Keith Addenbrooke

Two interesting pictures, thank you @Wendell1976: The five unit head end lash-up may appear to be more power than the train might need (it’s not that long by modern standards), but I note from the caption that two of the units are helpers to assist with downhill braking - given the 3% grade noted by Wendell that makes sense. And what struck me with this one was how clean all the locos are! Interesting modellers’ note. Thanks as always, Keith.

Thank you @Stefan88 - very informative and some good pictures to help too. My next step is to see if I can plan a simple scenic layout for the space I have, so I can see some trains run. Keith.

Thank you @Stefan88, some useful information. I appreciate the confirmation that the red / black livery was introduced quickly from 1987 - it fits with my observations so it is helpful to know they’re correct. For anyone who may be interested (particularly in the UK), I notice Gaugemaster have just taken into stock three different Roco coach packs with both orange and red / black HO coaches for the ÖBB EC60 Maria Theresia (1989), listed as follows: Roco 74043 Set 1: red / black Bmz, orange Bmz and orange BDmsz (£180) Roco 74044 Set 2: orange Amz, orange Bmz and red / black dining coach WRmz (£180) Roco 74045 Set 3: red / black Amz and orange Bmz (£120) I don’t need any more, but nice to see they’ve been released. Have a good weekend, Keith. Edit (10th May 2023): The following YouTube video in German is an unboxing of the 74043 set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXOI4iZPYRg&t=29s

Over the past couple of months I’ve been playing with the idea of a European Narrow Gauge / Standard Gauge interchange station, and having created a layout space I’ve been able to do some proof of concept testing. This taught me a number of points I thought might be worth sharing here. My obvious concern is that adding larger, standard gauge trains will destroy the illusion of distance it’s possible to create with a narrow gauge layout in the same scale: (My apologies for the poor photo - it was actually a very bright day when I took this, which my iPad camera doesn’t like). First task was to take down those baseboards, which are too narrow for a standard gauge circuit. First learning point: even with just two unscenicked boards to move, the ‘faff’ involved showed me I don’t want to be doing this too often - so the alternative idea of separate Narrow Gauge and Standard Gauge layouts I can swap in and out when the mood takes me is not such a great idea - it is worth looking into the idea of a combined layout. I then set up the IKEA tables I have with a pair of simple test circuits - one using 4th radius N-Gauge Setrack for the H0e circuit, and one with 2nd radius OO / HO track for standard gauge trains (I’d want a wider SG radius, but 3rd rad. overhangs the edges of the tables): Second learning point: it looked better when trains were going in opposite directions - although they obviously met more often, each train appeared to be making its own way in the world. When they were going in the same direction, the Narrow Gauge train got lapped too often, and that was what destroyed the illusion, so minimise parallel track in design. Third learning point: (this only applied to the Standard Gauge train) while we usually avoid straight track in layout design, the close couplers I have on these European Standard Gauge coaches work really well - the coaches close up really effectively on straight track, so there is a case for some straight track here: Fourth Learning Point: I think a six coach Narrow Gauge train looks to be a decent length, even with five four-wheelers. But I also wanted to do some analysis of Standard Gauge trains. I think four coaches are OK for a regional train, but if I can squeeze in just one more in my restricted space and get a five coach train then (to me at least) it starts to look more like a model version of a (secondary) mainline train: I think that looks quite different. Fifth Learning Point: Something was still nagging at me, and I finally worked it out. As a fan of Narrow Gauge modelling and an enthusiastic supporter of standard gauge modelling in smaller scales (TT:120, N and Z), full-size standard gauge American or European HO trains are as big as my own collection goes. Trains have weight and presence. This is not news. But it took me a while to realise I need to be looking at them close up to get the benefit of the extra detail, and to mitigate the effect of the more dramatically shortened trains. My tables were too low. More testing: (I kept the carriage in its box just in case). Much as I enjoy close-up viewing of Narrow Gauge trains, with H0e / HOn30 I also find the ‘helicopter view’ from above helps me accept them as small scale models. Switch to standard gauge trains and the opposite applies - a helicopter view (as with the test circuits) just reveals the toy train size of my space. Of course, others will have different thoughts (and I am only talking about my own home layout - not an exhibition offering). As I think about developing this idea however, it’s helped me see the way I apply design criteria does vary between Narrow Gauge and Standard Gauge modelling in the same scale. It probably means there may be a bit of a gap now in my Narrow Gauge ramblings while I put on my design hat, although I have also ordered the styrene I need for the trio of HOn30 freight car kits I still have to build (Page 6, Nov 27th 2021 post). Those freight cars are the final item on my ‘getting started in Narrow Gauge’ project list. Until then, have fun, Keith.

Episode 4 (part II) - The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two In the first part of this double episode, I described the number of layout projects I’ve tried to start over the past couple of years as being like having a Leaky Bucket List. Each time I thought I was getting somewhere something changed, so I started again with a new idea. I want to break this cycle now I have a layout space I can use for longer, so I’m using this episode of my blog to review my options. I’ve already reviewed ideas for a layout following either British or North American outline, and I do have a future project for a TT:120 GWR Branch Line in mind. For North American modelling, I have plenty of HO to play with but less space than I’d like. I have a freelance narrow gauge mini-layout with an American flavour, but applying my Rule of Two tells me I’m not wanting to develop this further. The Rule of Two is my home made guide to interest in a project - while I own just one locomotive I’m actively exploring an idea, but when I buy a second I could start to run a small railway. More than two means I’m thinking “this is it!” Stopping at two means I’ve paused. I have two HOn30 locomotives (adapted 009 kit-built models) and two HO diesels (plus an old one awaiting repair). I don’t currently plan to buy any more of either. I don’t yet have any TT:120 rolling stock, but that’s OK as it’s a long-term idea anyway. What about Continental modelling? I’m interested in German, Swiss and Austrian railways and model railways, and spend hours watching videos of them online (prototype and model). My entry point was through Narrow Gauge, so this time I’ll start there: Project B3.1 - Continental Narrow Gauge When I reawakened my interest in Narrow Gauge modelling I was keen to explore American HOn30. With little available commercially to get me started I turned to Austrian H0e, as it also runs on 9mm track. I’d dabbled in H0e a decade or so ago, so my choice of locomotive was easy: a Liliput O&K MV8 0-4-0 diesel - the type I had before. Beginning with a Peco Setrack 009 Starter Set, I dived in: I’m still keen on H0e, and while various trades in and out mean I don’t have a large collection of rolling stock, I do like what I have: All rolling stock is second hand, and I have the budget for a third loco if I see one I want. As the photo shows, I also have some of the Peco ‘mainline’ narrow gauge track and points suitable for the kind of Austrian outline 760mm gauge trains I have. I initially looked at a layout inspired by the Zillertalbahn, but at the time found I got enough enjoyment doing the research and so didn’t progress with my layout plans. This taught me an important lesson: while I’d like a layout that doesn’t stretch the boundaries of plausibility too far, and follows a recognisable theme / prototype, I’m not wanting to commit myself to strict prototype modelling - impressive though it always is. Almost by accident I found myself looking at Swiss metre gauge railways, and in particular the network of routes run by the Rhätische Bahn (RhB), the Furka-Oberalp (FO) and the Brig-Visp-Zermatt (BVZ). A year ago I was fully intending to build a small 1990s FO layout in HOm (12mm gauge). I built up a decent collection of very good Bemo models (including, note, four locomotives). A new squeeze on space however placed a limit on my ambitions, as is partly shown by this photo - taken when I had just two locos: both Furka-Oberalp Tunnel Motors (the complete class of two, as it happens. They were not actually used with Panorama coaches): The problem is this - to run proper length trains I needed space for four or five coaches, not three (as here). I’d seen a very good exhibition layout running shortened trains. It was excellent in many ways - and much better than I could ever do - but after having watched a lot of prototype videos online I decided that short trains weren’t something I wanted to model in this way. On top of this, I wouldn’t have space for my HOn30 layout as well (seen propped up in the background). I wouldn’t be able to easily run my H0e or HOn30 stock. I decided that was my priority. It meant parting with my H0m, which was a difficult decision I’ve often thought about reversing. As it stands, a project including H0e would be very attractive, while a return to H0m now looks increasingly unlikely. Project B3.2 - Continental Standard Gauge When I was growing up, I saw Continental Standard Gauge railway modelling as the epitome of the hobby - but well out of reach for me. Having experimented with H0m, I was happy to try European TT - part of my response to the launch of TT:120 for the UK. I liked the feel of 12mm gauge track and bought some building kits and a bit of modern Tillig stock (incl. two locomotives). However, I couldn’t find a plentiful supply of second hand coaches for the ideas I had, and when I needed to cut back on the projects I was trying to start I scaled back my ambitions here. I still have the kits and am slowly working on a diorama as part of getting used to the scale: To solve the problem of also wanting to run 9mm gauge H0e trains on occasion, I’ve looked at late 1960s German N-Scale. When no-one is looking I could run any 9mm gauge train after all (minimum radius curves wouldn’t be a problem, as I set myself a 4th rad. limit). I can still work with the ‘chunky’ Arnold-style couplings, and I think they don’t look too obtrusive on close coupled European coaches. The quality I remember means that ‘retro N-Scale’ stock is now affordable. I almost got to three locos, but the third one I bought (a BR Class 50 with Wannentender) turned out to be faulty. As I want to be run North American stock as well, and had concerns about their couplings, I didn’t pursue N-Scale. Oddly perhaps, I remain fascinated by Z-Scale. I think I’m less concerned about any detail I can’t see because I’m not trying to look for it! Z-Scale brings a whole host of technical challenges, but I’m impressed with the models and layouts I’ve seen: (My photo - comparator above is 1:160 N-Gauge. The freelance Z-Scale livery is from a Christmas set) While it’s unlikely I’d start a Z-Scale layout project, I may still have a dabble with some building kits to see how I get on. There’s certainly room for something scenic, and while the couplers look huge, they fold together quite nicely and don’t look too bad (to me). This just leaves HO to consider. I hadn’t planned to buy into European HO, until I saw this Roco HO ÖBB Taurus (c. 2000 - 2005) on sale: I knew from my N-Scale and H0e adventures just how good Roco products are, and this has not disappointed. Before ordering it, I tried to persuade myself numerous times I didn’t need it, but it resisted all attempts to ignore it. It has been followed by two more locomotives (yes, I have three), plus fourteen assorted coaches and a few wagons. I’ve also been building a large 400 piece station kit (pictured in a previous blog post). Another important lesson: at this stage I’m following some helpful advice I was given when starting out in a new scale. I’m buying items I like even if they are more loosely associated than I’d ideally want. I can then refine my collection later, as my ideas crystallise. In my narrow gauge thread here on RMweb I’ve considered an idea for a Narrow Gauge / Standard Gauge interchange, inspired by Zell am See where the Pinzgauer Lokalbahn meets the ÖBB. Mainline trains see a variety of Swiss, Austrian and German rolling stock, so it ticks that box. The catch is the space needed - a full length European coach is 26.4m long, which is 303mm in H0. Even a five coach train needs 175cm (69”). Platforms can be lower, making it easier for them to be curved (the overhang / gap is less obvious). As with American outline, I’m well equipped to start a project in H0, and could incorporate both H0 Standard Gauge and H0e, but the space constraint I have limits my layout design options. I want a continuous run, but not just a tail-chaser! Conclusion - How to Not Build a Model Railway That final point sums up my dilemma. At the end of this first series of posts, I hope I’ve explained my desire to ‘break my duck’ and build a scenic model railway larger than my current HOn30 mini-layout. I’ve described the kind of operating pattern I like - why a continuous run is essential - and noted that building kits (esp. of structures) is the practical part of the hobby I most enjoy. Narrow Gauge obviously works for me. For standard gauge, HO is the scale I feel gives the best combination of affordable product availability and ease of modelling, but a smaller scale would make a layout easier. On the other hand, I find some aspects of detailed N Scale modelling / operating too small for my eyesight (so the same would presumably apply with Z). You can see why I’m an advocate of TT, but product availability is an issue with my preferred prototypes. How I might resolve this and develop a layout plan I’ll stick to will provide the material for my next series of posts. At that point I’ll be starting to build a model railway. Until then, have fun, Keith.

When I opened up the outhouse to begin baseboard work after the winter break, I realised I’d just piled up everything and left it last time I packed away. I also discovered I’d never actually fastened the tops to the L-Girder frame I was making. With forecast rain not materialising, this afternoon I remedied that oversight, screwed down the baseboard tops and tidied up: Looking through the door, behind some cork sheets along the back wall we have (from right to left), the final pieces of my old 12mm ply baseboard tops, some 9mm MDF packing sheets I was given (they held a tall mirror in place - see page 5), the remnants of last year’s 9mm ply baseboard tops not needed for the L-frame boards, a bag of sand (used as weight), my bag of ballast, and finally some thinner MDF pieces left by a previous resident that I cut up and use for odd bits and pieces, including plotting curves for track laying. I also have a box (not shown) of offcuts of 44mm x 18mm softwood framing - in other words: all the bits I may never use but are too big to throw out! The drawers hold spare tubs of scenic scatter as the cellar is too damp. While this outhouse has limitations as a workshop, it’s still very useful - as long as I don’t let it get too cluttered up. After taking the photo, I took the completed pair of L-girder baseboards inside and set up them up in the spare room, just so I could get a feel for what it’s like having baseboards in the room. I obviously wouldn’t recommend building baseboards just for this test, but as I had them it made sense to use them. It may not look much, but it’s a sign I’m still more of a beginner that even after two years this is the first time I’ve got as far as running a test train across bespoke boards like these (my CAL mini-layout just sits on one tabletop, so effectively takes up no floor space of its own). Edit: the total baseboard weighs 11.0kg (excl. joining bolts), being 5.3kg for the nearer piece and 5.7kg for the farther one with the wider station board. Heavier than the lightweight baseboard kits available commercially but lighter than a solid top with 12mm ply would be. Each half is 1.0m long and 0.8m wide. Hope that helps, Keith. In terms of modelling, I’m currently working on some American HO Standard Gauge kits - there are parts from three different kits in this photos from this morning: Compared to typical Narrow Gauge buildings, the painting challenge comes from the sheer size of the components, so I have resorted to spray painting some bits. While it’s not difficult, I could do with some more practice to get better results - the learning point for me is that spray painting happens so quickly I should probably have done some dry passes first: (Spray painting is done in the garden, standing upwind). Have a good weekend, Keith.

Note: This final instalment of my Introduction and Background has been split into two episodes, to keep the suspense up (???) a little longer. Some content has been discussed in other RMweb Forums / threads: Episode 4 - The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two In this double episode I’m looking at possible project options, to draw this first series of posts to a close. I don’t have a permanent modelling space, but I do have use of a room that has become spare, with the proviso that I can clear it out when the house is full (once or twice a year). I need to build a removable layout, though it doesn’t need the full flexibility of an exhibition layout. So let’s go… Project A - Workbench The first piece of advice I often share with folk wanting to build their first layout is to start modelling. Make a kit or a small diorama while planning the dream layout. Build some experience. It’s something I wish I’d known years ago, and is something I do now. So I’ve learnt that the first thing I must have is a workbench, not a baseboard. This is the space (the 31.5” arrow bottom right is the door): …and this is the easiest way to fit in a workbench by the window and a layout - the baseboard can cantilever over the bed (which is not moveable). A layout space of 9’ x 4’4” isn’t huge, particularly for a continuous run layout, but is more than I’ve had to play with before: The IKEA Kallax storage unit is not mine and access is not required. The sink is useful, but could be blocked off (or reached from the operating well). Other arrangements can be considered, but permanent shelves / wall fixings are not an option (several reasons). Project B - Layout Options (the Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two) A second piece of advice is to look more closely at prototype railways (important, as my primary influences were other model railways). Once I stepped back from the idea of an OO Gauge GWR Branch Line, I had complete freedom to explore any prototype in any scale or gauge. Through 2021 and 2022 I had great fun trying new things. Each time I thought I’d cracked it something changed: my bucket list of layout ideas leaks! The gift of this space means I can now settle down. So I’ll tackle my possible projects list in prototype order. One final thing before I start - what is my Rule of Two? It refers to how many locomotives I have for a potential project, and is something I’ve established to show my level of interest in an idea: while I have one locomotive an idea can be classed as a novelty, but buying a second one means I have a relief engine as insurance against loco failure / maintenance. From this point on it can start to feel like I’m running a small railway. So, what are my options: Project B1.1 - British Outline Standard Gauge In my case this would still mean a GWR Branch Line. Other than a couple of items of sentimental value, I’ve finished selling off my OO Gauge collection, and only have these incomplete Ratio kits for a country station (Castle Cary) and platform awning (Generic): I started it in 2020. Close up, I was making a decent job of it until I left some trademark glue marks on the awning glazing, something I’d now feel confident I could fix. But with nothing else in my stash, I can’t see me returning to British OO Gauge for a layout. Until Peco announced their TT:120 range I wasn’t sure I’d return to British outline modelling at all, but I was taken by their range of kits and have bought a set (I also have more Flextrack in storage, not shown): My plan is for this to be a future project, once suitable rolling stock is available, so it’s not the layout I want to build now. With TT:120 now an option, I can’t see me going back to British outline N Gauge. Project B1.2 - British Outline Narrow Gauge As a Member of the 009 Society, I’ve seen the delightful models now being produced by Peco, Heljan, Kato and (especially) Bachmann close up and running. With the promise of more to come, r-t-r 009 is becoming an established commercial option. While I’ve modified some 009 items for my American HOn30 layout however, I’m not tempted to build a British Outline Narrow Gauge layout at present. Project B2.1 - American Outline Standard Gauge The American influence on my modelling is clear. With my Dad still modelling in American HO, it’s a natural option for me to consider, and I made a fresh start around the turn of the year. I have some building kits ready and waiting: And a selection of pre-painted freight car kits to build too: A couple of diesel locomotives (plus one awaiting repair) and a total of around 40 freight cars (including these kits and some needing new couplers) means I have all I need for a c.1970 freight based layout. What’s the catch? American HO Scale needs space - I’ve looked at small switching layouts, and while I enjoy watching them, have never quite persuaded myself to follow through on the layouts I’ve designed to actually build one. I’d like to run trains at least 15 cars long, but with the four car train in my header photo measuring 44” my space and my ambitions don’t meet. I’m going to keep American outline modelling, but will it be this first layout? Not sure at the moment. I have looked at North American N-Scale. This KATO ‘Gevo’ was the smoothest and most impressive locomotive I’ve ever owned: (I like lights - this is DC too). For test running it was superlative, but I found I could no longer read some of the detail on freight cars, and couldn’t properly see the couplings (far right in the photo below): Not a problem on an unscenicked test circuit, but I think I’d find it too fiddly / frustrating when anything broke / fell off on a layout, so I went back to HO. I didn’t buy a second locomotive. American TT (also 1:120 or 1/10th of an inch scale) is impressive but has little commercial support, and modellers also seem to prefer the same N-Scale couplings. A variant of these is used for North American Z-Scale, so I think HO is the smallest viable scale for me. One advantage of North American modelling worth noting before moving on: depending on the choice of prototype, it’s possible to dispense with station platforms (certainly high level ones). This can save a lot of space on a model layout, something I’ve learned over many years while trying to convert American plans into impossible British outline layouts! Project B2.2 - American Outline Narrow Gauge One of my favourite all-time magazine articles was in the November 1981 issue of Model Railroader magazine. Modeller Bob Hayden was designing a new basement-sized freelance 1940s HOn2 1/2 (now called HOn30) Carabasset and Dead River Railway. It was my inspiration for returning to Narrow Gauge modelling in early 2021. My modelling space at the time had moved up into our attic room, and I didn’t fancy carrying large Standard Gauge stock boxes (and buildings) up and down steep stairs when visitors needed the room. But HOn30 hasn’t really taken off. On30 became popular when Bachmann introduced a range, and every On30 layout I’ve seen is wonderful. But with limited space I’m not sure I’d want to move up to O-Scale, and with the Bachmann range now rarely seen on sale, a more realistic option would be to extend my existing HOn30 CAL. I could do this of course, but with just a few freight car scratch-aid kits left to build I’ve found I’m content with what I have. I have the two locos I’m happy with, and am not planning a bigger layout. …to be continued. In the next and final part of this blog post, I’ll look at the Continental European prototypes and models I’m interested in, then draw my conclusions for this section of my journey towards a model railway layout. Until next time, thank you for your patience, Keith.

Thanks @swisspeat - your end result looks really good. I just happen to have a tube of that UHU that came with a Noch Platform kit as well, so I have a choice now: watered down PVA (interior) or the UHU as per your demonstration. Good stuff, Keith.

It appears Hattons listed a couple of hundred packs of HO scale figures on the pre-owned webpage today, just in case it is of interest, Keith,

Thank you - that’s helpful. I have another build on my workbench at the moment, but when I get round to it, this will be very useful. Fortunately, I have some spares to experiment with too, Keith.

That is exactly what I was just thinking about - well remembered, Keith.

Noting that the centrepiece of any U.S. ideas I have is the Walthers Concrete Grain Elevator kit (933-3022) it makes sense to have this as my next build: it will help me visualise my possible layout space better than 2-D drawings, added to which I have more room for building big kits at the moment as I’ve not yet made any baseboards for my current space. So, here goes: Perhaps best described as large for a kit, while admittedly small in prototype terms. Should be fun to tackle. First step is to paint the parts on their sprues. Blue is recommended for some bits. Keith.

I’ve been working on a couple of Continental kits, an H0 Faller model of Ostermundigen (a Swiss BLS commuter station) and a TT Auhagen model of Moorbach (Thuringia in former East Germany, based on Manebach). Both include window boxes and foliage - something I’ve not come across with kits before: Working on the basis other Continental modellers will probably know the best way to make these look as good as possible, this seemed the place to ask for advice (I am, incidentally, one of the world’s worst gardeners too). Specific questions are: Is there a preferred adhesive / glue to use (or not use)? Is it easier to glue the window boxes in place first, or plant them prior to positioning? Any advice and ideas welcome. I have very little experience with scenery to draw on, hence my plea for help. Thanks, Keith.

Hi Chris - now you mention it, it’s obvious - wasn’t looking that closely. I’ve usually stuck bits like that firmly in place before I realise, of course, Keith.

Steep enough for Hovis? (that shows my age!)

Oddly enough, we were talking about Flying Boats here just yesterday - a timely picture for me to share with the family, thanks. Keith.

Thanks to @MrWolf for the interior photos - I’m not sure I’ve ever seen inside one: very useful. As for Mark’s question about colours, they’re not my strong point, but to me they seem to be a fairly good match with the GWR Light and Dark Stone used for buildings? (happy to be corrected if they’re not). Detailing an interior can be very satisfying - even if only you know it’s there. If I may share an example, these are some photos of old wooden American passenger car kits from the 1950s / 1960s that my Dad detailed when he built them. At first glance there was no obvious sign there’s an interior at all: but then I took a closer look: He even went as far as adding the ‘LM’ initial of his freelance road name to the seat back covers, just visible in this shot: No wonder he’s kept these coaches all these years (don’t worry about the buffers and three link couplings on an American passenger car - Dad was in the process of switching from UK to US modelling, so ran both for a while). Hope it’s OK to share these as an example of what can be done - and as they’re not mine I claim no credit of course. Keep up the good work - really great to see the parallel collaboration. Hope Mrs P is doing OK too, Keith.

Episode 3 - Here’s one I made earlier! Anyone who’s read my previous blog post might think I’d be content with a larger test circuit to run trains on. Not so! Many of the layouts I check out regularly here on RMweb and elsewhere are beautifully finished with amazingly detailed scenery, and quite often in finescale too. I don’t aspire to such standards myself, but I do want to have a fully-sceniced layout. Our hobby teaches us a whole range of practical skills, as well as how to have fun operating a railway. Before I review various ideas in my project list (in my next post), here are some of the practical things I do - and don’t - enjoy when modelling: Building baseboards - up to a point I enjoy building baseboards (it’s just I’ve built too many that have gone no further). It’s an outdoor task here, and the arrival of better weather in April allows me to re-open my baseboard factory: Track Laying and Wiring - I don’t enjoy track laying much at all. When I was modelling in OO, I spent some time laboriously cutting and re-spacing the sleepers on track for a small BLT test layout. It looked much better, and used up some old Setrack, but for me it was the least enjoyable bit of modelling I think I’ve ever tried (sorry): It didn’t help that I then covered it with over-sized ballast I was using up. It’s why that project went no further. When it came to HOn30 I followed plenty of advice to make the task easier, but I still couldn’t say I enjoyed it: As a result, any track plan I actually think about building now is likely to be quite simple. As for wiring, I’m happy with two wires (DC) from a controller to the track. I can follow traditional DC cab control wiring, but am easily flummoxed when it comes to live frog points, anything to do with DCC, or powered accessories. One day I’ll use the soldering iron my wife bought me, but as it’s over thirty years since I last held one I’ll need plenty of practice before I feel confident (or even just safe). I’m not an exhibitor, so I can live with hand operated points - it’s not a cop out: often on American Switching Layouts it’s a point of realism to have the train crew (our “heroes”) operate switches as they come to them. An interesting idea, which I quite like. Scenery - I’ve only ever tried basic ground cover, but I really enjoyed putting it down, and the transformation is well worth it: Scenery is something I’m happy to try more of, and I’ve bought a couple of beginners’ scenery and tree kits to help with this. Rolling Stock kits and scratchbuilding - I’ve made some Dapol ex-Kitmaster and Airfix static models, and more recently had a go at Narrow Gauge kit building and scratchbuilding, but there’s still plenty of room for improvement: Dundas Kits: Scratchbuilt: Resin on Kato chassis (weathered): Structures Kits (kits of buildings) - interestingly, this is what I’ve found I enjoy most on the practical side of the hobby: I’m not a prolific builder, and I’m also quite happy following the instructions when assembling a kit. I just enjoy it. The significance for layout planning is that the scale I’ve found I’m most comfortable / enjoyable is HO. I like making kits big enough to have presence, like the Swiss station above and this American one below, but I also find the fiddly bits don’t get too small (2nd below): I have also made a start with TT (1:120) and found that similarly OK for me (I don’t have great eyesight, and can be quite clumsy): My greatest area of weakness when it comes to kits is painting, but with structure kits I find I can work around that by painting most parts or sub-assemblies either when they are still on their sprues or at least prior to assembly. Again, in HO or TT the parts aren’t too small (these are TT station lamps, clock and benches): I’ve only properly scratchbuilt one building - the small Santa Fe Combination Depot shown in my first blog post. While it didn’t cost anything (its cereal packet card), it took three months - mainly because of the need to design and make each component of the building. When I can afford to pay someone else to do that heavy lifting first by using a kit, I can focus on the assembly I enjoy more. We each have our own preferences when it comes to what we most enjoy. This review shows mine. As I turn towards my next post - the fourth and final part of my introduction and background - I’ll look at various layout options I have. Of course, there’s nothing wrong in principle with making models in one scale and having a layout in another, but with limited space (and budget) I note the practical part of the hobby I get most pleasure from draws me towards HO and TT when it comes to a choice of scale. Until next time, I hope you have fun with whatever you most enjoy, Keith. (Note: the Models and some Photos in this review have been shared previously on RMweb)

And, all of a sudden, it seems I’m just about finished! Downpipes were next to be fitted - I’d not realised I only needed 12 from this rather full sprue (3 for each corner): I haven’t painted these - they could be plastic in real life after all, and it will help the glue set faster. Then, to finish: There are four pre-drilled holes to take small pips on the base of each of the awning legs. I could only use them for alignment, as my awning needed to be a couple of mm further forward to fit comfortably. Dabs of glue under the window shutters on the upper floor helped fix the awning in place: I’m going to take advice before fitting the window boxes, as I’ve not done them before. That’s the last stage to complete. For now, it seemed time to picture the station next to a narrow gauge train: (Photo taken before I spotted the bent sign, and before I remembered to fit the finials on top of the roof ) Some older Continental kits were actually made undersized to 1:100 scale to save space - they have been used successfully on some Narrow Gauge layouts (when placed carefully away from correct scale buildings). Here I have the opposite problem - this 1:87 kit is really better suited to a standard gauge setting, especially given the height of the awning: My original idea was to use it for an Interchange station - where it would obviously have to fit standard gauge trains. We shall see. To conclude for now: there are a number of mistakes I’ve made - some I’ve mentioned as I’ve gone along, others I’ll leave for you to spot (and some I’ve probably not even noticed myself yet). I got the kit mail order from TopSlotsnTrains, who stock a range of discounted Faller kits. It has been excellent value for money and a very enjoyable build. Time to leave the glue to set. Have a good weekend, Keith.

Excellent! Thanks for sharing the photos here, Keith.

Thank you to @BR60103 and @F-UnitMad for the additional information - very helpful. Totally agree on the inside / outside of the curve view: makes a big difference. It wasn’t such an issue when I was looking at GWR Branch Lines with shorter coaches and 0-6-0 Pannier Tank engines, but is an important factor now. I’d also say that transition curves are helpful too - I had some free time yesterday evening so mocked up some more photos of the same length train (note: I’m not after a table top layout - I just have some tables I could use). This is with a 3rd radius Setrack curve (505mm or 19 7/8”) and no transition: Quite frightening for the passengers! I then inserted a Peco Streamline Curved Point to create a simple transition effect (the inner curve radius is 30”): Much improved (sorry, I didn’t take any photos with my American freight cars - the Continental stock box was on top). One reason I think my simple HOn30 mini-layout works is that I included transitions at the end and centre of each end curve: All good stuff - thanks for the extra information, which will be very helpful as my ideas develop, Keith.

Class 31s were included in the list of future locomotives when Hornby launched their range. Prior to this Heljan had been planning one (which would have been the first TT:120 loco to become available). After Hornby’s announcement Heljan withdrew - the story is in a Heljan thread in the trade section of RMweb. A 31 plus coaches could offer a Great Eatern option, or alternatively an urban theme (eg: Cyril Freezer’s Minories). Hope that helps, Keith.

It’s been a couple of months since I updated this thread, so I should start with the good news: I‘ve moved my modelling ‘stuff’ into the spare room I can use (noted in my Narrow Gauge thread) The quiet doesn’t mean I’ve changed my mind, direction / scale or sold anything shared here. We’re still good. And the other news…? I’ve been building station kits for my existing freelance Narrow Gauge HOn30 mini-layout and my Continental interest (both have progressed nicely and modelling time has not been wasted, I’m happy to say). But…I didn’t settle on a track plan: while I could easily fit a switching layout into the space I’d still rather have a continuous run. I’ve been doing some measuring up, using HO stock from this project and from my small Continental collection. While it’s not easy to capture in a photo, I’ve been testing a theory I read about in the Layout & Track Design Forum. Apparently, close up the human eye has a ‘bandwidth’ of around four feet. Above and beyond this an HO train extends beyond the field of vision*. If I can find a way to increase train length to around 70” then a train of seven 50’ boxcars is possible: It’s still only half what I’d really want as a minimum, but at eye level the locomotive starts to look further away: Why 70” ? Two reasons: The room is just over 10’ long, so a simple continuous run could theoretically fit with 2’ end curves and 6’ sides, if a cantilever over the bed could be arranged and access to the far side of the layout doesn’t become impossible. It’s also the length of a five coach Continental train - full length 1:87 scale 26.4m passenger cars are 303.4mm long: (Note: This Austrian consist isn’t prototypical - the orange Eurofima livery was phased out a decade before the first Taurus locomotives entered service, although the red and black livery of the final coach did span the gap and ran with both). While four or five coach regional trains are seen, a typical international train often has a dozen or more passenger cars. As with the American freight train, this is again about half the length it should be. If I apply my ‘eye level’ test, it looks like this: Having dabbled in the different scales over the past couple of years, I’m not minded to change yet again (just to save anyone asking - it’d be a valid question, but there are other reasons why HO works for me, especially for American modelling, so train length has to compromise). It’s given me more food for thought, so I thought it might be worth sharing. One thing I need to weigh up which I can’t show in a photo is how this looks in a room less than two train lengths long (there are other things, not mine, in the room still). I’ll give it some more thought. With other projects I’m working on in parallel, there’s no rush. Until next time, Keith. (* I’m afraid I don’t know if this works in smaller scales, where there is more of a helicopter view at the same distance, sorry)

Progress continues on my larger H0 Station build: dormer windows have been glued in place - alignment by virtue of counting the layers of roof tiles beneath each window in the pictures on the box (there are no ‘clues’ on the roof mouldings). I’ve used Glue ‘n’ Glaze rather than plastic cement to reduce the risk of leaving permanent glue marks on the most viewed part of the model, which seems to have worked OK (I stuck them on yesterday and the glue seems to have set): Platform details have been prepared separately, including the large awning. I still need to glue the drainpipes in place (not shown in the photos). The final pieces to have been painted are the window boxes which I’ll do last. 32 are supplied in the kit (28 are needed): I’ve held back from gluing on the road side steps as I know I’ll still want to lift and turn the kit while fitting the details. This will be much easier without the steps in place, even though they were shown near the start of the instruction booklet. The rest of my modelling time has been devoted to thinking ahead to my next layout project, which I’ll look to cover in a RMweb blog I’m starting. And that’s all for now - steady progress for a change, Keith.

Episode 2 - Slim Shelby is my Hero My all-time favourite book on railway modelling is A.C. Klambach’s “Operating Manual for Model Railroaders” published in 1944. Writing under the pseudonym “Boomer Pete” Kalmbach interweaves practical advice still relevant today on cleaning wheels and track, ensuring coupler heights match and how to handle delicate models, with rich insights into the way the prototype operated, all couched in a knowledgeable writing style full of enthusiasm. I spent hours pouring over Dad’s copy when I was a kid, to the point where I can still quote from it today, though I do now have my own copy - one kept well away from glue and paint! This is how Chapter 2 - “So You’re an engineer” begins: “Have you ever watched Slim Shelby coming into the station with the 5:15 ? Have you noticed how he keeps the Pacific working steam until just about the minute she stops so that the slack between the cars is all stretched out and there’s no jerk as he starts off again? And have you watched a freight train starting out? Watch the care with which the engineer inches the throttle and judges the feel of the train so that he won’t jerk the rear end apart by taking up the slack too rapidly… …The conductor may be in command of the train but it’s the engineer who pulls the throttle and makes it go and that’s what you do when you run your model railroad.” I was hooked! I would also regularly read and re-read Linn Westcott’s “101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders” (Kalmbach, 1956), assuming one day I would build my own grand layout and never imagining for a moment that I wouldn’t. I could cite other early influences from the pages of Dad’s Model Railroader magazines, such as Frank Ellison’s “The Art of Model Railroading” originally written in 1944 and later republished. And I enjoyed the imagination Westcott and others invested in back stories for their layout designs, small or large. Dreams were being formed that would last a lifetime, the dreams I still hold on to today. But there’s a catch. A particular view of model railroading was being shaped for me without me ever realising. And it’s this: for me, model railroading / railway modelling is ultimately about seeing trains run, more than it is about modelling a particular place for them to run to or through: There can be quite a difference between controlling the arrival or departure of trains at a given location, as opposed to driving a train while you watch it eating up the miles. I’ve seen it described as being like the difference between “gods” and “heroes.” The gods are those in ultimate control of everything that lies before them, while the heroes are down there on the journey, living the adventure as they travel from place to place. It’s a metaphor, but one that makes sense to me, and I guess it means I’m with the heroes: Of course there’s an overlap, and many of us will enjoy both approaches to operating a model railway, but in planning a layout I’m more interested in having somewhere for a train to stretch its legs than designing a model of a particular prototype or location. How does this translate into the limited space (and budget) I have. Frank Ellison suggested that “A run of not less than two scale miles seems essential” - and he was an O-Scaler! That’s not the world I live in. Kalmbach had a more modest idea, albeit one which requires more imagination: “A real railroad is built to carry traffic from one place to another. A model railroad should be so planned that it will give an illusion of doing the same thing even if it doesn’t. The simplest layout is a circle or an oval with a siding, station, or yards at one point on it. That one yard or station can be imagined as both ends of the line and definite orders can be made up and carried out for moving traffic from the one terminal around the main line and back to the same point.” (p41) In practical terms - a continuous run (even if as part of an out and back scheme). Fiddle yards didn’t figure - look through “101 Track Plans” and you’ll hardly see any hidden staging sidings even, although one track plan in Kalmbach’s own book had a scenic staging yard where a train could pause if needed. Not all the past projects on my “Shelf of Shame” (see previous blog post) had continuous run designs, but the ones that got furthest did. Over the past couple of years I’ve updated my reading with some excellent modern sources, two of which are worth a mention here: Thomas Klimoski’s “Building the Right-Sized Layout” and Lance Mindheim’s “How to Design a Model Railroad” (which is not just about switching layouts). But much as I enjoy reading about and watching US-themed switching layouts, I’ve not yet managed to remain interested long enough to build one. For me, anything other than a continuous run design is a sure way to not build a model railway. At the same time, it presents me with a design problem I bang my head against every time I look at a new idea - end curves take up space! Next time I’ll look at another aspect of railway modelling I’ve discovered I enjoy, how this influences my choice of scale and gauge, and how it brings me back to the same problem I end with here. Until then, have fun and keep modelling, whatever your aim, Keith.