Dungrange

Are there any tree experts, who can tell me what would have been the most common types of tree along the line of the Wisbech and Upwell Tramway around a century ago? In particular, I'm interested in the area around Outwell Basin. The caption to the above photograph refers to a line of Poplar trees, on the left of the image, which I think would have formed the tramline boundary (with the tramway itself behind that line of trees). Unfortunately, these look rather too young to have been around in the early 1920s, so I don't know what would have been there before these were planted. The photograph below seems to show the same line of trees, but from a different angle. Both photographs seem to have been dated 19 April 2009. I believe that these trees cross the line of the former tramway, so wouldn't have been around a century ago, but I'm assuming these might be typical of the regions, so what are they? Again, I think these are on the line of the tramway (so not around a century ago), but again, what type of trees are these?

I don't see why not, although I suppose it depends on what part of the Highland Railway you're modelling and also what time period. As distance from the Caledonian Railway network increases, the likelihood of one of these appearing would presumably have declined. I'd imagine that the majority of traffic from the Scottish Central Belt (ie Caledonian territory) to north of Inverness would have been transhipped in Inverness. I'd therefore expect to see these CR wagons on the Highland Mainline (ie between Stanley Junction and Inverness), but perhaps they were rather rare visitors to more far flung destinations like Kyle of Lochalsh or Thurso. Of course after 1919, when the Railway Clearing House extended the common user scheme that had been introduced in 1917 for open wagons, to include unfitted covered goods wagons, they would have started to wander further from Caledonian territory, giving an increased likelihood of one being seen north of Inverness.

For those modelling in 00, we scale distances by 1:76, areas by 1:5776 (ie 1:76^2) and volumes by 1: 438,975 (ie 1:76^3). However, we can't really scale time in the same way as we do the three physical dimensions. Time isn't faster or slower depending on which scale you choose to model in. However, whilst we can't really scale time if we want trains to run at what most would consider a realistic speed (remembering that speed = distance / time), we probably should adjust the passage of time in relation to the amount of compression that we have had to introduce when creating our model railway. Therefore if you build a model that is a perfectly to scale section of line, then time should be normal. However, if we've represented five actual miles in the prototype with just one scale mile of track, then there is a case for making a clock run five times faster. However, the speed of the clock should be determined by the amount of linear compression in the model, rather than the scale of the model (ie it doesn't matter whether you're modelling in N, 00, or even in O gauge, albeit there are few O gauge layouts with a scale mile of track). The problem with this is of course that we don't compress our models in a uniform manner. The coaches are 'scale length', the platform has been compressed by maybe 10%, the station throat by 20% and the section of track between stations by 80%. This means that the passage of time on the wristwatch of a tiny passenger on our train should not pass at a constant rate, but should pass more slowly as the train leaves the station (ie just a little faster than real time) and get progressively quicker as the train moves through the more compressed parts of the model until they reach their destination. Of course, once we get to running a model railway with multiple trains, the time on the watches of all of our miniature passengers will vary depending on what train they are on!

Who's complaining? Expressing disappointment isn't the same as complaining.

I define a 'train set' as a layout where the focus is on the train. The train departs from the only station on an oval, completes multiple circuits of a continuous circuit and stops again at the same station. The reality is that the train is back where it started from, but there is a pretence that it has left from somewhere, passed through some intermediate stations without stopping and ended up at a different location. The train set is effectively a 'prop' to tell the story of the train's journey. Since the focus is on the train, there is less need for scenery beyond the track, although the layout could be fully scenic and it would still, in my opinion, be a train set. As the station represents multiple locations, it doesn't need to be a scale model. I define a 'model railway' as a layout where the focus is on a location and it aims to capture realistic operation at that location. Where a train set is telling the story of a train's journey, a model railway is presenting a day in the life of the location, modelling the trains that arrive and depart from that location. For example, it may be intended to replicate the station that serves a settlement. It therefore needs a representation of that settlement and the station needs to be operated in a reasonably prototypical manner. Ultimately, I think all 'model railways' need to have some place that represents the rest of the railway network (ie a fiddle yard). I very much see that as a train set, because the focus is on the train. It can't be operated in a prototypical manner.

My suggestion would be to supply the power to the opposite two terminals from the ones you have used (ie fit it the other way round). I'm assuming that this is a double pole single throw switch, so is making / breaking two circuits (a live and a return).

The issue about being reimbursed according to how successful the show is, is the basis for our clubs attendance at Model Rail Scotland each year. The organisers pay the guest layouts (ie principally non Scottish clubs and private layouts) expenses as per any other commercial show (accommodation, fuel and van hire). Their costs will therefore be covered irrespective or whether or not the show is a success. However, for all of the clubs that are members of the Association of Model Railway Societies in Scotland (AMRSS), we're reimbursed based on a formula that gives us a percentage of the profits once all the direct expenses (other than those incurred by the AMRSS clubs) have been paid out (hall hire, advertising, insurance, payments to guest exhibitors, etc). If the show is successful, then we receive more money than it costs us to attend. However, if the show is poorly attended for whatever reason, we might get nothing. I don't think that we've ever got nothing, but sometimes the pay-out hasn't covered all the costs our members incur (eg accommodation, fuel and van hire). However, the purpose of that arrangement is to spread the risk across around 30 clubs. I doubt that there are many clubs with the resources to easily absorb a £10,000+ loss, but when that risk is spread over 30 clubs, who have a combined membership of 750+ members, it's not so scary.

I don't think there are any rules. One thing not mentioned already, which seems to be quite common in Scotland is reciprocal arrangements - ie we'll attend your show in June for free if you'll attend our show in October on the same basis. It doesn't necessarily change the costs of running an exhibition because you're paying your own club members expenses (if they claim them) rather than another club's expenses, but it reduces the temptation to have too many of your own club layouts on display (to keep the costs down) but which creates operator shortages. However, at the end of the day, it's a series of agreements between two parties and all that matters is that each party is happy. A few of our club members took a layout to a small exhibition several hundred miles away, simply because they wanted to go. Those who went were aware that the exhibition never paid for exhibitor's accommodation, rarely paid for van hire and tended to just pay fuel costs. Being a small show, the exhibition manager had a relatively small budget available to book layouts, which meant that he was rather hesitant about our offer to attend because he knew that our fuel costs alone would be a lot more than his budget on a per layout basis. However, in the end we struck a deal to attend for a fixed payment equal to about two thirds of our estimated fuel cost and everyone was happy. At that, our expenses were more than he was paying the other layouts, but then we were able to bring a large layout in a trailer which took up twice as much space as a small layout that would fit in the back of a car.

Ready means that there is DCC socket in the model, nothing more.

I kind of get where you're coming from but would the public consider DCC Functional better or worst than DCC Ready? DCC Ready = A socket has been installed (so the hardware install is easy) but there are few if any functions DCC Functional = A socket has been installed (so the hardware install is easy) and it also has a lot of advanced functions that my be accessible depending on your choice of decoder and you have to set these up using the documentation that comes with your choice of decoder. DCC Functional sounds like the better specification (although your inference is that it's not). However, I could argue that's already highlighted in the advertising insofar as the manufacturer will highlight that their model has individually switchable lighting combinations.

But is that not something that should be covered in Gaugemaster's User Manual? It would seem very strange to expect say Accurascale, advising how to reprogramme an ESU decoder to overcome an issue with the Gaugemaster command station.

I suppose that depends on what decoder you fit. Being pedantic, if you fit a decoder in the locomotive, it is fitted, but not necessarily optimised for that particular model. If we take Accurascale as an example, you are correct, all of their models are marketed as either DCC Ready or DCC Sound. However, they also sell ESU Lokpilot decoders that have been set up for the locomotives that they manufacture and sell. https://www.accurascale.com/search?q=Lokpilot Therefore, if you buy a DCC Ready model and the corresponding Lokpilot decoder, then I'd argue if you remove the blanking plate and fit the decoder in the socket, you effectively have a DCC Fitted option. That's the closest you're going to get to 'plug and play', which means that the Accurascale DCC Ready locomotives presumably meet your requirement for being labelled DCC Ready. However, if you were to buy the same ESU Lokpilot decoder elsewhere and fit it in an Accurascale locomotive, it will need to be programmed, by changing some of the CVs from the decoder manufacturers defaults. Does that mean that the same DCC Ready locomotive now has to be marked as DCC Functional? If you wanted to buy the same Accurascale DCC Ready locomotive and fit it with a Lenz decoder, who should be providing you with the information that you require to ensure that you get the best out of that combination? Should it be Accurascale or Lenz? Ultimately, the answer is that it's the user through a bit of trial and error with the user manuals in front of them. There are a huge number of different models on the market and a large number of different makes and models of decoder, so the number of possible combinations means that there will always be a need to undertake some adjustments unless you're buying the Fitted option.

So for you, just read the term 'DCC Ready' as what you want to call 'DCC Functional'. No manufacturer is going to market something as your definition of 'Ready' because they have no control over the command station or the decoder that you choose. Their product works as advertised with their choice of decoder (the As Fitted option) and the DCC Ready version (with a blanking plate instead of a decoder) works on DC analogue. The hassle free option that you're looking for would be to buy the DCC Fitted option. The DCC Ready markings really just mean that there is a decoder socket in the locomotive, so you don't need to worry about hardwiring a decoder (which was the only option when DCC started). That is, the path between the pickups and the motor have been cut and pass through a socket, so the more difficult part of the decoder install is done for you.

Perhaps is worth asking who would want these options? If you want DCC Sound, why not buy the DCC Sound option? If you want the full range or DCC functions, why not buy the DCC Fitted (or DCC Onboard) version? Ultimately, the market for DCC Ready is likely to be primarily the DC analogue users who don't care about DCC functionality (or those who don't like the locomotive manufacturer's choice of decoder, in which case the 'faff' of setting up their own decoder of choice should surely be the responsibility of the purchaser).

How much current does the smoke unit require and what is the current output of the functions on the decoder?

I've seen these codes in reference to British Railways, but were such codes in use in the pre-grouping era? I think the Great Western Used telegraphic codes from early on, but did the other pre-grouping companies have similar codes? Agreed. Which is why I'm wondering how detailed or specific a request would have been. For the Midland, it sounds as though it might just have been a request for an open wagon and whatever turned up was then used. I wonder how many separate consignments are in the wagon below? It's an interesting question. I assume that the increase in covered goods wagons over time was essentially a continuation of that same trend. That is, a covered goods wagon is essentially a c12-plank open wagon that's permanently sheeted. Presumably, the higher sided open wagons provided better protection for a range of loads than the lower sided opens. However, they were also presumably more expensive to construct, albeit not as expensive as covered goods wagons. I guess that it might have come down to economics - was it worth the marginal cost of an additional plank to reduce damage or spoilage by a certain amount. Over time, it seems like the answer might have been yes.

I think it is, but there are a few things I don't understand. To the left of your diagram, you've got an up line (clockwise) and down line (anticlockwise) and then a bidirectional 'loop'. What is the purpose of the crossover between the anticlockwise circuit and the bidirectional loop? The real railway never installs points unless they have a clear purpose. I'm struggling to see why you need these. Your platforms are very short. It looks like they won't accommodate more than a 2-car Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) or a one, or possibly two coach train, depending on the coaches. Are you content with such short trains? If we assume that you are, then ideally as well as a train stopping and continuing on its way again, it would be good to be able to stop at the platform and then start again in the direction from which it came, crossing over onto the correct track for it's return journey. This would be best achieved by replacing your facing crossover on the top of your plan with a trailing crossover and adding a trailing crossover on the right of your plan. Again, what is the purpose of the crossover on the bottom of your plan for. The only movement I could see that would use this would be to get a train from your maintenance area onto your outer (clockwise circuit), in which case I'd expect it to be further to the right. The sidings in the maintenance area are very short. Is this just for locomotive maintenance or does it serve another purpose? Apart from that, I think the plan is workable. Which comes back to the fundamental question - do you want a train set or do you want a model railway? They are not really the same thing and neither answer to that question is wrong. I would consider a train set as something to be played with. It should be fun and it should meet that childhood desire to be a train driver when you grow up. It doesn't matter that you don't fully understand how the real railway works, it's a toy to be played with. It's like a prop for a story that you're telling through movement. Thomas, Annie and Claribel are going off on an adventure to... arrive right back where they started from, but hey, you're happy to pretend that it is somewhere new. As a project that is intended to be for both you and your children, there is nothing wrong with that approach. I'd say what you now have is a workable train set. A model railway, or perhaps a model of a railway is more of a desire to portray a particular location or the essence of an area at a particular point or period in time. It's more of an artform to create a believable scene. It's a bit more like a three dimensional painting. The landscape was there long before the railway came, so it needs to be built to look as though the railway has been built later, crossing over rivers, etc that were there long ago. The railway was built for a reason, so we need to define what that reason was. Why did your settlement get a railway? Was it to transport commuters into London or another large city? Was it to convey agricultural produce from the local farms to distant cities? Was it to serve workers at a dock, a coal mine or quarry? Was it built to assist with the distribution of goods from a major manufacturer or brewery? That of course means that you can't have everything: there is no point in modelling a dock if you want to run express passenger trains. Ultimately, this is the reason why most people who want a model railway, settle for a branch line and the Great Western Railway tends to be a popular choice. For me, I'm about to start a layout inspired by Outwell Basin on the Wisbech and Upwell tramway in the pre-grouping period. I don't need to scour track plan books looking for ideas - I can just copy the track plan that actually existed at Outwell Basin. However, there is no engine shed. There is no goods shed. It was a single track line and there would only have been one tram engine at Outwell Basin at any one time (unless one of the trams broke down and needed to be rescued by another tram). There wasn't even a platform at Outwell Basin - the passengers climbed up into the coaches from ground level. There were literally hundreds of stations small stations that you could choose to model and which would fit in your space, but you might find the operation a bit boring. However, I have to say that I've enjoyed trying to understand how the depot at Outwell basin was operated and to try to find out what sort of goods would have been delivered, and more generally what life was like 50 years before I was born. Obviously that's not for some, but we're all different. Ultimately, you need to decide whether the plan that you have meets your objectives. We're not trying to get to the railway I want - we just want to get to where you want.

Any news on the long promised firmware update for the ACE-2?

Does it matter? Like many people, I didn't purchase a mystery box because there was a very high chance it primarily contained models that I wouldn't want. At least if you are bidding for one specific item on E-bay you know what you are getting.

Did that change over time, or was it that way until grouping? The image below was posted in another thread which I think comes from the LNER wagon books by Peter Tatlow. I believe that the date of the first Common User Agreement is incorrect and should be 13/12/15. However, it indicates that the pooling of open wagons at that date only related to Medium and High-sided open wagons. That implies that Low sided wagons weren't included and therefore to be workable, all the participating companies must have had a common understanding as to whether or not a 2 or 3-plank wagon was classed as Low (not pooled) or medium (pooled). Interestingly, the three Scottish companies didn't appear to make the same distinction, but the Railway Clearing House scheme of 1917 did, so presumably in 1917, the CR, G&SWR and NBR could all use each other's Low-sided open wagons, but not those belonging to other companies. It appears that the universal pooling of Low-sided wagons wouldn't have happened until 1918. Presumably there was a clearer distinction between 'Low' and 'Medium' than there was between 'Medium' and 'High'. I ask the question because I'm curious how likely a station would be sent, say a 4-plank wagon, when they actually wanted a 7-plank wagon (some of which were in use for general merchandise on the Great Eastern Railway, even if that may not have been a universal use of 7-plank wagons).

When station staff required an empty general merchandise wagon to be sent to their station to convey an outward consignment, what did they ask for? Would they have specifically asked for a 10 ton seven plank open wagon, or would they simply have asked for a 'high sided open' (ie neither the weight nor the number of planks being defined)? Assuming the request was for either a High, Medium or Low sided open and nothing more specific, would all pre-grouping companies have used the same definition of these terms, and if so, what defines the breakdown between these categories? For example, is a 4-plank open regarded as being a Low sided wagon or a Medium sided wagon? Looking at the statistical returns in the company accounts, open wagons only appear to be disaggregated by weight: under 8 tons; 8 and up to 12 tons; over 12 and up to 20 tons; and over 20 tons. However for the GER, all opens were in the 8 and up to 12 ton group at the end of 1922, so there must have been greater variation in the number of planks than there was is the weight of goods that a wagon could carry.

Probably avoiding the Houthi attacks in the Gulf of Aden. I think it's two weeks longer going round the Cape of Good Hope, so presumably nearer to six weeks rather than four.

Correct. If modelling in 1:87 scale, Proto:87 would be 'scale' option in the same way as P4 is the scale option for those modelling in 00. The only difference is that H0 and Proto:87 have the same track gauge (unlike the 4mm variations). The Proto:87 website - https://proto87.org/ highlights that H0 models are "highly accurate except one thing — the wheels". Since you're designing to accommodate overscale H0 wheels, you'll need to make adjustments elsewhere. I agree with @Michael Hodgson that a series of small adjustments may be least obvious approach. It's what all ready-to-run manufacturers have to do when designing their models.

It depends on the layout of the facility. In some instances, an arriving locomotive will be trapped at the buffers and a shunter or station pilot will be required to shunt the wagons and release the locomotive. At other locations, a run-round loop would be provided, so the train arrives in the loop (which has to be as long as the train) and then the locomotive will uncouple, draw forward into a locomotive release, the points behind it would be changed and then it can run to the back of the train and undertake whatever shunting is required. Obviously the period that you're looking at will require brake vans, so they will have to be shunted into the correct place when marshalling your train ready for departure. If there is any place in particular that you'd like to draw inspiration from, then the National Library of Scotland have extensive coverage of old maps, which if you look at the 6" to a mile series, you can see the track plan. https://maps.nls.uk/view/101570878 is an example, of the track layout around March and Whitemoor Yard c1952.

As a small child's trainset, it's definitely an improvement, but if you're looking to build a model of a railway, you've still got a long way to go. What you've drawn up looks nothing like the real railway. Most railway lines comprise pairs of tracks: an 'up' line and a 'down' line. In the UK, trains drive on the left. That means that when creating a model like you're imagining, trains on your outer circuit should travel in a clockwise direction and trains on your inside track should travel in an anti-clockwise direction. These two tracks are normally separated by what is referred to as 'the six foot', because that is the minimum spacing between two adjacent tracks. In 4mm scale (1:76) that equates to 45mm between the track centrelines. However, because of our overtight model curves, that needs to be increased to 51mm (if using Streamline) or 67mm (if using Set-track). However, it would be normal for these two circuits to be parallel with a constant spacing: yours vary all over the place. Your 'fuel stop' and 'diesel shed' sit between the 'up' and 'down' lines, which is not prototypical. Such facilities would be created to one or other side of the main running lines (ie your two circuits). Your 'loading area' is unworkable if the train on your inner circuit is travelling in the correct anticlockwise direction. It would only be possible to work this facility if you were representing a country where trains drive on the right (such as the USA). Your 'station' looks like it can only be used by trains on the inner (anticlockwise) circuit. Most stations would have two platforms, so that they can serve traffic travelling in both directions. There is no point in a passenger travelling to your station if they can't get a train home again. I suspect that the arrangement with the diamond crossing between your 'goods shed' and 'lumber yard' isn't particularly common on the prototype. I've no idea how such an arrangement would be signalled in the prototype (if such a layout exists). I find the best way to think about these plans is to trace your finger around the tracks to imagine how it would be operated. Whilst I agree that DCC wiring would be simpler than wiring for DC, I think the priority should be to get a good workable track plan first.