Dungrange

I get the same, only 'my account' appears as a drop down, but if you double click on shop then you get a list of projects that you can order.

The Glenrothes Model Railway show that was due to be held on 9th / 10th May 2020 has also been cancelled. My club was due to attend, but although I got an e-mail about three weeks ago advising the show was cancelled, it wasn't on their website at the time, but it is now. https://www.glenrothesmrc.org.uk/exhibition/

Martin, As we discovered on a previous thread a couple of months ago just at the point it was locked, Andy's issue with 00-SF lies in the fact that "you" are not promoting a single specified wheel standard for what he sees as "your standard", which means that the clearances between wheels and track are variable depending on what wheel sets are used. Andy doesn't have an issue with P4 or EM because both the Scalefour Society and the EM Gauge Society publish both track standards and promote a single wheel standard - ie all wheels should be the same width, with the same flange thickness, depth etc. Similarly, the NMRA also publishes track standards for HO (which you don't like because of the nonsense of specifying ranges) and has a recommended wheel profile: RP25/110. I don't even think Andy has an issue with EM-2 as a standard, but he feels that if that is what is being used as the track standard, then it MUST be used with EM profile wheels and only EM profile wheels, so that you can calculate a consistent clearance figure between the wheels and the track. The fact that many people are using track built to EM-2 standard with modern ready to run wheels that don't comply with the EM wheel standard, seems to annoy him in the same way as 00 models that don't have wheels that conform to the NMRA RP25/100 standard also seem to annoy him. I'd be tempted to say that Andy has a form of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) where anything that deviates from 100% optimal track and wheel standards is a problem that he needs to constantly air. That then leads onto the issue as to why he never listens to your valid criticism of the NMRA track standards. You've highlighted many times in multiple threads, that your issue lies in the triple dimensions for everything where only one should be defined, but he doesn't want to listen because he sees you as the 'idiot' who 'promotes' of 00-SF. I think you'll both just have to agree to disagree.

It may only be a few minutes work, but it still costs money, which lots of people seem to fail to understand. The national minimum wage is currently £8.72 per hour. On top of that employers must pay National Insurance (13.8%) and employer's pension contributions (at least 3%) and provide at least 28 days paid holidays for every 233 worked (which equates to a benefit worth at least 12% of salary). That means that the cost of employing someone on minimum wage is £8.72 (salary) + £1.20 (NI) + £0.26 (Pension) + £1.05 (holidays) = £11.23 per hour or about 19p per minute. I'll ignore other benefits like sick pay, which also have a cost to employers. Loading a sound file may take just three minutes, but that is more than 50p of an employees time, which is not trivial when compared to the, say, £15 sale price (exclusive of VAT). If it takes another five minutes or thereby to process an order (whether that is locating and e-mailing a file or posting out a decoder), then you have another £1 of variable cost. Similarly, if the credit card company charges a 5% transaction fee on the £18 (inc VAT) reblow cost, then that's another £0.90 of variable costs that the seller incurs. Add all of these together and you're probably looking at 15 - 20% of your costs being variable rather than fixed. As for fixed costs, you highlight the cost of producing a sound file, but what about the fixed costs of rent, rates, utility bills etc for retail premises, all of which need to be paid for from the maybe £13 that you have after deducting VAT and variable (labour) costs from the £18 sale price?

Keen Systems - http://www.keen-systems.com/Couplings.html

You could be right, but what tends to happen when someone is actually 'making a killing' is that others set up in competition for a slice of the 'easy money', thus driving down profit margins. Since there's not a rapidly growing range of sound decoder manufacturers, that would suggest that profit margins are perhaps not as high as you might think. Besides, manufacturers need to make a profit to invest in new products, so the notion that profit is bad is a little misguided. But no-one sells sound files at £100. A re-blow, which is purchasing a sound file on its own, will only set you back £15 - £20. Besides, not all of the costs of producing and selling a sound file are fixed. Yes, the actual cost of recording and editing the sounds is, but there is also the time to load the sound file onto the decoder (which is a variable cost). Transaction costs (time spent processing the customers order and sending it out, along with credit card transaction charges) are also a variable cost. Also, no-one has mentioned Value Added Tax (VAT). Whilst the producer of a sound file might charge you £18, £3 goes straight to Her Majesty's Government and the sound producer only gets the remaining £15. If you want to buy a combination package, that comprises the hardware, software and sound file, then yes, you may pay £100, but remember that if the seller receives £85 (ex VAT), then it will cost the consumer £102 inclusive of VAT, with £17 of the purchase price going straight to HMG. The £85 then has to be split between whoever designed the hardware, whoever produced the hardware, whoever wrote the software and whoever produced the sound file. Each party needs to make a few pounds of profit to make a living as well as cover their own production costs (which includes rent, rates, staff costs, utility costs etc). Cheaper sound decoders would be nice, but ultimately as a consumer, you either pay the price being asked, you do without, or if you really think there is easy money to be made, you set yourself up as a competitor and 'make a killing' yourself.

Flangeway are producing a ready to run version of the Salmon and whilst cranes aren't part of the first batch, I understand that they are planned along with the later air braked versions. Unfortunately, it may take a while before they're produced, but I guess you could ask if they'd make the cranes available as a spare part.

I think the answer depends on how you intend to operate the layout, but I'd move the point that accesses the engine shed to the right. The reason is that assuming the platform is occupied by a passenger train, an inbound goods train is likely to enter from the right, run through the loop and stop just short of the buffers. This goods train is likely to comprise a locomotive, half a dozen wagons and a brake van. Ideally there would be enough space between the brake van and the point accessing the engine shed for a locomotive to come off shed to do the shunting. That therefore means that the distance between your buffer stop and the access to the engine shed should be long enough to accommodate two locomotives, one brake van and however many wagons you intend to include in your goods train.

Personally, I don't understand the drawing. The track gauge is obviously 16.4846 mm, which is at the minimum. What dimensions do the 13.9122 mm and 14.3256 mm represent? To me these look like a check span and a back-to back dimension, but that would make the back-to-back less than the minimum. It also would't align with the check rail gauge being 15.4178 mm. I therefore have to conclude that the 14.3256 mm is the check span, but what the 13.9122 mm is meant to show or indeed what the 1.2862 mm and 1.3462 mm dimensions are, I'm not sure. Therefore, since I don't really understand the diagram, I can't tell whether it complies with the NMRA HO standard.

Based on the track plan, I'd have thought that the line may have been operated as 'one engine in steam', but I accept that you could have two trains in the station at the same time. However, since there is only one platform, I wouldn't have thought that you'd ever have had an autotrain in the loop at the same time as you have a two or three coach passenger train sitting in the platform. It would be one or the other on the layout at any point in time with all passenger trains occupying the platform road when 'on scene'. The justification for having two trains on the layout at the same time would be that there is a long single track line and your departing passenger train has to wait for the inbound goods train to arrive before it can depart. You'd therefore have a passenger train in the platform and your goods train would arrive in the loop and siding beyond the loco release crossover. I'd be tempted to move your engine shed to roughly where your signal box is shown, so that once your passenger train has departed, you can draw a loco from the shed to the loop to then shunt your goods train, with the inbound goods loco moving to the shed to be prepared for its return trip. Again, you may want your next passenger train to arrive before the goods train can depart (because of the long single line section), but it would probably be marshalled in the loop ready to depart before the passenger train arrives. The goods would then depart before the passenger locomotive is able to run round. Ultimately, the purpose of the loop is to allow a locomotive to run round your three coach train whilst it is sitting at the platform and therefore the coaches need to fit between the two crossovers. You need to check that you have the space to make that run-round move, as it looks rather 'tight'. Many loops would be long enough to accommodate a much longer train than was used. If you were to move the engine shed to roughly where the signal box is located, you wouldn't need any trap points on the track-work below the mainline as the trapping would be performed by regular points. You would still need the trap point for the coal siding/ goods shed, although it would ideally be further from the passenger running line to allow it to derail a vehicle clear of the running line.

I note that you haven't shown any insulated joins in your extension section. If this is correct, then your sections 5 and 8 are now connected as though they are one section, which is probably the cause of your problems. Power to points should normally be fed from the toe end (the end with the switch blades). I'd therefore split both of your loops to separate sections 5 and 8 and thereby ensure that all points are fed from the toe end.

Whilst I can see a market for a larger radius point, I can't see Peco jumping to a whole new system as suggested, when they look to be expanding the current bullhead range. As such, I think it would be more likely that they would stick with the same 2" (50.8 mm) track centres and just change the crossing angle. This would make any 'extra large' turnout incompatible with the current small, medium and large points when making more complex formations, but would allow a crossover formed from two extra large turnouts to still fit with the rest of the range.

Your loop should be long enough to allow you to run round the train. As you've drawn it (the length where the two lines are parallel), it doesn't look as though you'll be able to run round anything longer than about two coaches - you probably have about four foot maximum between your fouling points. Is that the longest train you plan to accommodate? Catch points, or more correctly trap points, are only required where you need to stop a movement that would infringe a passenger line. If the blue shaded lines are non-passenger lines, then there is no need to trap the Engine shed siding. The 'catch points' however should be far enough back that they would actually derail a vehicle before it gets to the passenger line: they look a bit close to the running line.

I know nothing of the Wolverhampton area, but I agree with the above post - I don't see what the operational benefit is of the loops between your two platforms. Unless you're terminating two trains and running round both at the same time, I'd have thought you could loose one or both of the centre roads unless they are really characteristic of Wolverhampton Low Level. I'd also have thought it unlikely that the way into your motive power depot is via a facing point. I'd have thought access via a trailing point would have been more likely. I also agree that there should be some form of fiddle yard, otherwise you're effectively stabling your trains in the station and running these round the rest of the layout one at a time. You also seem to have what looks like two bay platforms at the top, but I don't see how these are supposed to operate. A train departing from top left seems to have a lot of wrong line running before you can change onto the correct line via you crossover at the bottom. Similarly, you need a lot of wrong line running to access the bay platform at the top right. Finally, any goods train leaving from your blue area and heading right, would have a lot of wrong line running to be able to get onto the correct track. Ultimately though, it's up to you how you want to operate the layout, so good luck with whatever you decide.

There's nothing to stop you having two separate track buses so that both tracks can be controlled independently when using DC - since that is your start point. The same two bus approach can be adopted under DCC as well with each loop being a separate power sub-district if you want. If you set up a DCC Command station with a circuit breaker between the Command Station and each of your two track buses, then if you get a short on one loop, the other will remain operational. However, your layout is relatively small (although you haven't said what gauge you are using), so I doubt that you need to worry too much about the current handling capacity of your bus wire. Wire with a cross section of 1.5 mm2 will carry more current than your Command Station is likely to be able to supply (typically up to 6 Amp maximum) and voltage drop over the size of layout that you are building shouldn't be enough to cause any issues.

Okay, I assumed you were trying to value one life higher than others. I agree that making choices on any ground other than immediate medical outcome raises a moral dilemma. However, I think that was the whole point of the article that I was commenting on. Doctors in some Italian hospitals are now so overwhelmed with admissions that they literally are at the point of making these moral judgements. Two individuals may have a similar chance of survival, but they have to choose one over another because they don't have the resources to try to save both. They therefore have to effectively assign a value to each life to make that choice, which is not an enviable position to be in - effectively deciding who lives and who dies. Is / was is effectively semantics. Even if he has not yet retired (but presumably will do soon, since I'd originally referred to someone who had maybe five years left), the question is still whether or not his life is twice as valuable as others, which is subjective. It's a position where you are deliberating over whether we are all equal and asking if some individuals are potentially more valuable than others. Like you, I have great sympathy for medical personnel who have to make these choices over who may live and who is likely to die as a result of a health care system that is overloaded, as we are seeing in northern Italy. I don't think these difficult decisions need to be made more difficult by asking doctors to consider whether an older person has other dependent relatives living in their home (as was suggested earlier), or reviewing the quality of the research that they have undertaken during a distinguished career and questioning whether these people are therefore more valuable to society than any other patient. Triage decisions need to be made quickly. However, returning to my original comment about economics, when preparing a business case for a piece of transport infrastructure, I need to consider the useful life of whatever is being proposed. There may be value in spending £ X million on something that will last for 60 years, but not if the useful life is just five years. With a short useful life there may not be enough time to accumulate sufficient benefits to justify the initial cost and in such circumstances, the longer term transport option may be preferable. Although very crude, a doctor considering the age of patients (or more correctly an estimate of their likely remaining lifespan) as part of their patient selection process is not radically different from when I consider the difference in costs and benefits between a short term and a long term transport intervention. The difference is that the doctor has to make that decision in minutes rather than collating evidence of the pros and cons of all options over weeks or months as someone in a desk based job would.

It's interesting that you've asked that question and I suspect your opinion on economic theory and your answer to your own question probably don't align. I'll be evasive and say that the correct answer is to choose two alternative younger people, as there will probably be another ten admissions wanting that bed in the next hour! However, ignoring that option, if you choose the distinguished medical researcher then you are on the slippery slope that you advise against - that is, you will have assigned a value to one life that is double the value that you have assigned to the others. What is the basis of assigning that higher value to someone simply because they had a distinguished career? It's subjective and an a elitist attitude: one where you are not valuing everyone equally. It's an attitude that is reminiscent of the pigs in George Orwells 1984: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Ultimately, someone's past should be separated from their future because it is only their future that a doctor is trying to save. If you want a truly civilised society, then you need to save as many individuals as possible with the available resources and that outcome demands focusing on the ones that are most likely to survive.

I agree with what is said in that video about timing, albeit it is a little simplistic. The problem is that there is a big difference between the number of confirmed cases (ie those who have tested positive to date) and the actual number of infected people, which is probably at least 10 times higher. There is a time between infection and a person showing symptoms known as the incubation period (2-14 days according to the World Heath Organisation (WHO)). The UK Government's current advice is that people displaying symptoms should self-isolate for seven days and only if their symptoms are getting worse will they be tested for Covid-19. It will then take a further 24 hours before the test results are known. That therefore means that the time from infection to being confirmed Covid-19 positive is somewhere in the region of 10 - 22 days (incubation period + self isolation period + test result wait). I believe the median figure is probably around 12-13 days. That therefore means that the 'lock-down' needs to start 12 or 13 days before the health service reaches capacity taking account of the fact that the number of new cases in the UK is increasing by several hundred per day and the rate of increase is increasing. What we are likely to see from Italy is that the number of cases and deaths will continue to rise until we get to around two weeks after their full lock-down and at that point the number of new cases will stabilise and then start to slow. There will still be further cases and further deaths but the numbers will be lower than the trend that we are currently seeing in Italy. My concern is that the UK Government are overestimating the capacity of the NHS to cope with not today's cases, but today's cases plus the likely increase over the next two weeks plus whatever additional cases are caused by not taking action today. I just hope that they make the call at the right time, otherwise there will be needless deaths.

But we're NOT talking about running a civilised community. We are talking about responding to a crisis caused by political inaction. Absolutely, that's the answer which we seem to be reaching. I'm coming to the opinion that the authorities in Italy were too slow to react. The media seem to be indicating that the UK is three or four weeks behind Italy in terms of the proportion of the population that may be infected but the Government here seems to be saying that we should wait until we get to where Italy was before they introduced their lock-down before we need to do the same, which in my opinion is wasting time and not really learning from the experience of China and Italy.

But the point is that the decision has to be made quickly by an overworked doctor who is under immense pressure to allocate extremely scarce resources in the most economically efficient manner. They don't have the luxury of time to ascertain the nuances of whether an older person still provides accommodation for younger family members and what would happen to the proceeds of the sale of their home if they were to die. I agree that if staff who need to make the call weren't under pressure and could dither until they felt they had the full facts then some decisions could be different. Unfortunately, that's not the position that medical staff in Wuhan and Lombardy were / are in. Agreed and that was the opinion of the author of the article - a need for more aggressive social distancing to avoid the scenario where medics are forced to prioritise between two patients in a matter of minutes. I'm therefore swaying towards the group who feel that the current UK Government are not doing enough.

I agree and I'm not convinced that there is as much genuine 'panic' buying going on as the media reports and photographs circulating on social media are intended to suggest. However, what I think we are seeing is a weakness in the 'just in time' way in which society normally works brought about first by a fear of being quarantined and then by the second fear of disruption and it's becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. The problem as I see it is that manufacturers produce goods and ship them to distribution centres as quickly as possible. These centres then distribute to stores as quickly as possible and goods are taken from the delivery vehicle straight to the shelf. There are not large warehouses full of stock as that is 'dead' capital. That's fine when everyone is acting normally and perhaps doesn't buy toilet rolls until they have only two rolls left. That is, they also normally buy on a 'just in time' principle much like the supermarkets. However, fear created by the media makes individuals rethink their own personal strategy. Instead of waiting until their cupboard is almost empty, they buy earlier because they might be quarantined. That's not a panic, but preparation. They are not necessarily buying much more than they usually would, but they buy earlier to build up some reserve in their cupboards and it doesn't take too many people buying earlier to lead to shortages because the supermarket doesn't have enough stock to refill the shelf until their next delivery. The supermarkets would be able to restock quickly enough if that was the only fear, but photographs of these shortages, then give rise to the second fear that the shops will run out and seeing empty shelves just gives credence to that fear which produces a second round of buying, which just makes matters worse. It will hopefully sort itself out in time, but I can appreciate that the sudden change in shopping habits will make it difficult for supermarkets to estimate future demand.

I agree that it's not pleasant reading for older people and those with health conditions, but it makes perfect sense for society as a whole. Do you use one critical care bed for an old person who would require it for four weeks and then if they survive thy might only live for another five years or do you use it for two younger healthier people who may each only require such care for two weeks and both may go on to live for another 20 or 30 years? Whilst it's medical staff who have to perform that triage, it's sound enough economic theory to choose the option that has the greatest benefit to society as a whole.

But that doesn't actually disprove Lantavian's point. Guesses are often wildly inaccurate simply because nobody can see far inside the jar - nobody is disputing that. The point being made is whether or not those making a guess know what others have guessed. I could look at said jar and estimate that there might be about 30 sweets in the bottom 'layer' and there might be 20 such layers, so I'll guess that there are 600 sweets in the jar. If I don't know what others are guessing, then that will be my guess. However, if I look at other peoples guesses and see that every other guess has been in the range between say 150 and 400, I might be tempted to rethink my estimation strategy once I'm aware that my guess (which might be spot on) looks like an outlier.

It's certainly true that the majority of those who have died are in the older age group. However, what proportion of these deaths of older people are due to 'death selection' by the medical professionals in countries at the centre of the outbreak? In Wuhan, the healthcare system was 'swamped' by high numbers of new admissions and reportedly unable to cope. The Chinese solution was two build two temporary hospitals to increase the capacity of its healthcare system to try to meet demand. I believe that we have the same situation in the Lombardy region of Italy, where there are not enough ambulances, all hospital beds are full and there are insufficient critical care facilities. This means that people who should probably be in hospital are left alone at home. This therefore presents medics with an incredibly tough choice. They have two admissions that need critical care facilities, but only one hospital bed. Do they focus resources (staff as well as beds and critical care equipment) on a 30 year old mother with a good chance of survival or an 80 year old man with underlying health conditions? That choice might seem quite clear: let the older person die. Of course it gets more difficult when the older person is healthy and the young person less so. I'm glad that I'm not on the front-line making these sort of touch choices that ultimately determine who lives and who dies. Obviously in the less affected countries, which includes the UK for now, those choices are not yet having to be made by medical staff, but they probably will be soon.

I know the feeling. We had a new kitchen fitted last year, which also involved taking down a couple of walls and lifting and relaying the floor which originally sloped about 3" from one side to the other. Microwaved meals and takeaway pizza was a novelty for a few weeks, but after a few months, the novelty had well and truly worn off. At least it looks like you are nearing the end of your works.