NASG module specs Update

I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.?

I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.??

I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD.

I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??

Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??

There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???

Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???

?

I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??

Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc???

Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?

Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.??

Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???

Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).??

?

I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.??

- What all can we update now with strong consensus???

- What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???

IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??

--

Thanks,

Ted Larson?

SuperBowl,

The Daytona 500 of Football?

--
Ted Larson
trainweb.org/mhrr/??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------???????
GN in 1965

#175915

Being new to S my bit of input for T-Trak would be to change the track standard to use American Models. I know it doesn’t have the roadbed built in but it’s still around and mth/s-helper isn’t made. I was looking at the T-Trak standards a little bit ago and that is what came to mind. Not sure what other adjustments would be required.?

#175916

The Pittsburgh S-Gaugers have had absolutely no problems with the 2.75" double-track spacing that is the S-Mod standard. It uses the standard 4" bridge rails specified by S-Mod. We have some spare bridge rails that are 1/16" too short, and some that are 1/16" too long, to accommodate table shifts?with mid-winter and mid-summer temperature and humidity shifts. This has worked marvelously.

Our narrow-gauge trackage, towards the rear of our modules, is non-standard. It uses code 70 rail in a dual-gauge Sn3/Sn42 main line. The Sn2 trackage is, in reality, a micro-layout within two modules, also code 70. All narrow-gauge uses straight DC, and 4" bridge TRACK sections.?

Jim Whipple

Pittsburgh S-Gaugers

S-Mod coordinator, NMRA Division 2

President, NASG

Show quoted text

On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 6:04?PM Ted Larson via <mhrreast=[email protected]> wrote:

I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.?
I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.??
I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD.
I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??

Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??

There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???

Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???

?
I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??

Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc???
Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?

Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.??
Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???

Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).??
?
I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.??
- What all can we update now with strong consensus???
- What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???

IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??

--
Thanks,
Ted Larson?

SuperBowl,
The Daytona 500 of Football?

--
Ted Larson
??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------???????
GN in 1965

#175917

We (Bay Area S Scalers) operated an S-MOD layout for several years. Based on our experience:

The double track 2.75 spacing was never a problem, even for 0-5-0 switching. We followed Lee Johnson's method of widening the spacing in the 90 degree corners, using the same track radius for both tracks.

Minimum curve radii, if adopted, could be fairly short. We used 42 inch and ran a 10-coupled steam engine through it no problem. We had #6 minimum switches, but a couple of #5 wyes and never had a problem with equipment running through.

Did anybody ever use the bus wiring? We ended up just requiring four wires at the interface.

The two recommendations I would make are to ditch the bridge rails and use four inch segments of flex track. The gauge can really spread in the four inch bridge rails. You could still interface with the current standard with a piece of flex track with four inch rails and two inches of tie strip.

One new concern is the requirement by many venus that you have a fireproof or at least flame retardant curtain hiding the legs and underbelly. For that reason, I would suggest a new RP that the distance from the front table edge to the first track centerline be specified. If it has to comply with FreeMo's requirement that the table can be rotated 180 degrees, then the RP should specify the table width at the interface.

- Michael Eldridge

#175921

If you build a four foot module with a 40 inch height, the legs can be attached and fold up within the module for transport.? A module with a 42 inch height, no go.? I don't understand why S and O scale module standards got the additional height built in on the recommendations, but it sure makes a difference when transporting, setting up and tearing down.? Just my pet peeve on modular standards.? As always, Tom Dempsey, Spokane, WA

On Sunday, February 9, 2025 at 03:04:24 PM PST, Ted Larson via groups.io <mhrreast@...> wrote:

I am still active on the NASG standards committee; working on module standards for S standard gauge.?

I have received much input from various individuals and clubs regarding FreeMoS.??

I have received little input from individuals or clubs with CURRENT OR PAST participation in SMOD.

I have received no input regarding T-Trak or narrow gauge.??

Some needs are incontrovertible; updating the SMOD electrical standards (Cinch connectors are obsolete, Anderson connectors are the hobby norm; DCC has largely replaced?DC; DeadRail is becoming common).??

There is a question regarding double track center line spacing; 2.75" is specified by SMOD.? Some in FreeMoS prefer 3", I am told that 3" comes from a scale up of the HO centerline dimensions, but HO is 2", which scaled up by 87 / 64 is 2.72".? Therefore my question for long term SMOD users; is there any known problem with 2.75"; for example, when using 0-5-0 switching or re-railing???

Again for SMOD users, are there any other concerns with SMOD, or suggestions for changing or adding to the SMOD standards, topics that you wish were different or more comprehensive???

?

I have been reading old discussions about SMOD and FreeMo.? ?As has been previously discussed, all that is permitted by FreeMo is permitted by SMOD (other than the different rail height above the floor); NASG has historically?ONLY specified functional interface issues,?to provide individual module owners maximum?flexibility.? There is also much FreeMo discussion and preference regarding two other construction categories; appearance, and operations.??

Operations:? ?should there be specifications for: minimum curve radii, minimum frog number, DCC controls,??location(s) of switch point controls, etc???

Can these be RP (Recommended Practices), separate from interface requirements?

Appearance:? ?should there be specifications regarding ballast color, tie length, backdrop, grass color, rail height, depth of sidewalls (for permitting scenery below track level), sidewall color, track centerline location, module width, rail color, etc?? Some would like all of these specified to provide visual continuity from one module to another.? However, others would like to choose their own; ballast to match the ballast of a favored prototype railroad, tie length and rail height to match a preferred era, etc.? This can obviously be done at the local club level.??

Can this instead be done as an SP (Suggested Practice) for those that would like a consistent appearance from club to club,?separate from interface requirements???

Bottom line, some update issues are very obvious and critical, such as electrical connectors.? There is also opportunity for?rewriting or reformatting to simplify and to avoid misunderstandings that?have plagued discussion in the past.? SMOD specifications could be revised into FreeMo format.? Some have suggested that FreeMo could supercede?SMOD.? Since there are so few real functional differences (optional rail height above the floor), FreeMoS can easily include backward compatibility with SMOD (optional height of rail from floor).??

?

I therefore update my past request for input regarding concerns,?preferences, and volunteer participants or reviewers.??

- What all can we update now with strong consensus???

- What issues need attention that NASG might not be aware of???

IF desired, NASG module?specifications can also be done for S Narrow Gauge modelers; "S Gauge" in the NASG name is not intended to exclude S narrow gauge.??

--

Thanks,

Ted Larson?

SuperBowl,

The Daytona 500 of Football?

--
Ted Larson
trainweb.org/mhrr/??????? --------??????? NASG.org??????? --------???????
GN in 1965

开云体育

NASG module specs Update