I am designing a layout - probably almost exclusively for home use. I am thinking of modules mostly because I do not have a permanent hobby room, so I may need to take it down now and again. I also like that the flexibility - I can build the end modules first, learning about track work, wiring, etc., as I go. I don’t need to design tug whole layout in advance - after I have built the end modules, I can build other modules between them. I would be sort of surprised if I ever took a module to a show/meet and connected them with anyone else’s modules - but I suppose that’s vaguely possible. I want to follow a standard - mostly just because I think that a module standard might have already solved some technical problems I haven’t yet thought of. I have looked at two module standards: Free-mo and NMRA. The main differences seem to be that Free-mo has the track(s) in the center of the module (at the edge), and the NMRA have the tracks several inches from the front of the module. With a double track main system, the NMRA module can be 24” wide, but but the Free-mo module has to be 26” wide - which is a little bit inconvenient, but maybe not all that big of a deal. Are there other technical differences that will likely be important to me? Right now, it looks like 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Am I missing something? Is one vastly more popular than the other? Is one sinking or rising in popularity relative to the other in the US? Thanks.
To me, the biggest difference with the two standards is the NMRA is designed to "one-sided" while Free-mo is designed to be "two-sided." If you are going to day an "around-the-room" layout where the modules are for the most part up against walls I would think the NMRA stadnards would tend make more since. With NMRA, you're allowed to have a skyboard along the backside of the module, but not with Free-mo. Of course, you could still have a backdrop at home and not have it attached to the module, but in constructing and scenicing the module, you'd want to keep in mind the two-sidedness of it if you did want to allow for the possibility of taking it somewhere. Something to consider with the track spacing - it's my understanding that with modules you are often allowed to have some difference within your own modules as long as the ends are to specs. For example, if you have 12 feet of space you are wanting to fill you could have three four foot (or even two six foot) modules, with the tracks further back or closer to the front on the modules joints, as long as the end joints are to specifications.
Free-Mo is 24", just like NMRA. I think the 26" measurement is for double track mainlines. Most modules I have seen at shows are single-track though. If you want to add a passing siding, you can add it to the side, but just know, it may not interface with other modules. You can have a multi-module scene with non-standard joints but they will always have to stay together at shows to keep the 'public' ends compliant with other modules. I would second Free-Mo as the better choice. I have both NMRA and Free-Mo modules, and I enjoy Free-Mo more. If you are designing the modules to fit a space in your home, you may have a bit more freedom since module length and shape are not defined in the standard. NMRA is limited to 2 or 4 foot intervals, so working around obstacles and wall lengths can be a bit more difficult. The track joints and electrical connections on Free-Mo are a lot better, so it lends itself to a more professional layout. With NMRA, the focus seems to be on a two track oval mainline, while Free-Mo has more natural trackwork. Your point-to-point layout design with the Sprinter would work a lot better on Free-Mo modules. If you plan on taking your layout to a show, I think you will find more Free-Mo modelers. NMRA is not as popular, and Free-Mo is quickly gaining traction.
Some concerns about module standards, they use very broad curves, which if you are space constrained can be a problem. An alternative strategy is to build only selected modules or scenes to a national standard and the rest of the layout as sections/modules that do not have the modular constraints on radius, track centers, width, etc. By doing that you will have some portion of your layout that it is possible to include in a modular set up, but not your entire layout. You can make the whole thing sectional, so it can be taken down if need be. The non-national standard sections can be whatever you need to accommodate your space. Another thing to consider is that the module end standards ONLY have to be at the ends of the module that will mate with the rest of the set up. If I build a module that is 18 ft long made up with three sections 6 ft long, then I only have to make the outer ends conform to the module standards. The inner joints can be anything I want. The caveat is that all the main line trackage on my modules still have to conform to the track, curvature, grade, switch and electrical standards of the modular system. The difference between a "sectional" and a "modular" layout is that the modular one has a standard mating arrangement of the track and benchwork at the ends, while a sectional layout does not.
I thought the "traditional" NMRA standard had been "retired" or certainly not actively promoted even by the NMRA? Free-mo standards very by location, the different spellings highlight the different standards. There is European Fremo, not the one m and there is UK Freemo, then obviously there is a US Free-Mo. Being in the UK I cannot comment on the US spec Free-Mo specifics but I believe the general parameters are shared across them, dual sided viewing, central track joints to other boards etc. Freemo as a whole lets you be very creative and flexible, the traditional NMRA was very REstrictive in my opinion. It will very much be based on your own situation and only you will be able to decide on what is best or will be best for longer, noting your potentially changing circumstances.
Thanks for all the comments - this really has me thinking. My original plan was to a double track, where two main tracks converged into a single track (through a turnout) into a single line at the end of the line. A train - a symmetrical LRV - would pull into the last station on one track, and reverse out of the station, go through turnout in the other direction onto the other track. I want to build 2' x 4' modules, the LRV I am considering using is 18" long. That means that I would like the station to be 24" in length. I am beginning to think that fitting a #8 or #10 turnout, a 24" station, a curve to bring the diverging track back to parallel, and a straight section on the diverging track to avoid and S curve is going to be pretty cramped. I am now thinking that a single track main, with the station on a siding - through a #10 turnout will fit much better (because I avoid the curve to bring the diverging track back to parallel, and the straight section to avoid an S curve - since there is no second curve). I am trying to learn enough LibreCAD to draw this out and verify what I am thinking.
Thanks for all the comments - it looks as though Sipping and Switching Society of North Carolina is by far the most popular module standard around here - I live in Raleigh, NC. So I am going to build to their standards. I found a guy in Raleigh who builds the bare wood modules - with folding legs and all very cheaply, and ordered two 30" x 48" modules from him.
I will try take photos. The track plan for the first two modules will be so simple that I can describe it with words. S&SSNC standard is a track at 8” (from the front of the module), 10”, and 21” - and 30” wide modules (at the ends). On that modules I am building, the 8” track will be straight through - mostly there so I can connect with other modules. The same is true for the track at 21”. The 10” track on each module will have a #10 turnout, the diverging track will be a 25” straight station siding. I am modeling a commuter/LRV that I wish we had in my hometown. One of the end modules will be a “Park ‘n Ride” parking deck in a suburban environment. The other end if the live will be at an airport terminal. The fundamental idea is to build these two modules, get them dead reliable, landscape them, and then add other modules/stations as inclination strikes me - and space permits. There will not be many operational possibilities in the initial setup - I think that most of the intent is on my learning track laying, modeling, wiring skills and the like. I will be using Tortoise switch machines with an electronic “spring switch” control - and I have an electronic “shuttle” module that will run the trains back and forth when I don’t feel like doing so manually. So the first setup is largely focused on skill acquisition. To some extent, that is making a virtue of necessity. I don’t have much Soave to dedicate to this - initially - and it turns out that it’s hard to do much in HO in a 4’ module. At least I can’t do much if I stick to module standards - #8 switch minimum on the mainline #10 or larger preferred, 6’ minimum radius, 8’ or larger preferred. A simple crossover with two #10 switches will basically consume a 4’ module.
