 |
 | 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 / November 2009Track
Hi all I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track is Peco code 100 and includes many turnouts and crossings. Do you suggest I reuse the track and turnouts or go new with Code 75? My stock is all newer Hornby and Bachman. I have had some derailment problems with th newer stock on code 100 points, or is it down to bad track laying Thanks Rob > Hi all > I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Thanks > Rob My 5p's worth - new stock on Code 100 should be fine, if its just some of your new stock then check the B2B of those locos. Both Bachmann and Hornby can be slightly incorrect straight from the box. Cheers, Simon >> Hi all >> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Cheers, > Simon I'd suggest code 83 or 75 rather than retaining your code 100. Rather than Peco you might like to consider Shinohara (Walthers) or Roco points. Why? Well, Peco have changed their standards over the years slowly moving from "Universal" to finer standards. I have at least 3 iterations of flageway clearances on my Peco points, the older ones are not always kind to NMRA RP 25. My preference now is for Shinohara (Walthers) points as I still see issues with correct BtoB RP 25 wheels picking the vee. Peter > Why? Well, Peco have changed their standards over the years slowly moving > from "Universal" to finer standards. I have at least 3 iterations of > flageway clearances on my Peco points, the older ones are not always kind > to NMRA RP 25. My preference now is for Shinohara (Walthers) points as I > still see issues with correct BtoB RP 25 wheels picking the vee. And let's keep in mind that Peco "Universal" track is not prototypically correct, for either side of the pond. It's a design unique to Peco and nowhere else.  SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> Hi all >> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Cheers, > Simon More importantly, can they ever manage to be correct????? ;-) >>> Hi all >>> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > More importantly, can they ever manage to be correct????? > ;-) To be fair, theyre often near enough for 00 - will not be drawn on EM or P4 cos got other things more interested in. However the slight clunk at points let alone derail is a hint that B2B needs a check. Got a Flying Scotsman out the other day, the first loco I bought as an adult. Quite a quiet runner despite tender drive. Sure enough the tender did clunk through points and a quick look revealed a missing traction tyre. cheers, Simon Folks, From Broken Hill Prop. Handbook on Steel Shapes of 1962: Aust Std. 107 lb. rail was 6.1875" high, = 157mm = 2.1mm in 1:76 scale. Aust Std. 94lb. was 5.625", 143mm, 1.88mm: Brit. Std. 85lb.5.4375", 138mm, 1.8mm: Brit. Std. 70 lb. 4.875", 124mm, 1.6mm. Rail heights in 1:76 scale are given to one place of decimals only. Regards, Bill, Melbourne. >>>> Hi all >>>> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >cheers, >Simon > I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, > so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have had some derailment problems with th newer stock on code 100 > points, or is it down to bad track laying Code 100 is naff, code 75 is less naff, and works well with all recent Bachmann & Hornby products, but remember BOTH are basically European HO products even though they're made in England. For me Peco code 75 is a reliable compromise especially if well ballasted & nicely weathered, but if time were not an issue I'd hand-build a closer to UK scale OO track - but you can argue that if you're going to do that then you might well consider switching to EM (or Scale 4). John. >> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, >> so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John. Am sure these are good points (oh a pun), must admit dont know anything about code 75 so happy to leave that part of discussion to other more experienced and knowledgable. However, if your locos have difficulty with Code 100 then wouldnt be suprised if they have difficulty with other varieties of track. Dont know enough details of problems you are having, but under reasonable conditions Code 100 is fine. Would therefore suggest you sort out those locos first before moving to new track/layout which would introduce a new situation and confuse the issue. Take one loco at a time, check B2B, note where and frequency of derailment. Run it slowly over those places, observe and report whats happening. Cheers, Simon >> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, >> so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bachmann & Hornby products, but remember BOTH are basically European HO > products even though they're made in England. I've always wondered if Peco will ever take the plunge and sell proper 00 scale track as to do so they would be admitting that they have been selling us HO track for 40?? odd years. Fred X >>> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, >>> so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Fred X I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is a compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they would be happy to make "proper" 00 track if people were prepared to pay for it. The trouble is that that there is such a vast amount legacy track out there, and most users would baulk at mixing the two and certainly not consider re-laying their entire layout. Let's face it, the vast majority of users don't really give a damn, or Marcway 00 flexi track, which has been available for donkeys years, would be the de-facto standard rather than Peco. Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb ... > Let's face it, the vast majority > of users don't really give a damn, or Marcway 00 flexi track, which has > been available for donkeys years, would be the de-facto standard rather > than Peco. Most users want to go in to thier local shop and say, "I'll have 'x' yards of track please" and as 99 shop keepers out of a hundred haven't even heard of Marcway 'x' yards of Pritchards Patent Products track is handed over ... ... and by the time most users actually know the difference and know of the existence of Marcway etc it's to late as they've already got a Peco layout. SignatureAll the best, Chris >... >> Let's face it, the vast majority [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >... and by the time most users actually know the difference and know of the >existence of Marcway etc it's to late as they've already got a Peco layout. Marcway don't make track in yards. Marcway make points, which match track produced by SMP. As it happens, SMP is now owned by Marcway, but the two brands are still sold separately. To the purist, that may be a good thing. But such a blinkered approach to branding and marketing is one of the reasons why very few shops stock Marcway/SMP products and very few modellers have heard of them. It's easy to knock the likes of Peco, but they do at least have half a clue about marketing. But it's still only half a clue, and a well-run competitor could easily make big inroads into their market. Unfortunately, Marcway/SMP don't fall into this category. Mark SignatureBlog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk > Marcway don't make track in yards. Marcway make points, which match > track produced by SMP. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reasons why very few shops stock Marcway/SMP products and very few > modellers have heard of them. I've been using SMP for over 30 years now, and combined with handbuilt pointwork it is by far the most realistic track around. Peco stuff is rubbish. You use it, and it shouts 'TOY TRAINS' at anyone who knows anything about railway track. SMP is code 65 BTW which is deadscale for 4mm. SMP copperclad kits also use code 65 and they are a good way to learn handbuilt track building but they are not, and do not pretend to be, accurate representations of real track. For that you need to use the Permanent Way Institution's 'bible' - 'British Railway Track' published in 1971 by the BRB. Turns up second hand quite frequently. Not for the mathematically challenged though. I didn't know Markway had taken over SMP. It's a while since I bought any ready made plastic based SMP. Alistair W >> Fred X wrote: ... >> Let's face it, the vast majority [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the existence of Marcway etc it's to late as they've already got a > Peco layout. Actually, I prefer Atlas flextrack (and settrack, but not their turnouts). It has finer rail fasteners than Peco, and the web is attached to the rail on one side so it's easier to keep a uniform tie/sleeper spacing both on curves and on straights. It's cheaper on this side of the pond, too. SignatureMartin S. > I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is a > compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they would be > happy to make "proper" 00 track if people were prepared to pay for it. It's very strange that a British company makes so much specialists track suitable for almost every scale imaginable, including several different types of HO-scale track, but fail lamentably to make a track aimed specifically at the British OO-scale modeller. I *know* Peco have been asked for a decent OO-scale track (with scale British sleepering) for many years, and I know any number of my customers (self included) would happily pay a modest premium for such a track system. After all if they can produce specialist HO-scale Code 83 track specifically for the American market, something more suitable for the British modeller shouldn't be beyond them. John. >> I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is a >> compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they would be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > for the American market, something more suitable for the British modeller > shouldn't be beyond them. Yeah, they could produced it in parallel with their HO track so that those who want to stick with their existing track work could still buy it and I'm sure it would be popular. Although I guess it would mean shops like yours having to sell two track systems which probably wouldn't please a lot of shop owners as there are enough different permutations of Peco track as it is. Perhaps we just aren't a big enough market to justify the costs of producing it? Fred X >> I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is a >> compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they would be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John. I suspect he will have done some market research and possibly concluded that introducing "proper" UK 00 track would split the market, causing them to have increased overheads. I've no idea how much track they sell a year to the UK, probably quite a lot, but lets say that if they introduced 00 track and the drop in sales of their standard track fell significantly they would have to increase the price to cover costs (reduced volumes) - I would guess that track is probably quite price sensitive - leading to further falls in sales. They might conclude that taking the risk is just too great, especially when demand for true 00 track might be quite low. Then there's the cost of developing matching points etc. And, of course, there's the dealers - specialist like yourself may be prepared to hold additional stock, but many wouldn't I expect. I would guess that are waiting until a rival comes along and starts producing mass-market true 00 track, and then they will react (quickly) - but in the mean time it's probably just not worth the commercial risk, and it could be they know the risks quite well, as they will know what happened when concrete sleeper track was launched. The reason why they have produced US track is the size of the market, and for 00-9 etc the lack of competition helps - but I'd venture the current 00 track is their bread and butter and upsetting the apple cart would be very risky. The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb > The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. > > Cheers >Richard You don't seem to be reading the posts on this thread carefully. SMP have been producing very accurate code 65 UK track for at least 35 years but did not go on to make turnouts RTR, only kits (and their one plastic turnout kit is not brilliant - it's a B6 seldom seen anywhere but sidings). They then went down the road of producing copperclad pointwork kits instead. This is probably why they don't get the coverage of PECO because you have to be a 'modeller' rather than a 'box opener' to use this approach. Personally I find copperclad easy to build, and you can make your own formations for prototype locations. I once made a scissors crossover with a single slip followed by a three way tandem turnout all in one piece. It passed trains beautifully. The trackwork on my current layout which has mostly curved turnouts was built this way and was done from the rating plan for the station. It looks very good indeed and is commented on by visitors. If you don't believe me pm me and I'll send you some photos. Alistair >> The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >> volumes. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > plan for the station. It looks very good indeed and is commented on by > visitors. If you don't believe me pm me and I'll send you some photos. Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find confirmation through Google. SignatureMartin S. > Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of > either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find > confirmation through Google. Probably because prototype rail is measured by weight per yard and not in inches. You may find this table of interest. http://wpporter.duckburg.us/railweight.htm SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of >> either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://wpporter.duckburg.us/railweight.htm There's also Andy May's page on the UK S scale site. http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm Jim. >>> Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of >>> either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > http://www.s-scale.org.uk/rails.htm Useful references. Thanks. SignatureMartin S. >> Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of >> either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://wpporter.duckburg.us/railweight.htm So, rail over 150lb/yd is 8 inches high, or Code 92 in HO. That's what CN & CP must be using around here, as there many heavy freights every day. SignatureMartin S. >>> Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of >>> either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So, rail over 150lb/yd is 8 inches high, or Code 92 in HO. That's what CN > & CP must be using around here, as there many heavy freights every day. Quite possible Martin, though I'm not familiar with Coburgh. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>>> Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative >>>> of either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Quite possible Martin, though I'm not familiar with Coburgh. I'll try to remember my tape measure next time I walk by the crossing. SignatureMartin S. > You don't seem to be reading the posts on this thread carefully. SMP have > been producing very accurate code 65 UK track for at least 35 years I think you'll find it was code 75, not 65. John. >> You don't seem to be reading the posts on this thread carefully. SMP have >> been producing very accurate code 65 UK track for at least 35 years > > I think you'll find it was code 75, not 65. > > John. I've just measured some and it is indeed code 75 (1.91 mm in new money). SignatureRegards John >> The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Alistair Actually it was me that first mentioned SMP/Marcway! The reason it hasn't caught on, I would venture, is that for 00 it looks awful/wrong and is not over robust. Sometimes, well always for 00 track, codging things to look right rather than being exact is more important. SMP/Markway EM track, assuming they still make it, looks just fine. For your info, I model in 0 and make everything - including the track, using Templot. My only RTR item is a Lima Mk.1 that will be going under the surgeons knife before use....... Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb > Actually it was me that first mentioned SMP/Marcway! The reason it hasn't > caught on, I would venture, is that for 00 it looks awful/wrong and is > not over robust. I used it years ago and it worked and looked fine, but these days I don't have the time to start building points using the copper clad method. It was the lack of compatible ready-to-use pointwork which was its only failing - otherwise I'd still be using it today. John. > The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks > volumes. What is "true OO"? 4mm/ft (1:76) on 16.5mm gauge isn't true anything. People spend large amounts of money and effort buying or building "accurate" 4mm stock, then run it on track that is ~2.2mm under scale - unless they go all the way with EM of Scale Four. I accept the compromise, and it's my decision not to try and make my layout as "realistic" as possible, since it's beyond my skills and means in any case. I admire those who can do so. SignatureMartin S. >> The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >> volumes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > layout as "realistic" as possible, since it's beyond my skills and means > in any case. I admire those who can do so. But thats the point, you decide whats important to yourself, what you have the resources to do and accept it else you'll never be happy. Bit like life really. cheers, Simon >The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. > >Cheers >Richard Formoway. > Formoway. Who? SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/ >> Formoway. > >Who? Graham Farish AFAIR. Many years ago. Wider sleepers than Peco streamline with proper 4mm spacing. Better looking turnouts too, but not as large a range. > >> Formoway. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wider sleepers than Peco streamline with proper 4mm spacing. Better > looking turnouts too, but not as large a range. Yes, can confirm that it was made by Graham Farish and it first came on the market at roughly the same time as Peco Streamline. I notice from a recent advert that Gaugemaster are now marketing flexible track in "N" and "OO" but, at present, no points or crossings, only plain track. I would be interested to know whether anybody has tried this yet and whether it is genuinely their own make or - perhaps - made for them by Peco. David Costigan >> Formoway. >Who? Rather than just asking "Who" why not try doing a bit of your own research and type "Formoway" into Google? SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > Rather than just asking "Who" why not try doing a bit of your own > research and type "Formoway" into Google? I think that went way over your head!!!!! SignaturePaul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/ >> Rather than just asking "Who" why not try doing a bit of your own >> research and type "Formoway" into Google? > >I think that went way over your head!!!!! Farish also made locomotives and carriages at the time. I wanted their GWR prairie but my budget was limited to second hand Triang. >> Rather than just asking "Who" why not try doing a bit of your own >> research and type "Formoway" into Google? > > I think that went way over your head!!!!! Quite possibly. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >>volumes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Formoway. There were other brands of OO flexible track, such as Gem Welkut Wrenn SignatureJane >>>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >>>volumes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Welkut > Wrenn Did Wrenn ever go beyond their fibre-based stuff? >> There were other brands of OO flexible track, such as >> Gem >> Welkut >> Wrenn > > Did Wrenn ever go beyond their fibre-based stuff? Yes, bought some in the mid '70s. Rather chunky rail "spikes" and the rail tends to slide loosely within them. Also found that it doesn't always hold gauge on curves becoming too tight, probably due the sloppiness of the rail in sleeper. Peter >>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. >> >>Cheers >>Richard > > Formoway. Now there's a blast from the past! Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes. >> >> Formoway. > > Now there's a blast from the past! Horace Bachelor, K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M, Bristol. SignatureMartin S. >> Now there's a blast from the past! > >Horace Bachelor, K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M, Bristol. OK, OK, but PLEASE, no Jimmy Savile impressions :-) SignatureGraeme, Scotland > MartinS <me@my.place> writes >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > OK, OK, but PLEASE, no Jimmy Savile impressions :-) "Hi there, guys and gals!" Oops, sorry! SignatureMartin S. >> MartinS <me@my.place> writes >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Oops, sorry! Is the response clunk/click ie belt up ? Cheers, Simon >> MartinS <me@my.place> writes >>>> Now there's a blast from the past! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oops, sorry! Now then, now then, now then. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>> MartinS <me@my.place> writes >>>>> Now there's a blast from the past! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Now then, now then, now then. Jim'll fix it. SignatureMartin S. >>>>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >>>>volumes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Horace Bachelor, K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M, Bristol. I had too look that up! ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Batchelor Cheers Richard SignatureI have become...............comfortably numb >>>>>The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks >>>>>volumes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Batchelor The 't' seems to have been optional. SignatureMartin S. >> I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is >> a compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 83 track specifically for the American market, something more suitable > for the British modeller shouldn't be beyond them. But would correct 1:76 scale sleeper spacing look correct with a 16.5mm gauge that represents 4' 1.37"? SignatureMartin S. >>> I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, >>> so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >00 scale track as to do so they would be admitting that they have been >selling us HO track for 40?? odd years. They used to before they introduced Streamline - which they orginally advertised as having the "fine scale longer look". >Fred X "Fred X" < > I've always wondered if Peco will ever take the plunge and sell proper > 00 scale track as to do so they would be admitting that they have been > selling us HO track for 40?? odd years. Considering Peco's largest, by far, market is the North American market, is it no wonder that they bastardised their track design to make it sell better in North America. Peco "Universal" track follows no known design, not North America, not UK. It has some features of both but is accurate for neither. It's at best, a mid Atlantic design and although reliable, it's best use is for staging tracks, fiddle yards and any other hidden trackage. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ > Considering Peco's largest, by far, market is the North American market, > is it no wonder that they bastardised their track design to make it sell > better in North America. They now produce HO-scale code 83 track for the USA market. John. >> Considering Peco's largest, by far, market is the North American >> market, is it no wonder that they bastardised their track design to >> make it sell better in North America. > > They now produce HO-scale code 83 track for the USA market. For compatibility with Atlas, who have used Code 83 rather than Code 70 for their premium track components for years. This represents a protoype rail height of just under 7 1/4" in HO. (0.083 x 87 = 7.221). Code 70 would represent 6.1" in HO (5.3" in 1:76 OO). According to this link, average new rail height in North America for 115 to 140 lb rail ranges from 6 1/4" to 7 5/16", so Code 83 is closer to protoype. http://en.allexperts.com/q/Rails-Railroad-2468/railroad-rail.htm New rail installed in my area by CN and CP looks to be higher and possibly heavier than that, but I haven't measured it. I'll have to do so. SignatureMartin S. >> Considering Peco's largest, by far, market is the North American market, >> is it no wonder that they bastardised their track design to make it sell >> better in North America. > > They now produce HO-scale code 83 track for the USA market. Yes, I know that and it appears to be quite good, even though really expensive. SignatureCheers. Roger T. See the GER at: - http://www.islandnet.com/~rogertra/ >> Considering Peco's largest, by far, market is the North American >> market, is it no wonder that they bastardised their track design to >> make it sell better in North America. > > They now produce HO-scale code 83 track for the USA market. I notice they've just introduced a 90-degree crossing in their code 83 line. I assume they'll bring out other angles (60, 45 and 30 degrees) later on. It's a shame they don't do a scissors crossover, however. I had to buy three of them from that well-known Irish track manufacturer Shin O'Hara. > John. > "Fred X" < > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > best, a mid Atlantic design and although reliable, it's best use is > for staging tracks, fiddle yards and any other hidden trackage. Since Atlas improved their track a few years ago, it is better value in N.A. However, their set track curves are different radii (15", 18" and 22") and their turnouts do not look as good as Peco's, but they may work just as well or better with NMRA standard wheels. SignatureMartin S. >> "Fred X" < >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 22") and their turnouts do not look as good as Peco's, but they may work > just as well or better with NMRA standard wheels. I have Atlas Code 100 set-track curves and turnouts in my hidden sidings. They work near perfectly with my wild assortment of wheel types. Peco Code 75 on visible sections. Greg.P. NZ |
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.