Keith Addenbrooke

Thanks @Nearholmer: it’s this (which - no surprise or complaint - no longer seems to be listed on the Javis website): The spill which stained the labels happened many years ago. It was most likely bought in the original Hattons Smithdown Road store in the late 1990s - the only real clue as to the age of my bottle is probably the absence of the more modern safety labelling. There is no sign of the contents separating, Keith.

Thank you - I suppose for me the question is when the change from “old” to “modern” types (roughly) occurred - sounds like it was longer ago than I thought, Keith.

Quite a common ‘trick’ with N Gauge Continental layouts that need OHLE / Catenary is just to model the posts and omit the wires altogether, as too thin to actually see anyway (there are prototype photos available where the wires just can’t be seen). I don’t know if it will also work with wire fences / telegraph poles as well, but it does at least solve the track cleaning problem. Just a thought, Keith.

On my Samsung phone (and sometimes other devices too), I find it helps to slightly edit each photo once I’ve taken it - this can include rotating it as well. Once “re-saved” they usually seem to load OK. Not sure why - I guess the editing process ‘breaks’ any auto-assumptions the device is making for me. Just a thought, Keith.

I appreciated the help and advice last time I posed a question here, so I hope it’s OK to ask another, very general one. Some years ago now I bought a small bottle of Javis Model Oil for lubricating my locos. The oil still lives tightly sealed in the original bottle, which is itself kept in an airtight tin. I don’t have a permanent layout, so rarely run trains, which means the oil is very little used once I’ve run in each new purchase (I buy second hand). The oil still looks clean, and when I dip the sewing pin I use for occasional light lubrication in the top the viscosity and colour look fine to me. But I know nothing at all about petrochemicals, so have no idea if my oil should have a “use by” or “best before” date - it’s possible I’ve had it for fifteen or more years already, and there could still be enough for at least the next decade at the current rate of usage. Would it be wise to replace it at some point? The locos I currently own are nearly all Continental outline H0 Roco or Fleischmann models also made between ten and thirty years ago (ie: my oil can probably be described as era-appropriate). Just wondered? Thanks, Keith.

Personally I’d stick with the matching paint inside and outside - not just for an easy life, but because the high seat backs are both inside and outside at the same time (visually). Also, with the wooden seats, there will be a different colour inside anyway (I’d fancy a nice wood stain or varnish rather than paint for them). All depends if the Gaffer is the kind of bloke who’ll go with any suggestions from the shop floor, or (out of habit) insist on going for something different as a matter or principle - I’m sure we’ve all worked with / for management of both types, Keith.

So 148’ when scaled up - no wonder there’s a wow! factor, Keith.

Hi @Duncan., fair point about inviting comments, not just ‘likes’ (though I do like this layout as well). Having been around at the start of the Billy bookcase discussions, it’s great to see this one coming to life - especially as it makes such good use of the ‘vertical’ space as well as the 30” x 10” footprint. Can I ask how tall / deep it is (my apologies if it’s been mentioned and I’ve missed it)? Personally, I find the ‘hanging railway arch’ a bit disconcerting, but at the same time the opportunity to include lengthwise shots of the layout from beyond the buffers is excellent and really captures the character of the model. As for the state of the hobby / state of N Gauge - N has certainly come on tremendously since my first model railway in 1970s N, in terms of choice as well as quality (both running quality and detail). I don’t have any objection to layouts just using r-t-r equipment and components if it’s what brings happiness, or even if it just enables a layout to get built (something I’m really not good at). There can still be creativity in the composition. However, I’d also agree that the practical, creative side of the hobby is a wonderful world it’s a shame not to explore - in my experience the worst that can happen is that I learn more, and get to try again. There’s nothing to lose. My own idea for a modular Billy bookcase micro layout faltered when I lost the use of the bookcase I was banking on - but we’re due to move house soon, so it’s a concept that may soon come back onto my radar. Keep up the good work, Keith.

In terms of the model of caravan, it’s quite close to this one - a Bluebird Dauphin: Mine does have a single, central rear window though, but other than that the styling looks similar, suggesting perhaps a different Bluebird model? Just a thought, Keith. (I have no idea if a Morris Minor would actually have the power to tow a caravan?)

Hi Chris, the three most commonly deployed methods when modelling are probably these: 1. Use two locomotives, one pushes wagons onto the quay and one pulls them (or some variations thereof): “Oh no, I need to buy another loco 😀” 2. Use the Fiddle Stick as a Sector plate to complete a run-round loop, probably using the front two tracks in this example. 3. Loco operates first in ‘push mode’ shunting the front siding, then withdraws to the fiddle stick, which is then either be re-arranged or simply turned 180°. The loco then pulls the remaining wagons onto the quay to shunt the kickback sidings. The most commonly used prototype method was probably to shunt either using chains, or a horse, or shunting poles, and on a quayside there’d probably be capstans that could be used to help? Hope that helps, Keith.

Hi Wendell, thank you for posting this here. Like many fans of American Model Railroading I guess, Jim Hediger's name will always be associated in my mind with a golden era for MRR magazine. As a youngster reading my Dad's copy of the magazine, I never realised the Ohio Southern wasn't a real railroad, it was that impressive. In particular I well remember an article in which he explained how he devised a large 'X-shaped' frame to support the upper level of his double deck layout. That kind of thinking just blew me away! Another sad loss to the hobby, Keith.

Just watched a couple of videos of the layout at the Erith 2024 show (thank you for the pointer). Absolutely loved the way the layout comes across - the videos really capture the spaciousness of the model*. Some brilliant detailed modelling too, a lot to see around the tracks. Very impressed. Thanks, Keith. (* I note in the audio I can hear an explanation that even still there had to be length compression of this US prototype to fit)

Just curious - which firm is ‘the Dutch firm’ ? It’s probably obvious, but doesn’t come to mind, sorry. Keith.

Sorry, that final phrase made me smile - @F-UnitMad and @Oldddudders especially have done quite a lot to educate me about The Rock, which (my words) could almost be described as a Railroad which managed to get even the basics wrong - hence requires more effort as a modeller to portray it “right”. Must admit, your HO Florida switching layout is one I would love to have the chance to see - looks excellent in the photos here on RMweb. Certainly the sort of layout I’d expect to happily spend a long time watching, Keith.

With some free time I searched out this thread after seeing a reference to it by @Oldddudders . I don't often venture into this part of RMweb, so it's been interesting reading, thank you to all, and to @TEAMYAKIMA for the prompt. Much to agree with in many posts (I am a fan of standard and narrow gauge US and 'Continental' model railways), but if I could add an experience I had a couple of years ago that hasn't been covered: I was building up a collection for a possible European project and saw a layout of that prototype would be at a show I was going to. I sought it out, had a good chat with the exhibitor and (with their permission) took some photos. What I didn't let on was that I didn't get the spark I was hoping for. Nothing wrong with their layout at all, it just didn't 'do it' for me. My point: seeing a good quality model of a prototype I was interested in (and still like) was a good use of my time, but on that occasion encouraged me to look at something else to pursue. Another Continental layout making its debut at the same show (so I hadn't heard of) captivated me. It's not of a prototype I plan to model, but I really enjoyed it, and the approach taken, and standard achieved, really caught my attention and interest. I don't think a UK layout would have had the same effect - it took something different. In other words, from a modeller's perspective, exhibitions can also serve as a good place for research, sometimes with interesting results. Layouts of different / overseas prototypes have much to offer here. Just a thought. My only other comment is to say a big "THANK YOU!" to everyone involved in the exhibition circuit for all you do, so much of it behind the scenes. It really is appreciated, and I wouldn't want that to get lost in some of the reactions people have had that have been mentioned above. Hope that's OK, Keith.

Train length is one of the recurring themes in my musings. My blog post above concentrated on passenger trains. What about freight? When I was looking at TT, I could comfortably get a 5-car freight train (with loco) onto a yard length of track: Although I’ve stepped back up to H0 Scale, moving my era back in time to the 1980s (approx.) means I can get away with shorter wagons - so I can still fit a 5-car freight train and locomotive onto a yard of track. I really like this short train: (Stanchions need to be added to the flat stake wagon with the wood load). This also compares favourable with the 44” needed for what was (operationally) a four-car freight train for my American HO, as that needed a caboose as well as power. From what I’ve seen on film, German mainline freight trains (as in other Western European countries), tend to be kept shorter so they can run fast, so as not to hold-up to passenger trains. Thanks, Keith.

I only set myself the limited objective this week of adding the lining to the roof trim - mainly so as not to rush! I didn’t try lining the inside edges of the trim - but settled instead for a result I can be happy with by just doing the outward facing side of each piece and concentrating on getting it as good as I could. For someone as bad at painting as I am, this is better than I could have hoped for. Have a good week, Keith.

Good point - solo games of ping-pong may provide lots of exercise, but the novelty soon wears off. If you’ll forgive me using your experience as a case study again, I suppose there’s an argument for swapping it all over and suggesting the station part could be the removable section in similar circumstances - as long as the fiddle yard has capacity for all the rolling stock, it might be better off as the fixed section. The station could then be stored over the fiddle yard and act as a dust cover? Seems counterintuitive but there could be some inverted logic in the idea. Just a thought, Keith.

I wonder if the lack of sustained interest might have been partly a consequence of having four platforms and the same number of fiddle yard roads - a more typical model railway arrangement can be to have eight (or twelve) fiddle yard roads for a four platform station, so a greater variety of trains can be run in and out? Just a thought, Keith. (…which maybe leads to the question as to whether the same boredom might set in with the operating scheme as we understand was originally envisaged for CJF’s Minories as an in / out Commuter station???)

Very ingenious - the Barry Slip makes it into the ultimate space-saving switchback layout! Impressed, Keith.

Progress has been both forwards and backwards since my last post. First thing I noticed were some extra floor pieces in the box - presumably for use if the separate shop interior kit was also being modelled (which I don’t have). Nevertheless, it made sense to swap the plain floor I’d used for the planked one before proceeding further: Next job was to add some interior walls for the shop fronts and then roof edge trim, handily supplied in ‘peel and stick’ strips: All seemed good so far (roof added for photos only - not fixed in place): Anticipating that the building could soak up a lot of paint, I decided to spray it. I’m very new to spray painting and just have a couple of rattle cans, but with plastic kits I’m finding they can bring out the relief in mouldings very effectively: Unfortunately, with this wooden kit it showed up the places where the gaps between pieces were just too large, plus one end had curled quite noticeably, despite my trying to spray both the insides and outsides of the kit to minimise this effect: After pondering my options, I decided the only course of action was to gently prise it apart and rebuild. Fortunately the glue I’d used meant that was possible, and I was soon back to a pile of pieces: One perk of my job is that it comes with a lot of heavy books, so the springy base pieces spent a few days in the Study being flattened before reassembly: I then proceeded more slowly than the first time round: And built the interior strengthening walls before adding the exterior: Finally, the outside walls were put back in place, and the exterior brush painted with Humbrol #34: This side wall / base joint isn’t perfect, but much improved, and it all seems to be staying in shape ready for the next stage. I may pick out the roof trim in a different colour to match the original, then it’ll be the windows. Until next time, Keith.

Enjoyed the video - Bruce Chubb’s Sunset Valley RR (the original one as in his book) is easily one of my favourite all time layouts. I like the way you explain for any US viewers how layout space works out in the UK. Good stuff, Keith.

Some very impressive scenic modelling there - taking full advantage of O-Scale, Keith.

Good to see from the box it’s “Fully interlocking” - must be reassuring to the loco crew at that speed 😀, Keith.

As an indication of just how many Orders Hattons processed during the Closing Down / Clearance Sale, I’ve had a look at the order numbers on my final purchases: On the evening of Mon 8th Jan, the day closure was announced, I placed a Trunk Order at 8.45pm - Order No. 6153785 At around midnight I drew stumps for the day and shipped my Trunk - Order No. 6155445 (ie: 1,660 Orders later). It’s no surprise they were so busy that evening if people were reacting to the closure notice. The 30%+ discounts had already been activated, though I don’t know how many Orders would have normally been placed on a typical Monday evening. On the final day of trading, I decided at the last minute to buy one of the remaining items (post on page 44). My final final order was placed in the last quarter hour of trading, just after 1.45pm on 31st Jan - Order No. 6177614. That Order number is 23,829 after the first one I placed on 8th Jan. Again, I don’t know how many Orders Hattons would have expected to process during three weeks in January, but it gives an indication of the volume of orders being processed by a staff team that appears to have been diminishing (based on the ‘earlier end to trading’ announcement). It’s no surprise to me that the last box to arrive wasn’t the usual size under the circumstances, Keith.