STATUS: Rough Draft
This page is still missing information and is
subject to be changed or updated at any time
S2.1 End plates
S2.1.1 All end plates shall be 3/4″ plywood or equivalent (birch plywood works well) to provide sufficient strength for clamping to adjacent modules. Dimensional Pine Lumber is not acceptable for frame work. It has a tendency to warp and “cup” with age, throwing off track alignment.
S2.1.2 Two Alignment pins are required on every free-mo 2 end plate. The pins are to be made out of 1″o.d. steel tube or 1″o.d. aluminum tube.
S2.1.2.1 Alignment pins shall be (right to left when facing end plate) in holes 1 and 3.
< Alignment Pin Drawing >
S2.1.2.2 Alignment pins shall be 2″ on center below the top of rail on center regardless of rail code or Gauge.
S2.1.3 Single-track end plates shall be 24 inches wide by 4 inches tall.
Single track end plate showing alignment pin and bolt holes. Large holes are for alignment pins and are 1" diameter; small holes are for 3/8" bolts.
S2.1.4 Double-track end plates shall be 26 inches wide by 4 inches tall.
Double track end plate showing alignment pin and bolt holes. Large holes are for alignment pins and are 1" diameter; small holes are for 3/8" bolts.
S2.2 Rail Height
S2.2.1 The minimum height of rail-head, at the end plate, is 40 inches from the floor.
S2.2.2 The nominal height of the the rail-head, at the end plate, is 50 inches from the floor.
S2.2.3 The maximum height of rail-head , at the end plate, is 62 inches from the floor.
S2.2.4 Roadbed shall be 1/4 inch cork or equivalent on 1/8 inch Masonite or equivalent.
S2.2.4.1 Foam tops are not acceptable under track.
S2.2.5 On modules with grades, the elevation of the high end shall be some multiple of 3/4 inch above low end.
S2.3 Legs
S2.3.1 The module (set) shall stand on its own.
S2.3.2 The bottoms of the legs shall have rubber tip or equivalent floor protection (Casters Recommended).
S2.3.3 Legs shall have continuous adjustment of plus or minus 1 inch (screw type adjustment).
RP2.3.3 We recommend legs adjustable at least plus or minus 6 to 12 inches or more in 3/4″ increments, with a minimum height of 40 inches, and a maximum of 62.
S2.4 Viewing
S2.4.1 Modules must be able to be viewed and operated from one or more sides.
S2.4 Bench-work
S2.4.1 There are no special bench-work construction requirements for Mainline Modules in excess of the standards specified above (S2.1 through S2.11).
David,
Why two different pin arrangements on the endplates for the single and double track modules ?
Would suggest you use spacing that allows turning 24 or 26 in wide modules end for end to allow the single track module to align with one of the double tracks on the double track modules.
Mike
Mike,
Thank you for the input. When I had considered that, I came to the conclusion that the ability to flip a double track module end for end would be lost. This would be an issue as curve modules would then be only usable for a right or left curve, and no longer reversible when needed. I considered the reversibility to be more important than not having a transition module.
Any Additional thoughts? I am open to discussing this in further Detail.
David
Yes – but Free-mo modules whether single or double track are capable of turning end for end and aligninn with at least one of the two double tracks. You’ll lose this flexibility with different pin arrangements
Mike
Yes, they are, however, as soon as you introduce alignment pins, there is no way that I know of to have both double track and single track modules reversible and to align with each other. Unfortunately in order to have the reliability of the alignment pins you loose some of the flexibility of setup.
Just like the S&SS standards you have several advantages, but the modules are not reversible end to end, with any system, there are going to be trade offs. I personally feel that the reliability and the ease of setup far out way the small trade offs that they may require.
This is just what I have found, if you have additional thoughts or information, please let me know.
David
Mike, I had the same thought before I saw your comment. Then I went to http://free-mo.org/standard#2 and saw that free-mo has the same 24/26 standard.
David, what has been your experience and/or observation in person, or on-line, regarding use of transition modules in free-mo set-ups? On average, how long is a transition module? Are they generally comprised of a 2 to 1 track arrangement?
Thanks for your thoughts on freemo2
Tim Hall
Tim,
From my experience, a “Transition module can be everything from a short module, just long enough to hold the switch, curve, and required 6″ straight on each end. A more typical 4′ to keep it the same length as other modules. up to a module set 8 to 16′ or more that includes and industry, or town ect.
All that a “Transition” Module requires is the single to double track transition, the rest is up to the builder.
David
Give the interchangeable curve thing another thought. Inside and outside curves have totally different track arrangements. They just are not interchangeable.
Robert,
Keep in mind, that the tracks are in the center of the module, 12″ inches from each side, there is no Inside or outside curve module, as such, a module can be flipped to give either a right or a left hand turn.
David
David:
Are you going to notch the template to allow flush end modules. Unless you peg the rail height to the pins like our SS&S modules you will end up with rail height issues once you mate the modules together. Also if you that you can notch one side of the template for the single track and then turn it over and use the other edge for the double track template.
Robert
Robert,
If I follow your question right you are referring to the top of rail head, I plan to include that in the standards, however, as you have pointed out, I have not yet done that. I plan to have it so that the alignment jig is based from the top of rail head, the same way that S&SS standards are based, though, also not the fact that Code 83 is the only permissible size on the mainline (a carry over from Free-Mo Standards), so that may not be as much of an issue.
Does that answer your question?
David
I don’t usually reply to posts but I will in this case, great info…I will bookmark your site. Keep up the good work!
My 2 cents: It seems the pins might be more trouble/less flexible than it’s worth? Why is the ‘eyeball’ method so bad? The pins create an additional datum. First, the pins must align (I foresee problems as some good modelers are poor carpenters); now, with the pins locating everything, the track(s) are unable to move. With eyeballing it, we can select the first datum (main through track), then if any other tracks don’t align, compromises can be made to suit a specific joint (we usually halve the error for each track). IMHO I just don’t see a big enough benefit using pins; shouldn’t the standard be as simple as possible, with flexibility in mind? ‘Ski Jumps’, where modules mate, are a far bigger problem from what I’ve seen…but then again, I’m a relative newcomer (1 setup) to Free-Mo (but scale model railroading for 30 years).
Yes, some see the pins as a pain. The pins are a huge advantage, every module must match a jig before a setup any modules that don’t meet the alignment standard will not be permitted to setup. The pins must be perfectly aligned to the track, yes it is a pain during construction but it cuts setup time to near an 8th of the normal time for free-mo. Yes, I know not everyone wants to build to this strict standard.