Much of this was hashed out in a long thread on this list back in 2004 (I'd look for the start of the thread, but Yahoo's anemic search function would take too long for me at the moment). There was a more recent discussion on the 1/64 Modeler's Guide list in March, and shortly after the 2004 discussion Chris Palomarez published an article on combining the two standards in the Modeler's Guide.
The greatest difference appears to be in usage, as many S-Mod layouts seem to be displyed more at the Mom-Pop-and-the-kids shows where running in circles is the norm. I suspect that among much of the general public, any stopping of the train (even if for switching) is seen as a sign of a "problem", and they quickly move on to a dsiplay that is "working". I am quite sure that there are also many individuals who would be interested in watching realistic operation, even at a public show, so it is hard to generalize. Such opperation is more difficult at the geeral public shows, with the distractions and people possibly in the way. Either standard of module could be set up at more serious shows (NASG, NMRA, Prototype Modeler meets or even private sessions) and run as an operational model railroad. Personally, I'd like to see more of that done, as well as more modules built to "scale" without the large rail and closed-frog turnouts required to accomidate highrail equipment (the exisiting modular ovals do a fine job of that now, and I don't advocate doing away with them). Pieter Roos --- In [email protected], "G. Elems" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've read both and there are differences. The single track Free- moS > specifications I printed out are from the "Southern Ontario S Scale > Workshop" which has the track centered on the module. The S-Mods, which I'm > not against by the way, have the single track set towards one side. The > Free-moS suggest using code 83 rail for mainline use. S-Mods allows any > thing up to code 148 rail. Length is suggested at 2' - 8' on S- Mods in 2' > increments. S-Mods has the width set at 1' -3'. Free-moS has no length and > two widths, 1'-11 3/4" or 2'-5 3/4". Wiring is DCC for Free-moS. I did not > see where the S-Mods required rectangular modules but Free-moS allows any > shape as long as the interface plates have the track at 90 degrees. As I > see it, to mate the two systems you would need a hybrid module. Nothing > wrong with that either. From my perspective, the Free-moS fits my home > layout plans better. If I do plan on hauling a module across country to a > meet with an S-Mod set up it would be easier to make one for that. Chances > of any modular group in my area are slim, IMO. I have built the rectangle > modules in O. I've helped build HO versions and ran on both. I've also had > exposure to the modular layout from the BASS group. Nothing wrong with any > of them. Having only seen the HO Free-mo, and not run on one, it still is > more to my liking. > > Cheers, > Greg Elems > > --- In [email protected], Richard Karnes <karnesrn@> wrote: > > > > All -- > > > > One of our e-list members characterized S-MOD as being AF/hirail > > related, which is part of the appeal (to him) of Free-Mo (getting away > > from AF/hirail). FYI, S-MOD standards are for scale trackage only, > > conforming to the NASG scale track and wheel standards gauge. > > > > My suggestion for the S-MOD nay-sayers: Get a copy of the S-MOD > > standards (free on the NASG website -- www.nasg.org) and READ THEM. -- > > And tell us where/how we can get a copy of the Free-Mo standards so we > > can READ THEM. > > > > Then we could limit arguments to people who will have READ BOTH. Geez, > > guys, please stop guessing and assuming!! > > > > Dick Karnes > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > 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/
