Forgot the reply-to in this list is set to "originator" rather than "list"...
--- In [email protected], "mhrreast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Chris Abbott" <bobcatt@> wrote: > > > > I was surprised to see not one single reply to, or further > > inquiry of, Andy Malette's posting about the S scale modular > > layout displayed at Copetown, Ontario earlier this year. > > > Do you refer to message 36784? What kind of responses were hoping > to see? I see nothing there to indicate that the modules are not > Smod. Yes. I had merely thought that the presence of a newly built S scale layout at a public event would generate _some_ sort of commentary or questions. It's certainly not the norm to see an S scale portable layout (of any type) around here. And no, there was no mention in Andy's note about what style the modules were. > > Our layout was deliberately not built to NASG S-MOD standards. > > I know that the rail height off the floor is different. As far as > electrical connectivity and track connectivity (bridge rails), I know > of no inherent conflict between the 2 systems. To the best of my > knowlege, a single track module built to Smod single track standards > is within the scope of FreeMoS standards (aside from height from > floor). My intent is to be compatible with both systems simply by > changing leg height. Am I missing something? The Pittsburgh > NASG/NMRA convention had quite a few single track Smod modules in > several shapes and sizes. No, you aren't missing anything. The basic mechanical interface for single track applications appears to be compatible. Electrically it would only require a patch cable to join the track busses. > > Rather, the best elements of Free-Mo were adopted "as written" and > > Could you tell us what you see these "best elements" to be? The overall impression given by the S-Mod spec is for the construction of rectilinear layouts using units of rigidly defined length increments with continuous running in mind. There is also a definite impression of "front and back", separating operators from viewers and an asymmetrical placement of the track(s) relative to the module edges. Conversely, Free-Mo aims to construct non-rectilinear layouts, viewable from both sides, with an eye towards point-to-point or point-to-loop operation. In terms on 'best elements' my list would have to include the primarily single track, operations oriented, free-form setup offered by Free-Mo. > > some specific additions or changes were made by our local group > > to make it easier and faster for our setup. Our theme is 1955-56 > > branchline operations in Southern Ontario. > > > > ....is it safe to say there is no interest in the Free- > > Mo approach in the S camp at large? > > Could you elaborate on what you think is distinct about Free-MoS? > I suspect that there may be confusion regarding definitions of both > Smod and FreeMoS. The basic difference I perceive is that if I wanted to construct a 5'-3 1/8" trapezoidal module with an overall curvature of 28 3/4º, S- MOD does not appear to permit this type of free-form design. According to all of the S-MOD documentation I can find online, the accepted construction units are rectangular in plan and of certain multiples of 2' lengths. These are employed along with 90º curve (corner) units using fixed radii choices to construct a schematically circular arrangement with an emphasis on allowing many trains to operate serially, preferably on multiple tracks simultaneously. ChrisA Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
