M120: Module for Model Railroadz

Got it, I was just making sure it was still operating incase something had happened. Random question, Are we allowed to have mid-route shunting yards or no?
 
Are we allowed to have mid-route shunting yards or no?
Sure, why not? :)

I think the fun is having a variety of modules so everyone can just glue them together the way they want.

Just stick to the start and end definition and have a main line. When in doubt, contact me via PM and I'll take a look. Note; might take a few days as sometimes traveling for work keeps me away from my game PC for some time.
 
Sorry people for letting this idea / topic collect dust for so long. I had (and partly still have) a sever case of "real life is keeping me me busy with stuff"; I am now married, expecting my first and second child (as in "twins") and start a new job next month (just to name a few things).

Anyway,
As a result, it took me forever to finish a (not blank, not demo) module of my own, but I finally did. I posted a few screenshots in the Model Railroadz screenshot topic the last few days. The end result is now "Available soon, currently unlisted" on the DLS, so should be ready somewhere the next 48 hours.

According to a quick search in TANE, this project now has 5 modules so far:

  • Clark City Terminal Railroad (by meowrailroad)
  • Bigg City Yard (by benjaminw)
  • Grain Loading (by benjaminw)
  • Two Valleys (by oknotsen)
  • Newton Silos (by mrmegaminer)
Am I correct or does anyone have a module on the DLS without "m120" in the name?
 
Let's hope this concept really takes off when TMR17 is released. It has been an idea I see huge merit in supporting. I think it takes a little bit more "something" to kickstart (no not the crowd funding thing this time).

Ideas as to how to get the ball rolling are appreciated.

(Btw, downloading the 5 mentioned routes as I have not seen that listing previously).
 
I didn't update this last post, but maintained a list in one of the first posts in the topic. The list is now 7:

Current modules made:


  • Clark City Terminal Railroad (2 baseboards by meowrailroad)
  • Bigg City Yard (2 baseboards (N-S) by benjaminw)
  • Farm lands 17 (2 baseboards by oknotsen)
  • Grain Loading (1 baseboard by benjaminw)
  • Two Valleys (2 baseboards by oknotsen)
  • Newton Silos (1 baseboard by mrmegaminer)
  • Harbor Route (3 baseboards by curmudgeon66)

(last updated: August 26th, 2016)
 
Ok got them all now - these modules offer an interesting variety of routes and construction styles with some fantastic content included.

Given the history of this thread, I am wondering why there aren't more modules already. Most likely, in the thousands of forum posts, this one has been lost in time, or people need more assistance when it comes to figuring out what their role is to add to the modular concept, or perhaps something else.

We plan to update TMR to ensure these existing modules are compatible so that we can continue this concept and expand upon it in the future.
 
As part of the M120 standards are we labeling modules either (LHR) or (RHR) left hand running and right hand running ?
 
Left Hand Running

I don't post very often so not sure how to it, but came across this thread, and felt I had to add my two cents.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by NSWGR_46Class
As part of the M120 standards are we labeling modules either (LHR) or (RHR) left hand running and right hand running ?

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by oknotsen (in the opening post)
Driving direction: Right-side driving on main line. Everything else is up to the choice of the designer.


This might explain why there are not more modules, not all railways in the world are RHR and I for one have little or no interest in RHR (for those that do that's great), however I would love to to be able to make LHR modules but since that isn't allowed under this standard I won't bother. If someone comes up with a LHR standard I would make modules for that. A standard should be a flexible as possible and cover as many variations as possible, if a particular variation is not wanted by many then it wont be overly represented, but those few that want/need a particular variation will still be able to use the standard. Locking those people out of a standard only forces them to develop their own probably non compatible standard. Since trainz is an Australian product how many people would feel left tout if carz traffic was right hand drive only.

I wonder how many others feel the same, if I am the only one then so be it.
 
well I am going to buck the trend and release (LHR) format M120 modules
I don't post very often so not sure how to it, but came across this thread, and felt I had to add my two cents.

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by NSWGR_46Class
As part of the M120 standards are we labeling modules either (LHR) or (RHR) left hand running and right hand running ?

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by oknotsen (in the opening post)
Driving direction: Right-side driving on main line. Everything else is up to the choice of the designer.


This might explain why there are not more modules, not all railways in the world are RHR and I for one have little or no interest in RHR (for those that do that's great), however I would love to to be able to make LHR modules but since that isn't allowed under this standard I won't bother. If someone comes up with a LHR standard I would make modules for that. A standard should be a flexible as possible and cover as many variations as possible, if a particular variation is not wanted by many then it wont be overly represented, but those few that want/need a particular variation will still be able to use the standard. Locking those people out of a standard only forces them to develop their own probably non compatible standard. Since trainz is an Australian product how many people would feel left tout if carz traffic was right hand drive only.

I wonder how many others feel the same, if I am the only one then so be it.
 
I have hardly been posting since I returned from the hospital last Monday night.

Give me a few more days for the fog in my head to clear up some more; I think I have a working solution for all of us. I just want to crawl behind a PC first and not be shaking for more than a few minutes at a time.
 
Not sure why it would, if really concerned we could do swap over modules --- if not will just do my own thing and go it alone.

\
No, as part of the standard is that the main line is right hand running.

Changing this would make some modules incompatible.
 
... updated TMR17... now the modules have layers... thanks a lot oknotsen ...
i did it before, but its nicer when its originally arranged....

daveric
 

It appears that Life, uh, found a way.

The route is awaiting DLS approval, it will be up very soon! I'll leave a comment (and some more screen shots) when it's up.
 
Back
Top