Keith Addenbrooke

Thank you for this - it’s good advice, but sums up my dilemma quite nicely: Basically, any undiscovered skills I might have currently remain untried and untested: I’m only now having a first attempt at scratchbuilding a small structure, for example - and haven’t used a soldering iron for over forty years. Most of my posts on RMweb have been about research or planning (and appreciating the inspirational modelling there is on here). I have a number of simple standard gauge rolling stock projects to undertake, mainly fitting couplers and trucks, and some repainting. These would be very useful skills for NG modelling. I also have a couple of layouts / dioramas to build. So by the time I might have more funds, and be ready to take an additional step into active NG modelling, I’m beginning to think finding what I’d want to get me started may have become very difficult: the kind of ranges I was looking at in HOe ten years ago seem less easy to find in the UK than they did then (and prices have risen a lot). I read recently of an HOn30 modeller who does several daily searches on eBay, which I’ve never used, and I’ve seen a very long thread on the NGRM Forum about eBay prices. I realise this is not unique to NG, and I also thought carefully before going into US HO. For me personally, an attraction of American NG is that common-carrier passenger cars and boxcars look to me rather like scaled down versions of their standard gauge cousins. This means a longer train will fit into the same space, and buildings which have been scaled back for modelling may start to look bigger again. I know some NG modellers are attracted by the differences to standard gauge trains and operations, or to save space - I’m more the other way round. So I’ll keep collecting advice and ideas (with thanks for the pointers so far) and I’ll do some research to refine my questions.

Hi Stan, thank you - that’s really helpful. (I’ll send a separate PM with my details, but wanted to acknowledge the offer on the thread). Appreciated, Keith.

Thank you - from what I’ve read the modern (2010 onwards?) revival of Roco Minitrains has seen much greater reliability than the earlier versions? The Forney locos look good to me for Maine 2’ modelling - the Fiddletown and Copperopolis liveried coaches are interesting: freelance as you say but with that interesting ‘backstory.’ I’ve seen @PaulRhB’s thread for an F&C layout, and I think he says on it they’re not producing any more of those models - a good example perhaps of the short-run models we now see (I don’t know Paul personally, but he’s also contributed helpfully to my Standard Gauge US research on my parallel HO thread).

This is a really nicely composed diorama - doesn’t look at all cramped. Really like the details you’ve added to the Cottage and the way they’ve been done.

Day 55 - no longer a biscuit box I haven’t quite managed to finish the building part of the diorama by the end of February, but I have managed to glue together and fasten the end roof brackets I marked out and painted on a bit of biscuit box yesterday: That just leaves the side (angled) brackets to cut out, glue together and fasten on, the tips of the card to be painted (and the corner joints of the building) and the chimney to glue down. I realise I’ve posted more detail than I needed to this weekend, sorry, but if I make another building I’ll be referring back to this thread to remind me of each step I took, so I hope that’s OK. Take care and stay safe, Keith.

Does this mean the ramp will get steeper...?

I’m sure this type question comes up regularly, so I should first ask the forgiveness of dedicated members of the Narrow Gauge Modelling community, who no doubt keep patiently reprising the answers each time a novice like me comes along. As my thread title indicates, I’m tentatively interested in finding out more about American H0n30 modelling in the UK? With a limited budget and other interests I’m also actively pursuing, I’m wondering how much is ‘out there’ in HOn30 these days, noting the current wide range of models available in OO9? I know there’s some amazing HOn3 equipment - and great layouts - but my budget wouldn’t stretch that far even if it were my only interest, hence my wondering about HOn30: Are there some inspirational layouts around to look at - I’ve not found much yet, but I may be looking in the wrong places? What are the pitfalls (ie: are there compatibility issues between today’s loco mechanisms and older controllers - or vice versa)? Related to this, how integrated are other features of older products with new ones - eg: couplers, wheel sizes, track standards? Is there a DCC assumption (I think that would rule me out for several reasons, to be honest)? Like many others, I grew up in the 1970s / early 1980s with a variety of interests across railway modelling I’m now returning to, in my case after a change in vocation which saw my primary interest (not railway related) become my job some years ago. I’ve had a lot of help and encouragement planning and progressing my standard gauge interests in American HO Santa Fe modelling and Great Western Branch Lines, but I only managed a very brief dabble with some European HOe 10 years ago. At that time all the buildings, people and vehicles I had were in 4mm scale for my OO modelling. I found the smaller size of the HOe rolling stock accentuated the scale difference too much, so I traded it in for more Great Western Branch line stuff (I am quite happy with the cliches I grew up with). Three things have really sparked this exploration and prompted this question now: My long-term HO Santa Fe project has started much better than I expected (helped by the advice and kindness of RMwebbers), and I’m ready to look for the HO accessories I’ll need to go with my first Santa Fe layout several years ahead of expectations. I’ve become very conscious one thing that changed in the hobby while I wasn’t looking has been the shift towards short-term product runs and availability: if you don’t get it while you can, it’s gone! Things I saw just a few years ago have already vanished. The amount of HOn2 1/2 that I remember from years ago (as it was known then) doesn’t seem to have persisted. Is this correct? On30 seems to be doing well - perhaps a function of the reliability issues I recall with 1970s N gauge (where my modelling began)? If I am to add some Narrow Gauge to my list of projects, it would need to be in 3.5mm scale for it to happen. I’ve read the discussion on “American outline OO9” a couple of pages back, but was still left with these questions, so I hope it’s OK to ask afresh (an internet search tends to point me to American Forums from a few years ago reviewing the difference between HOn3 and HOn30). There have also been changes to import rules this year of course. I suppose my answer to the other obvious question: “Why not UK OO9?” is that, while I think its great - and hunt out the Narrow Gauge layouts when I can get to exhibitions - a standard gauge branch line ticks that box for me when it comes to model layout building. I’m in no rush, and have plenty to be getting on with, but just wondered if there were any thoughts. Thank you, Keith. _______ Edit: I should perhaps acknowledge the gauge issue with HOn30, being 2mm too wide for the 2’ prototypes I think are usually modelled - makes a change from the reverse problem with OO.

Day 54 pm - a sunny day The window where I left the paint to dry catches the sun, so although the gloss-painted brackets won’t be dry until tomorrow it’s been possible to make up some time after lunch with the other bits: The published plan doesn’t show a ‘chimney pot’ so I made one as short as possible using the ‘Metcalfe’ method of tightly rolling some painted paper around a cocktail stick, then cutting off just a short bit to use. I have seen a photo of a similar Depot with a chimney like this. At normal viewing distance I don’t see the wobbly bits in the window frames - given my lack of experience, and use of rubbish as a material, I’ve still exceeded all my expectations so far. I’m also grateful for everyone who’s had a read of this build thread - I am very much finding my way at each step. Once again, thank you.

Having watched the video link posted by @long island jack, I’ve had another look at the photos on the Kalmbach book: The principal locos of the Graham County were Shay locomotives Nos. 1925 / 1926. The video indicates these did have tenders, but with the gearing extended to the tenders. It is probably #1926 in the photo posted above by @DanielB A different loco, #1923 was used for a while and was a two truck engine (with no tender), as there’s a clear side-on photo of title. Apologies for my confusion earlier.

Day 54 am - Attention to detail Any collection of post-Christmas card in our house is likely to include the ubiquitous Family Circle biscuit box, and I’m using one to add some roof details to finish the building off, specifically the brackets used to support the roof overhangs, ridge tiles, a bit more trim on the bay window and painted undersides to the roof overhangs. I’m also making a chimney, from some darker cereal box card. This morning has been about marking out and painting components before cutting them out - hopefully tomorrow once the paint is dry: I’ve cut out the triangle openings in the brackets now as I found it was easier to make the small openings first when I did the windows. If I were making a kit, this part (creating components) would be done for me, saving a lot of time, although I did enjoy the biscuits...

The Graham County was included in Kalmbach’s 1978 “More Railroads you can Model.” There are a couple of pictures in the article showing engines pulling trains bunker first, but no references I can see in the text (I’ve just had a quick skim through). The steam locos were all geared Shay locos by the look of it. The photos aren’t entirely clear to me, and I don’t know much about Shays, but I think the gearing extends beneath the coal bunker / water tank in all cases. Some Shays weren’t tender engines. The track layout diagrams suggest there was a small Wye at the terminus, but not at the junction with the Southern, so turning might have been an issue anyway. Edit: see also additional post below after watching video in @long island jack’s post that follows this one.

I would make a distinction between ‘a fiddle yard’ and ‘staging loops’, with the plan you’re sharing looking more like staging to me. In a ‘fiddle yard’ hands-on time will be spent rearranging trains, and I’d agree that I’d rather not use up operating time driving a fiddle yard if there is an alternative. The earliest reference I have to ‘staging’ is in an American Kalmbach book first published in the 1940s that shows a track plan with a double-ended yard part way round the layout where trains can be paused to wait their turn in the main Station - it is a passive means of managing the problem of a mainline that has been unavoidably shortened, and the yard was in the open. That particular layout had a stub terminal off a continuous run, with a Wye to get in and out, so the problem of reversing trains to return them to the terminus did not arise. Another alternative is only to have as much rolling stock as the layout can accommodate, which is how I think our forebears could most easily avoid this issue. The reversing loop would still be needed - the staging sidings are for our ‘excess’ stock.

Hi Ian, I don’t think I’ve contributed to this thread before, but I’ve been following with interest for a while after coming across it several times while browsing. Really enjoyed the video - maybe it’s lockdown, or watching too many model / prototype videos too close together, but I got quite a surprise when the doors to railbus didn’t open to let ‘us’ get on. This all looks like great fun - do keep it up.

The only real difference I can see is the shadow on the platform underneath the awning - “without” it is quite a bit darker under there, especially at the front where the people are. On my iPad I can’t see anything different on the engine (where I would naturally look first). Do you have any prototype photos from this angle to compare?

Hi Rob, I just happen to be online at the moment: I like the pictures - would certainly have a “Wow!” factor for an eight-year old and the sidings make good use of the space, especially in area C. The turntable is accessible - as @Chimer had it but moved a bit nearer the edge (with just the last two engine sidings tucked under the high level) and the harder to reach area B is less busy. I see how you’ve resolved the problem of making the points “trailing” rather than “facing” - by going for right-hand running as on the original plan. I hadn’t thought of that as a solution, but why not? If anyone questions this (it is a necessary compromise with this plan), then Rule 1applies. I think at this point I’d be wanting to press on - as you say, leave deciding where to put the official station till later*. ______________ *In my experience, kids will often decide there is a station wherever they want to stop a train.

The thing I would worry about if this was my layout was banging my head on the layout above when leaning in to uncouple cars spotted on the rear spurs . It’s quite a relief for me with my own layout plans that manual switching and uncoupling is conventional on US layouts - my budget doesn’t extend to point motors, plus it will simplify the wiring across portable baseboard joints (I’ve not wired a layout for forty years). As for uncoupling, some of the older rolling stock I’ve been donated has either metal axles or even metal trucks. I don’t know if this would be a problem with magnets, but it’s something else I don’t need to worry about. I just need to clean out the BBQ to justify buying a load of skewers.

Day 52 - back to base I didn’t get much done on the Cakebox over half-term. My time was spent on our family project reconfiguring several rooms in the house, so I am quite a bit behind my timetable for completing this by the end of March (I get rather busy in the run up to Easter). I do however now have space in our attic room where I can set up a compact, portable layout when the room isn’t needed as a bedroom, and I have a plan that will incorporate this Depot, so I want to finish the base without gluing the building down. To try and avoid the ‘giveaway’ gap between building and ground I’ve used some of the more eco-friendly card now used in cereal packets (that hasn’t been bleached white) to create a false ground level around the building: There are still some details to add to the roof before the building part of the diorama is complete, but it seems to fit OK. I don’t need much in the way of ground cover, as the area I’m modelling is basically flat to start with (the American plains). However, scenic modelling remains a mystery to me, so I want a bit of time to experiment to get the right effect.

Hi Ben, the grade crossing has the makings of a really nice ‘cameo’ scene. I think there were examples of wig-wag signals in rural locations - I believe their electric power requirements were quite minimal. I do wonder if, for your remote location, it’s unlikely there’d be two cars waiting at the crossing though: more likely just one truck, and most likely no vehicles at all. Trying to visualise it, I realised I was finding it hard to imagine a grade crossing with no-one around, just because it’s something I never see (by definition!), but the signals would still operate. I imagine the road surface will look quite dusty and dirty too by the time you’ve finished blending it in with the rest of your scenery. I really enjoy the short videos of trains passing - good to see the layout running, thank you for sharing them, Keith.

Hi there again. The photos are really helpful, thank you. A few random thoughts: 1. I was just wondering, as the tracks pass through each “Station”, are they level or do they dip? This will affect whether you can uncouple a train and leave it there to run-round it (if you want to). If not, I’d suggest the sidings may need to be able to take a train away from the main line for uncoupling. 2. One of the problems I run into regularly when ‘translating’ US plans for UK use is where to put platforms (again: if you want them). The thought crosses my mind that you could develop the fan of sidings you have in one of the photos in area A into a Terminus station for short trains. I’m not sure if there’s room for a runround track there too, but with DC cab control you don’t need a run-round, if the ends of terminal roads are isolated and you have a spare locomotive. Or you may run DMUs / HSTs / Javelins, etc... 3. The original plan had the turntable on the outside, but couldn’t have any loco storage roads off it (as shown here in the 3-D Scarm render on page 1). Modellers tend to have more locos these days, so @Chimer’s suggestion has clear merits on that front: storage for 6 spare locos is not excessive. 4. Now we’ve seen the photos, I get why you’d like to settle on track arrangements for A, B and C to finish off (as opposed to my first response). The turntable you have also needs a hole in the baseboard of course (unlike the Hornby one, for example). Adding this all up, I’ll make a suggestion (finally responding to the original question ). Personally, I think I’d be inclined to go with a fan of sidings in area A, with two of them either side of an island platform for short passenger trains. If it were me, I’d be inclined to put the turntable in area C - with a fan of engine storage tracks as Chimer had them, but all moved to the other side of the layout. I’d keep area B largely scenic: even though it is possible to reach into that space from the outside, it means leaning over the raised running lines on the outside (not so easy with 8-year old arms perhaps?). You could perhaps put a coal mine or quarry in the hillside, with a Goods siding that had an automatic uncoupling ramp? There will of course be other ideas. Keith.

Hi Chris - you could probably add the baseboard joints to help here? From the pictures there are four sections across the ‘top’ with the fifth being the extension bottom right. The boards don’t look uniform size, but looks like @HR_Line has wisely placed the joins to minimise curves across joints (quite a feat with this plan): all looks very well built. (Yes, of course I want one...)

I certainly can’t think of any mainstream examples amongst diesels (as opposed to electrics, where there are several that could be cited). Across the continent, different railroads variously specified the control stands in cabs to be set up to run primarily short hood or long hood forward (or provided dual controls). From what I can tell, the move towards doubling up hood unit power as standard even on short trains was mainly to de-risk the problems that would be caused by a single locomotive failure (ie: not a regulatory requirement). For a quick, non-technical overview answer, that’s probably the best summary I can offer, Keith.

Just wondering, when did it become standard practice to have two power units on trains like these - I’m presuming it’s for safety (so there is always a leading short hood)?

I spent quite a lot of time last year planning a UK outline GW Branch Line layout. Each time I thought I'd got there, things unconnected with railway modelling caused a change of plan (I don't have a dedicated layout space, so modelling fits around family life). I'm getting closer now, but had to make another change following our half-term project to reconfigure various rooms around the house. We've been more successful than expected (which is good), but this means more access will be needed behind the proposed layout space in the attic room. I've therefore had to shorten the longer side of the layout so we can get past. Experience tells me that, once the ruling length falls below 8', options become much more constrained, so I've gone for something quite simple, again loosely based on a Kalmbach Model Railroader plan from some years ago: As before, I drew it up in Anyrail first to check it all fits, but I find redrawing is a good way to confirm my ideas: I've used the opportunity to remodel the Grain Elevator Spur part of the plan and make it longer. I can't extend the staging cassette further because of the door / doorway, but that's the compromise. I've lost the space at the Depot end of the layout for a small town scene, so may move this to the open curve. It's not an ideal spot, but I built a row of Walthers' shops as a first try at one of their kits last year (photo below). As this is really a starter layout, i could use them to get started. I've not tried detailing a building interior before, but this could be something else new for me to try at some point: As indicated above, the station layout has changed to give me the maximum length industrial spurs and run-round I can fit in. I'm happy it doesn't look too cramped, and by keeping the Depot at the far end of the layout, I can get a Team Track to run behind it: effectively I'm modelling the East end approach to a small town station. Looking at Sanborn maps of Pauls Valley, it appears that the sidings behind the Depot were split from the mid-1920s onwards, stopping either side of the Depot rather than being continuous. Although the rest of the plan is not based on Paul Valley specifically, this should be OK. Two of the three tracks across the middle board joint are now angled, but all are straight. After the different false starts I've had, something quite straightforward seems to me to be a wise choice. I think this should work? (this photo was shown on RMweb last year on one of the BRM lockdown modelling threads)

My thanks to @imt and @Joe61264 for linking to the discussion we had last summer on this - I learned a lot very quickly, and (as noted in that thread) was able to apply the advice given more generally to other things we have in the cellar too.

Fantastic - the gentle curve in the rock face makes the third photo especially appear so much larger than a cakebox. There is some stunning scenic work here, and some lovely details, and it’s very well presented (you can tell I’m impressed). Keith.