im Anhang jeweils ein pdf-file der aktuellen und gültigen Fremo-00 Norm in deutsch und englisch. Mit dieser Version dürften erstmal keine Probleme auftauchen, egal ob Module vorhanden oder im Bau oder in Planung sind. Es soll jetzt allerdings keine neue Diskussionsrunde aufkommen, Anregungen werden natürlich immer gern angenommen.
pdf-file siehe Beitrag #3 weiter unten
Hello,
here you'll find the latest and actual version of the Fremo-00 Standard in german and english. With this version you shouldn't have problems, equal if you have modules ready, if you actual build new modules or plan something to build. Please don't start a new discussion about the standard. Suggestions are welcome.
heute beim Stammtisch wurde nochmal angesprochen, dass es vielleicht icht so klug ist, die Wattis in Modulmitte zu platzieren. Das verbaut einem die Möglich, darunter durchzutauchen. Today at the regular table it was said that it may be a bad idea to place Wattenscheider signal slots at the centre of modules because they prevent ducking under.
- The line side fencing distance of 50mm is not going to work. If you take any of the H0 profiles, and measure 50mm from the track centre, you end up with the fence being in the middle of the cess. Which won't work well. May I suggest that line side fences should be at 70mm at the module end profile, but for the rest of the profile it can be as close or far as the modeller prefers. I believe there is no standard for line side fencing within the UK.
- Rather than refering to the "British Railway Modelling Standard Bureau", an unofficial band of crack pots and nutters, might I suggest we take an actual standard that the manufacturers are building to, and use that i.e. NEM. Specifically NEM 102 and NEM 103. Modules already built to the BRMSB doodle will still function just fine, and I am willing to put a pint on it that any Hornby or Bachmann product made in the last 10 years, will fit within the NEM loading gauge. Note, NEM defines based on the track gauge, not the scale, so for the 00 standard, we use all references to 16.5mm within the NEM standards.
Note btw that in the world of standards, it is common practice to *refer* to the relevant other standards, *not* copy a few drawings and/or sentences from them. Thus, I would suggest that where we speak of Lichtraum/loading gauge, we simply refer to NEM 102/103, G=16.5mm track width (nominally H0), and leave it to the reader to actually go read those documents for all the details. The documents are freely available on the Internet.
you are quite right, there is no fixed distance from the boundry fence to the line. The fence, stone wall, hedge etc. were set at the limit of the land owned by the railway in question. Where there were embankments or cuttings the railways bought more land and the fence would be further away from the line.
although the BRMSB isn't an official institution it is much more appropriate to British railways than the more generic NEM. I find the sketch quite useful and wouldn't miss it. But you were right, the NEM are valid. The reference to the BRMSB was not intended to supercede the NEM I think, but moreover to give a clear guideline to the modellers. Note that we aren't writing a norm for a module producing industry. I cannot imagine a better place for the sketch than the 00 gauge norm. So I think it is best to include the missing link to NEM 102 and 103 as you say but retain the BRMSB sketch. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
The 50 mm should be amended as you say. They were originally setted with an E profile in mind.
although the BRMSB isn't an official institution it is much more appropriate to British railways than the more generic NEM. I find the sketch quite useful and wouldn't miss it. But you were right, the NEM are valid. The reference to the BRMSB was not intended to supercede the NEM I think, but moreover to give a clear guideline to the modellers. Note that we aren't writing a norm for a module producing industry. I cannot imagine a better place for the sketch than the 00 gauge norm. So I think it is best to include the missing link to NEM 102 and 103 as you say but retain the BRMSB sketch. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
The problem with refering to BRMSB is that they are not an institution of any shape or form. The "standard" they produced dates from the 1948's, it really has no place in the modern age. There is nothing that the BRMSB sketch adds that NEM does not improve.
Felix, you're right with the BRMSB sketch! About the 50mm, this is a compromis of the many meanings and suggestions we had in older discussions, we should not change and discuss it again. My 2ct's about NEM 102/103; there are to big for 00-scale! I made a NEM 102 sample out of cardstock and shove it over some engines and cars. There ist too much "air" in and between.
Sie sind vermutlich noch nicht im Forum angemeldet - Klicken Sie hier um sich kostenlos anzumelden
Offline
