Re-starting in American HO

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A disclaimer to start with: Although I have a life-long interest in North American Model Railroading, the only layout in any scale / gauge I've completed is a small HOn30 / H0e test circuit, made in the summer of 2021.  When it comes to layout building, I still class myself as a beginner - with more questions to ask than experience to build on, and with expectations to match.  So my aims are modest, but at the same time I hope this thread might become a useful resource to anyone else in my position.  I hope that's OK.

 

1.  Introduction

It was a thread started by @Allegheny1600 early in 2000: Where has everyone gone? that really made me think more about my interest in North American Model Railroading.  Re-reading my own contribution to that discussion (here) still stirs something.  A few months after that, and with the country in lockdown, I started planning a layout.  Although I explained the strong American influence on my thinking (here), I'd been collecting UK outline OO models for nearly thirty years, so that was my theme.  But we don't have space for me to have a permanent layout, and I hadn't allowed for the ever-changing space needs of our large family.  Initially this was a consequence of the lockdowns, but it is something that has continued since.  Each time I get close to completing baseboards and start thinking about laying track on anything bigger than a diorama or test circuit, the available space at home changes and I end up starting again.  I’ve looked at various space saving alternatives, and I'm now modelling in Narrow Gauge, as already mentioned.  I’ll also be pursuing my UK interest in TT:120.  I confess you can find other short-lived projects elsewhere in the Continental/Overseas Forum here on RMweb.  So there's a risk I sound like a scratched record starting another project thread.  But what if I stop playing the same side of the disk, and look what's on the 'B-side'? 

 

2.  Turning over to the 'B-side' - taking a look 'under the tables.'

What does that mean?  Having spread my interests quite thinly over a number of possible projects, I decided this summer to put on a little 'mini-exhibition' at home to show my family what I'm working on.  The kits and bits I laid out for my current projects filled my modelling space, but the exercise didn't show me how to take things forward.

 

How about taking a different approach altogether?  Modelling space in a busy household includes space for a layout and space to build kits (etc), but also storage space.  And I had quite a bit stashed 'under the tables' that I'm keeping, mainly American HO.  Why not use that for something simple that might then actually happen?

 

After baseboard work on my UK project paused in 2020, I used my modelling time to think about and research my US interest (here).  With the items I'd bought or was given, there was enough to get started - and if I put some things on a layout, I can reduce the amount of storage I need - so I can still save space.

 

So I'm re-starting with a collection of buildings, rolling stock (including a number of items I'd call 'retro') and some Peco Code 100 track (I'd prefer Code 83, but this is useable):

 

 

I should note that, of the three locomotives, only the Santa Fe Geep is powered - and needs repairs (I have a separate 'Work in Progress' thread for this here).

 

I'm still thinking about the next step, and am working on some ideas I'll share in due course.  My family are fully on board with this project - my Dad has been modelling in American HO since before I was born, so it's a scale we're familiar with.  I have considered N-Scale as an option, and while I'm more than impressed with the quality, I found the Micro-Trains couplers too small for me (I don't have great eye-sight). I'm not sure how I'd fix anything that broke in layout use.  And I do rate 'presence' high on the list of things I like in models - something I definitely get with HO:

(Pictured on my Narrow Gauge Test Circuit Layout)

 

So here I go.  If I have more time later I'll post my initial thoughts, but this is my start point.  Keith. 

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
(Clearer final photo)

[F-UnitMad]

Your 'comparison' photo reminds me of when I was deciding between HO & O scales...

 

😁😁😁👍👍

[New Haven Neil]

#cough#

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you.  I did think about Z scale too (an unpowered Atlas Editions Super Chief with E unit power I have is shown with an 85' HO coach):

 

 

Z wouldn't need much space and would allow me to run longer trains, but it would need me to buy everything from the controller onwards, would be a stand alone project (no cross-sharing with my other interests), and detail (esp. people) would be an issue with my eyesight.  With this many 'woulds' I've resisted the temptation.  As with N scale I didn't think I'd be confident addressing anything that broke.  So while HO might limit my options, it has advantages for me too, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3.  Advice on getting started? (Model Railroading vs Railroad Modelling)

There's a wealth of advice and encouragement available here on RMweb and elsewhere.  Perhaps the best advice for someone thinking of getting started is:

 

Look at the prototype

 

While my previous American HO thread (here) almost led to a small layout, the emphasis on prototype ideas and examples was a real strength of the discussion.  Sadly, many of the photos are no longer available, but it reminded me to look up and look outwards.

 

That's important, as my entry point into the hobby was through Model Railroader magazine and Kalmbach modelling books - authors such as Al Kalmbach, Frank Ellison, Linn H. Westcott, Bruce Chubb, John Allen, Bob Hayden, Dave Frary, Art Curran, Gordon Odegard and Andy Sperandeo were my tutors, and while they had vast experience of prototype railroads, most of what I was interested in reading had already been translated into model format.

 

This is where the internet (and YouTube) opens up the world for us - at least the world of today.  It's easy to spend hours railfanning from my study, and good videos can teach us a lot.

 

But what about modelling in HO?  For someone with a blank sheet of paper, I'd suggest the investment in DCC Sound locomotives and controllers will be well worth it.  And while authors like Thomas Klimoski and Lance Mindheim may focus on contemporary switching operations, I find their attention to detail hugely educational.  Trevor Marshall is another modeller I find inspiring - and who models larger scale, older prototypes (@tpm1ca here on RMweb).  Others could make different suggestions of course, and there are plenty of great modellers on the home team here too.

 

But what about my project?

 

4.  The two locomotive 'rule'

This is something I've discovered / noticed over the past year or so, when I've been 'dabbling' in various pools.  It works like this:

 

1.  Buying one locomotive shows I want to explore or try out a scale / gauge / theme. 

2.  Buying a second locomotive (as back-up) is evidence I want to make this into a project.

 

If I make it to a third locomotive, I'm bought in - but if I decide to stop at two then that idea has hit a ceiling.  This explains why I'm not simply wanting to expand my (very) freelance HOn30 & H0e test layout - I'm quite happy with each pair of locomotives, but other than adding a few more freight cars and some details I'm content.  I'm keeping it all, and at some point may want to expand again, but am settled for now:

 

 

 

When I was considering Swiss metre-gauge in H0m I got to four locomotives - but then lost some of my space.  But in these straightened economic times, I think adopting a 'two locomotive limit' to pre-layout investment as a variation to my 'rule' makes sense anyway.  So my next step will be to start thinking about a theme, and finalising my two locomotive choices, Keith.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Keith,

That’s an interesting thought, the “two loco rule”.

 I have acquired several one or two locos specific to one railroad or other, I have two for the Bangor and Aroostook, two for the Pennsy and Southern Pacific, one for the EJ&E and also for the KCS.

 I get interested in a particular road, search the internet for details about it, if the interest lasts beyond a week or two, I may order a book or DVD.

If interest is sustained beyond the arrival of said media, then I might start to acquire stock.

This happened in the past for the Chesapeake and Ohio, KCS, New Haven and Minnesota Commercial. Media of all sorts started flooding through the door, then models until I had substantial collections of each road but layout building didn’t really get going.

Then I got interested in European modelling and almost all the latter collections of models were traded in. In the case of the C&O, it was a 12 to 15 year collection that went - quite painful.

The one stable road that I have maintained an interest in all this time is the Chicago and North Western so I guess this is “my” road. I believe it was nearly thirty years ago now that I first took an interest in this line but even so, my interest waxes and wanes. The interest took a BIG hit in 1995 when it was taken over (badly) by the UP and interest in all US railroads has taken hits depending upon how I perceive their levels of national sanity!

Sorry, that’s veering into politics but I do find it hard to take an interest in a country that behaves in a certain way. I guess for this reason, I could never model Russian outline!!

Influences, eh?!

I am flattered that you cite me as someone whose witterings have had even the tiniest effect on your own thoughts, honestly. All I have ever wanted to do is to basically, get the thoughts out of my head and into the written form. I can then look back and re-think those thoughts. If they still make sense, great but sometimes I may wonder what was going on!

 I do try and use the “notes” app on this iPad but sometimes, as now, my thoughts come out in public, sorry.

Just going back to influence’s - mine usually come from the media. I used to buy the magazines every month and keep them but a couple of house moves in fairly rapid succession showed that I had way too much stuff so they have been knocked into touch. Now, I find there is more than enough to influence and inspire me on the internet and YouTube. US forums keep me up to date with modelling going’s on, new products and so on.

 

 I am a life long modeller and have been in this hobby for approximately fifty years now (I started young), I hardly have any other interests or pastimes outside of family and friends, well, pets and a little exercise! Maybe this explains my wandering mind? My wife tells me that I shouldn’t beat myself up if I change my interest, I should be thankful that I don’t get bored. Sure enough, I’ll be back on European outline before too long but in the meantime, I’m really enjoying my resurgence of interest in the C&NW. Long or short may it last.

Cheers,

 John 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Allegheny1600
Grammar

[Allegheny1600]

Hi again!

I’ve been thinking about my buying habits over the past thirty years as described above. It might sound like I’m “wealthy” to splash out on numerous different things but I’m actually quite small c conservative! I admit, after I inherited some money from my parents, I did go a bit wild but by then, it was Euro focused.

Back in the 1990s, I only bought one or two locos per year, new and maybe the same again secondhand from swapmeets, shows, NMRA meets etc. My very first new loco cost just £26 in about 1991. By the mid nineties, a Proto 2000 loco was £49.95 and Kato were out of my reach at around £80 - £100.

Into the early 2000s, I had a better job and could start to afford Kato but they were always better if I could find them secondhand. I think around 2005, I bought my first sound fitted loco, an SW9 or similar from Broadway, for around £120. I didn’t even have a digital controller for another year.

All I’m trying to say is that US outline was a very reasonably priced means of modelling. I have bought some secondhand models for around £20 - even fairly recently.

Sadly, new prices have followed the rest of the world in going quite high, RRP of such as Scale Trains and Rapido etc are over $300 and more for the full fat versions - which translates pretty evenly into pounds sterling at the few remaining US outline retailers in the UK.

At those prices, one would have to be pretty focussed and not do any swapping and changing.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 10/11/2022 at 14:41, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi again!

I’ve been thinking about my buying habits over the past thirty years as described above. It might sound like I’m “wealthy” to splash out on numerous different things but I’m actually quite small c conservative! I admit, after I inherited some money from my parents, I did go a bit wild but by then, it was Euro focused.

Back in the 1990s, I only bought one or two locos per year, new and maybe the same again secondhand from swapmeets, shows, NMRA meets etc. My very first new loco cost just £26 in about 1991. By the mid nineties, a Proto 2000 loco was £49.95 and Kato were out of my reach at around £80 - £100.

Into the early 2000s, I had a better job and could start to afford Kato but they were always better if I could find them secondhand. I think around 2005, I bought my first sound fitted loco, an SW9 or similar from Broadway, for around £120. I didn’t even have a digital controller for another year.

All I’m trying to say is that US outline was a very reasonably priced means of modelling. I have bought some secondhand models for around £20 - even fairly recently.

Sadly, new prices have followed the rest of the world in going quite high, RRP of such as Scale Trains and Rapido etc are over $300 and more for the full fat versions - which translates pretty evenly into pounds sterling at the few remaining US outline retailers in the UK.

At those prices, one would have to be pretty focussed and not do any swapping and changing.

 

Good point, especially now!  For anyone getting started today, prices - and the value they represent – are big factors.  For an interesting take on the subject however, this video by Joe Parker (“The Pixel Depot”) gave me food for thought:

 

 

In my case, I buy second hand.  I don’t use eBay, so I limit myself to what retailers have.  Fortunately for me, Hattons have been my local train store for most of the past twenty-five years.  While they no longer stock new American HO, they’ve been advertising their pre-owned business in Model Railroader and currently have a decent selection of pre-owned HO.  I am a couple of steps ahead of my postings, and I'm test running a couple of locomotives that may well fit my plans (they’ll be in a future post).

 

Before I get there however, I’m conscious the start of this thread has been rather untidy, as I've not been clear what my aims are.  I'll explain more using the technique track planning guru John Armstrong encouraged of making two lists of requirements for new layouts:

• Givens – the things that a layout must have, and
• Druthers – the things that I’d like, but could compromise on (“I’d rathers…”)

A conventional list of Givens might focus on a prototype or theme, followed by the space available, but because of where I’m starting from I’m afraid my list of Givens is far from typical, sorry:

 

5.  Givens

 

i)  Any layout must be easily portable, and cleared away when guests stay (along with all other modeling items).

 

We don’t have a dedicated spare room I can use, and our cellar is too damp for permanent storage.  There is no loft space, and the garage / outhouses aren’t suitable (and we don’t own the house).  My previous US HO project paused when modeling moved up into the attic.  It was the thought of carrying large structures and stock boxes up and down steep stairs (not just baseboards) that saw me switch to Narrow Gauge.  Modeling is now moving back to the first floor, so US HO is possible again.  

 

The exact space I’ll have will depend on how we arrange some furniture – it won’t be very large (a section of a 10' sq. room), and it won’t be for a shelf layout.  I'll share the dimensions when they're finalised.

 

ii)  Any layout must be simple and achievable.

 

The concept of ‘achievable layouts’ is one I first noticed on Trevor Marshall’s website, especially this article:  The Boston and Maine Claremont Branch.  I don’t claim to have anything like Trevor's skills (or any skills at all) but it really helped shift my perspective when it comes to modeling.

 

I also need to break my duck when it comes to layout building.  I’ve explored H0m, TT and N this past year, trying to develop a plan for the attic room, and all that dabbling helped distract me from particularly challenging things “off-field.”  But I’d still like a layout, so I’ll accept compromises I might not otherwise go with, to help me make progress (eg: using Code 100 Peco track I already have). 

 

A reflection on the meeting point of modeling and burnout that made me think carefully is in this vlog on the Boomer Diorama YouTube channel:

 

 

iii)  Emphasis on running freight trains c.1970

 

The more I watch prototype videos, the more I like longer trains.  Part of what did for my plans for Continental H0m, TT and N was lack of space to run the decent length passenger trains I wanted to.  Having watched more prototype videos, I found shorter trains squashed (of necessity) for layouts increasingly less attractive.  Although I have a large Union Station kit (and platforms to go with it), I’ll bite the bullet and focus on freight car traffic for this project instead: Union Station will be put to aside for the diorama it was built for.

 

The c.1970 timeframe suits the rolling stock I have, in particular cars with roofwalks (banned from 1974).  There were also more 40’ cars still in service, which will help my space constraint.

 

I’m also keen to include a Grain Elevator (using a Walther’s kit: 933-3022) – I’d bought one for my previous project, but sold it on.  It’s the one kit I regretted trading, but as I’ve found one for almost the same price I paid at the start of last year, I’m grabbing the opportunity to get another one.

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Just about everything else is negotiable, but I’ll leave my Druthers (which include location, layout size and type) for another post.  I hope the links are helpful.  Have a good weekend, Keith.

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

When I brought my HO out of storage, I was anticipating staying with the Santa Fe and simply picking up where I left off.  But with my Geep likely to remain in the shop for a while, it was agreed that alternative power was needed.

 

My Hobby store didn’t have any recent models of ATSF locos in the 1960s ‘bookend’ livery, and I’m not as keen on the 1970s ‘freightbonnet’ livery with yellow cabs that I think first appeared around 1972 and became standard from 1975 anyway.  Conscious of my budget, I asked to have a look at a couple of other options, and the one that glided round their test track most impressively was this Atlas Classic GP7 in Bangor and Aroostock colours:

 

 

The level of detail is quite phenomenal - this is how it came out of the box (there is a detailing pack still to add, which includes the end handrails.  It’s designed to run on either DC or DCC (I use DC), but was very competitively priced because the decoder doesn’t appear to be working.  The store kindly test ran it twice for me, and gave me multiple assurances it wouldn’t affect DC running.  The directional lights work - including the number boards, which are correctly not lit too brightly (I do like locos with lights).

 

Not visible in this photo are the painted crew, seen here towering over my H0e 0-4-0 diesel:

 

 

Running quality of pre-owned locomotives is one of the main reasons I’ve not looked back since selling my UK OO collection, and while I’d not spotted that one of the sets of MU cables is missing from the rear end, for less than £80 I considered this good value.

 

But why the BAR?  Bob Hayden and Dave Frary’s classic HOn30 (then called HOn2 1/2) layouts modelling the fictional Maine 2-foot Carabassett & Dead River Ry assumed the two-footers survived into the 1940s - what if they’d lasted longer?  Actually, they were based more to the South of the State than Bangor, but it was enough of a justification for a loco I took an immediate shine to.

 

As the back-up power, loco number 2 was bought on price - a mint condition Proto2000 SD7 (body and chassis still packed separately) for £55.  I thought carefully before buying it, as it’s not for a New England line, but as my American son-in-law is from the Chicago area and uses Quincy station when visiting family close to the former CB&Q, a Burlington loco ticks the ‘personal connection’ box instead:

 

 

Again, the level of factory fitted detail is stunning (to me, at least) - the roof fans even rotate (Whoo!).

 

 

 

Again, crew are fitted, and there is a further pack of detailing to be fitted still factory-sealed in the box.

 

Although Chicago is a thousand miles from Bangor, this is about getting properly started, and if I can do it with models of this quality I’ll freelance on geography.  One suggestion when I first came to this Forum a couple of years ago (again from @Allegheny1600) was to feel free to buy what I can at first, with a view to refining my collection over time.  It’s not a bad idea.

 

I can save elsewhere by buying freight car kits:

 

 

Having built some Narrow Gauge rolling stock, this looks straightforward - painting is my weakness but that’s already done.

 

I already have most of the buildings I need to begin, but a Church is a personal priority for me.  My son-in-law’s family are Lutherans, so I was pleased to pick up this traditional craftsman kit.  No idea how long ago it was in production, but I do like the way individual stained glass windows have been made:

 

 

 

A clever use of available technology at the time.  It means I do have a mix of wood, plastic and laser cut kits, but if I group them carefully I hope it’ll be OK.

 

Finally for now, I also dug out a couple of reference books I bought previously, as most of my retained childhood knowledge covered articles about the transition era.  I don’t buy into the idea US trains all look the same - but that also means I’ll make a lot of mistakes when it comes to putting together a roster.  Hopefully I’ll improve over time.

 

 

Next task then is to bring all this together into my list of “Druthers”, but for now it’s time to stop for a coffee.  Take care, Keith.

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Summarising the posts above: I'm aiming to build a simple and achievable, fully portable, compact US HO layout with an operating focus on freight traffic c.1970.  I can take a freelance approach to location, with a bias towards States closer to Eastern Canada.  This brings me to the point where I need to start making practical choices about what I'd like in a layout - my "Druthers".  I can use part of a 10' sq. bedroom, but this I've been putting off this next step.  Why...?

 

6.  Druthers

 

i)  ...I like to watch trains run.

 

With the space I have this could be tricky in HO.  This short video I made while test running the BAR Geep sums up my dilemma:

 

(This power supply is a Hornby Train Set Controller - I have a Gaugemaster Combi for layout use.  Shows how good the loco is!).

Trouble is, I'm more bothered by the train being short than the fact it takes up half the test circuit before it even moves.  And I know when I've drawn end-to-end or Terminus-Fiddle Yard Schemes (or micro-layouts) in other scales, I've changed my mind before laying any track.  I enjoy watching videos of Switching Layouts, and have read Thomas Klimoski's Kalmbach book subtitled 'Building and Operating a Small Switching Layout' cover-to-cover (twice), but even a really neat H0e layout I worked out in 2021 got no further than the planning stage before I rebuilt the boards for a continuous circuit:

 

 

 

 

That's quite probably the best layout design I'll ever do - but I still didn't build it.  When it comes to realistic layouts, am I a lost cause?

 

A continuous run doesn't easily fit into the space I have, which looks like this:

 

 

Legend:

1.  Max circuit - just happens to be 8' x 4'

2.  For reference - the test circuit from the above video overlaid (3rd radius Peco Setrack / Hornby OO curves: 505mm / 19.88")

3.  Wardrobe and sink can be blocked off: only needed when used as a guest room and layout cleared out completely.

4.  Buildings resting out of the way on the bed - gives an indication of relative size (church not shown).

5.  Access space 3' x 2'

6.  Aisle space - keeping this good access to the room clear was VERY much appreciated when this idea was discussed.  Doubles as an operator space.

 

Notes:

A.  Table can be used but stays in the room as a desk / surface for guests.  Natural light here is valued.

B.  Single bed - cannot be moved.  Drawers underneath can be blocked.

C.  IKEA storage unit.  Must stay in the room.  View from the door that is free of railway is preferable.

D.  Sink - access not needed.

E.  Single wardrobe.  Can be blocked off.

F.  Door represented by 31.5" ruler (ie: opens into the room, not against the wall. 

 

If I could convince myself to look again at a switching layout (which could meet all my 'Givens'), I might have these options: the first is 10' long (cantilever over bed):

 

 

Or, if I renegotiated the space I can use, perhaps one of these might become possible:

 

 

 

 

When I was looking at plans for this room previously, a U-shaped staging / branch line was under consideration, but had a four-car limit on trains (plus caboose).

 

Looks like I have a small layout space, with big layout ideas!  Any suggestions are welcome at this point.

 

The other things I'd like to include are quite easy to list:

 

ii)  To use the building kits I have (plus a Grain Elevators).

iii)  Easy scenery - not a big feature for me.  Baseboards can be quite narrow.

iv)  Reasonably lightweight construction in wood (my preferred material).  Baseboards will rest on up to three IKEA tables, each 1.0m x 0.6m.

v)  Minimum number of tracks across joints.

vi)  Simple electrics for one engine moving at a time - I have a Gaugemaster Combi Controller I'll use.

 

I guess now the hard work begins.  Enjoy the rest of the weekend, Keith.

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Keith,

Might it be possible to attach a batten to the wall next to the bed and above it?

I’m thinking even as slim as a strip of 2”x1”.

Am I right that the bed is approximately 40” wide?

 

What I’m thinking would mean you could only be set up for operating - with the door closed but;

.

You might use the batten as above and a removable framework on the room side of the bed, then you could build three or possibly four boards that span just above the bed and fill the gap “behind” the door, giving you a roundy-roundy of roughly 10’ x nearly 4’.

 

That’s for a larger roundy-roundy. If you could be happy with an end to end, maybe arrange boards in an inverted “L” to start over the sink, come along the wall towards the window, then turn to either end over the radiator (allowing the door to still open) or go into where the door space is and the door either stays open or closed - while you’re operating, not all the time, of course! That way, only one board for the door, needs to be readily and very removable.

 

Is this a room that is frequently used as a bedroom or just earmarked for occasional use? Every night or once or twice a year!

Hopefully, that’s some food for thought for you.

Cheers,

 John 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Keith,

Might it be possible to attach a batten to the wall next to the bed and above it?

I’m thinking even as slim as a strip of 2”x1”.

Am I right that the bed is approximately 40” wide?

 

What I’m thinking would mean you could only be set up for operating - with the door closed but;

.

You might use the batten as above and a removable framework on the room side of the bed, then you could build three or possibly four boards that span just above the bed and fill the gap “behind” the door, giving you a roundy-roundy of roughly 10’ x nearly 4’.

 

That’s for a larger roundy-roundy. If you could be happy with an end to end, maybe arrange boards in an inverted “L” to start over the sink, come along the wall towards the window, then turn to either end over the radiator (allowing the door to still open) or go into where the door space is and the door either stays open or closed - while you’re operating, not all the time, of course! That way, only one board for the door, needs to be readily and very removable.

 

Is this a room that is frequently used as a bedroom or just earmarked for occasional use? Every night or once or twice a year!

Hopefully, that’s some food for thought for you.

Cheers,

 John 

 

Thanks John - some good ideas.  I'd not thought of going over the sink before: I'll have a look.  If it were feasible, there's already a fixed wall-mounted mirror there that could be put to good use!  The bed is 40” wide.

 

As for how often the room is used for family, it's a good question, but the answer varies quite a lot I'm afraid.  I should still be much better off than when I could only get out my 'railway boards' occasionally in previous houses (perhaps five or six times a year - which helps explain why I never got beyond bare track).

_________________________________________

 

With a bit of additional free time I’ve been scrolling through the online Journal of Model Railroad Design looking at examples of switching layouts.  It struck me that similar sized layouts can look / feel quite different.  I couldn't quite work out why, so drew up this quick comparison in Anyrail, using the building kits I have and a ten foot length - I found it useful, so I share it here:

 

 

Plan A is a simple inglenook - straightaway I'd suggest my industrial buildings look far too small to make best use of this concept.  My kits have been very much compressed for 'traditional' layout use - interesting!  The small rural depot also looks a bit out of place to me.  It's a bit of a bodge design, and I think it shows: this layout design works better when the visual focus can be on the industries being served (not the short run).

 

Plan B uses the same space and buildings, but arranged more like a small town on a branch line.  The depot looks at home again, but with the focus on the station (rather than just one or two industries),  I think it’s much more obvious the trains can't actually go anywhere.  I’d therefore suggest off scene staging is more important for this type of plan.

 

Plan C is identical to plan B, except everything has been rotated 5 degrees to cross the wider board diagonally.  To me it does look a bit bigger, but it's an illusion.  I’d also tried it with some rolling stock:

.

 

 

Again, I think there's something in that idea.  I know these are basic points.  They’re things I already ‘knew’ but hadn’t fully appreciated.  So I still found it a helpful exercise at this early stage of concept planning, Keith.

 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I'm continuing to explore my continuous run / switching layout dilemma.  There are some excellent HO switching layouts here on RMweb - personal favourites include @long island jack's East Jackson MI and Franklin Falls NH which I saw in person at the Macclesfield show this year, and the series of home layouts built  by @Alcanman, who's made some impressive inglenook-style layouts and whose current project is Humboldt Industrial Park PA. There are others here too.

 

In addition to YouTube channels and online content I've already mentioned, a channel to check out is Alex Bogaski's Red Dirt and Rails.  I particularly like the way Alex talks about "railfanning" on his Farmrail switching layout - something I usually look for in continuous run designs.  It's food for thought worth noting.

 

So why am I still stuck?

 

7.  The continuous run

 

 

Given my space constraint, it's fair to say I'm trying to have my cake and eat it.  So I should explain.  I prefer the term "continuous run" because it's what I'm trying to achieve.  When Model Railroader magazine re-published Frank Ellison's series on the "Art of Model Railroading" in 1976 I was transfixed.  I quoted it when I began layout planning for a GW Branch Line layout (UK OO) two years ago:

 

For me, a continuous run layout is about lapping up the miles as my train moves from place to place - building up distance travelled, not chasing its tail.

 

In the same post I also included a quote from Al Kalmbach that has shaped my view on operations ever since:

 

“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.”

 

Perhaps I'm just a kid who's never grown up, still holding onto that dream?

 

There is a risk continuous run layouts look like Scalextrix slot car racing sets.  Stripped back, an outline shape I showed in an earlier post does looks like that: 

 

 

It's easy to see why some people switch off at this point.  Compact continuous run layouts can struggle to seem more than toylike.  I think this photo of the Bemo H0m collection I built at the start of the year brings that point home too:

 

 

I'd intended to run shorter trains (2 or 3 cars), but after watching videos of prototype trains 4 cars long, wasn't content to settle for anything else.  Once it became clear my space (as it was then) didn't allow for future expansion, it was no longer a viable project.  This photo also shows why I'm now focusing on freight traffic for this HO project, as an equal length freight train doesn't need an equal length station.

 

There are some things that I think can help make small continuous run layouts look better - which I incorporated (somewhat by accident) in my narrow gauge test circuit layout. 

• The first is to use transition or easement curves.  Particularly with sharper curves, I think they make a big difference.  I use Setrack for temporary testing, and I’ve noticed the visual difference is significant.  The key thing is to add extra width to the layout to make it possible to ease the end curves outwards a bit.  It's well worth it.
• The next is to keep scenery simple - so it's not so obvious the train keeps passing the same spot.
• And the third is slow speed running: easy with the kind of Narrow Gauge trains I run, it's also a common feature of branch lines and short lines too.

These things are all reasons my very simple Narrow Gauge Test Circuit Layout works for well for me.  The light in this shot isn't good (the window is behind the layout), but hopefully it captures the points I'm making.

 

 

I realise this thread won't really get going till I start developing more concrete ideas for my layout, so that's what I'll aim for before aim for my next post.  Take care, Keith.

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I’ve started playing around with some ideas for a track plan.  Whether I end up with a continuous run or a switching layout, the theme that best fits my buildings and rolling stock is for a branch line type setting, with a variety of switching opportunities:

 

I’ve identified up to nine car spots I might incorporate:

 

A.  Staging

B.  Interchange

C.  Grain Elevator (Walthers Kit)

D.  Fuel Depot (Walthers Kit)

E.  Freight Transfer Shed / Warehouse / Factory (“Low-Relief Industries Inc.”)

F.  Creamery (could be a Freight House or other Small Food Business)

G.  Team track / trans load facility (I’m not sure when the terminology changed)

H.  Depot - could be a car spot for the Caboose (to receive train orders) or some last remnants of lcl freight.

I.  Rail-served store (I have a kit for one) - would almost certainly no longer be rail-served by 1970.

 

Sticking strictly to my 54” x 100” space and a minimum 22.5” Radius (UK 4th Radius), I can fit it all into a compact continuous run scheme, but to my mind it just looks too ‘train set’.  With side access only at the front (bottom edge) a central well is required:

 

(The wide right hand end has a supporting table 23.62” or 0.6m wide in front of the bed overhang of 14”.  F is difficult to reach).

 

I’m sure I could enjoy switching this, but whether I’d overcome the visual compromises is a good question.

 

When I was last looking at American HO plans, I drew up several U-shaped Schemes.  These give a bit of a run so the train does actually go somewhere.  For reference, this is one example (of four I did, all are in my Modelling the ATSF in 1970 in HO thread) :

 

 

They all assumed a wider space, but to my mind don’t look as toylike, so may be worth revisiting.  I’ve also done more reading on car spots and spur lengths, so would want to modify some aspects of those plans now if I could anyway.  Starting with just the staging section, I could possible fit something like this into the 100” length:

 

 

Operationally, it would be easier if the Interchange switch were facing the other way, so cars could be pulled from the Interchange on the way towards the town end.  With this arrangement, I assume there’d be a shove move during switching at the town end to exchange cars at the Interchange, with a run-round at the Depot also assumed.  I don’t know how unprototypical the overlapped switches I show for the Interchange and Grain Elevator might be, but as a modeller’s compromise the full length of the baseboard becomes available for spurs.  The bed overhang of 16” is just shown as a narrow cassette, with a train set up in the 60” Staging from the outside of the layout before an operating session begins.  60” should be just about long enough for a six car train plus engine and caboose.

 

I drew this part plan with a 2’ radius end curve (suitable for 12-wheel passenger cars too), but it uses all the available width.  In my doodling / planning experience, increasing the width is the key to making a plan look less like a train set (particularly when viewed from one side), but is more tricky with the space I’m being gifted.

 

I could compromise on radius - here is the same plan with overlaid options - a tighter radius increases space around it.  I know from my test circuit that my locomotives and 60’ freight cars can manage 3rd Radius curves:

 

 

This shows the iterative nature of my planning - with a tighter curve I could move the end nearer the edge, but the Interchange would get shorter.  That’s as far as I got in my spare time this week - not far, but hopefully shows what I’m aiming it (even if I miss). Have a good week, Keith.

 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[F-UnitMad]

A plan I always liked was the Warren Branch built by Chris Ellis & featured in Airfix Model Trains mag in 1980.

It was a 6' x 4' in HO (Chris built it as 3' x 2' in N), it was a simple roundy-roundy but cleverly designed to operate as an end-to-end branch.

I  will try & find out the track plan if it's of interest.

[2E Sub Shed]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

A plan I always liked was the Warren Branch built by Chris Ellis & featured in Airfix Model Trains mag in 1980.

It was a 6' x 4' in HO (Chris built it as 3' x 2' in N), it was a simple roundy-roundy but cleverly designed to operate as an end-to-end branch.

I  will try & find out the track plan if it's of interest.

 

The Warren Branch is also featured in the PSL book "Complete Guide to Model Railways" (which is a compilation of the PSL Guides, the description being in "PSL Model Railway Guide No 5", "Operating your Layout"), with a description of an operating sequence and stock.

 

Based on the Chicago and North Western, Chris Ellis's operating sequence includes Passenger operation with a "Scoot", (F7 plus a2 Bi-Level Coaches operated Push Pull).

 

As F-UnitMad said designed to operate as end to end from A with all trains originating there and the 3 destinations for various trains, i.e. North Warren for local freight, Warren as a passenger terminus and local freight destination, plus mine traffic giving several train options.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by 2E Sub Shed
Add missed text

[298]

On 20/11/2022 at 20:12, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Sticking strictly to my 54” x 100” space and a minimum 22.5” Radius (UK 4th Radius), I can fit it all into a compact continuous run scheme, but to my mind it just looks too ‘train set’.  

 

Too "train set"? Have you seen Peter North's layouts...?

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

A plan I always liked was the Warren Branch built by Chris Ellis & featured in Airfix Model Trains mag in 1980.

It was a 6' x 4' in HO (Chris built it as 3' x 2' in N), it was a simple roundy-roundy but cleverly designed to operate as an end-to-end branch.

I  will try & find out the track plan if it's of interest.

 

1 hour ago, 2E Sub Shed said:

 

The Warren Branch is also featured in the PSL book "Complete Guide to Model Railways" (which is a compilation of the PSL Guides, the description being in "PSL Model Railway Guide No 5", "Operating your Layout"), with a description of an operating sequence and stock.

 

Based on the Chicago and North Western, Chris Ellis's operating sequence includes Passenger operation with a "Scoot", (F7 plus a2 Bi-Level Coaches operated Push Pull).

 

As F-UnitMad said designed to operate as end to end from A with all trains originating there and the 3 destinations for various trains, i.e. North Warren for local freight, Warren as a passenger terminus and local freight destination, plus mine traffic giving several train options.

 

 

Thankyou - an excellent suggestion.  As it happens, I remember that layout being built, as I used to buy Model Trains.  It struck a chord as my own first layout attempt was also a compact N-Gauge setup (albeit UK outline).

 

I’ve often wondered if that plan may have been based on an earlier 6’ x 4’ HO Kalmbach / Model Railroader Christmas project layout, the Yule Central - it was certainly very similar (Kalmbach copyright means I can’t show it here).  That layout was reprinted in a 1978 Kalmbach anthology: “Small Railroads You Can Build” which I managed to find second hand a few years ago.

 

A personal favourite of mine from that era was John Olson’s Jerome and Southwestern, another Model Railroader Project Layout.  It got a book to itself: “Building an HO Model Railroad with Personality” (Kalmbach: 1983).  It was bigger - 4’ x 8’ with an extension for a dock terminal.  I also have the book in my small collection.

 

Thanks also to @298 for the reminder about Peter North’s layouts.  I’ve never seen them in person, but was pointed in that direction in my earlier ATSF thread (link in my signature below).  They are a really good use of space - better than my initial sketch and definitely not ‘train set’ layouts.  I seem to recall that they appeared here on RMweb at one time too.

 

However, these are tabletop designs, which require access around the edges (in HO at least).  Part of my issue is I need central access for a continuous run layout, due to the size of the room.  This adds to the constraints, but these ideas show what is possible in the general space.

 

Today however the project suffered a potentially major setback.  We began moving furniture for the proposed room arrangement at lunchtime, only to find the outside (left hand) wall is wet.  It was hidden behind a bookcase we’re removing.  It has been notified to our landlord* and, to be fair, they’ve already actioned an inspection to determine the external cause / source and work out what needs doing:

 

 

Previous plans to put a portable layout in this same room stalled two years ago, again partly as building work was needed due to a roof leak.  That doesn’t seem to be the problem this time, which means we don’t know what the issue is, or what will need to be done to fix it.  Our house is on a slope, so a tall scaffolding tower was needed last time external repairs were necessary, and it all took a while.  I have plenty to be getting on with in the meantime of course, and am grateful for the planning suggestions.  Thanks, Keith.

_____________

 

* My job comes with a house as part of the role.  It is a Victorian building which is inevitably showing its age.

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

I’ve often wondered if that plan may have been based on an earlier 6’ x 4’ HO Kalmbach / Model Railroader Christmas project layout, the Yule Central - it was certainly very similar

Yes I noticed the similarity myself, but I think Chris's treatment of the plan & development of the operating potential was rather better.

 

I also have the (a?) Kalmbach 'Small Railroads' book with the Yule Central in it. My Edition also has an 8' x 4' Soo Line layout in it, called the Red Wing Division (or similar) which, of course, has always taken my fancy. 😉

Edited November 22, 2022 by F-UnitMad

[Keith Addenbrooke]

On 22/11/2022 at 22:31, F-UnitMad said:

Yes I noticed the similarity myself, but I think Chris's treatment of the plan & development of the operating potential was rather better.

 

I also have the (a?) Kalmbach 'Small Railroads' book with the Yule Central in it. My Edition also has an 8' x 4' Soo Line layout in it, called the Red Wing Division (or similar) which, of course, has always taken my fancy. 😉

 

Thanks - from what I remember (before the images were lost), your own O-Scale layout has a compact track plan based on an interchange and switching, but likewise arranged with a continuous run? (From memory, @JAMO did the plan I saw?).

 

Looking at non-continuous run options, the part plan I posted on Sunday can be completed as follows:

 

 

To fit in the space it requires a 3rd radius end curve as the maximum width for a plan of this length is 54”. (one row of shops is unplaced, and hangs in the operating space waiting a decision!).  I like the spur lengths, which are an improvement over the equivalent plans I drew in my previous thread.  This is how this plan might fit in the room:

 

 

But I have two concerns:

• The tight end curve really prohibits any use of passenger cars, even for occasional display purposes.  Would I regret it?
• The relatively narrow width of the plan means the operating space is only 24” wide - tight and not very generous.

We’ve paused the room re-arrangement until the damp can be investigated.  The Kallax storage unit is still in its current horizontal position - which made me think again about an arrangement that avoids all duck-unders:

 

 

Baseboards are now in light yellow, resting on three blue tables (we’ve passed washday, so the bedsheets have changed too).  

 

While an L-shaped run is shorter than a U, the baseboards don’t have to be as narrow - the logistics of carrying them up and down stairs when needed will determine the final size / weight.

 

Ergonomically, this arrangements suits the room better, so I’ll play around with an idea or two in case I decide that advantage is worth the layout compromises involved.  Meanwhile, I’ve been notified a delivery I need for this project is due tomorrow, so there’ll probably be another photo of a Flextrack package in my next post (a regular feature of my new projects!).  Keith.

 

[F-UnitMad]

11 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

from what I remember (before the images were lost), your own O-Scale layout has a compact track plan based on an interchange and switching, but likewise arranged with a continuous run?

It does. The Warren Branch was an influence, with a run-round loop needed to shove the train round to the spurs. On my plan the "North Warren" spurs are outside the loop, and I have lost the actual Interchange "Track A" completely. If it was in place it would have to be inside the oval on the same side as the spurs. I just imagine the mainline carries on for miles either way, & swap stock on the main when no one is looking. No one ever is, fortunately!!

Trackplan courtesy of Jamo.

Size is 17ft x 8ft, more-or-less comparable to 8' x 4' in HO, so "compact" is a relative term!!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

It does. The Warren Branch was an influence, with a run-round loop needed to shove the train round to the spurs. On my plan the "North Warren" spurs are outside the loop, and I have lost the actual Interchange "Track A" completely. If it was in place it would have to be inside the oval on the same side as the spurs. I just imagine the mainline carries on for miles either way, & swap stock on the main when no one is looking. No one ever is, fortunately!!

Trackplan courtesy of Jamo.

Size is 17ft x 8ft, more-or-less comparable to 8' x 4' in HO, so "compact" is a relative term!!

Thank you - a clear benefit of loft layouts is not needing a duck under / crawl under / lifting section if the stairs or ladder come up into the central operating well (as long as counter-measures are in place to avoid falling down the hole).  There are other challenges using lofts of course, and in my case it’s not an option.  
 

Starting an operating session by setting up a train on a main line (scenic staging) is quite normal, whether it’s part of a continuous run or not.  An advantage of North American switching layouts which run one train a day is not needing a fiddle yard to hold several trains.  When I was planning UK branch lines I assumed a four track fiddle yard (even for prototypes that wouldn’t run that many different trains in a typical day).  With a US layout often having more rail-served industries and car spots, the variety with a US layout comes with making precise switching moves.

 

Meanwhile, in other news, some supplies and sale items have arrived:

 

I expect the box to be half full of bubble wrap (at least), else my intention to save space on storage of items by reactivating my American HO might not be a promise I get to keep…

 

Have a good weekend, Keith.

 

Edited November 25, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Further to my post of Nov 22nd above, the outside of the left-hand bedroom wall will be repointed when the worst of the winter has passed, to address the penetrating damp.  Thankfully, no work is needed inside, though it will take time for the wall to dry out.

 

Meanwhile, I’m seeing how I might use the items I have (those in stock and those picked up in a sale).  While it means accepting compromises as constraints, I can however size things up when imagineering my space.  This is where I’m up to:

 

1.  Grain Elevator - my birthday gift this year, and a kit I’ve long wanted to build.

 

As a loading shed conceals loading / unloading, I think this version could either be a rural elevator receiving grain for shipping, or placed in an urban setting taking car loads for milling / food manufacturing,

 

I’ve seen photos of an urban elevator like this sharing a spur with a fuel dealer’s depot (which surprised me, to be honest).  In a rural setting, a dedicated spur or siding(s) seems more likely, with a trackmobile to pull cars through the loading shed.  This means two hoppers need a minimum of three car spots, three cars need five, etc.  At the moment I only have these two covered grain hoppers - and the UP one has horn hook couplers I’ll need to replace, so I could do with some more at some point.

 

Incidentally, there are now some rural elevators with continuous loop sidings, so locomotives can stay attached to their trains.  It speeds up loading as the air brakes stay pressurised, which saves a lot of time on 100+ car trains.

 

2.  Fuel Depot - bought factory-sealed half-price, and a common generic industry too.  I would expect this to be at the end of a spur (and these days I think it would be fenced in as well):

 

 

The two tank cars I have are nice Proto 2000 models of a common design, although as insulated cars would probably be used for products like tar rather than fuel oil, but they’ll do me for now (see the picture on the box).

 

3.  Low relief transfer shed - to be served by general purpose box cars, with two car spots.  The Noch HO platform I have from my Continental exploits could become an additional loading dock on a team track:

 

 

4.  Transload - I don’t know when the term came into use (?), but I picked up this set Kato of short covered hoppers that wouldn’t be used for grain, but I think might be seen in a transload facility.  We’re not in Indiana, but they were too good to pass on (and I rather liked the caboose, even if I didn’t need it):

 

 

5.  Creamery - a real bargain Branchlines kit I already had in stock, which I envisage becoming a more generic facility served by insulated box cars.  With only one car spot for loading, an additional ‘off spot’ might be good to include in a layout design:

 

 

6.  Miscellaneous - while my focus is on freight, I’d like to have a Depot and have a kit in stock.  I mentioned earlier in the thread it’s possible there might still be a little bit of lcl freight to be loaded into a boxcar, or the caboose might be spotted there for train orders.  The Santa Fe caboose I show here is unlikely to be seen outside a depot like the one below (although there were examples of square bay depots on Santa Fe lines, as well as their standard design ones).  This Depot kit suits my shift northwards:

 

 

I also have a kit for a rail-served store I could use, and a number of cars not yet fitted with knuckle couplings that I’ve been given or bought cheaply:

 

 

I also have a trio of 40’ stock cars I don’t plan on using (by 1970 livestock traffic had already finished on many railroads).

 

It all adds up to quite a bit!  What does all this mean for layout design?  I think the pictures explain better than words the logic behind my switch back to US HO - using this stuff rather than having it in the way of other projects.

 

Actually, what it reminds me is that the first thing I need to plan for is space for a workbench, something I’d not included in my initial sketches of the available room.  While it may mean an even simpler layout, structure kits are my second favourite aspect of modelling after seeing trains run.  I enjoy kit-building, even though I follow the instructions and build to a very basic standard.

 

So I’m adding iv) Workbench to my list of Givens - as it should have been on there from the start!

 

Earlier, @Allegheny1600 shared some useful ideas to increase my layout space for a continuous run:

 

On 12/11/2022 at 18:50, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Keith,

Might it be possible to attach a batten to the wall next to the bed and above it?

I’m thinking even as slim as a strip of 2”x1”.

Am I right that the bed is approximately 40” wide?

 

What I’m thinking would mean you could only be set up for operating - with the door closed but;

.

You might use the batten as above and a removable framework on the room side of the bed, then you could build three or possibly four boards that span just above the bed and fill the gap “behind” the door, giving you a roundy-roundy of roughly 10’ x nearly 4’.

 

That’s for a larger roundy-roundy. If you could be happy with an end to end, maybe arrange boards in an inverted “L” to start over the sink, come along the wall towards the window, then turn to either end over the radiator (allowing the door to still open) or go into where the door space is and the door either stays open or closed - while you’re operating, not all the time, of course! That way, only one board for the door, needs to be readily and very removable.

 

Is this a room that is frequently used as a bedroom or just earmarked for occasional use? Every night or once or twice a year!

Hopefully, that’s some food for thought for you.

Cheers,

 John 

  

In this case I’m afraid both ideas sadly fall foul of Givens i) and ii) on easy portability and achievability for me: a batten over the bed could maximise layout space but would also mean moving more boards when the room is needed for guests.  Having stood in the room to imagine it, I felt a bit claustrophobic with the door shut - and no-one could come in or go out (eg: loo breaks!).  My Dad did something similar when he retired, but took the bed out of the room he used and re-hung the door outwards (not an option for me).  A good idea definitely worth considering that may also be of use to others (sorry I can’t show photos of the room to illustrate this, but the stuff in it isn’t mine to show).  As for the sink, it is quite high so I’d need extra sub-framing on top of my support tables to clear it, making everything heavier and more cumbersome.  An eye level layout has advantages, but isn’t for this project.

 

It does mean I’m thinking again about a switching layout, especially after it dawned on me that I could set a wider minimum radius.  I’ll aim to have an outline idea to share in my next post.  Hopefully the photos and notes above might be of use for anyone else also wondering about a first layout - worth noting that everything was easily bought here in the UK too.

 

Have a good week, Keith.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke

[D9020 Nimbus]

I'd have thought the short covered hoppers would likely be used for something like cement—anything heavy and dense that needs to be kept dry.

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

I'd have thought the short covered hoppers would likely be used for something like cement—anything heavy and dense that needs to be kept dry.

Sand is likely another one for 2-bay hoppers.