, denn ihr habt ja ueber den letzten Jahren viel Energie in diese 00Fremo Norm gesteckt. Ich hoffe das unsere Beitraege als konstruktiever Kritik betrachtet werden.
Willem, du hast völlig Recht mit deinen kritischen Anmerkungen, ich habe bloß ebenfalls welche. Willem, you are totally right with your critics, but I have some too.
Let's stay friends, okay?
Viele Grüße Kind regards Felix
PS: There is a button called "Bei Antworten informieren" below this topic. It will make you getting an e-mail each time a new posting has been made in this thread.
Felix, warum hälst Du so knallhart an unserer falschen Norm fest und verlangst nun, dass sich die, die mit dem richtigen Maß operieren, dass sie Adapter bauen sollen, um an unsere falsch bemaßten Module anschließen zu können, wenn sie es wollen? WIR haben den Mist gebaut und in UNSERER Norm einen halben Meter Vorbildmaß neben das Ziel geschossen. Da wird einerseits intern in 5 Millimeter großen Schritten über den Abstand der Streckenbegrenzung zur Gleismitte diskutiert. Aber gleichzeitig hier gegen die einmalige Chance, alle britischen Aktivitäten im FREMO in 4mm unter eine gemeinsame und vorbildgerechte Norm zu fassen, wegen 6 Millimetern Fehler auf unserer Seite an einer deutlich entscheidenderen Stelle mit Händen und Füßen opponiert. Und das mit haarsträubender Argumentation und schröderscher "Basta-Mentalität". Wir können die Fetzen auch untereinander gerne in Skype fliegen lassen. Aber die Gesamtsituation ist unbefriedigend und ich habe eine ziemlich klare Vorstellung, welche Seite sich hier im Sinne des "großen Ganzen" auffallend weiter bewegen sollte... Sonst sehe ich wirklich hier das Problem, dass es zu zwei parallelen Welten kommt. Und um mal Deinen Tonfall einzuschlagen: aus Köln ist Kent schneller erreicht als der Spreewald, über Amsterdam nicht zu reden...
Felix, why do you stick to our wrong standard and even demand that those who work with the correct spacing have to build adaptors for connecting to our wrong modules if they desire? WE made the mess and in OUR standard the target distance for track spacing was missed by half a prototype metre. On the one hand there is an ongoing discussion about lineside fencing in 5 mm steps. On the other hand here a never seen opposition against the unique chance to cover all British activities in FREMO 4 mm scale under one standard can be seen - for 6 mm deviation from the prototype in our standard. And this is done with far-fetched reasons and former Chancellor Schroeder like "Full Stop Policy". As we are acutally the only German members participating intensely in this argument we can also change for our 00Fremo internal discussion to Skype. However, the overall situation is displeasing and I have a rather precise idea which side should move the larger distance for the whole idea... Otherwise I see really a problem of parallel model worlds. And for moving to your actual discussion style: from Cologne Canterbury is easier to reach than Berlin, not even thinking about Amsterdam...
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Darganfyddwch Sir Frycheiniog ag Reilfford Dyffryn Wysg Discover Brecknockshire on the Usk Valley Line
Hi, nice to hear from fellow modellers across the channel!
First of all I want to apologize for two things: 1. I'm not using quotes in this post and 2. I only write in English. Maybe I can correct this tomorrow, but as it is I'm already in bed and typing on my tablet is a pain in the lower back. Thanks by the way for the effort of making this thread bilingual!
For compatibility, a few adaptors can always be built.They don't even need to be very large. The difference in track spacing is only 6 mm, which makes 3 mm per line on a double line module. Julia is right however that we should decide rather sooner than later, what should be built on future - otherwise we end up with more adaptors than real modules...
I think in the case of Orwell, we can still reduce the track spacing to 46 mm. On the station segments the tracks are not laid yet and I'll think of something for the siding module - as long as there's no ballast, one track could still be lifted and set closer or we'll leave the crossover turnout where it is and pull the track over at the ends. I'll have to check on Heiko's opinion about that. For Rendsburg two of the mentioned adaptors would still fit into the layout without any problem.
Whatever the new standard profile will look like, it does not need more than three holes (per track). I see this as a versioning question and if we really need to put a v1 module and a v2 module together, the necessary holes can be made on site in either profile - I'd prefer the v1 side then, as it will become the minority sooner or later.
However, I do agree with Felix, that a) the scale difference is more than just noticeable and b) the fictional tunnel concept will probably not be welcomed by the majority of the others in the layout. In my experience most FREMO members are rather open minded - but there are always several that count the rivets on your wagons and usually they are louder than the others...
Starting a new group in FREMO always depends on reaching the critical mass for a working operation. In Rendsburg the critical parameter seems to be the lack of personnel and not modules. On an end to end layout with two large fiddle yards, the through trains are only limited in length if they need to pass other trains on a single line. Local trains must of course fit into the stations they serve, but the fun of shunting makes up for the shorter trains.
Best regards, Martin
Die Suffolk & Eastern unterscheidet sich in vielen Dingen von anderen Bahngesellschaften - nicht zuletzt in der Frage ihrer Existenz.
I would recommend that the spacing between the tracks on the module ends should be set to 46mm, but that the norm should be altered very quick, so that for future modules the track spacing is 46mm. I could only speak for Great-britN. In Great-britN we joined the Hanau meeting in 2010 and we have a british layout. We tried to be international by shipping freights to the continent, and these approach worked for us. For future Great-britN layouts at an international meeting the idea is to store ferry wagons in dedicated fiddle yards on the continental layout and british layout. On the continental side the ferry wagon should be to 1/160 in scale and on the british layout it should be to 1/148 scale. These wagon pairs should be of the same type. These wagon pairs will get only one car card. The cards for the ferry wagon are centrally based. When for example a ferry wagon is needed for a freight transfer from the continent to the british isles, the station which needs the ferry wagon, put a reguest to the continental fiddle yard, where the ferry wagons are stored. The fiddle yard operator gets the matching car card for the ferry wagon and sends the wagon and card to the requesting station. Here the ferry wagon will be loaded. After the wagon received its load, the ferry van returns to the fiddle yard. Here the car card and the freight card are transfered to the british fiddle yard. At the british fiddle the operator send then the matching ferry wagon with car card and freight card to the receiving station. After unloading there, the ferry wagon will be send back to the fiddle, and after it terminated there the car card will be put back to the central method.
Bezüglich Maßstab siehe diese Bilder von meiner Class 31 mit Thompsons auf unserer alten Clubanlage zwischen deutschen Zügen. Schlechte Kamera bei schlechter Beleuchtung, aber man erkennt genug.
Die Stromlinien-Dampflok ist ein schlechter Vergleich. Aber auf dem Bild mit der BR 55, dem Rivella-Kühlwagen und der 110 sieht man aber, dass es ganz gut passt. Lediglich das gelbe Panel macht die 31 etwas zu massiv gegenüber der 110. Aber verglichen mit der Dampflok und dem Kühlwagen passt es ganz gut denke ich.
Regarding the scale difference please see these pictures of my Class 31 with Thompsons running between German trains on our old club layout. Poor camera with poor lights, but you can see enough.
The streamlined steam locomotive on the one picture probably is a bad comparism. However, on the picture with the DRG/DB Class 55 standard steam locomotive, the Swiss insulated van and the DB 110 electric shows that it fits quite well. Just the yellow panel makes the 31 dominating the 110 a little bit too much. But compared with the cab of the steam loco and the insulvan it fits quite well I think.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Darganfyddwch Sir Frycheiniog ag Reilfford Dyffryn Wysg Discover Brecknockshire on the Usk Valley Line
As far as I can tell, we now have common ideas of what is wrong with the 00Fremo norm and what should be corrected. Soweit ich die Lage überblicke, haben wir nun einige Punkte herausgearbeitet, die überarbeitungswürdig sind.
- Track separation
Should be amended to 46 mm. Der Gleisabstand sollte auf 46 mm heruntergesetzt werden.
- Module profiles
Careful review of 1V13 and 2V13 profiles should be done to check whether we can do better. Julia has given recommendations which profiles would be more prototypical. @Julia: Could you put the links to the two profiles you have given in the Fremo UK group on here? Thanks. Wir sollten schauen, ob die Profile 1V13 und 2V13 nicht durch bessere ersetzt werden können. Julia hat schon Empfehlungen gemacht, welche Profile mehr vorbildgerecht wären.
- Module system / mounting holes
H0 USA use two holes 300 mm apart. H0 Europa instead uses three holes of which one is in the middle. Our norm currently has the two holes of H0 USA and the middle hole of H0 Europa plus two holes in between. This provides a basic compatibility to both systems. Can we do better and add or leave away further mounting holes to improve flexibility in layout arrangement planning? H0 USA benutzt zwei 300 mm entfernte Löcher, H0 Europa dagegen drei Löcher, von denen eins in der Mitte liegt. Unsere Norm hat beide US-Löcher und das Mittelloch von H0 USA plus weitere zwei. Somit sind wir in einem gewissen Umfang kompatibel zu beiden Systemen. Gibt es noch eine bessere Lösung? Können wir weitere Löcher hinzufügen oder entfernen, um noch flexibler planen zu können?
I would very much like to retain downward compatibility to our norm in its present state as far as possible. Ich möchte Veränderungen an der Norm unbedingt abwärtskompatibel gestalten, soweit möglich.
Kind regards Viele Grüße Felix
As Mirko has misunderstood my intentions (maybe I have not been exactly clear) I repeat what I think is the most important now. Da Mirko mich falsch verstanden hatte, wiederhole ich nochmal, was mir jetzt am wichtigsten wäre.
Zitat von Maddin78 im Beitrag #20I think in the case of Orwell, we can still reduce the track spacing to 46 mm. On the station segments the tracks are not laid yet and I'll think of something for the siding module - as long as there's no ballast, one track could still be lifted and set closer or we'll leave the crossover turnout where it is and pull the track over at the ends. I'll have to check on Heiko's opinion about that. For Rendsburg two of the mentioned adaptors would still fit into the layout without any problem.
I had hoped about this! Das hatte ich gehofft!
Zitat von Maddin78 im Beitrag #20Whatever the new standard profile will look like, it does not need more than three holes (per track). I see this as a versioning question and if we really need to put a v1 module and a v2 module together, the necessary holes can be made on site in either profile - I'd prefer the v1 side then, as it will become the minority sooner or later.
Could we maybe found a "Task Force Module Profiles"? Mirko wrote to me something similar, that a double track profile would just need to have 4 holes for both tracks. If a single track module is directly joined to a double track module then there would still be 2 common holes. As long as there will be no embankment profile there is no need for the bottom row of holes of the H0 Europa norm. Könnten wir vielleicht eine "Task Force Modulprofil" einrichten? Mirko schrieb mir etwas ganz ähnliches, nämlich dass zweigleisige Profile nur 4 Löcher benötigten insgesamt. Wenn jetzt ein eingleisiges und ein zweigleisiges Modul direkt aneinander gebaut werden soll, dann bleiben immer noch 2 gemeinsame Löcher.
Zitat von Maddin78 im Beitrag #20Starting a new group in FREMO always depends on reaching the critical mass for a working operation. In Rendsburg the critical parameter seems to be the lack of personnel and not modules. On an end to end layout with two large fiddle yards, the through trains are only limited in length if they need to pass other trains on a single line. Local trains must of course fit into the stations they serve, but the fun of shunting makes up for the shorter trains.
I'd be glad if we could get support from the UK. Es wäre toll, wenn wir Unterstützung aus dem Vereinigten Königreich bekommen könnten.
Zitat von Class150 im Beitrag #22Bezüglich Maßstab siehe diese Bilder von meiner Class 31 mit Thompsons auf unserer alten Clubanlage zwischen deutschen Zügen. Schlechte Kamera bei schlechter Beleuchtung, aber man erkennt genug.
Die Stromlinien-Dampflok ist ein schlechter Vergleich. Aber auf dem Bild mit der BR 55, dem Rivella-Kühlwagen und der 110 sieht man aber, dass es ganz gut passt. Lediglich das gelbe Panel macht die 31 etwas zu massiv gegenüber der 110. Aber verglichen mit der Dampflok und dem Kühlwagen passt es ganz gut denke ich.
Regarding the scale difference please see these pictures of my Class 31 with Thompsons running between German trains on our old club layout. Poor camera with poor lights, but you can see enough.
The streamlined steam locomotive on the one picture probably is a bad comparism. However, on the picture with the DRG/DB Class 55 standard steam locomotive, the Swiss insulated van and the DB 110 electric shows that it fits quite well. Just the yellow panel makes the 31 dominating the 110 a little bit too much. But compared with the cab of the steam loco and the insulvan it fits quite well I think.
Locos aren't so much a problem I think. But when it comes to traditional goods wagons the mix doesn't look right. Loks vergleichen mag noch gehen. Aber wenn es um Güterwagen geht, dann passt da nix mehr.
what a discussion Nice to hear that the Fremo thought is always in Britain and I think there is no really need to use the Valley profiles with 52mm trackcenter in the german/continental european 00-scale community.
Zitat von FelixM im Beitrag #19 I want those 46 mm!
Thats nice and in my opinion not the wrong way.
Zitat von FelixM im Beitrag #19 But could we not maybe retain those 1V13 and 2V13 profiles however?
Why and for what? Who has build new modules with these two profiles? I go with "class150", there is no need to do so and the european H0 profiles are not bad and give you many choices to build modules in different styles. When others have started to build modules after a existing Fremo standard, we as a new group should go after them and not construct compromises that nobody needs.
About the rolling stock, we should not try to mix 00-scale and H0-scale. Between Europe and the UK is Water and this wonderfull option we should use. A 00 scale Engine or waggon between H0 rolling stock looks horrible
Zitat von FelixM im Beitrag #19 But could we not maybe retain those 1V13 and 2V13 profiles however?
Why and for what? Who has build new modules with these two profiles?
The majority of 00Fremo modules have used these profiles. But at the moment I am no longer so sure if we should keep them. I looked at the 2DK10 profile and found out that it has a double track variant too. Die Mehrheit der bereits existierenden 00Fremo-Module benutzen diese Profile. Aber im Moment bin ich mir nicht so sicher, ob wir sie beibehalten sollten. Ich habe mir das 2DK10-Profil angeschaut und festgestellt, dass es das auch zweigleisig gibt.
I think the existing 00FREMO modules which are sceniced or in a state of near completition could remain their 1V13 and 2V13 profiles. The only thing to incooperate them in a modular arrangement would be the use of some sort of adapter modules to get from the wrong trackspacing and the different form of landscape to the now recommended ones. At the last Hanau NR-E meeting there was a former HEB module which was incooperated in the layout, with an adapter module on each end.
Hallo,
ich denke das die bisherigen 00FREMO Module die landschaftlich gestaltet bzw. in einem fastfertigen Zustand sind beibehalten werden können und ihre Modulenden behalten können (1V13, 2V13). Das einzige was man in Zukunft bräuchte wären Adaptermodule, um von den abweichenden Gleisabstand und Landschaftsform zu den nun empfohlenen zu gelangen. Beim letzten N-RE Treffen in Hanau gab es ein ehemaliges HEB Modul, das an jedem Ende mit einem Adapter Modul versehen war um es in das Arrangement einbauen zu können.
The majority of 00Fremo modules have used these profiles. But at the moment I am no longer so sure if we should keep them. I looked at the 2DK10 profile and found out that it has a double track variant too. Die Mehrheit der bereits existierenden 00Fremo-Module benutzen diese Profile. Aber im Moment bin ich mir nicht so sicher, ob wir sie beibehalten sollten. Ich habe mir das 2DK10-Profil angeschaut und festgestellt, dass es das auch zweigleisig gibt.
Kind regards Viele Grüße Felix
The 2DK10-profile looks like a Nord-Module profile and not as a Fremo-profile. It is much too high, we didn't need 20cm high sides and so much holes.
Log in at the Fremo Homepage, go to Praxis -> Modulbau -> H0-Europa Endprofile and now you find useable profiles. I would suggest for Fremo 00-scale:
for single track
standard:
- F96 flat profile
optional:
- B96 hill profile - US Valley profile
for double track with 46mm trackcenter
standard:
- 2F96 (not drawn yet) flat profile
optional:
- 2B00 hill profile - 2D99 embankment profile - US Valley double track
Who uses special profiles, must build suitable jumper modules. The track in the UK are often provided with bridges where streets go over the tracks. So a simple 10 or 15 cm long module with a bridge could used as a little jumper to connect different profiles without a break in the landscape.
I am now giving the opinion of Torsten who has written an e-mail to me.
He too is in favor of 46 mm and thinks that it is feasible to convert his modules.
He has expressed three whishes how to successful review the 00Fremo norm.
First: He favores the 1V13 single track valley profile to be continued. Second: He also would like to rescue the flat profile XF13. And last but not least: He is averse to adopt asymmetrical profiles. When this came to being then joker would be needed. This is unnecessary.
What strucks Torsten about proposals like the 2DK10 is that it is very high, so it will result in higher and heavier transport units. Torsten has experience in over 15 years of module construction as he says and he really is an expert about lightweight constructions. He fears that UK module activities sooner or later will realise that their modules are too heavy.
Torsten is not in favour of mixing H0 and 00 stock too.
So far I have given the opinion of Torsten and did not comment on it.
I think he is right when it comes to lightweight construction. The valley profile does not really represent a cutting, but it can be helpful to create an intersting looking hilly countryside.
I have just snapped a photo:
It shows a module with 1V13 profile at each end. Note how low it is, there is a sheet of A4 paper for comparison. The sides are a bit too wavy for my taste, I think I will change that later.
So whether we settle on the 1V13 or not it should be provided in each case that any new profiles are not too high to make them unhandy to transport.
Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden
Offline
Nice to hear that the Fremo thought is always in Britain and I think there is no really need to use the Valley profiles with 52mm trackcenter in the german/continental european 00-scale community.
