 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / July 2005What's changed?
Once upon a time, I was a fairly avid railway modeller. I had a decent layout, was a member of my local club, visited every exhibition within reasonable driving distance and spent much of my spare time fiddling with trains and scenery. However, a change of job meant a change of location, and I ended up in a rented flat with no room to swing a cat, let alone set up a decent model layout. Plus, i wasn't expecting to be there very long (and I was doing contract work, so I wasn't expecting to be anywhere for very long!). So I packed the whole lot up into boxes and delivered it to my parents with instructions to look after it until I wanted it back. That was just under 20 years ago. In the meantime, I haven't touched the stuff, other than attending the occasional exhibition. However, recently my other half has been pestering me, in her words, to "get a hobby that will get you off the computer", and I do now have a nice house with plenty of space. So I've been toying with the idea of reposessing all the stuff I put into storage (although how much will still be usable after 20 years is anyone's guess) and starting a new layout. So, what I'm wondering is how much the hobby has changed since then. In particular, how have prices shifted - is it more, or less expensive (in real terms) than it was then? Also, what about new technology - one thing that had just come onto the scene not long before I got out of it was digital control (Hornby's Zero One system is the brand name that I remember, although there were others), and I recall seeing a few layouts at exhibitions with computerised control (using a Sinclair Spectrum or similar!). Is digital control the norm now, or is it sill a minority thing? What brands should I be looking for if I wanted to go down that route? Despite the fact that SWMBO wants me to spend less time with the computer, I rather like the idea of combining two hobbies and programming a timetable into a new layout so that it effectively operates itself. Are there people doing this sort of thing? Does any software exist for it? Any comments welcome. Mark  Signaturehttp://www.CorporateContact.info - for when you need to get in touch "When your thoughts are too expensive to ever want to keep" > Once upon a time, I was a fairly avid railway modeller. I had a decent > layout, was a member of my local club, visited every exhibition within > reasonable driving distance and spent much of my spare time fiddling > with trains and scenery. > That was just under 20 years ago. In the meantime, I haven't touched > the stuff,...... > > So, what I'm wondering is how much the hobby has changed since then. > In particular, how have prices shifted - is it more, or less expensive > (in real terms) than it was then? Lets assume you're talking about OO, 4mm scale, mostly using read to run models (as opposed to kit building and scratchbuilding, finescale (P4/EM, etc) which have also changed a lot). OO ready to run has transformed; the best models are now very good. They run well, and the detailing is excellent. There are still some old-dog models from every manufacturer, so it pays to ask around about any particular loco or piece of stock you had in mind. Cost wise, I think its cheaper than it was. Mostly down to the export of production to China. However, its swings and roundabouts, some things are going to be more expensive. If you factor in the improved loco quality, its definitely cheaper. > Also, what about new technology - > one thing that had just come onto the scene not long before I got out > of it was digital control (Hornby's Zero One system is the brand name > that I remember, although there were others), Zero-one is now obselete, along with the other systems which were available 20 years ago. There is an international standard called DCC. Conceptually the same thing - chip in each locomotive controlled by a digital master unit. Its slowly gaining popularity in the UK, and probably worth moving into because it does seem to give better control once the chipset in the loco is tuned to the motor and loco's characteristics. Major makers found readily in the UK are Lenz and ZTC, though there are many other makers of kit, both controllers and loco chips. In theory, everything interworks at the track level, though the control systems do not necessarily interwork (ie. if you buy Lenz controllers, don't expect to be able to easily add a ZTC controller and visa-versa (there are at least two different controller bus systems), but the chips from any maker work on any controller). However, it is a fairly expensive thing to start out with; an entry control unit is around £100, and more advanced ones (with scope for expansion, computer interfaces, etc) are around £250. Chips for locos are from £10 to £30, with more features and better control on the more expensive ones. > and I recall seeing a > few layouts at exhibitions with computerised control (using a Sinclair > Spectrum or similar!). Is digital control the norm now, or is it sill > a minority thing? Very minority still, though possible. Probably best to join the MERG group in the UK. Start with a decent quality DCC system which supports computer interfaces (middle and upper end Lenz for example). > Despite the fact that SWMBO wants me to spend less time with the > computer, I rather like the idea of combining two hobbies and > programming a timetable into a new layout so that it effectively > operates itself. Are there people doing this sort of thing? Does any > software exist for it? There is, though the commercial stuff is very expensive (several hundred pounds a copy). Probably some DIY stuff if you can setup programs yourself. Unless you've a very clear idea what you're trying to do, I wouldn't bother with a computer driven layout for starters. Its enough work to get the thing running on its own. However, the computer does come into its own for programming DCC chipsets; there is software around which can keep the settings for each loco in a data table; this makes adjustments much quicker and easier (and its very quick to go back to a previous setting if you decide the changes made the loco behave worse). - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >> Once upon a time, I was a fairly avid railway modeller. I had a decent >> layout, was a member of my local club, visited every exhibition within [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > quicker and easier (and its very quick to go back to a previous setting if > you decide the changes made the loco behave worse). Alternatively, you could continue to model to the older standards at the older prices or "retro modelling" as we call it. As a general rule the older and newer models don't mix very well so it's best to stick to one or the other. You can find tons of old stuff on eBay and elsewhere. (kim) Being pedantic :o)) EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and now defunct, BRMSB 00 Gauge standards. EM is - well just EM and P4 could be described as 'exact scale' (almost). Hornby Zero One was a form of DCC. (Digital Command Control). The now universally accepted standard is NMRA DCC. It's important to specify the NMRA bit as there are other DCC systems out there that are not compatible. Any system conforming to the NMRA DCC standards are compatible at track level. In simple terms that means that any NMRA DCC decoder will work with any NMRA DCC control system. Manufacturers to look for are Lenz, EasyDCC and Digitrax. There are others but they tend to be very, very pricey for no advantages, either in quality or performance. Like computers the price is tending to either move downwards or remain static as the performance rises. My preference is for EasyDCC as it does everything that the expensive ones do at a much lower cost. Try www.cvpusa.com MERG have a system that is available as a set of circuits and kits to build the circuits. Try Google on MERG. If you are restarting using your old equipment then the best bet is to just carry on with the old standards and control systems. If you are planning on getting into the hobby seriously then definitely go NMRA DCC from the start. Easier wiring, lower cost overall. Better control in every respect. > > Once upon a time, I was a fairly avid railway modeller. I had a decent > > layout, was a member of my local club, visited every exhibition within [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > Nigel Cliffe, > Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ > Being pedantic :o)) > EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and now > defunct, BRMSB 00 Gauge standards. EM is - well just EM and P4 could be > described as 'exact scale' (almost). EM is the 00 scale fine scale standard 00 finescale still is used, which is the same as H0 scale finescale. The only published H0 finescale standard that is compatable with todays RTR H0 and 00 is on my web page. SignatureTerry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track standards >> Being pedantic :o)) >> EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and now >> defunct, BRMSB 00 Gauge standards. EM is - well just EM and P4 could be >> described as 'exact scale' (almost). > > EM is the 00 scale fine scale standard EM is 18mm gauge 00 Finescale is still 16.5mm but to tighter tolerances > 00 finescale still is used, which is the same as H0 scale finescale. 00 Finescale is 4mm/foot H0 is 3.5mm/foot (kim) > EM is 18mm gauge Not always, I've seen EM layouts produced to 18mm, 18.2mm and 18.8mm (EEM) gauge. John. >> EM is 18mm gauge > > Not always, I've seen EM layouts produced to 18mm, 18.2mm and 18.8mm (EEM) > gauge. My point was that "00 Finescale" is not the same as either EM gauge or H0, a concept which many foreigners seem to have difficulty grasping. (kim) > My point was that "00 Finescale" is not the same as either EM gauge or H0, a > concept which many foreigners seem to have difficulty grasping. That's not quite what you said. John. > >> EM is 18mm gauge > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (kim) The scale ratio is different between 00 and H0, if you define the terms H0 and 00 as scales. Today the nominal track gauge is the same, 16.5mm. The exception is the NMRA definition. My H0 finescale models can run on the same finescale track as some 00 scale RTR models, for example the latest Hornby. EM today complies with my definition of finescale, wheels with flanges double scale size. Kim, I'm just stirring the pot, using letters to describe scales and or track gauges is always going to generate poor definitions. There is no practical reason why H0 and 00 finescale should not use identical track standards. SignatureTerry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track standards EM stands for Eighteen Millimetres. Many years ago the EM Gauge Society officially declared that the track gauge would be 18.2mm - as it had been in practice for many years before. It's never been 18.8mm. EEM was the forerunner of P4 and stood for Eighteen point Eight Millimetres. P4, which the EMGS also supports, is 18.83mm track gauge. > > EM is 18mm gauge > > Not always, I've seen EM layouts produced to 18mm, 18.2mm and 18.8mm (EEM) > gauge. > > John. >EM stands for Eighteen Millimetres. Many years ago the EM Gauge Society >officially declared that the track gauge would be 18.2mm - as it had been in >practice for many years before. It's never been 18.8mm. EEM was the >forerunner of P4 and stood for Eighteen point Eight Millimetres. P4, which >the EMGS also supports, is 18.83mm track gauge. Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. >> > EM is 18mm gauge >> >> Not always, I've seen EM layouts produced to 18mm, 18.2mm and 18.8mm (EEM) >> gauge. >> >> John. SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model > Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. I maybe getting confused here but I thought EEM was a response to P4 proving to be particularly unreliable in its infancy? John. No. EEM preceeded P4 by several years and was an attempt to improve the running and appearance of EM. It developed the old BRMSB way of producing standards rather than the MRSG (P4) approach which was to take the full size dimensions and divide them by the scale factor. Once you take that approach it all becomes much simpler, easier and more reliable. it also starts to look more like a real railway! :o)) > > Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model > > Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John. > No. EEM preceeded P4 by several years and was an attempt to improve the running > and appearance of EM. That clears that up then; thanks Dick. John. > No. EEM preceeded P4 by several years and was an attempt to improve the running > and appearance of EM. It developed the old BRMSB way of producing standards > rather than the MRSG (P4) approach which was to take the full size dimensions > and divide them by the scale factor. Once you take that approach it all becomes > much simpler, easier and more reliable. it also starts to look more like a real > railway! :o)) If you take the approach of simply dividing a scale factor you end up with an impractical solution. P4, S4 and proto 87 deviates from scaled down dimensions to make it work. The problem with exact scale standards such as P4, S4 and proto87 is the scale wheel cannot track reliably more than prototype errors in the track without rough tracking and increased chance of derailing. Lateral displacement needs to be less than 0.04mm for smooth reliable running for these exact scale wheels. More reliable, not from what I have seen. Simpler, it's not. Compare the flange profiles exact scales modellers say they use with the finescale and coarse scale alternatives. My experience is properly profiled and dimensioned finescale wheels and track will out perform the exact scale alternatives because they can handle double the lateral displacement. Under test conditions using scale curves and mostly straight track I was able to push the equivalent of 114 four wheel wagons with a 4 wheel wagon at the front of the train. That exceeds my prototypes maximum and I was using RTR flex track. Decrease the track gauge and the train length gets longer. > > > Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model > > > Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John. > SignatureTerry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track standards > > Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model > > Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. > > I maybe getting confused here but I thought EEM was a response to P4 proving > to be particularly unreliable in its infancy? That was "Scale 4" or "S4". Regards, Greg.P. Definitely not!!!! P4 is the standard defined by the MRSG (Model Railway Study Group) back in the mid '60s. They decided in their wisdom to increase the crossing flangeway by about 0.005". Along comes Ray Hammond who decided that this wasn't really acceptable and so he set about trying to redefine the P4 standards to be exact scale. He called this Scalefour (S4) to overcome the legal problems with P(anything). He didn't really acheive anything as when you apply the tolerances needed to get into production the two sets of standards overlap. All he introduced was confusion. P4 standards are those that the S4 Society and the EMGS promote. No society promotes S4 standards and there are very, very few layouts built to S4 standards. Any layout built to P4 standards shouldn't be calles an S4 layout and neither should P4 and S4 be used interchageably. It's as bad as calling a lyout 00/H0. > > > Wasn't EEM an experiment by a group of chaps at the Manchester Model > > > Railway Society. AIUI, they abandoned it when P4 came on the scene. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. > > Being pedantic :o)) > > EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > only published H0 finescale standard that is compatable with todays RTR H0 > and 00 is on my web page. No Terry, "EM" was initially a wider gauge version of "OO" with the proprietry wheels pressed out to18mm gauge. (circa 1948 see Peter Denny/Buckingham) Later the gauge/scale was standardised at 18.2mm/ 4mm-ft. The wheel and rail standards were simply "OO" widened by 1.5mm/1.7mm. Regards, Greg.P. > > > Being pedantic :o)) > > > EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and now [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Regards, > Greg.P. I was talking today. Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 uses H0 gauge. H0 gauge is now a nominal 16.5mm, was 5/8". The H0 scale is now 1:87 or 3.5mm/ft. SignatureTerry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track standards > > > > Being pedantic :o)) > > > > EM and P4 are not 4mm finescale - finescale refered to the old, and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > gauge. H0 gauge is now a nominal 16.5mm, was 5/8". The H0 scale is now 1:87 > or 3.5mm/ft. "OO" as in track and wheel standards as set out by the BMRSB, as used by Hornby Dublo and proprietry (kit and wheel) manufacturers and whatever it has developed into today. (well, yesterday as I guess the Chinese manufacturers will basically convert UK OO to NMRA standards) >> I was talking today. >> Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 uses H0 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >into today. (well, yesterday as I guess the Chinese manufacturers will basically >convert UK OO to NMRA standards) I hope not. NMRA standards for OO specify 19 mm. gauge. Or did you mean NMRA HO standards? SignatureJane OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html > I hope not. NMRA standards for OO specify 19 mm. gauge. Indeed, but that's specifically for USA outline modelling where OO-scale is not totally unheard of. John. > >> I was talking today. > >> Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 uses H0 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Or did you mean NMRA HO standards? I meant NMRA HO standards - If Chinese manufacturers make items like the Thomas range which is sold in Britain as "Hornby" and in the USa as "Bachmann" it would make sense to make them all the same an just slot them into the correct boxes as required. NMRA "OO" is close to Dodo status. Regards, Greg.P. >> >> I was talking today. >> >> Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > required. > NMRA "OO" is close to Dodo status. As far as I am aware the Hornby and Bachmann TTTE ranges are totally different designs made in different Chinese factories. (kim) > Regards, > Greg.P. > >> >> I was talking today. > >> >> Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > As far as I am aware the Hornby and Bachmann TTTE ranges are totally > different designs made in different Chinese factories. The ones I have seen were the Hornby Thomas etc with RP25 wheels and Hornby couplings. > As far as I am aware the Hornby and Bachmann TTTE ranges are totally > different designs made in different Chinese factories. That's correct. The Bachmann TTTE loco range (suitably disguised) are available in the UK in one of the digital starter sets, and are due to be released separately in DC form (again NOT carrying TTTE liveries / names). John. > > >> I was talking today. > > >> Which 00 definition are you using? 00 gauge? 00 scale? NMRA? UK 00 uses H0 > > >> gauge. H0 gauge is now a nominal 16.5mm, was 5/8". The H0 scale is now 1:87 > > >> or 3.5mm/ft. > > > > > >"OO" as in track and wheel standards as set out by the BMRSB, as used by Hornby Hornby today and its predecessor, Triang have never used anything like the BMRSB standard, which was nothing more than good marketing by a small group of modellers who failed to produce a useful standard. The BMRSB standard is rubbish. > > >Dublo and proprietry (kit and wheel) manufacturers and whatever it has developed > > >into today. (well, yesterday as I guess the Chinese manufacturers will basically > > >convert UK OO to NMRA standards) They will make wheels to a check gauge of 15.2mm because their track is not to NMRA standards. Often their wheels are just under the NMRA back to back minimum. Current Australian models from China are using flanges at the NMRA maximum depth of 0.71mm. > > I hope not. NMRA standards for OO specify 19 mm. gauge. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Greg.P. > SignatureTerry Flynn http://angelfire.com/clone/rail/index.html HO wagon weight and locomotive tractive effort estimates DC control circuit diagrams HO scale track standards ... > Despite the fact that SWMBO wants me to spend less time with the > computer, ... Or at least the boring legal newsgroups. ;-) SignatureAll the best, Chris Wilson That's cwilson at britwar with a dot uk and dot co on the end. (Reply address is blackholed) http://www.the-dormouse.org - The Dormouse Line Model Railway - UPDATED >... >> Despite the fact that SWMBO wants me to spend less time with the >> computer, ... > >Or at least the boring legal newsgroups. ;-) I did think there was a certain irony in the fact that the first place I turned to in order to research this was the Internet :-) Mark Signaturehttp://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google! "Yes, I know the truth, how 'bout you?" Mark, A couple of points: It's worthwhile getting a valuation of your old stuff, it *might* be valuable. Ignore this mob splitting hairs about the odd two millimeters. Buy Railway Modeller, go to a couple of shows, have a chat at the information stand (remember the guys on the layouts are there to operate, not chat, although most layouts have a spare person) - then decide what you want to do. >Any comments welcome. > >Mark SignatureJohn Bishop > Buy Railway Modeller (snipped) Why? There are far better options on the market these days. John. >> Buy Railway Modeller (snipped) > > Why? > > There are far better options on the market these days. If you wanted to continue from where you left off 20, 40 or even 60 years ago, which magazine would you choose? (kim) > If you wanted to continue from where you left off 20, 40 or even 60 years > ago, which magazine would you choose? I'm not sure I'd want to do that - I believe in looking forward rather than looking back. John. > If you wanted to continue from where you left off 20, 40 or even 60 years > ago, which magazine would you choose? "Big Boobs" magazine? Oh, sorry, wrong group. -- Cheers Roger T. Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/ >> If you wanted to continue from where you left off 20, 40 or even 60 years >> ago, which magazine would you choose? > > "Big Boobs" magazine? Dont think it would do much good after 60 years! > Oh, sorry, wrong group. > > -- > Cheers > Roger T. >>> Buy Railway Modeller (snipped) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you wanted to continue from where you left off 20, 40 or even 60 > years ago, which magazine would you choose? Easy - Model Railway Journal. Backnumbers for issues 0-99 should get you back up to speed. 100-150(plus) are good, but not in the same groundbreaking way as the earlier ones. - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ >> Buy Railway Modeller (snipped) > >Why? > >There are far better options on the market these days. Such as? (That's a genuine question. 20 years ago, RM, while not the only player in town, had by far the broadest coverage. It's what I'd automatically look for now, unless a newcomer has made its mark in the meantime). Mark Signaturehttp://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google! "Well it's true today" >>> Buy Railway Modeller (snipped) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > automatically look for now, unless a newcomer has made its mark in the > meantime). "Model Rail" and "British Railway Modelling" have pretty much eclipsed Railway Modeller in the readership stakes. They each have their own house style and I don't have any particular preference for one or the other. RM is still a good all-round magazine but tends to be very similar from one month to the next. The remaining titles tend to be more specialised favouring modern image or continental outline. (kim) The first paragraph is very valid. The rest isn't. You need to find out what you want to get out of your new found interest in railway modelling. You won't find that out by reading Railway Modeller. You need to rewad all the model railway magazines you can lay your hands on. Don't ignore the Continental and American modelling scene. Look at the different scales. Look at narrow gauge modelling. Seek out your local model railway club. Go to as many exhibitions as you can and don't ignore the specialist ones organised by the likes of the Gauge 0 Guild, the EM Gauge Society and the Scalefour Society. If you think that the 'odd two millimeters' (sic0 is about splitting hairs then you could be regretting it for the rest of your modelling life. The decision is yours and yours alone, but do, please, take the effort to find out. It could be that pushing Brio wooden trains round a wooden track on the floor is what you find you want to do - after all that's a valid form of modelling - but if you like the idea of building an accurate model railway then the 'odd two millimeters' (sic) becomes very important. After all, the error is 12.5 percent. Enjoy your rediscovered hobby, whatever you choose to do. Suggested magazines. British Railway Modelling, Model Rail, Model Railway Journal, Model Railroader, Continental Modeller, Railway Modeller. National model railway societies: EM Gauge Society, Scalefour Society, Gauge 0 Guild, Gauge 1 Assosciation,16mm Narrow Gauge Society, 3mm Society, 2mm Society, S Gauge Society, NMRA British Region. (I've probably got the exct names wrong, but it will give you an idea.) > Mark, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > John Bishop >The first paragraph is very valid. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >can and don't ignore the specialist ones organised by the likes of the >Gauge 0 Guild, the EM Gauge Society and the Scalefour Society. And don't forget you can do much of this research on the web without needing to fork out for a lot of magazines. Between these two links pages you can get to most anything. http://www.scalefour.org/p4links.htm and http://www.merg.org.uk/links.htm Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit <http://www.grovenor.dsl.pipex.com/> Garratt photos for the big steam lovers. The reason to buy Railway Modeller is to find where the shows are - it still has the best data on exhibitions! Personally I only buy Model Railway Journal on a regular basis, Continental Modeller sometimes - the rest I skim in Smiths. >The first paragraph is very valid. >The rest isn't. You need to find out what you want to get out of your >new found interest in railway modelling. You won't find that out by [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> -- >> John Bishop SignatureJohn Bishop |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.