Re-starting in American HO

[Alcanman]

Reminds me when I started US modelling HO 25 years ago. Kato locos had the smoothest motors, great for switching.

 

Here is the Kato GP35 on my layout, built in 1998. I remember having to fit the handrails and stanchions and the buy some BN green to paint them,

[F-UnitMad]

15 minutes ago, Alcanman said:

I remember having to fit the handrails and stanchions and the buy some BN green to paint them,

And did it flake off again if you so much as looked at them..? 🙄☹️😡 used to for me - I don't like plastic handrails at all.

[Alcanman]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

And did it flake off again if you so much as looked at them..? 🙄☹️😡 used to for me - I don't like plastic handrails at all.

Yes, the paint did flake off over time but it was the smoothest DC loco I ever owned. 

[F-UnitMad]

2 hours ago, Alcanman said:

it was the smoothest DC loco I ever owned. 

I don't doubt it, Kato are the gold standard for smooth running in N & HO. 

Although I did have some Atlas, and even Walthers Trainline locos, that were very nearly as good.

[Rich_F]

50 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

I don't doubt it, Kato are the gold standard for smooth running in N & HO. 

Although I did have some Atlas, and even Walthers Trainline locos, that were very nearly as good.

 

My Walthers Trainline GP9M that's had countless freelance paint on it is the smoothest HO scale I've ever run when I was doing American outline. Directional lighting, 8 wheel pickup, heavy weight: All for £60! 

[Alcanman]

12 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I don't doubt it, Kato are the gold standard for smooth running in N & HO. 

Although I did have some Atlas, and even Walthers Trainline locos, that were very nearly as good.

This Atlas GP7 had a Roco motor and was almost as smooth as the Kato GP35. I believe Atlas also used Kato motors back in the day.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Some nice photos and interesting observations, thank you.  Over the past couple of years I’ve had the privilege of trying various high quality European and North American model locos, in N and TT as well as HO, and from a range of manufacturers, though all running just on DC.  

 

European locomotives have been from: Arnold (N), Bemo (H0e and H0m), Fleischmann (N and HO), Ferro-Train (H0e), Liliput (H0e), Roco (N and HO), Tillig (TT), and Piko (Hobby) HO.  I use Kato N chassis to power HO narrow gauge locomotives.  

 

North American locos have been from: Atlas (HO), Life-like Proto 1000 (HO) and Proto 2000 (HO), Kato (N and HO) and Walthers (Trainline) HO.  I also have an old blue box Athearn Geep (HO) awaiting attention on the repair shelf.

 

All bar one have been excellent - including the budget range locomotives from Piko and Walthers (which were all good value).  The only disappointment was a second hand N-Scale Fleischmann steam loco that was, to be fair, quite an old model.

 

If I had to pick out just one as setting the standard for all the others when it comes to running quality / performance, for me it would undoubtedly be this Kato N scale Gevo:

 

(Sorry, not a very good photo)

 

I have a feeling the handrails should be black though? (My guess is that would make them look far too thick?)

 

One thing I particularly like about the Kato loco, which explains my choice of photo and also seems to be replicated on the HO GP35s, is the headlight comes on quite bright at low voltage - not just as the loco speeds up.  It was a major reason why I was happy to invest in a couple of Kato HO locomotives now, confident they would not disappoint (and they haven’t).

 

If I was to give an ‘honourable mention’, it would be to this Roco N-scale DB diesel-hydraulic V200, simply because of the way it glided almost silently around my test track as if it was brand new - despite being a ‘retro’ purchase of a loco manufactured a good number of years ago (the central screw in the middle of the roof for releasing the body is the giveaway):

 

 

It was also an incredible bargain!  If I could have run that well when I was the age this loco must be, it would have been an amazing sight to see (but I couldn’t).

 

The key thing I need to do now is to look after the locos I have now, so they continue to run flawlessly for a good time to come, Keith.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[pH]

51 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

(Sorry, not a very good photo)

 

I have a feeling the handrails should be black though? (My guess is that would make them look far too thick?)

Yes, the handrails should be black, but the stanchions are red:

 

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2958292

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Suspected case of overpackaging with last night’s delivery…

 

 

(I was expecting a Jiffy bag that would go through the letterbox).  Have a good weekend, Keith.

[Chris116]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Suspected case of overpackaging with last night’s delivery…

 

 

(I was expecting a Jiffy bag that would go through the letterbox).  Have a good weekend, Keith.

I collected two small bottles of tablets last week using click and collect. The box they came in would have held at least twelve of your Canadian Pacific loco in its box! Opened box put two bottles in my jacket pocket and gave the box and packaging back to the store.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

13 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

I collected two small bottles of tablets last week using click and collect. The box they came in would have held at least twelve of your Canadian Pacific loco in its box! Opened box put two bottles in my jacket pocket and gave the box and packaging back to the store.

I like that - a bit of style 😃!
 

Last time I sold off some trains I packaged them up into a couple of boxes that had come from that same retailer in the first place, so they got their boxes back too (they would have paid me to ship them back, but it was nearby so I took them in).

 

Incidentally, amidst all the discussions we often have across RMweb (and elsewhere) about how to choose a scale for modelling, the clincher for me does indeed comes down to couplers.  It’s why I didn’t pursue N-Scale.  I mentioned in a recent blog post that I was reminded of this when repairing an HO Kadee coupler spring:

 

 

This really is at the limit of my eyesight (and even then I needed luck finding the spring after it bounced off during my first attempt at re-fitting it).  I haven’t actually counted up, but I think the pack box of 20 pairs I’ve bought should be enough for all my remaining horn hook stock and kits - if I’m careful not to lose too many springs along the way 😃, Keith.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[long island jack]

i always put a small drop (on the end of a tooth pick) of CA on the shaft end of the spring to keep it in place, the smallest amount works well, to much glues the couple up, guess how i know!!!!!

[rodshaw]

Keith - if you ever run out of HO scale springs, I have some spare and can let you have a few.

 

For American TT scale I use HOn3 couplers (Kadee 714s), which is both good and bad. Good because the spring is enclosed in the draft gearbox and can't come out. Bad because you have to assemble the coupler first and get the spring into place yourself. And HOn3 springs are smaller than HO springs. For one coupler I put what I thought was a tiny dab of PTFE grease on the end of the spring to keep it in place, and ended up gumming up the whole coupler mechanism.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

1 hour ago, rodshaw said:

Keith - if you ever run out of HO scale springs, I have some spare and can let you have a few.

 

For American TT scale I use HOn3 couplers (Kadee 714s), which is both good and bad. Good because the spring is enclosed in the draft gearbox and can't come out. Bad because you have to assemble the coupler first and get the spring into place yourself. And HOn3 springs are smaller than HO springs. For one coupler I put what I thought was a tiny dab of PTFE grease on the end of the spring to keep it in place, and ended up gumming up the whole coupler mechanism.

 

 

Thanks Rod - good advice / observation too.  Interesting to note you use the HOn3 couplers for TT - from what I've read it looks to me like the micro-trains N Scale couplers are often used, which I'm afraid I just found too small for me.  I thought it would be a good idea to get a supply of the standard #5 couplers as I've got several older unmade freight cars and kits in my stash, and it should be easier to build them with the Kadee's than retro-fit them later.

 

Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

…and in other news, I’ve been writing a little blog here on RMweb documenting my various failed attempts to actually build a layout.  I’ve closed it off today with a post in which I’ve shared some other HO North American stock I’ve acquired for a possible project:

 

 

It’s a bit different, and has also taken my fancy (I like Panorama coaches and snowy mountain scenery).  Didn’t interchange directly with the Santa Fe (or anyone else) though - only by sea-going barge.  Something else to add into my mix (Further Prototype comments and clarifications are in my blog post, here).
 

#2005 is an unused pre-owned Atlas Master (dual DC / DCC) model, though not one of the latest gold ones with DC sound (I saw a couple on eBay but beyond my budget).  Have a good weekend, Keith.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke
add link to blog

[Keith Addenbrooke]

With a free day today, I had a chance to get started.  My ‘Givens’ are straightforward and already settled:

• American HO (DC control) - Alaska Railroad with the option of swapping to Santa Fe or other roads for variety,  
• Portable layout to be set up in a spare bedroom.  Configuration to be determined, but room for workbench needed.

As for my ‘Druthers’ the first question on my list is the obvious one for me:

 

Continuous run or linear layout design ?

Much as I prefer continuous running, the wide radius needed for US passenger cars means I can’t fit one in: end curves simply need far too much space.  Knowing this up front saves me from an endless debate. I am also building a smaller Narrow Gauge layout with a continuous run, so I won’t be going without.

 

It is worth explaining that, although the Bachmann Panorama cars are able to go round a curve as tight as 3rd radius (505mm / 19.88”), the only word I can think of to describe the join between the two cars shown here is: painful!

 

 

Even the (notional) 30” inner radius on a ladder of curved points is still not ideal, although it is much better:

 

 

I probably can’t plan for a minimum 3’ (or 4’) radius, but a target of 30” may be possible (absolute minimum: 24” or 27”).  
 

To make best use of the space I have, I’m again looking at a U-shaped walk-in layout.  But what is the theme to be?

 

Layout Design - Branch Line to Staging Yard, or Industrial Spur-based Switching?

My previous American HO plans for a Santa Fe layout were all based on a small branch line terminal station, with trains running to or from a staging siding.  I like the way a train ‘goes somewhere’ in this type of layout.

 

An alternative is a switching layout, often based on an industrial spur.  The layout is essentially one scene (perhaps with a bit of hidden staging), and has the advantage that the selective compression required may be less extreme.  As such, the layout setting can even appear larger than it is - there’s room for bigger buildings for example (important in US modelling).

 

For me, choosing between these alternatives is best done in-situ, moving mock-up buildings, track pieces and rolling stock around to see what works best.  Although I am a fan of track planning software programs (which are invaluable for discussing layout ideas, as well as checking calculations), I find it easier to visualise an idea when I’m actually looking at it.

 

Using actual layout components may also help spot potential pinch points - such as a yard throat where the switches are too close together.  I didn’t realise this arrangement wasn’t possible until I got out some track and tried it:

 

 

But without any baseboards, I could only look at small sections of a proposed layout at any one time.  While it may be conventional to agree a layout design before cutting wood (for many very good reasons), in this case I figured it might help if I went ahead and built the baseboards.  I did do a bit of checking, in particular working out I can fit in the staging I may want in my space.  As today was an opportunity to go into the garden and start on baseboards, I didn’t want to miss the chance.  I just had to answer a couple more questions:

 

Traditional baseboards or ‘Cameo-style’ viewing box?

As the layout needs to be portable, and boards will probably be stacked vertically, a traditional approach makes more sense.  Some day I’d like to try a 3-D Cameo-style viewing box, but I decided the extra work wasn’t going to pay off this time.

 

Straight-edge flat baseboards, or free-flowing, curved edge, open frame boards?

As I don’t yet have a track plan, it might be risky to assume a shape for curved-edge baseboards.  As they will also rest on three existing IKEA tables (each 1.0m x 0.6m) the full visual benefit of curved edge boards may also not be realised.

 

It’d be difficult to build an open frame board in advance of a track plan, but as I’m not trying to fit in the Hurricane Gulch Bridge in this layout, I decided to press on with some simple flat-top boards, especially as I also knew from previous trials with L-girder benchwork that basic sub-frames look better in the space I have.

 

I have some wood I’ve already painted ready and waiting: 

 

 

The long 2” x 1” beams I got from a local timber merchant were supposed to have been cut to 9’ lengths, but I discovered when I got them home they’d come out a bit short at 8’10”.  Cutting each one in half to give side pieces for each board means I need tops 4’5” long.  Starting with standard 4’ x 2’ boards, I simply trimmed 5” off the width to give me the extra I needed for adding to the ends.  This explains the non-standard 19” width of the boards.

 

I made up three standard sized boards using this approach:

 

For a fourth, staging board, I simply sawed the final board top into two 1’ wide pieces.  Double (and triple) checking the space available in the room convinced me I could slightly exceed 7’ in front of the door.  Preliminary sketches on Anyrail suggested it would help to add a couple of inches, and I settled on an 86.5” length:

 

 

The final size is therefore 8’10” (106”) along the main side, and 7’2.5” (86.5”) along the lower leg.  The layout is 7’ (84”) wide, with the three main boards each 19” wide, 

 

The boards aren’t finished yet, as bracing and most ends need adding, plus the DCC Concepts dowels I use to join boards together.  Although I didn’t get quite as much done as I would have liked, I can still be pleased with progress today.

 

It may seem an unusual (unwise?) approach to make up the boards before finalising the track plan, but having looked at and tried a number of different ideas previously, I’m hoping they’ve given me enough of an idea that I won’t regret it later.

I expect it will be a while until my next post, as finishing the boards will have to be done bit by bit when I have time.  But I’ve started, which is always a good sign, Keith.

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I noted in my post last night it will take a while for me to finish the baseboards.  That's not changed: this is just a quick planning update now I have real baseboard dimensions.  The layout will fit into the room like this:

 

 

An overhang over the spare bed has been planned.  I'm hoping 22" is not too long to be self-supporting.

 

The design space:

 

 

I mentioned in my previous post I'd checked the staging I have in mind:

 

 

Track will have to be Peco Code 100 Streamline, I'm afraid.  It's what I have, so I'll accept the compromise for a home layout.  I have a number of curved turnouts bought for when I was considering a European project.  Curved switches may help here, although aren't as common in the US as I understand it (there is simply more space).

 

I can fit a three-track staging yard while keeping a 30" minimum end curve by using two curved switches.  The extra 2.5" I've squeezed onto the staging board above 7' is intentional: it gives me four inches over and above a 44" train, which was a figure from earlier in this thread for four 50' cars, a caboose and locomotive:

 

 

Without the extra couple of inches, I'd probably be down to a three car maximum.

 

While I could squeeze in four tracks, this is the scene on entry into the room, so I'm thinking of a scenic staging yard separated from the rest of the layout by a flyover, inspired by the N A St flyover in Anchorage close to the ARR depot (though not as big!).  For this setting, I like the look of the three track yard.

 

There's just the rest of the layout to plan...

 

Have fun, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

With a spare hour last night I tackled a couple of small workbench tasks - with admittedly mixed results.

 

I’d already checked the contents of the bulk pack of forty Kadee #5 couplers I’d bought.  I don’t plan to use auto-uncoupling so don’t actually need the metal ones this pack provides, but it’s nice to have more realistic metal ones: 

 

 

All bar the bottom four of the couplers still had their springs attached (90% - not bad).  There are twelve loose springs I carefully bagged up separately, so after the four I need there are 8 spares (20% - a reasonable hit rate to cover ‘pings’).  There are also three spare centring springs and a spare coupler (with spring).  I paid less than £1 per coupler for the pack.

 

First task then was to replace the couplers on this rather interesting caboose:

 

 

The livery is not strictly authentic, but the story is more fascinating.  From what I’ve been told through the Alaska Railroad Modellers Facebook group, for many years Charlie ran a model shop in Anchorage, often producing limited edition models such as this one.  Quite how it had made its way to the UK to appear on eBay we’ll never know, but to have such a low numbered one is still quite special: the model has its own heritage.  It is also in excellent condition for its age.  The metal draw gear boxes just needed removing and the rust filing off:

 

 

I already had a couple of spare Kadee couplers to use, one of which needed a new spring.  I did manage to fit the spring without losing it (just one brief crawl on the floor to find it this time), and so far have managed not to lose any.  Reassembly was straightforward:

 

 

 

Next task was to try and remove the roof from an ExactRail boxcar with a loose weight inside.  Thanks to @stivesnick I knew all I had to do was remove the roof by breaking the bond on the glue holding it in place.  Unfortunately, the glue on the roof has held better than the glue for the weight inside, and a small section of the roof lip did break off:

 

 

I was only able to prise up this one end of the roof, but managed to open it enough for the weight to slide out.  It also needed filing to remove some rust:

 

 

I then smeared a thin layer of Deluxe materials “Glue ‘n’ Glaze” on one side:

 

 

I carefully slid it back in.  I chose that adhesive in case any rubbed off on the body while putting it back in place, as it dries clear.  There was no way of putting any pressure on the weight once it was back inside - I had to rely on it doing the job for itself (it is there to be a weight after all).  The broken corner was then glued back in place:

 

 

My plan was then to leave it overnight to see if the glue would bond.  I couldn’t resist a photo of the two cars together before I packed it all away:

 

 

Uh - oh!  A very clear difference in coupler heights!!!  I don’t have a height gauge, so measured both against another caboose and locomotive: turns out the box car coupler is a bit too high and the caboose is too low:

 

 

 

 

At the moment I don’t have any other types of coupler for replacements, but looks like time to start a shopping list.

 

When packing everything away I then noticed a small spring on my cutting mat - turns out one of the boxcar coupler springs had escaped while I was messing about.  Instinctively of course I turned the car onto its side to undo the coupler for repairs - thereby dislodging the newly glued weight inside (which had of course not yet set)!  Fortunately I managed to fit this coupler spring without losing it.  I then tidied everything away as carefully as I could and left it until this morning.

 

Happily, the weight does appear to have glued itself down again, and at normal viewing distance the roof repair isn’t too bad:

 

 

A bit of a ‘blow-by-blow’ account, sorry, but as a thread aimed more at those still getting started, I hope the lessons I’m learning are worth sharing.  Thanks, Keith.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Chris116]

The lessons you have learnt the hard way are much appreciated as hopefully I will be able to follow the instructions you have given us. ALL helpful tips are always welcome.

[BR60103]

Keith

A tip I learned over half a century ago:

run a fine thread (6" to a foot) through the middle of the coupler spring while you're trying to install it. When it misses the points it won't spring very far. The thread can be removed gently without disturbing the spring.

With that many couplers you need the coupler height gauge. I have mine on a track on a board with a rerailer mounted on the other end.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by BR60103
speeling

[Keith Addenbrooke]

A planning update - some initial ideas I hope are worth sharing:

 

1.  A phrase I think I picked up from @PaulRhB is that of “the scale eye” - for those of us with multiple modelling interests and / or whose collections spend a lot of time in storage, getting a feel for the size of things to help planning can be important.  Take these two kits I’ve built, both HO, a Walthers’ low relief warehouse and a German Faller Branchline Station:

 

 

The point is that, for the prototypes they represent, both must be considered small, although they are very different in size.  I used a spare hour earlier this evening to think about this.

 

2.  As the space we have in the UK is also typically smaller than is assumed many US outline plan books, I started by cutting out a template for my space I could place over some designs in the books I’m using.  It’s a tip I picked up from an older Kalmbach book years ago:

 

 

It’ll hopefully help me to be more realistic in my expectations, as none of the plans presented are quite as small as my space.  Interestingly perhaps, Thomas Klimoski’s own home layout was closest (the author of ‘Building the Right Sized Layout’).

 

I then went into the modelling room and tried some simple ideas.  A track box gave me the width of baseboard I’m building.

 

3. I wanted to try an alternative for the staging board to include the small warehouse and a separate loading dock:

 

 

The idea would be to design operations that only need one staging track - creating room for a small industrial spur.  It is the approach I used in my previous North American thread as well, and was inspired by videos of the APU spur / branch of the ARR in Anchorage.  This initial shot looked promising, so I grabbed the nearest boxcars from the storage box visible under the table and took some more photos:

 

 

(This view could be of a micro-layout in its own right!)

 

(I included an end shot as this is the view on entering the room - an improvement on the three-track yard I think).

 

I was happy with this so may well look to include it in my design, although it would help if the tracks can be longer.

 

4.  Planned centrepiece for my non-ARR modelling is the Wathers’ Grain Elevator I’ve started.  I’m thinking I can use a suggestion @dave1905 made earlier in this thread of swapping buildings for different genres.  There are some grain elevators in Alaska, including small metal ones at Alaska Mill & Feed on the APU spur.  A photo I found of a larger concrete one at Valdez in Alaska was however an abandoned one built by investors who wanted to grow cereal crops, but found the weather too harsh - so not a good model to copy even if it is more like the Walthers kit!

 

I’m not yet ready to cut the pieces from their sprues (I may add another coat of paint), so these are mock-up photos:

 

 

 

Key visual ‘take-away’ for me from this test was to try and include some ‘negative space’ around the grain elevator site - don’t squash other buildings next to it.  Interestingly (for me), the Santa Fe Branch line plans I drew up a couple of years ago would have worked in this respect - they had the grain elevator away from the Depot area / town scene.

 

5.  If I assume I still want a Depot / station area on the main baseboards, then there’s a trade off to consider between more track and more space.  Should I have two tracks (main and siding) or three (to include a sorting track)?

 

 

(The extra track off to the left is for an industrial spur)

 

While it’s only a test, to my mind the upper photo of the two track solution seems indicative of a passing station, whereas the lower one with three tracks looks more like a medium-sized town.  All good food for thought and for me more informative at this stage than using a computer-based track planning program.  I won’t deny it’s also fun playing with track and boxcars.

 

Tomorrow is a Narrow Gauge day, as I should be at the 009 Society 50th Anniversary Celebration.  It’s reasonable to assume that will prompt me to get on with my narrow gauge project and builds, giving me time to think through some HO ideas.  There are a number of shows and exhibitions on now we’re into September, so have a good weekend, Keith.

[F-UnitMad]

In my experience Kadee heights only get critical when they are out of alignment by 50% or more. The issue being that at some point during operations, a car that is 50% 'low' will meet a car that is 50% 'high', so the couplers will, of course, miss each other completely. 🤦‍♂️🙄

Shimming of either the coupler box (to lower the coupler) or the trucks (to raise the coupler) is the usual solution for small discrepencies; 'under-set' or 'over-set' couplers for those "over 50%" cases.

In the absence of a proper height gauge (& they are expensive for what they are), use your best locomotive, or the locos with consistent coupler heights, as your gauge, since adjusting coupler heights on cars is far easier than on locos. 😉👍

Edited September 15, 2023 by F-UnitMad

[BR60103]

John Armstrong, who came up with the "Givens and Druthers" of layout planning, also came up with "by the squares" to determine what would fit.

A square has a side equal the minimum mainline radius plus twice the track centre. The layout area is divided by this to get the area in squares. It also helps to position them around obstacles and such.  He also provides a guide to how many squares certain features will take. A turnback loop is 2 squares wide and 3 squares or more long. A turntable and roundhouse takes takes 1.25 by .75 to 1.25 squares.  A yard ladder for 5 tracks is only half a square deep but 2 squares long. 

I think there is a table of a lot of other features, but not in the book I have to hand. 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

17 hours ago, BR60103 said:

John Armstrong, who came up with the "Givens and Druthers" of layout planning, also came up with "by the squares" to determine what would fit.

A square has a side equal the minimum mainline radius plus twice the track centre. The layout area is divided by this to get the area in squares. It also helps to position them around obstacles and such.  He also provides a guide to how many squares certain features will take. A turnback loop is 2 squares wide and 3 squares or more long. A turntable and roundhouse takes takes 1.25 by .75 to 1.25 squares.  A yard ladder for 5 tracks is only half a square deep but 2 squares long. 

I think there is a table of a lot of other features, but not in the book I have to hand. 

 

 

Thank you - I’d forgotten about the turntable / roundhouse, though I’d remembered the rest (‘Track Planning for Realistic Operation’ is where I first encountered it).  I think it’s fair to say yard ladders are perhaps one of the most often underestimated parts of plans, so the squares rules are really helpful there too.  Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Further to discussion of Kato locomotives (posts by @Alcanman and @F-UnitMad at the top of this page), yesterday I found myself talking with Kato-san himself: Hiroshi Kato, president of the Kato parent company.  He was visiting the 009 Society 50th Anniversary exhibition.  It gave me the opportunity to talk with him briefly about the North American locos we’ve been discussing (although made by a US subsidiary, they’re still branded Kato).  The only word I could think of to describe the way they run was “beautiful”, but this seemed to be OK.  

 

I confess I tried the one sentence of Japanese I can remember from business trips 20+ years ago, but thankfully I got it right.

 

Having talked about scenic composition with an exhibitor at the show yesterday, I think it would help if I finished the grain elevator kit I’ve started, as the largest structure I plan to include on my layout (for non-ARR operations).  Having previously primed and spray painted the large components, I’d also brush painted the elevator tower with a white enamel.  It has added some welcome texture to the plain plastic, but the colour (and finish) still aren’t great.  They’re also quite different to the grain bins that haven’t been brush painted:

 

 

I’ve therefore used a few quick minutes after lunch to add another layer of spray paint to the whole things:

 

 

 

I’ve still a long way to go with spray painting techniques, but at least this time felt more in control of the can and the paint.  I’ll see tomorrow if it’s worked.  Have a good week, Keith.