Track over baseboard joints

[Cambridge Paul]

In refurbishing Eitomo I'm relaying some track and have a choice with the baseboard joint(s). I would be very grateful for your collective views (thinking of the exhibition issue) on the various options:-

1) CJF method. Lay sub-base, track and ballast straight across joint, drive in 4 screws/nails, 2 each side of joint beside rails to below rail top height and solder to rails. Cut through the lot at the joint. Do not use the joint as electrical isolation.

2) Removable "bridge". Lay sub-base and track to within a standard distance (say 40mm) of the baseboard joint on each side. Make lengths of sub-base and track 80mm long to drop in the hole across the gap. Connect electrically with flexible wiring and secure using sliding fish plates or dress makers' poppers.

3) Use the USA module standards system.

4) Any other ideas?

[MickT]

Paul,

As a subset of your (1), instead of screws, try using copper-clad pcb sleepers - 2 each side of the joint. Lay the track across the joint as you described, then solder to all 4 sleepers, don't forget to gap the sleepers (!) and then cut through the rails in the same way as you described for soldering to screw heads. This will give a much stronger board crossing joint.

Finally, I'm quite familiar with Eitomo, but can't remember how Howard made his own board crossings, but would offer in the "simplest is best" context that whichever method Howard used, the layout worked fine under exhibition conditions for well over 100 outings over a lot of years!

Regards

Mick

[JulienW]

It may be a bit belt & braces, but why not use a peice of copper clad the width of the sleepers and as long (i.e. square).  Screw this to the baseboard top and solder the rails to this (don't forget to gap the copper when done soldering).  Ballast as usual then cut the copperclad, rails (and ballast) along the line of the join.

The problem with method 2 is that instead of one join per track you end up with two at each baseboard edge, doubling the chances of any problems if things are slightly out of alignment.

Is it worth asking Howard how he did it?

[Cambridge Paul]

Just to say that Howard used method (1) on the viewing side and adjustable copperclad on the operator side. Now Eitomo is indoors rather than in garage, its shrunk a fraction, and some of the curved track went out of gauge at one end, due in part to both ends being firmly anchored and no unsoldered fish plates. From what you say

[pilotfriend]

I would say that the copperclad method is the best but it is worth leaving an expansion gap, say two inches either side.

[rhydddu009]

That's quite a gap John - you'd need quite a run up to clear a 2 inch gap - even with one of your Manning Wardles...  ;D

[pilotfriend]

Hmm..point taken! I meant that I have a 2" rail section at the end of the board with an expansion gap before the rest of the track!

[Crichworkshop2000]

Hello,
Regards the track over the baseboard joints, on Avyn a Llyin for quite a while now I've used the copper clad sleeper method but also used locating dowels to locate the baseboards as well, so in theory nothing should move, but then again theories aren't everything and I've found that in hot exhibition halls there may be a bit of tweeking of the track. This shouldn't normally be a problem but all the tracks on my fiddle yard are on curves and things tend to go out of alignment a bit in hot halls.

Andy

[Stefan Krebs]

May I suggest you follow the guidance and standards as set out by FREMO;
see https://www.fremo-net.eu/en/home/.
They are serious operators and have decades of experience with regards to reliable module joints. On youtube you can watch how well their solutions work.

A detail not discussed here: if you butt up the rail ends on the layout edge, whatever your accuracy (or lack thereof) will be the misalignment between the rails. If you recess the rail end by 2,5cm (1') on either side and use an insert rail of 5cm (2') you're misalignment at each end is only half the overall misalignment. Of course you can use expandable set track piece instead of the insert rails, if you find the idea of fiddling with 2 rails per joint daunting; with the added bonus that all the worry and concern about thermal expansion is resolved elegantly in the same stroke. ;D
Obviously, the recessed track is much less likely to get damaged in transport, i.e. does not require the 'bomb-proof' fixture rails up to the edge require. ;D

Both solutions are used by FREMO (at different scales).

[JulienW]

Whilst I'm sure that the Freemo standards work for the joining via a single track of a module / layout built by one person to that  built by someone else the original question posed was how to put track over a baseboard joint within a layout.

These often involve mulitple sets of tracks, and if one used the freemo system for all of these (as noted in my post of 2009) you end up doubling the track joints (from fixed rails to joining piece and then back to the fixed rails on board 2) and thereby increasing the potential of issues in running over joints.

My multi-board layouts have used brass dowels for alignment of the boards (pattern makers dowels are the best) with suitably gapped copper clad strip at the baseboard edges which is screwed down and the rail ends soldered in place. This has worked well even under repeated assembly & disssasembly of the layout taking it to exhibitions.

Incidentally  if you are interested there are Freemo standards for HOe and whilst I can't find a reference on the internet there is a chap (Paul Steadman) who is working on a set of Freemo style standards for 009.

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Julien,

Some Fremo standards cover double-track, not all are single track.

And if you attended one of their gatherings you will find that these standards are not just used on the module joints, but also on the segment joints, e.g. in shunting yards and stations with multiple tracks, and with off-square track crossing.

I do have the Fremo standards for H0e, and there are several. Though it's nice to hear that we can't work to international standards in the UK, but we have to have our own, - again. :laugh:

Just some food for thought... ??? ??? ???


Cheers
Stefan

[JulienW]

Thanks Stefan.

From what I remember of Freemo HOe standards (it's been a while since I looked at them) I don't think any of my layouts would qualify as the tracks are in the wrong place with respect to the baseboard edge, and had I used Freemo standard at my baseboard joints I would have had to make severe compromises to my track plan to get the rails in the correct places.

Equally I would rather only have one (rather than 2) track joint per set of rails crossing from one baseboard to another.  Given that I have forgotten important things line fiddleyard cassettes when exhibiting my layouts the idea of  needing umpteen short sections of track to link the 4 baseboards together that could also be forgotten is something I would not want to risk, especially as whilst I could operate reasonably well without the cassettes there could be no show without being able to run trains.

Using the brass dowels to align the basebords, laying the rails across the joints, soldering them down to copper clad board which has been screwed down to the baseboard then cutting the rails with a fine (razor) saw has not given me any issues with alignment on layouts that have been exhibited.

I'm not suggesting that the Freemo standards do not work, but that for me and my layouts (self contained exhibits that do not need to link up to another persons layout) having looked at the Freemo standards I felt that they would not work for me, especially as I already had a method (outlined above) that has worked.

Were I going to build a layout with the aim of it being joined to other layouts then I would probably use Freemo (or similar) standards as a this would allow my layout to link to others using the same standard.

[MickT]

We've done all this before - several times!

I remember on the last occasion that a crusade to make everyone comply with fremo (or freemo?) was raised on this forum, it nearly resulted in civil war breaking out, purely because the couple of people who were singing its praises were insistent that (sic): "the only way is the fremo way" and "everyone who fails to comply are non-believers and therefore need to be taken away for "cleansing" and similar. Why is it that the disciples of fremo seem to be so rigid in compying with their rules (which are probably fine for their purpose and for the benefit of those who want to make modules and then connect them with multiple numbers of other fremo users) but cannot seem to accept that most modellers in this little niche of the hobby are individuals who are happy to create their own little worlds individually - but with common sense standards regarding gauge, back to back dimensions, voltage etc etc to accept guest stock and run their own on others layouts if they so desire.

Chill, hug and enjoy - and please let's avoid heading off down the same blind canyons as has happened on this forum several years ago, on the same subject!

Mick

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Mick,

FIRST THINGS FIRST:
FREMO is the correct spelling as it is an acronym for Freundeskreis Europaeischer Modellbahnen), the 'free modules' is just an (intended) connotation; as is the similarity to the American standard that inspired its creation. ;D

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I think you've missed the point I've been trying to make, which is the same as you make; albeit with a twist! Which means I have to apologies for my poor English. ;D

Some background to set the scene:

I was involved with FREMO nearly 40 years ago as a student.
Some student mates building N-gauge were putting up modules in 'Proto-N', fantastic models and excellent engineering, a joy to watch. They pushed for that to become THE Fremo standard for N; there were hot debates at the time as up to then there were only H0 and 0 standards.
4 years ago one of these mates contacted me about coming with their Fremo Proto H0 to the UK to push their standard. His hidden agenda is that they are loosing the battle against the mainstream H0 Fremohicans, and they need more followers to push 'their' standard (the group comprises just a couple of Germans). When I pointed out to him, that we have already 2 competing factions of fine-scalers in 00 in the UK, and neither use the track gauge of 16,5mm, i.e. he would have the slight problem of track-gauge change at the joints :laugh:, he decided not to bother; one of the limitations individualism creates.
The reason I'm not involved with FREMO any more is that I don't wholly agree with their H0 standards (like you say, freedom to the individual! ;D), but mostly the fact I've lived an Eire, and now in the UK, where the FREMO scene is in a dire state.
The reason I STRONGLY recommend following FREMO standards is that they are tried and tested, i.e. they are known to work (there is plenty of youtube footage to proof that); after all, we were ENGINEERING students, when we developed them, and that included trials and testing.
Within a few years at least a dozen 'competing' standards appeared, from various interest groups that felt the FREMO standards are rubbish (individualism at large; let the best win). Fast forward 40 years and FREMO is THE dominating set of module standards across Europe, which I consider good evidence that it very well caters for the individualism in the motley crew model railway enthusiast are. ;D
Noting that 'across Europe' implies accommodating not just personal and cultural differences, but also the different technicalities of the national prototypes.  ;D

In response to your points:

I am a firm believer that laws, rule & regulations, and standards should be the absolute minimum necessary giving and PROTECTING the individual freedom, while allowing us individuals to coexist and cooperate without too much friction and confrontation.
That implies I am a strong advocate of a minimum of rules, be that in law or standards (this is where I disagree with some FREMO standards as they specify more than necessary; however, the H0e standards in FREMO meet this demand).
That also means I accept the undesirably fractious collection of standards FREMO houses, even though I don't condone them.

However, the point of standards is to overcome the restrictions, hurdles, and obstructions caused by individualism; this is why BS standards today are largely the same as international ISO standards, the same has happened with German DIN standards, and most national standards around the world. This why I don't do Proto H0, but NMRA (follow the leader) and NEM, and FREMO; even though I don't fully agree with all they do.
To put it another way: I'm content to forfeit parts of my individualism as I do recognise the vastly improved freedom compliance to these standards gives me. ;D

This is why I strongly recommend following the standards of the best.

And this is why to me indulging your individualism by creating your own standard is not just a waste of time and a logic contradiction of yourself, but just plain barmy.

If you cherish your individualism, be that as an individual or a group, that's fine, and nothing wrong with that; please yourself; and I might join, if you produce something I can value, indulging my individualism. ;D
But don't get over-enthusiastic: like you cherishing and wanting respect for your individualism accept everybody else wanting the same for theirs, - so be fair and reasonable, grant others what you demand for yourself.

FREMO is not a mandated standard, and I don't MANDATE you use it, I strongly recommend it, because FREMO and I respect your individualism (as one who not only has the engineering competence to access their fitness for purpose, but who also knows a bit about their history, i.e. that 'standards' do not restrict individualism necessarily, but can foster it)

FREMO is as successful as they are, because by and large they regulate the technical minimum to maximise the possible cooperation (across multiple nations and languages) supporting the greatest individualism possible!

To coin a slogan:
To enjoy your individualism, maximise your freedom: liberate your engines, use FREMO! ;D

Thinks
Waldschrat

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Julien,

All fine and solid arguments, and of course, you take your pick. Fremo H0 and H0e butt up to the edge of layouts, and it works, as you can watch on youtube. Fremo 0e uses bridging rail as it facilitates less accurate module bases (it's one of the oldest Fremo standards).
To get butted rails to work you need to achieve a certain level of accuracy, and that's where following their guidance is helpful. That's independent of whether you build modules or segments, i.e. whether you build a fully compatible module joint, or whether you just need to get across a joint in your baseboard.
If more than one track crosses the joint, the accuracy requirement goes up exponentially, and if the tracks are not side by side, i.e. at different altitudes, it goes up exponentially again.
Of course, the carpenter's dowels are an excellent way of achieving accuracy of assembly, so I strongly agree: a butted joint will most likely work fine.
As I've been to some of their gatherings I saw what you don't see on youtube: rails butting up to the edge tend to get damaged. So, if this is your preferred option, I strongly suggest to follow Fremo practise and fit a protector plate over the end whenever your layout is split.
Another recommendation is to make sure the last 5 to 10cm before the edge are easy replaceable, if they get damaged. I've seen rails being ripped off to about 1m from the edge, because the end caught somewhere. If there had been a joint 5cm in, the damage would obviously have been far less.

Likewise for electrics: Fremo provides a choice of tried and tested solutions, and as these vary for different scales you can take your pick which one you use, you don't have to chose the one for 'your' scale. But you can chose with the confidence that they'll work. If you want to know which works best you need to talk to some Fremohicans.

And than there are things like Wattenscheidt shafts; again, even if you don't follow the standard lavishly, e.g. size or wiring, it is a tried and tested solution for your fragile light, signals, or maybe even barriers.

To improve the accuracy of my statement: I strongly recommend following Fremo standards and practises, but that is not saying you need to follow the standards in every aspect; just nick the bits that solve your problem.

Why re-invent the wheel, if you can nick one?

Thinks
Waldschrat