Dungrange

I think it was an auto correction, but I'm not sure what you meant to type either.

Just correcting one (as you tried to do), shouldn't really be a problem if the frogs are all correctly isolated, but it's a possibility that the one that you tried swapping the wires on is one where the frog is not properly isolated and somehow being fed from an adjacent turnout / frog. The approach that I'd take would be to disconnect all of the ones where the polarity of the frog is wrong and then start up connecting the one that is furthest away from the one you were trying to switch the stock rail wires over. Test that and if it now works correctly, move on until you find one that doesn't work. Disconnect that once and skip to the next. Let us know how you get on.

Is this website any help - https://www.speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator Type in the power output of your decoder (into the Amp power). Then enter the ohm rating for the speakers you would like to use in the combination that you'd like to wire them (series or parallel) and it will tell you the total impedance of your speaker combination, which you can check against the decoder manual, and the power rating that the speakers you intend to use should be.

The basics is probably once again down to reading the manual for the decoders that you are playing with - they should be on the manufacturer's website. The old ESU Loksound v3.5 decoders used 100 ohm speakers. The newer V4 and V5 versions, I think, work best with 4 ohm speakers, although if you use 8 ohm speakers they should still operate, but will be quieter. I think the Hornby TTS decoders use 8 ohm speakers, while the newer Zimo decoders use either 4 ohm or 8 ohm speakers, I can't remember which. If you're planning on using more than one speaker, then you'll need to ensure that you get a combination that meets the decoder requirements, which depends on whether you are wiring the speakers in series or in parallel. You'll also need to look at the power output of the decoder that you are playing with and ensure that you have a sufficiently powerful speaker (the Watt rating). Since you're using decoders for 0 gauge, they are likely to have a higher power output (sometimes 3 Watt), so you need to ensure you have speakers that are suitable.

I'd agree that it sounds as though the two switch inputs (terminals 2 and 3) are connected to the wrong stock rails. When switching these over, did you change the connections on all 11 that don't work at the same time, or was the short a consequence of only swapping the connections on one turnout? Would it be worthwhile disconnecting the frog wires on all 11 turnouts that don't work and starting again with these one at a time, checking the polarity is correct on the first one you reconnect before moving on to the next one? Alternatively, is it possible to change the orientation of the motors that don't work to be the same as the one that does? Simply swapping the wires to terminals 2 and 3 should achieve the same thing, but if that doesn't work, then physically changing the orientation of the motor might (although I'm not sure why it should).

I think @rab was just trying to be funny. Your title says 'duel' - which is an arranged combat between two people, whereas you actually meant to type 'dual' - meaning to have two purposes.

Langley produce a 00 pack that contains Hippos, Bears, Seals and Crocodiles - https://www.langleymodels.co.uk/awd1/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=8417&search=Z03 I'm not sure how you tell the difference between and H0 seal and a 00 one. Alternatively, Preiser, produce an H0 seal - https://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/Physiques/Wild-animals/Preiser-29518/gb/modell_49750.html or https://www.gaugemasterretail.com/magento/preiser-pr29518.html

I'm confused as to why swapping the wires to terminals 2 and 3 causes a short. Assuming @Oldddudders and the diagram provided by @Dagworth are correct, my understanding of the Tortoise is simply that there is a switch that connects terminal 4 to either terminal 2 or terminal 3. Thus the frog will be connected to one or other stock rail. Irrespective of whether or not the frog polarity is correct for the direction of the switch blades, it should not cause a short (until a piece of rolling stock runs through the turnout). It's probably a stupid question, but have you definitely inserted isolated rail joiners on both rails at the V, so that the frog is completely isolated and only being powered through the switch on the Tortoise? Are these Electrofrog points being used as supplied by Peco, or have you modified the wiring under the turnout?

I think you should be able to swap some of the functions on your ESU decoders around using Function mapping, so you could reassign the brake function to, for example, F2 if that's what you have on the Zimo decoder. That would of course mean moving another function to F5. Unfortunately, I can't tell you how to do that, although it is explained in the manuals on the ESU website. Basically, there is a series of CVs that define what each function button does, so you'd be swapping the values contained in the relevant CVs. I'm assuming that the coasting could be reduced by changing the deceleration CV (CV4), although presumably the current figure is optimised for the sound file.

I agree that if such information was being provided then I'd see it as a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), but I note that the domain name of the sender isn't an active website, but the domain name is registered to a company (G C V PVT LTD) in Karnataka, India. Presumably it's just a scam designed to try and get you to part with some money to access some dubious data.

No, but I wouldn't expect a deposit to be refunded if it was the customer who cancelled the purchase. Deposits are normally non-refundable. I'd only expect a deposit refund if the decision to cancel the order was taken by the retailer or manufacturer. Of course that's not to say that a retailer or manufacturer won't refund a deposit as a goodwill gesture, but I wouldn't expect it.

Looking at Antics website (https://anticsonline.uk/Category/Peco-Track-O-Gauge_N475), the set track points seem to have a radius of 40". The next step up seems to be a nominal curve radius of 72", which is probably what you should be aiming for, albeit I note that the curved point has an inner radius of 68", so if you can't get to six foot radius, then I've thought that must be perfectly satisfactory. I don't model in 0 gauge, but in 00, I'm aiming for 30" minimum, so multiplying that by 7/4 would give a minimum of 52.5" - would that be achievable?

I was aware that there are other detection methods and the existence of the DR5088RC although hadn't noted the higher current rating of that device compared to the DR4088xx series of detectors. I thought it was just the inclusion of Railcom that increased the price and I'm undecided as to whether or not I need that. My reason for looking at block occupancy detection is primarily to provide an indicator on a control panel as to whether or not a particular fiddle yard road is occupied or not rather than to be the eyes of a computer, but of course once the layout is up and running (probably in a few years time), I may change my mind, so thinking about putting any necessary rail breaks and track feeds in at the start to limit having to completely rewire in the future is what I'm pondering at the moment. I was also thinking about including feedback from the turnouts so that these can't be thrown when occupied. What sort of feedback device provides the turnout position indication?

I think this is to ensure that you can create a new feed to whatever is beyond the frog so that all track is permanently powered. If you don't add insulated rail joiners, then whatever siding the turnout is not set for will go dead, which means that DCC Sound and lights will go off.

Okay, but it's only rated for 3A use. I think the reference to 10A is simply that in a short circuit scenario, the DR4088 won't be damaged by 10A flowing through it very briefly before the DCC system shuts down. In my case, I think that would be suitable, provided I use a Circuit Breaker such as the PSX (https://www.coastaldcc.co.uk/products/dccspecialties/psx-powershield-x-2-block) to limit the current to the fiddle yard, as my DCC Command Station is capable of putting out 5A, which is more than the 3A continuous rating.

Since I have similar questions to the OP I'll jump in here with a question of my own: can you clarify the distinction between 'blocks' and 'feedbacks', as I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making. Is the distinction only within the computer software? I'm not sure whether I'll go as far as computer automation, but I may change my mind at a future date, so I've been giving future conversion some thought before I lay the track and start the wiring. I was therefore thinking about fitting, what I thought were block occupancy detectors like the DR4088 from Digikeijs - https://www.digikeijs.com/en/dr4088ln-2r-16-channels-s88n-feedback-module-with-l-net-cs.html, to monitor each fiddle yard road. My understanding of these is that there needs to be a single dropper wire from each track section to the DR4088, which is then connected to the DCC Power bus. In my case, each fiddle yard road is around nine feet in length (some are a bit longer), split across three baseboards, so I was assuming that I'd connect up a single DR4088 on the centre board and then carry 24 dropper wires (16/0.2 wire) for the twelve tracks across each of the two baseboard joins so that I'd only have one feed to each section (ie several droppers from the track all connected together before connecting to the DR4088). That would also mean that some of my block sections would be around 11 foot in length. However, your comments, along with those of @peach james, suggests that I would need shorter lengths of track connected to each DR4088 (ie I should use more than one DR4088), with each feedback section being shorter (ie possibly one DR4088 per board) so that many of my loops would have multiple feedback sections. Is that correct? Is the block the concept of the fiddle yard road, where the feedback is the process of detecting the time that the monitoring is triggered?

The Medieval Castle is on that site that I linked to at £32.99. Having looked at few on Amazon as well, they seem to be much the same cost as buildings from other sources. I think it's probably the roofs that would make many of them not that suitable for use as British buildings.

Yes - that's the livery that it carried in service for several years from its introduction in about 1929 until it was withdrawn around 1936 and rebuilt in 1937. There is already a whole thread on the Hornby W1 that discusses all of the details, livery differences etc -

I think the reality is that one hand is medium radius (ie around 36" / 915 mm) but the other hand is small radius (ie around 24" / 610 mm). That is, it is effectively a small radius turnout overlaid on a medium radius turnout. The overall length is the same as a medium turnout with the difference in length between a medium and small turnout (about 40 mm) being the difference between the tips of the two sets of switchblades.

That's not correct since I'm using one sample to factor a baseline - the flaw lies with your understanding. I'm absolutely NOT assuming that all railway modellers either belong to a club or are members of RMWeb. If that was my assumption, I'd use addition rather than multiplication. To help you understand. We have railway modellers who are: members of RMWeb but are NOT members of a model railway club; members of both RMWeb AND a local model railway club; members of a model railway club who are NOT members of RMWeb; and NOT members of either RMWeb or a local model railway club. ALL railway modellers MUST fit into one of these four categories. That is an absolute certainty. We know that the number of people in groups 1 and 2 combined is approaching 40,000 (if we ignore the argument of 'active' membership and the need to adjust that figure for duplicate accounts, individuals having died, not living in the UK etc). What I don't know is what proportion of the RMWeb membership on here are also members of a local model railway club, so I can't split that figure down with any certainty, but I'd guess from comments in various threads that potentially only five to ten percent of those on here are members of their local model railway club. I'll therefore use the mid-point of that range: 7.5%. That would therefore give us approximately 37,000 railway modellers in group 1 and 3,000 in group 2. That is the RMWeb group. From my sample of local club members, I'd say that three quarters are NOT on RMWeb, so I'm effectively estimating group 3 as being three times larger than group 2, so I'm estimating group 3 to be around 9,000. That is, I'm assuming that model railway clubs across the UK have a combined membership of around 12,000 members (groups 2 and 3 combined). Is that reasonable? I know that AMRSS Ltd (what was formally the Association of Model Railway Societies in Scotland) has just over 30 affiliated clubs, with a combined membership across these clubs of approximately 800 individuals. There are probably a few clubs in Scotland not affiliated to AMRSS Ltd, but I think it's fair to say that there is potentially around 900 railway modellers in Scotland who are a member of their local model railway club. Scotland accounts for about one twelfth of the UK population, so it would be reasonable to assume that the figure for the UK as a whole is 12 times greater. That means that my assumption of 12,000 railway modellers across groups 2 and 3 is probably reasonable. That therefore gives: Group 1 = 37,000 (on RMWeb but not a member of a model railway club) Group 2 = 3,000 (on RMWeb and a member of a model railway club) Group 3 = 9,000 (a member of a model railway club, but not on RMWeb) Therefore I'm assuming that the total number of railway modellers who are either on RMWeb or are a member of their local model railway club would add up to something like 49,000. The big one is of course how many railway modellers are neither on RMWeb or a member of their local model railway club. That is the largest group and the one that we know least about. However, if my survey of local club members shows that the number of club members who are not on RMWeb is three times greater than the number who are, I can apply that same assumption to the number of individuals on RMWeb who are not members of their local club, which would give me an estimate of three times 37,000 = 111,000 (for my group 4). Adding that very rough estimate of those who are neither on RMWeb or a member of their local model railway club give the 160,000 figure that I quoted. I was including everyone, so there is no fundamental flaw. Based on the figures you've quoted above, if 20% of exhibition attendees belonged to a club and I estimate there may be 12,000 club members in the UK, then you're indicating that the number of railway modellers who attend exhibitions may be five times that figure - ie 60,000. That therefore means that I'm estimating that there may be at least 100,000 railway modellers in the UK who don't attend model railway exhibitions, which sounds a little on the high side. Ultimately, the 50-60% that you think have at least a direct interest in model railways would lie within the 37,000 RMWeb members of the 111,000 non-RMWeb members that I've indicated above, so it would be wrong to try double the 150,000 or 160,000 figure already quoted. Ultimately, it's all guess work.

These are both potentially valid points, but if adjusting your base point, you also need to adjust your scaling factors to the same metric. I'm not sure how to find the number of "active members" on this site (by your definition), but let's for the sake of argument say that it's half of the member accounts. That would therefore give us a base figure of say 20,000. However, if I go back to my fellow club members, although I know around a quarter have posted on here at some time, potentially only half of those have posted in the last month because a know there are a few infrequent visitors. That therefore means that I might end up applying a scaling factor of eight rather than four and therefore I'd still end up in the same ballpark. I'd therefore have either: 40,000 (Total RMweb accounts) / 0.25 (Proportion of E&LMRC members who have an RMWeb account) = 160,000; or 20,000 (assumed RMWeb accounts that have posted content in the last month) / 0.125 (Estimate of the proportion of E&LMRC members who have posted on RMweb in the last month) = 160,000. What you're highlighting in your first point is the importance of ensuring that your baseline figure that you extrapolate from and the survey that you use to extrapolate must be consistent. If they are not, then you've no hope of getting the 'right' answer. As for "Military Modelling", was it not possible to be a military modeller without buying the magazine? I post on RMWeb, but generally don't by BRM. Does the fact that I post on RMWeb make me a railway modeller or can I never be a railway modeller unless I buy BRM? Ultimately, I'd argue that you could be a military modeller without buying "Military Modelling" magazine and therefore if you had 16,000 people on the forum, there are at least 16,000 people interested in military modelling. The fact that only, say, 2,000 of these may have bought the magazine indicates one of two things: the magazine didn't provide value for money; or simply the number of people who are interested in a subject is many times greater than the circulation figures for a relevant magazine. It would for example be possible to conduct a survey on here asking members of RMWeb how many issues of BRM magazine they have purchased (not read) over the last 12 months and then use that proportion to scale up the circulation figures for BRM. If say one in six members on here regularly buy BRM, then you scale the magazine circulation figures by six to get an estimate of the size of the hobby. That is, say six times a circulation figure of something like 25,000 copies of each issue of the magazine would give a estimated number of railway modellers in the region of 150,000. You could conduct a similar survey using Model Rail magazine or Railway Modeller and each would give a slightly different answer (based on how representative the sample is), but I think you'll find that whatever method you use, you'll end up with a figure somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000.

That's all very true and serves to demonstrate the significant issue in estimating a rather vague term such as how many people are railway modellers in the UK. To add to that list, there is of course the fact that not all members of RMWeb live in the UK. There are a few on here from North America, Australia (including yourself) and no doubt many other locations across the globe. That therefore means that the base number needs to be adjusted by other estimates, all of which are effectively guesses. So, RMWeb has 39,332 members of which let's say 2% don't live in the UK, 2% of those who do live in the UK have passed away, but their account is still active and of those who are still alive and do live in the UK, 4% of such members have a second or duplicate account. That therefore means that I'd have 39,332 * 0.98 * 0.98 * 0.96 * 4, which would give me an estimate of 145,000. Ultimately, the only accurate number that I have used is the number of RMWeb member accounts - anyone can pick holes in any of the assumptions used to factor that number up and the same applies irrespective of what the start point used is, which could be exhibition attendances (remember them), magazine circulation, or members of the Hornby of Bachmann Collectors clubs or the Scalefour Society. Which then brings in the other thing we can argue about - which start point is the most representative group in relation to the question. Are all RMWeb members railway modellers, for example?

Ultimately, there is no definitive data on how many people are railway modellers in the UK. Any number quoted is simply an estimate based on factoring known data. The start data may be reasonably accurate, but the multiplicative factor is little more than a reasoned guess. For example, RMWeb has almost 40,000 members (39,332 to be precise, as of today). I'm also a member of a model railway club and around a quarter of my fellow club members post on here. Therefore, from my small sample of fellow club members, I'd say an estimate of the size of the hobby is four times the number of RMWeb members, which gives me an estimate of 160,000. However, that estimate is subject to a fairly high level of uncertainty because I don't know how accurate my sample of fellow club members is of the population as a whole. I'm assuming four is a reasonable factor, but perhaps it could be three or five, which would yield estimates of 120,000 or 200,000 respectively. However, you can also start with figures such as magazine sales and again do a sample survey of people asking them which magazines they buy to again derive a factor by which you can multiply the circulation figures for any magazine by. If you use several starting points, you'll probably find that the answer is somewhere in the region of 150,000, which is I think the conclusion that was reached when this was discussed once before and is the figure that @spamcan61 has already quoted.

I'm not sure that's a big issue - I find a lot of buildings sold as 00 to be bit under scale. Unfortunately, I can't see dimensions of the building on the website: I'm not really interested in the dimensions of the box!!! There does appear to be a UK stockist listed on their website (albeit they don't have stock at the moment) - http://www.creativemodels.co.uk/buildings_172_buildings-c-1_219_218.html?oscsid=k25lppkiv84uh35dmfj5ib9825

When compiling a stock database in Excel, do RMWebbers tend to produce one line per item of stock or one line per catalogue reference? I have several multi-packs - particularly wagons, but also locomotives that were bought as a twin pack. Would most people record these as two or three separate records (one per item of stock) with each item being valued at one half of one third of the multi-pack value? A stock database is something I feel that I should have, but currently don't.