Talk:Free-mo

This page was proposed for deletion by Ravenswing (talk · contribs) on 17 July 2020.

Trains: Transport modelling Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This redirect is supported by the Rail transport modelling task force.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this redirect.

Warning

Please dont try to promote Digitrax in a way, which is not supported by the Free-mo standards. Other manufacturers are available worldwide and the LocoNet protocol is published.

Anybody can use Thomas the Tank Engine and use Code100 tracks - but thats not covered by the Free-mo standards as well.

--Bahnmoeller (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to above warning: Digitrax was originally the standard for Free-mo, and in effect still is, as in North America, they are the only provider of LocoNet compatible throttles and command stations. Free-mo changed from Digirax to LocoNet-compatible in order to accomodate other types of turnout controls or control inputs or whatnot, but for all practical purposes, uses Digitrax components.

Other manufacturers are available in Europe for FREMO, but are no in North America for Free-mo. Also, Digitrax owns LocoNet.

In reply to part about Code 100, there may have been confusion with Ottawa HO Trak, as they use code 100 "Free-mo" although it is really a derivation of Free-mo that is added to their conventional NMRA-like modules to make the layout more interesting.

And about Thomas: Not sure where Thomas came from, most modular layouts have a Thomas or two on them with DCC decdoers added, but there is no such thing as Thomas-mo, and such a thing would be quite silly. Thomas does add some fun to any modular layout, but should NOT be mentioned in this article by name, as he is one of a thousand different things you could run down the tracks on a Free-mo layout, and isn't even HO, he is OO.

--71.234.69.104 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The power supply part about conventional modular layouts doesn't make sense, stop putting that back in, and traditional modular groups aren't usually informal, so just clubs or groups is fine. And what I said above.

--71.234.69.104 21:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone put nonsensical Thomas spam in again. So I reverted.

--71.234.69.104 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Thomas Spam. Another Reversion.

--71.234.69.104 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page says the article is an orphan. I put a link to this page on the model-railway page, so it should no longer be an orphan.

Joecyclist (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]