Dungrange

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.

I was thinking about replacing the curve that lies between your double slip and the straight part of your stabling siding between platforms 2 and 3 with a turnout and then connecting that to the gap that you currently have been the medium radius point that you've laid in place and the track that forms platform 2. What I was thinking about was the possibility of bringing a light engine from your track work at the bottom right of your photograph into that stabling siding, and then reversing via the link I'm suggesting to roughly where you have laid the medium radius point and then drive into a rake of coaches that are stabled in platform 2 ready to form a train to wherever that line goes. It's just a movement that is slightly different. I can see how you could extend the layout, but if you do that then you'll have a fifth platform between platforms 2 and 3. At the moment, it's less than a coach in length, but if you extend it, it could take a proper sized train. You might want to consider that before you number your platforms.

That looks good, although I'd have been tempted to have a bit more space between the gable end of the station building and the locomotive that is sitting in your rear platform. A locomotive hitting the buffers would likely put them through the station building! Also, is there any scope to add a connecting line between the approach to the second platform from the rear and that stabling siding that you have between platforms 2 and 3? That would allow you to run a locomotive between the two parts of the station. That is, although platforms 1 / 2 and 3 / 4 may serve different destinations, I'm assuming there is only likely to be one locomotive depot in the area at the time period you are modelling.

I assume that you are reasonably tall. I can reach about 850 mm if a layout is below waist level (ie something like 915 mm / 3 foot from the ground) and I'm standing on the floor, but if the layout was at something greater than 1220 mm / 4 foot from the ground, then my reach drops to about 700 mm. This is because with a layout at or below waist level, part of that reach is achieved by bending the waist, whereas at a higher level, it's determined by the distance from hand to shoulder. Sitting down with trains at eye level and my reach would be even less because there is a need to bend the arm to avoid obstacles that may be in the way (trees, buildings etc). Remember also that if your maximum reach is 865 mm and your baseboard width is also 865 mm, you won't be able to reach into the corner of the layout as you'd be reaching on a diagonal line rather than perpendicular to the baseboard edge. Personally, I'd be tempted to go with a narrower board width - something like 760 mm / 3'6" as a maximum. I'd also try and draw out your plan in a bit more detail before committing to having baseboards built.

Unfortunately, there are some people who have no issues with mixing stock from different periods and these even appear at exhibitions. Personally, I don't like it, but such layouts tend not to be particularly 'fine-scale', so I still agree with your point about trying to model everything to the same standard. I'd say there is a lot more than two different groups of people within this hobby, but if we limit the discussion to the prototype, then I broadly agree. There is a group for whom the locomotives are all that matter - it's what they went to spot in their youth. As such, they tend to obsess over details between different members of the same class - personally I don't care too much and I agree with you that many locomotive look the same. For some that interest extended beyond the locomotive to the rest of the train, but the number of people interested in coaching stock and wagons is generally less than the number who are interested in the locomotives. There are of course, as you highlight, those who are interested in the civil engineering side of the railway - the structures (viaducts, tunnels, bridges, platforms, station buildings) and of course the track. Having studied civil engineering at university, I find these elements as interesting as the trains themselves. However, I'd say that my greatest interest actually lies in operational items like timetabling and signalling - understanding how the railway operates as a transport system. However, we can also subdivide the railway modelling hobby into those who like to buy ready to run models and those who gain most of their enjoyment from the construction of kits (which sometimes are rarely used after they are built). We also have those who like the wiring to be as simple as possible, while we also have people at the other end of the scale, who want computer control and obsess about the endless tweaking of DCC CVs to improve the running characteristics. Some care about the scenery outside of the railway fence, while others don't. Ultimately, the hobby should be fun and therefore we should pursue whatever interests us most and sadly track is not that interesting to the majority of modellers (even if those who find it fascinating don't understand why so many people are simply not interested).

But surely the issue is that many people in this hobby are / were 'train spotters'. They visit or visited the line side to see a particular train, but sometimes just a particular locomotive and don't / didn't care much about what it was hauling, and that is why they are interested in the hobby. How many made a regular trip to their nearest railway station to look at the track? I agree that it's a fundamental part of a railway, but it's just not interesting to most people (though it can be interesting if you choose to study and understand it). I guess it's no different from asking how many people have a passionate interest in cars? How many of those have an interest in the road surface that they drive on?

I agree that it seems quite clear that there should be absolutely no intermingling between groups and it is up to the club's committee to put in place measures to ensure that doesn't happen - eg some form of segregation within the club room. Of course the rules in England are much more lax than the ones that apply here in Scotland. We can also have a group of six, but those six individuals are to be from a maximum of two households and individuals must social distance from other individuals in that group of six who are not from the same household. Since almost all of our members live in separate households, the social limit that we need to abide by is two. Of course the reduction in the number of allowable households was reduced from three to two, just as I was working on an access rota that would have allowed members to visit in bubbles of three. As such, our plans for reopening are now back on hold as it isn't really viable to have two groups of two, because they would have to share the access, toilet and it would be difficult to keep the pairs of households apart, since our club room is not that big.

The layout I'm building won't have a station, but equally wont just be a watching the trains go by layout. My plan has a down passing loop that provides the means to shunt a set of oil sidings that kick back from the down line, but also providing the turn back facilities necessary to shunt the rail distribution facility accessed from the up line. I guess the importance of a station depends on the period that you model, since in today's unit operated railway, a passenger station doesn't actually have that much activity. Yes, I could add station platforms and multiple units could stop at the station, but sometimes a station can be a little overrated. However, this thread isn't actually about whether or not there should be a station, but whether or not the station building actually has to be modelled.

Given that you don't intend to connect this new platform and track to the lines at the front (and we can assume it was perhaps once a separate station), can you make the platform a bit longer and then make the rear face of the platform a short bay and the other face (adjacent to your stabling siding) the longest platform that you'll have in the station? This would then allow you to have two platforms serving this second destination, but still model a station building in low relief down towards the back corner of the layout.

Personally, I don't like the arrangement that you had previously (bottom picture) as the four car multiple unit is passed the clearance point that would allow platform two to be used (in real life). I know you can squeeze something past in model form, but it's not prototypical and looks toy like. I think it would be better limiting these lines to two or three car units, so that they properly fit the platforms. With the alternative option (which I like better), I'm assuming that the back story is that it was once two separate railway stations. Company A built Platforms 3 and 4 and a slightly later date, Company B built their station alongside and these ultimately became Platforms 1 and 2 post grouping / nationalisation when the stations became integrated. If each island platform was built by a separate company and approached from a different direction then I guess there is no pressing need for each platform to be able to access all lines in the station approach. There would potentially have been some link between the two for a stock transfer, albeit I suppose that it could be argued that that connection is off scene because it would perhaps most likely have been provided wherever the freight facilities are assumed to be (since goods wagons would be passed from one company to another much more often than passenger stock).

I take your point, but just because a manufacturer is using photographs of a unit taken in 2003 doesn't mean that the prototype didn't carry that same livery in 2004 or indeed 2005. The problem is that trying to determine the later date possibly isn't part of their research, which is focused on trying to get the details right for the period that they are representing. If they just say c1998 to 2003, they may lose sales if in fact the unit or one of its classmates carried the livery for longer. The follow on point is of course when making a model of unit 170 xxx, do you want the information for that specific unit (ie unit 170 xxx was repainted on 24 July 2004) or do you want it for the class as a whole (because unit 170 yyy might not have been repainted or de-branded until 30 November 2005). This is heading into the territory where a book on Midland Mainline class 170 units may be more appropriate. I agree that a bit more information would be useful, but I suspect whatever was provided would still not be enough.

But surely the point is that if you don't know that information, why do you think a manufacturer will know? They will most likely produce a model based on photographs that were taken in perhaps 2002 or 2003 and the model is therefore representative of the prototype around that time. It doesn't really matter to them whether the unit they have modelled still carried that livery in 2004 or 2005. Those who care will either know or be willing to do the research, but I suspect many sales are made to less specific buyers who don't care. I don't think it would be cost effective for a manufacturer to undertake additional research just to answer these sorts of questions.

Who is going to compile this data? Who is going to pay for their time and how are they going to be paid? Who is going to pay for the costs of running the server that the data is stored on and who is going to pay for the website that runs the search criteria that access the database? I agree that it's not an impossible task, but how much are you willing to pay to access the information? Are you going to take out an annual subscription to this information site or would you prefer to pay a fee for each search on an ad hoc basis? If you know that you can get the information for the locomotive that you are interested in for a fee of £5 would you pay that or just use Google? If the majority of people would just use Google, then you have the answer as to why this database doesn't exist. Ultimately, it's the sort of information that someone might compile as a labour of love, but it will be bounded by that person's interests.

I suspect that part of the reason this information isn't provided by the manufacturers is simply because if they don't provide the information, then they can't be criticised for providing inaccurate information. As has already been noted, sometimes the stated Era isn't even correct. If a manufacturer can't get an Era accurate, then what hope is there of them providing accurate start and end dates for the modelled condition? I suspect that many models are produced based on a lot of photographs taken around, say, May 1971 and therefore the model may be an accurate representation of the locomotive at that time. However, if the manufacturer advertises the locomotive as being in 1971 condition, would that put those who model say 1969 or 1974 off purchasing the model? It seems easy to say that the locomotive was, say, green between 1965 and 1974 but if the manufacturer was to provide these dates, then the moaning nitpickers on here would point out that the locomotive didn't gain warning panels until 1967 or an aerial was removed in 1973. The manufacturers have probably realised that it's easier just to state that it is suitable for Era 6 and leave it up to potential purchasers to decide whether it meets their period criteria (given that some people model care much more about such details that others). Those who really care can spend an hour on Google: those who don't can just decide whether they like it and exercise Rule 1.

A picture of said wagon at https://www.reynaulds.com/products/Fleischmann/5555.aspx Basically, just measures the speed of the wagon from the revolutions of the wheels.

It sounds like a question you should be asking Hattons if it's a product that you're interested in. Looking at the catalogue number on the Hornby website, there is no mention of the product being TTS fitted. https://www.Hornby.com/uk-en/gbrf-class-66-co-co-66789-british-rail-1948-1997-era-11.html Perhaps the original owner had removed the TTS chip before selling to Hattons and the initial description is incorrect.

To be fair to Gaugemaster, 7/0.2 is probably adequate for most modest sized DC layouts that are going to be operated by a DC controller that is only capable of outputting 1 Amp, since a 7/0.2 wire is typically rated at about 1.4 Amps. As such, it's not really wrong to call it layout wire. However, as has been stated above, it's not really suitable for a DCC power bus, especially not with the system you have purchased. How thick a wire you need for a DCC power bus depends on the the output of your DCC command station and the size of your layout. First off, your Sig-na-Track ACE2 is capable of putting out 5 Amps, so your wire needs to be rated to carry at least 5 Amps, although you could use circuit breakers to create separate power districts that then have less power available. But as has been said above, you're also looking for minimal voltage drop along the length of the wire, which means something with a low resistance. The thicker the wire, the lower the resistance and the less any voltage drop will be. For a layout of the size you have outlined, I'd say you should be looking at 32/0.2 as a minimum for a DCC power bus. I can't remember what I eventually purchased for a similar sized layout, but it was something like https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/50m-Roll-2-5mm-30A-14-AWG-12v-AUTO-CABLE-30-AMP-CAR-WIRING-LOOM-WIRE-AUTOMOTIVE-/251775277191. However, as has been said, you can still use the wire that you have purchased for short dropper wires between the track and the bus (on the basis that resistance is proportional to length and therefore short lengths of thin wire won't have a significant resistance / voltage drop) and you can also use it for other purposes such as platform / street lights and lighting in buildings or wiring up LEDs in a control panel. Plenty of uses on a layout - just not a DCC power bus.

I don't see any reason why you can't wire up the layout such that you use EITHER a DC controller or a DCC Command Station with the ENTIRE layout under one form of control*. Just make sure that you install sufficiently thick wiring to accommodate the current output from the DCC system and include whatever isolating sections you would need for DC operation. However, you DO NOT want a form of cab control where each section can be switched independently to either a DC controller or a DCC controller, since as soon as you run something across a section break that then connects the DC and DCC systems together, you'll likely damage everything: DC controller, DCC command station and no doubt your locomotive decoders. *It is of course possible to have DCC for the track and DC for the accessories or vice versa. And you could also use different forms of control for entirely unconnected sections of track such as DCC for 00 but use DC for an entirely separate 009 narrow gauge feeder that doesn't intersect the 00 track. Like you, I'm building a DCC layout, but most of my locomotives are still analogue and I intend to use DCC for both the track and accessories (on separate buses) but to also be able to disconnect the DCC track output and connect a DC controller for testing and running unconverted stock. However, things like DCC circuit breakers like the PSX don't work with DC, so the larger the layout and more complex the DCC layout, the more difficult it will become to make it able to be switched from DC to DCC. Once you get to block occupancy detection, I think you need to commit to one form of control.

I think that demonstrates the problem - I understand that most people who have had Covid-19 have caught it from someone they know (family, friends and work colleagues) rather that from random strangers in a coffee shop, yet there's the perception that there is greater safety with the people you know. Since you know them, you assume there is less need for social distancing and that's the biggest risk.

Leaving DC locomotives on a DCC layout won't cause a short, but is not recommended and will ultimately damage the locomotive. The motor in a DC locomotive responds to a voltage difference such that if the voltage in one rail is greater than the other then it will move in one direction and if it's less then it will move in the opposite direction. This is the fundamental way in which DC control works. The problem is that the DCC signal is effectively an alternating current so a DC motor on a DCC layout would try to move forwards and then backwards 50 times a second. In reality, the locomotive would sit motionless and the motor would simply buzz until its ultimately destroyed. That therefore means that you have the two choices above - either remove / disconnect the motor or create an isolated section in the siding which is not powered (ie an isolating section as you'd have on a DC layout to stable a locomotive that you don't want to move). The choice is yours.