Is there a modular layout standard for G scale?

tac foley said:
How then do the various modules from different sources that we see assembled together into working layout sat large-scale train shows manage to 'get together' if there is not some kind of agreed dimensional data set?
Click to expand...

The 16mm 'boys' (and girls) have a standard..

The larger G scale layouts, tend to be from a single area group.. I guess they have a 'de-facto' standard for 'their layout'?? :think::think:
 
I was always left with the impression that far from being part of the same group, they all came from disparate areas, and only 'got together' for a show. It is not impossible that I might be mistaken, however.
 
a98087 said:
Is it worth mentioning at the upcoming g scale agm?
Or can any area groups share their standards?

If a standard can be found/ agreed upon then things could slowly move towards a g scale modular meeting in a few years time

Dan
Click to expand...

Bonne idee!!
 
Hi JG (sorry not sure what to call you?)
Thanks for the link. Your layout is exquisite, a thing of beauty, and I follow your threads for inspiration.

You do have a standard module size but I think you allow the track to go wherever you want it to, including up and down! So there is no standard track alignment between modules whereas most of the "standards" like the 16mm society standard have 150mm track spacing etc. This is not a criticism, I do not imagine you are thinking of merging your modules with other modellers (yours would put theirs to shame!), I imagine you are using modules so you can move the layout at some point in time, for exhibitions or moving house.

I think somebody asked you whether you have any problems with tracks crossing modules not at 90 degrees (alignment issues) but I do not think I saw any answer?
 
Good evening Dave
Actually my layout is hand track, entirely scrachtbuilt and I have not followed any standard (egoism?) I do not think but it must be known that my rolling stock is radio controlled, so the tracks are not electrified and there are so many standards that I think it is difficult to associate with another layout, although an exit route is planned.
For having followed the norms for 30 years, this layout is for me an exchanger and allows me to give free choice to my imagination.
I have no problem with the connections at the moment and that was necessary, I will add fishplates.
For info my name is Jean-Gilles.
So long
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your response Jean-Gilles, very useful. Keep up the good work! :)
 
Could be a closed group? - I don't have a Facile-Book account??

<edit>
SW pulled-up the search, and it is a closed group..
it is also 16mm modular, which would need 'tweaking to accomodate G scale radii, anyway..
 
Last edited:
Could someone with a facebook account please copy the list of groups and layouts that Greg referred to into this thread?
Thanks
 
I think you are going to find that exploring FaceBook sites without a login to be incredibly frustrating.

Why not create a login, and then completely lock it down so no one can post, you get no feeds, you release no information? It's not that tough. My FaceBook login exists because I could not visit half the sites without a login.

Without a login, you are fighting a losing battle.

Greg
 
On the FaceBook search page for '16mm modular' most of the links are for modular furniture and wot not.
Only one link had a 16mm scale, 32mm gauge modular layout at Statfold Barn. The video is below.
I believe the layout in the video is using the 'Association of 16mm Narrow Gauge Modelers' modular design as previously mentioned. Modular Layout Standards - Association of 16mm Narrow Gauge Modellers



The 16mm NGM modules specify a nominal radius of 169.7cm with other tracks at 15cm spacing. A smaller radius of 139.7cm is also used for tighter layouts.
I suspect a system for 45mm gauge G scale use may be more beneficial using LGB set track / point radius as nominal. Other tracks at the same spacing of 15cm then being compatible with the 16mm NGM system with the exception of mixing curve modules because of the differing nominal radius.
The modular requirements for an R1/R2, R3 or R5 are completely different and none shall be mixed on the same module because the track spacing is not in increments of 15cm.
R1 and R2 could be on the same module using R2 as nominal. The R1 could be stepped in a little to give a spacing of 15cm from the R2 instead of 18cm as it is but close spacing with small radius could create issues with passing cars. The LGB track spacing geometry for smaller radius is closer to 18cm on curves. https://www.lgb.de/fileadmin/media/lgb/service/FAQ/LGB-Technik-Tipp-201-LGB-gleissystem.pdf
These issues need to be considered if LGB track system is used on modules. As usual, the devil is in the details.
 
Last edited:
PhilP said:
Could be a closed group? - I don't have a Facile-Book account??

<edit>
SW pulled-up the search, and it is a closed group..
it is also 16mm modular, which would need 'tweaking to accomodate G scale radii, anyway..
Click to expand...
Phil I had a FB account for over 15 years, but got so hacked off with the drivel I had my account deleted. However I realised that with so many traders and closed groups I would need an account, so using a plausible pseudonym I opened a new account, no personal details at all, no using it to log on no use from mobile devices and I can access closed groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom