Dungrange

The website says 13 November - http://www.revolutiontrains.com/projects/

The layout in this thread has working RETB: blue LEDs powered from an arduino. The post from 13 August has some photographs and a YouTube video showing the operation. This is 4mm scale, but the only difference for N would be that the LED would be tiny and you'd probably have to be over scale to see it.

Try the tread that is about adverts

According to https://www.bigcommerce.co.uk/blog/youtube-advertising/#types-of-youtube-ads In-Stream Ads. TrueView In-Stream Ads are advertisements that play before, during, or after a YouTube video has played. These are skippable ads after five seconds, but you won’t be charged if viewers opted to skip the ad. Google recently changed the guidelines for TrueView for Action ad formats so that cost is incurred after 10 seconds. If RMWeb users immediately hit the X in the top right of these new videos, then it's likely that they will be frustrated by the video box appearing, but RMWeb actually gets no financial benefit to support the running costs of the site. Ultimately the reason for needing adverts is to raise the money necessary to pay for the servers and other infrastructure required to keep the site running for those who don't want RMWeb Gold. That means if I click through on the adverts for women's swim suits, I'm only doing it to increase the revenue to RMWeb!!!!

The real ads have 'AD' in a yellow box at the top left hand corner of the video and there is a yellow line under the add when it plays. I've seen adverts for Sky mobile, Aviva, Ford and LG. The Sky mobile advert seems to be the most common at the moment. Clearly they are not working on you.

At what point does RMWeb get paid for adverts being 'delivered'? When the video add appears at the right of my screen, how many seconds of it do I need to 'watch' for the advertiser to pay RMWeb for the advert? Obviously if I were to install an Ad blocker, then the site would get nothing, but if I hit the little X straight away, does the advertiser pay? It has been delivered, but not watched. If it needs to play for X seconds before payment, then I'm happy to leave it running for that period if it helps keep RMWeb running.

I don't understand the problem with the decoder address limit - I don't know anyone with a layout large enough to accommodate 9,999 locomotives. To return to the original question, I don't think there is a way of reducing a six digit number that will work for everyone. At the moment I only have two decoders, so I've not given too much though to a numbering system. For locomotives, I intend to use the class number for the first two digits and the last two digits of the locomotive number for the second two digits. That is, 37405 would be 3705. I only have four types of diesel multiple units: classes 156, 158, 170 and 221. Effectively, I think I have two choices: use the three digit class number and then allocate a number to represent each unit, probably based on the last digit - eg 170402 would become 1702 omit the leading class digit and then use the last two digits of the number as I plan to do with locomotives - eg 170402 would become 7002 The benefit of the first approach is I can pretty well guarantee no conflicts with other locomotive addresses, as I have no locomotives of classes 15, 17 or 22 and probably never will. The downside is that I can only have a maximum of ten multiple units of the same class. I already own about seven or eight class 158 units. The benefit of the second approach is that I could, in theory, have up to 100 multiple units of the same class, but the downside is that there is greater scope for clashes with locomotive addresses. I don't currently possess any locomotives of classes 56, 58 or 70, but I am more likely to acquire a model of these classes than I would a class 15, 17 or 22. I'm unlikely to ever purchase a class 21, but I may well acquire both a class 20 and a class 220, so again there would be scope for conflict between locomotive and multiple unit addresses. Obviously for others, the potential conflicts will differ depending on the stock that they own or plan to purchase, so what suits one person wouldn't suit another. For unique locomotives, like GT3, I'd probably just pick a short address such as 3 since I'd find that easier to remember than trying to make a four digit address.

They are intended for fixed rakes, so I'd say they are not suitable for shunting - stick to Kadee for shunting.

Kadee produce four different couplings for use in a NEM pocket that is mounted at the correct height: #17, #18, #19 and #20. #17 is the shortest and #20 is the longest. The tighter your radii the longer the coupling needs to be and the the length will also vary between wagons depending on where the NEM socket is mounted relative to the buffers on the wagons. It's very much trial and error - start with a #18. If the buffers are too far apart, switch to a #17, if you get buffer lock or derailment on curves, then switch to a #19 or #20.

The creeping ads have gone for me too, so that's great. The video at the side is a little distracting (because of the motion), but on my laptop it covers the static ads on the right, which were often for ladies lingerie or swimsuits, which could be equally distracting, but for a different reason! I'm not sure what advertisers are willing to pay for a video playing at the side of the screen, but I have to say that I don't think it's value for money. I've seen one with a bird a couple of times, another with a turtle and one with a ship sailing past a buoy, but I've no idea what any of them are about. One of the adverts was for LG, which had their logo top right of their video, but unfortunately, the logo was largely covered by a small yellow box with 'Ad' in it, so I'd hardly consider that to be a marketing win.

Have you produced a guide as per some of your other projects showing typical formations? I quite like these. I also note that the Mullet's are being offered in EWS livery. Did many carry this livery as most modern photographs that I've seen seem to still be in yellow? For anyone wanting to load up these wagons, I found this document on the Network Rail website, which gives the loading arrangements for loading a variety of infrastructure wagons including the Mullets with beams and different types of rail. It might be of use to anyone wanting an authentic load. https://safety.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Loading-Pattern-Combined.pdf

Whilst I dislike the 'creeping' nature of the top adverts, I've had an advert in that space for an 16-25 railcard (I'm too old for that) and I've twice had an advert for Hornby, so some of the advertising is railway relevant (albeit the majority isn't). As for placement on the screen, I can see why it would be appealing to advertisers, as it remains at the top of the screen as I scroll down, so always visible. That's not true of the banner advert that sits under the RMWeb header, which immediately disappears as I scroll down the page. That is obviously preferable to me as a user, but if I was paying for the adverts, I'd probably want my advert to appear on the screen for as long as possible. I'd just rather that the advert space was there permanently rather than creeping down the page as I feel like I'm fighting with my browser for the few seconds that the advert takes to load, which is annoying.

I think you mean H0 then, since 00 is effectively a British only scale - ie you want models that can be run on track with a gauge of 16.5 mm.

According to The Class 37 Locomotive Group website (https://c37lg.co.uk/37data.aspx) the capacity of the fuel tank was 1690 gallons, but this was increased by 800 gallons following removal of the steam heat equipment, so that's about 11,330 litres nowadays. That is indeed a lot of fuel.

I think that's because as @martin_wynne has indicated, there is no technical debate to be had. You would use the most appropriate switch for the location that you are modelling. However, there is a commercial debate about which combination of switch and crossing angle is likely to sell best and therefore give the greatest return on investment. That therefore means asking who the customers are. Who models in 3 mm scale? What types of layout do they build? If most 3 mm modellers build cramped dock layouts, then an A6 may be desirable. If they build compact branch line termini, then a B6 or B7 is likely to be more appealing. If they use the smaller scale to produce closer to scale mainline track work than is possible in the larger scales, then a C10 may be more desirable. I'd suggest that the commercial reasons for choosing a B6 or B7 over any other combination is that you could use it in place of either an A6 or C10. That is, it could look 'okay' in both a yard and on a mainline, whereas a C10 would look ridiculous in a cramped goods yard and an A6 would look wrong on a mainline. Therefore, if constrained to only producing one, produce something in the middle of the range. Peco would have asked themselves the same question when they produced their 00 Bullhead point work. Should we start with the small, medium or large radius point? They went with the one they thought would sell best. I model in 00 where a B7 will be my minimum. If I were modelling in N gauge, then I'd be very tempted by British Finescale's EV15, but if they were to upscale their concrete flat bottom range to 00, then I suspect I'd have to 'make do' with a CV10.

I'm still getting that creeping white banner that comes down from the top on Google Chrome, which I find annoying because the topic I want to click on moves with it. I don't mind advertising at the top of the page, down the side or at the bottom of the page (the site has to be paid for after all), but I don't like the creeping nature of the new adverts.

@Nigelcliffe @AY Mod I seem to get the same error when posting Nigel's text - never seen that message before.

I don't know if it's the one that @The Stationmaster is referring to, but a quick Google search threw up this as an example - http://www.michaelclemensrailways.co.uk/article/working-timetables/553 (but only really of interest if you are interested in the Western Region).

There are several types of Hunt coupling for non-NEM stock. For example, https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-c-21/hunt-couplings-elite-pivoting-intermediate-screw-type-couplings-oo-gauge-p-191 https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/hunt-couplings-elite-oo-gauge-c-21/hunt-couplings-elite-close-coupling-couplings-for-clip-socket-oo-gauge-p-123 There are also options for the conversion of non-NEM stock to provide a NEM pocket and then use any of the NEM versions. https://www.westhillwagonworks.co.uk/hunt-couplings-c-2/coupling-accessories-c-25/ Start with some of the easier to convert wagons first.

I can't give you a conclusive answer either, but I'd very much doubt that they'd be more than 6": I think they are likely to be less. The door on the left, seems to have eight planks, so if the planks were 6" wide, then that would imply that the door is four foot wide. That's a fairly wide door, given that most standard width doors are between about 30" and three feet wide. I'd therefore suggest that the planks are possibly just 4" wide, which would give the door a width of three feet. Look at the door height. I'd say that the door is more than twice as tall as it is wide. I can't see a reason for a door that is more than eight foot high. A typical door would be between six and seven foot, which I think implies a standard width door. It also opens out onto the platform, which I think is likely to be about six feet wide. If the door was much more than three foot wide, then there wouldn't be much platform when the door was being opened. My guess (and that is all it is), is that the planks are probably 4" wide.

I know nothing of the MagNEM couplings, but a Google search threw up - https://www.glrailways.co.uk/oo-gauge-magnem-standard-width-omni-couplings---these-ignore-magnetic-polarity-821-p.asp. I'm not sure what these do that the Hunt Elite range doesn't, but I've no experience of either.

That looks really good, but how common is it for these wagons to be loaded up with different vehicle types? My perception (which could of course be wrong) is that these tend to carry a number of what look like identical vehicles.

I believe that the Dundee exhibition will go ahead three weeks earlier. https://www.dundee.com/event/dundee-model-railway-club-exhibition-2021

Is that for the original MHAs (as per the Hornby model), the later builds (as per the S-Kits resin body and the Accurascale ones), or both?

I've no specific knowledge of the 1960s as it was before my time, but I suspect that block workings were more common in the latter years of operation. With the advent of the air braked network in the 1970s, there was a trend towards using larger wagons and, as I understand it, the VEA 'Vanwide' was effectively retained for use on flows to/from sites that couldn't accommodate the larger air braked wagons (VAA etc). This would therefore have led to the VEA 'Vanwide' being concentrated on flows to/from specific locations that had operating constraints on wagon length and with the run down of vacuum braked services, most similar sized vans from the steam era would have been eliminated from the network, effectively leading to block workings of VEA 'Vanwide' by the 1980s. That would potentially be a reason for Bachmann choosing the later air braked variant as the start point. Those modelling the earlier period may only be looking to purchase a single wagon to add to a rake, whereas those modelling a more recent period may want half a dozen.