Jump to content
 

Keith Addenbrooke

RMweb Premium
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,757

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Keith Addenbrooke

  1. Keith Addenbrooke
    At the end of my last post I was thinking of a North American standard gauge HO project again.  It would be instead of the European one I'd been edging towards since being joyfully distracted by my Roco HO OBB Taurus loco (and all that followed).
     
    I previously shifted my focus stateside last November, but while I already have about forty US HO freight cars and kits, plus kits for buildings, I hadn't managed to find the inspiration to keep going when my ideas for a layout design got a bit stuck.
     
    But having reached that same point of frustration, trying to fit the European mainline layout I'd like into the space I actually have, I had a thought.  Quite where the idea came from I'm not entirely sure, but there is a prototype Class II American railroad that still runs regular passenger Services, and uses the kind of Panorama coaches I like (sometimes in very short trains): the Alaska Railroad (ARR). They keep their locos and passenger cars very clean, and the line runs for several hundred miles through the kind of snow-capped mountain scenery I was drawn to with Austrian / German / Swiss railways.
     
    I'm still interested in other US railroads, particularly the Santa Fe, but the ARR is that bit different.  I found some good ARR items on eBay, and that sealed it.  The OBB (and friends) have handed over the reigns of my planning mind to the ARR:
     

    (This Atlas ARR GP38 was pre-owned but still brand new;  the end handrails and details are in the box, still to be fitted)
     
    American Panorama Coaches can be much bigger than European ones:

     

    (These Bachmann McKinley Explorer Passenger Cars come with lights - see the header photo for this blog entry)
     
    I've seen videos of both one and two car Panorama Trains in these Cruise Line liveries.  As the Dining Car is on the lower floor they can be self-contained.  I understand they only run in the summer months though, not during the Alaskan winter.
     
    This next photo mock-up isn't entirely prototypical, as the loco would probably be an SD70MAC in the newer livery, and I've not found any photos of an ARR depot looking like my generic Walthers' kit, but it's somewhere to start from I rather like:
     

     
    Having joined a facebook group for Alaska Railroad modelers, it seems to be one of those broad churches I like belonging to, where the scarcity of available product for a particular niche mean it's understood when inconsistencies arise.  That suits me fine.  A piece of advice I often return to was shared with me by @Allegheny1600 a while back: when starting out in a new scale (or with a new RR), collect what you can to begin with, and refine it later once you've got started.
     
    So I've bought a few bits to help my thinking, but not too much:
     

     
    The Walthers' Trainline Geep isn't strictly correct (it's a GP9 while the ARR only ran GP7s), but it came in an unused budget set with the Caboose (Walthers 931-700).  The caboose is correctly numbered as one of three ARR mid-1970s wide-vision ones, and I'm advised the Geep does have the correct chop nose and livery.
     
    The big question for me and this blog: might this become yet another example of a change of direction - instead of progress towards a layout: another case of how to not build a model railway?  Time alone will tell...
     
    What's next?
     
    What's next is to try out some layout design ideas.  A key thing will be how long I want my freight trains to be.  Modern ARR freights can still run to 90 or 100 freight cars, although an interesting aspect of the role this state-owned line plays is mixed freights are still very mixed.  It makes videos more interesting to watch, but long trains won't be what I can model.
     
    In my current American modelling thread, I've already shared some measurements and posed some photos for short seven car, four car and even three car branch freights I can refer to.  And as I already have that project thread devoted to Re-starting in American HO model railroading, it means this can be the final post for this blog.  After all, if I can develop a plan and get started, my job here is done.
     
    Just one final thing...
     
    All that is left is to share one final list of resources that may be helpful, this time of North American layouts and influences.  These are some of the ones I've been reading, watching or following for a while, and will help me think through some ideas:
     
    It's no secret that my current favourite all-time layout is Grant Eastman's expansive Southern Alberta Rail in N-Scale which I follow on YouTube - truly inspirational in my book when it comes to trains running through scenery: linked here.
     
    The rest of the list is focused more on smaller projects:
     
    I mentioned @James Hilton's Kinross in my previous blog entry (here).  I'd also recommend reading his Halifax and South Western Railway in HO planning post too, and there's a wealth more on his website / blog here.
     
    For truly 'off the scale' modelling and reflections by a professional, I turn to Boomer Dioramas YouTube channel.  His two shelf layouts, River Road and Glover Road are quite stunning.
     
    Another modeller based in North America I came across a while back whose wisdom and modelling inspires me is Trevor Marshall ( @tpm1ca ) and his Port Rowan in 1:64 S-scale layout (now dismantled following a house move).  His thoughts on Achievable Layouts are worth a read too.
     
    Tom Johnson's Cass County Railroad on the MRH site is another shelf layout with scenery and structures I find mind-blowing (his background is in art).
     
    A couple of other YouTube Channels I often turn to for a bit of relaxation are Red Dirt and Rails and SoCal Scale Models while a one-off video on Thomas Klimoski's YouTube channel I've watched over and over features Jared Harper's Santa Fe Alma Branch .  I'd say that is 10 minutes of your life well worth spending in front of a computer screen!
     
    These are in addition to my traditional sources: Kalmbach books and Model Railroader magazine.
     
    As with my previous blog, I should add another thank you to those modelers who inspire me, and who I've referenced here.  As I noted last time, I don't know any of them personally, so I hope it's OK.
     
    Of course, it all begs the question - when I'm surrounded by soooo... much inspiration, how come I don't actually get much built (especially when it comes to layouts)?   
     
    What can I say?  Have you tried condensing all that inspiration into a portable layout in part of one small, spare bedroom?
     
    Once I've cracked that, I think I'll have found a way to not not build a model railway.  Isn't that the aim?   Let's see how I get on.  So, have fun, and thank you once again for your patience in reading through my latest ramblings.  Future progress will be...
     
    ...and will be shared in my project threads.  Until then, thanks once more.  It's time to catch my train, Keith.
     

     
  2. Keith Addenbrooke
    Our planned house move is now likely to happen in the Summer.  With more time to get ready, an Easter update makes sense.  There's a new challenge to report on, as well as some modelling progress.  I'll start with loose ends being tidied up:
     
    Loose Ends:
     
    Left over from my American HO project last year was my incomplete Walthers' Grain Elevator Kit.  I've been keen to build this for a good while, so even though my plans have changed it was nice to get it finished.
     
    First task was to weather the head house and loading / unloading shelters.  As I use brush weathering, it made sense to do this before assembly:
     

     
    I added some styrene card strengtheners to the head house when I assembled it, and a false floor at the elevator end to hide the curve of the silos:
     

     
    The finished model is as impressive as I'd hoped, even if it would still be small by prototype standards:
     

     

     

     
    (Some of these images also appear in my Narrow Gauge HOn30 thread)
     
    Question is, what to do with this now?  We're having a big clearout, as our new home will have less storage space.  The Narrow Gauge mini-layout I built in 2021 has been passed on through our local 009 Society Group, and I have thrown out some of the building kits I assembled a while back but now have no use for (I really didn't need a dozen railway stations!).
     
    I wasn't sure what to do with these three American HO building kits though - all personal favourites but also now surplus:
     

     

     

     
    All three being Walthers meant they were designed to complement each other, with selective compression carefully managed to help them go together.  When I compared them to a part-built Craftsman Kit of a single store however, the illusion was broken.  All of a sudden, the Walthers buildings look smaller than they probably should, although all are 1:87:
     

    (Images above have also appeared in my HO Union Station Diorama thread)
     
    After this test, it was a much easier decision to part with the three plastic buildings, donated to the local Model Railway Club for use or onward sale through their Club Shop.  This has created a bit of space on the workbench:
     

     
    The Craftsman Store Kit is being kept for possible use in my HOn30 project, but progress is slow.  Each window has delicately cut separate upper and lower sashes.  As the frames (and shutters) have 'peel and stick' backings, they aren't difficult to assemble, it's just one of those jobs I find best tackled in small stages:
     

     

     
    When completed, the model will appear in my Narrow Gauge Modelling Thread.
     
    Last Orders:
     
    My previous blog entry talked about the impact of Hatton's Model Railways closing.  Largely out of sentiment, I made a last minute purchase just before the website closed, buying a heavily discounted Continental Signal Box (Stellenwerk):
     

    (also pictured on the ‘Hattons to close’ thread)
     
    But 'Last Orders' applies to some modelling too.  Our current,  Victorian house has a single-storey outhouse at the back which I've been able to use for spray painting and as a baseboard factory.  With a couple of larger kits in my stash, it makes sense to spray the larger components now, even if I don't tackle the actual kits before we move.
     
    It's no coincidence I have two models using the same components, as I bought the Post Office as a substitute when I couldn't find an affordable kit of the station (I'd noticed the Postamt is modelled on an end part of the station):
     

     
    Key parts of the Post Office were sprayed first.  This is now all dried and back in the box (not the box pictured):
     

     
    Just getting a photo of the pieces for the station proved a challenge: the box is not only large but 4" deep.  In the end I took advantage of the floorspace created by ditching a bed that used to be in this room but had become surplus too:
     

     

     
    These are just the walls, having been painted and left to dry in the outhouse before coming back in.  It's big:
     

     
    I think the photo on the box shows the station as it appeared in an earlier era, matching the postcard shared by @Mikkel below my previous blog entry, here.  Over time I think it has been repainted in a lighter colour, which I prefer and which explains my choice of colour for the walls.  The current version of the kit is lighter in colour.  I also brush painted the impressive entrance piece for colour matching:
     

     
    With the baseboard factory also closing, it'd be good to place a final order (with myself) before we move.  At the moment it's all just tidied up for house showings:
     

     
    But this brings me to:
     
    The Fresh Challenge:
     
    In previous posts for this blog, I've been refining my modelling aims and project list.  But I've now run into: 'the problem.'  Our new home is more modern and will be much better for us in many ways, both as a family and as my wife and I work out of the home office.  But we're losing spare space and storage - not just the outhouse.  As we make progress with our much needed downsizing clearout it's become possible to see how life will work after we move, and we've realised the plan we had to accommodate my modelling and layout interests isn't going to work - at all! 
     
    Long-suffering readers of my contributions to RMweb over the past four years will be familiar with the regular changes our family needs have imposed upon my ideas for space to use.  Now I'm having to think about modelling with no space at all.
     
    Let me explain: I'll be able to set up a workbench in a spare bedroom when the family aren't staying, but the lingering smell of paint and glue means it needs to be in a room where others aren't waiting to use the space (we won't have a garage, a cellar or a large shed in the garden either).  I can look at ideas for portable layouts, but have to think about a question I was first asked about portable layouts by @AndyB in August 2020: "Where will you keep the layout?"  It's a rather good question for a property without storage space:
     
    I have been here before: the first layout I ever had (but didn't finish) was a very compact N-Gauge Branch Terminus to Continuous Run that could easily have come from an early Cyril Freezer plan book (3'8" x 2'2", with 9" min. radius curves and points):
     
     
     
    I wrote about it in the Layout and Track Design Forum back in 2021 (here).  When not in use, it actually went into my wardrobe!  But I wasn't trying to include a station that will be 3' long or run mainline trains (or have three layouts)! 
     
    If I'm going to build some new baseboards before we move, I need to get my thinking cap on again.  Despite all the lessons I've learned, I've never really considered the prospect of having no dedicated space.  I've always assumed I'd have a railway room one day (when the kids grew up), and never imagined I wouldn't one day be building the kind of layouts I dream about.
     
    I'd like to see trains like this running on my own layout:
     
     
    This was a test run to see if a six coach train looks OK for mainline running in H0 (I decided it was):
     
     
    But a 6' x 3' table top isn't what I'm aiming for!  I know lots of dedicated modellers face this challenge, and have often posted on the Boxfiles, Micro layouts and Dioramas Forum (and back in the day contributed to Carl Arendt's Micro-Layout website).  It's just not what I'd been working towards.
     
    I've plenty of modelling to keep me busy (not everything has been shown in this post), but whatever happens next may - once again - look a little different.  Until then, thanks for reading, Keith.
     

     
     
     
  3. Keith Addenbrooke

    2. Bahnhof Kirchbach

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Structure Kits - Plastic
    I've been on the lookout for a countryside steam era Station kit.  Faller offer several fairly generic examples, often Combination Depots with an adjoining Goods Shed (Güterschuppen).  However, I was rather taken by this one, which I spotted being sold with a generous preowned discount as the box had been opened.  It'll need a separate Goods Shed:
     

     
    The only bit missing was the station clock.  As I want it for an earlier era, I can live without the modern clock in the picture. 
     
    More of an issue was that a start had been made on the kit, with a few of the window and door surrounds having been glued in place, visible in this photo below:
     

     
    I prefer to paint components before assembly if I can.  It gets round the fact I'm not a neat painter - it only took a few minutes to brush paint these quoins and chimney components while they were still on their sprue, for example:
     

     
    As it would turn out, almost half the time I spent on this kit ended up on the walls and bits that had been started.  It all began quite promisingly.  I opted for rattle can spray paint.  I really liked the way a quick coat of white brought out the relief on the walls, and the bricks on the door and window surrounds.  Here's a close-up of one section that had been started:
     

     
    But I decided to add a second coat of a creamier colour, using white gloss spray paint from a rattle can.  It would give me a contrast with the doors and window frames, which were white.  I'd not allowed for the gloss paint being thicker, and by the time I'd also tried picking out the door and window surrounds, messed that up, then re-sprayed it all so I could have a second go at the brickwork, I'd covered the details.  I'd also wasted about a week while leaving each new coat of paint to dry:
     

     
    This was clearly not good enough.  I wondered about giving it a Dettol bath to remove the paint, but to save some time I just tried scraping off the extra paint from the brickwork.  My first attempts were a bit too rough, but showed it could work.
     
    Feeling suitably chastened by my errors, I took as much care as I could while I added the windows and shutters, the doors and the stonework detail (printed paper on card).  The overall improvement came as a big relief.  It still looks rather scruffy in this close-up, but at a normal viewing distance I now felt satisfied I could proceed.  Lesson learned:
     

     
    I had another small fail with some of the green door panels, which I found out were of a softer plastic that didn't like being sanded to fit.  On the other hand, I was impressed with the design of the Faller windows - with fixing lugs to aid alignment.  I fitted the window frames then the glazing in separate modelling sessions to reduce the risk of any glue marks showing:
     

     
    One instruction I didn't follow was the suggestion to make each part of the building as a separate module, then glue them to the platform:
     

     
    Experience has taught me they probably wouldn't have fitted together properly, so I built them up in place piece by piece, again taking a lot more time than I would usually do at this stage (which paid off).  I added the quoins only after all the walls were in place.
     
    I've previously encountered the box-shaped paper inserts used inside some continental building kits, and again took my time over these, even though they get hidden from view:
     

     

     
    I'm not a weathering expert, but have found that, as long as I've added some simple weathering to the roofs of a building, I don't need to do much else.  My technique is very simple: after painting the roof a dark grey I added a thin wash from some dirty white spirits, brushed with a handy square of kitchen roll.  It's not sophisticated, but seems to work for me:
     

     
    When I showed a different Station Kit I'd made at a local meeting of our 009 Society Group, it was pointed out (quite correctly) that I should also have looked at the Station platform.  This time I left it with a coat of grey primer, as that seemed a bit grittier - still rather uniform, but less obviously too clean.  I can add more weathering later, to suit the surroundings:
     

     
    Although my colour scheme is basically the same as the box photo, I do feel painting everything does make quite a difference, something to remember when tackling larger kits than this (where it can be tempting not to bother).
     
    I also wanted a more 'grown-up' colour for some of the details, so went for black for the guttering and metal fence:
     

     
    I painted the two wooden platform benches in a darker green (actually olive yellow), and gave them black legs.  I decided not to use a more modern looking corner bench - that'll go into the spares box:
     

     
    To avoid glue marks around the feet of the benches, I glued them in place using the rear feet and backs only.  The design of the chimney stacks is ingenious and means no glue need be applied to outside joins - just a dab in each fixing hole.
     

     
    I went for black metalwork for the station lamps, painting the bulbs yellow, which I then overpainted with a thin layer of metallic brass (Humbrol Met 54) paint before gluing them in place.  I figured lamps on an older station would not be the bright white of today's illuminations, and adding the metallic paint helps them look less, well, like painted plastic (the photo below is the yellow before the metallic paint was added).
     
    Another good thing about the Faller kit is the fixing holes for details like the fences and lamps go right through the base, so they can be glued in place from underneath - much neater.
     
    The station signs are printed on card, so I added a backing of plasticard, painting the edges black before gluing them in place:
     

     
    Sometimes the final details takes longer than the basic assembly, but the time I spent pre-assembly meant the final stages seemed quicker - I just worked in smaller sessions, leaving each step to dry / set overnight before doing anything else.
     
    The end result is something I'm very happy with.  I still have some timetables / posters I can also add later if I want to:
     

     

     
    I like the way the level of detail compares with a simpler but slightly larger American outline Walthers kit for a Depot that probably served a similar sized town:
     

     
    Overall, despite the early set-back (self-inflicted), the latter stages of this build turned out to be very enjoyable.  It has given me something I'm happy to share here.  A nice project finished off in half-term.  As always, comments and advice are welcome.  Thanks for taking a look, Keith.
     

     
  4. Keith Addenbrooke
    Ceteris Paribus
    I've been reminded of two assumptions I was taught when I studied economics, about how markets function:
     
    The first seemed quite fanciful at the time - the idea that buyers (and sellers) have perfect market knowledge.  Although it was presented to us as a means of simplifying analysis, the rise of the internet means it is now within reach.  When it comes to model railways, I can compare prices, quality, availability and alternatives for anything I'm wanting to either buy or sell.
     
    But the other assumption has caught me out: ceteris paribus - Latin for all else being equal.  One of the reasons I've been free to explore my ideas and dreams over the past few years is a confidence that the retailers I rely on will be there.  When I've changed direction, I've sold up and tried something different.
     
    Then came the unexpected, shock announcement: Hattons Model Railways to close .  While I also use other retailers, I've done most of my in-person and on-line business over the last twenty-five years with Hattons, including selling as well as buying.  When we learned the Warley National Model Railway Exhibition was also ending, the stability I had assumed no longer seemed quite as certain.  'All else' suddenly didn't feel equal.  I don't know if the model railway market will be affected by these things or not, but some degree of at least temporary market disturbance seemed like a possibility: markets don't like uncertainty.
     
    As an investor, I'm not a risk taker, so rather than wait until after we (hopefully) move house, I decided to press on with the third of the stories I want to tell: the Main Line story.  I took advantage of Hattons' closing down sale, and cashed in some store credit I'd built up with Rails of Sheffield after trading with their excellent Pre-Owned and eBay departments last year.
     
    I'd already resourced the Short Line / Narrow Gauge and Branch Line projects I want to take with me when we move, plus had bought some coaches and the Epoche IV DB Class 120 E-Lok I showed in my previous Blog post.  I now decided to go all in.  If my dreams continue to include mainline modelling, perhaps I should take with me more bits when we move after all. 
     
    The Main Line Story
    I've already learned that switching to a smaller scale doesn't necessarily solve the space problem.  The 'helicopter view' in N-Scale meant I wasn't keen to compromise train length.  While I tried 'shortie' coaches that wouldn't look as bad on tight curves, I didn't have room for the nine or ten coach trains I felt were needed: 
     

     
    And in H0 Scale I'd learned that even I can tell the difference between a cheaper 'Hobby' range item and an 'Expert' one.
     
    A Piko Hobby BR218 I had last year (excellent runner):
     

     
    compared to the Fleischmann 218 (earlier livery) I've replaced it with:
     

     
    Although I don't have a clear target to aim at, I'm trying to ensure I buy only the items I should now want to keep, not just ones to try out.  I've restricted myself to full length scale 1:87 coaches, rather than the shorter 1:93.5 and 1:100 length coaches I tried before - but was ready to sell on when the project stalled.  These were the shorter ones:
     

     

     
    Compared to the 1:87 full length coaches I now have:
     

     
    Six full length coaches still exceed my range of vision close up, making the train seem 'long' anyway, and they do have more of a sense of presence.  As for the locos that haul them, this is a Roco model with a very real sense of presence when it comes out of the box - it weighs well over 0.6kg:
     

     
    As the second loco I ever had was an N-Gauge Minitrix BR Warship (D823 Hermes), there's a personal meaning here too.
     
    In terms of prototype, it seems to me that there were more loco hauled short and medium length trains in earlier eras, running services now covered by multiple units.  I'm therefore stepping back a bit to Epoche IV and the 1980s.
     
    It means I can also include some older, very short trains too, such as this railcar (apologies for the terrible photo):
     

     
    But haven't I been here before?  Am I just kidding myself, spooked by the loss of a popular retailer?  One thing I don't tend to sell on are structure kits.  And for me the holy grail for some time had been the Faller station kit for Neustadt an der Weinstrasse.  So although it meant dipping into funds beyond my budget when I found one in mint condition at a price I could afford at Elaine's Trains it was a genuine 'must-have'.  929 pieces in a box weighing 3.4kg (unopened, includes sprues):
     

     

     
    Now I know I'm ready: when I build it it will be nearly a yard long.  And I'll have to find somewhere to put it.
     
    And that's "what happened next."  It brings this blog to a close for now, and probably until after we move house.  I have three stories to tell, plenty of kits to build, and (right now) no real desire to buy anything else, certainly not to sell anything.
     
    Are all other things ever equal?  Probably not, but hopefully I’ve swung the odds back in my favour just a little bit.  Anyway, I'm off to the workshop to retrieve some kit parts I spray painted yesterday: we have models to build.  Thank you for reading, and take care.  Keith.  
     

     
     
  5. Keith Addenbrooke

    1. Faller 130594 Old Gate House Restaurant

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Structure Kits - Plastic
    Introduction to the Blog
    When I was growing up, Continental modelling seemed to me to be something best left to the experts, super-skilled modellers and those with extensive experience of rail travel across Europe, or with much bigger budgets than mine.  But I've been discovering over the last couple of years that it's far easier to get started than I realised.  I've been missing out!  So the aim of this blog is simply to share what I'm learning.  A lot of it won't be new, but if I can do it, then truly anyone can.  I have another blog for my project ideas, layout designs and ambitions, which can be found here.  This is for reporting progress on what I'm actually building:
     
    Getting Started: Faller 130594 Old Gate House Restaurant Kit (H0)
    My 'modelling year' tends to fall into stages: January to Easter is for inside modelling, the Summer is for Layout Design and Baseboard building, and the Autumn for tidying up the loose ends before I pause again, usually around the end of October.  So I thought it would be a good idea to get started this year with a simple kit I had in stock, a Faller Laser Cut H0 model.
     
    The kit is based around the idea of an old gatehouse (or a Crossing Keeper's dwelling) that has been re-purposed as a Restaurant.  Only the building is included in the kit, which has 85 parts and comes pre-coloured:
     

     

     
    Personally I'm not sure it would actually be suitable as a restaurant - there's no fire escape door from the kitchen, for example, nor the kind of additional external vents that might be expected.  But it's a nice general purpose cottage anyway, and the idea of marketing it as a restaurant shows buildings don't have to be used for their original purpose (as in real life).
     
    For adhesive I used some Noch Laser Kit glue I had in stock, with Deluxe Materials Glue 'n' Glaze to fix windows in place.  Construction is straightforward, instructions are pictorial, and as with other laser cut kits the shell of the building is built up from multiple layers of thin wood and card:
     

     
    Parts are finely cut and fit together easily, making for a relaxing modelling session - I wasn't trying to kit bash the model into anything else.  By the end of my first modelling session I had a recognisable structure I could leave for the glue to set:
     

     
    I only have very basic tools, so use whatever is to hand for weights or clamps when needed:
     

     

     
    Finer details are on very thin card - more like paper.  I found a duplicate copy of this next sheet in my kit: I don't know if that's deliberate (because of the risk of it tearing), or if I was just lucky.  I tried to apply glue quickly and sparingly as the pieces will - unsurpirsingly - warp very easily:
     

     

     
    Something I've only really come across with Continental kits are these complete folded paper inserts.  I've not been very neat when folding and gluing them together in the past, so I was conscious this was an opportunity to try again:
     

     
     
    Another area I've often botched when rushing to finish are the additional details.  These can actually take up far more time than I usually allow - such as this roof light bay window.  It has eight pieces to fit together and will be very visible when done.
     

     
    And there we have it:
     

     
    The footprint of the model is the same as that of a small, wayside station I made last year: Schoenberg.  It's a mirror image, but most likely explains something I'd been wondering about with that other structure - why it has a chimney stack above a door (there is a space on the roof without tile detail where it has to go).  Looks like Faller maybe re-used a standard design?
     

     
    And that's it.  I initially shied away from laser cut kits when I first came across them - as they can be more expensive than the plastic alternatives I thought they'd be more complex, but having made a couple I'm finding the precision with which they can be made makes assembly relaxing and enjoyable.  And my modelling year has begun.  Thanks for having a look, Keith.
     

     

     
     
  6. Keith Addenbrooke
    Happy New Year!  Well, I hope so.  As we enter 2024, I've been thinking about setting some modelling objectives.  Some find them helpful, whether it is the hard and definite deadline of a committed exhibition or show date, or practical steps to maintain progress on a larger project, or simply aspirational targets to aim at - in order to maintain some degree of modelling focus.  Some might be looking forwards to retirement, and want to structure their time in order to make best use of it, for others finding time in a busy schedule means that identifiable objectives improve the chances of something actually getting done.
     
    Some well organised modellers end the modelling year with a review of progress, ready to go again after the holidays: three 2023 updates from layouts I follow on RMweb are @AndyB's Bentley St. Mary - A Southern vignette in N gauge,  @St Enodoc's Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in OO, and @ian's Die Ercallbahn - Fulfilling a childhood dream.  In my view each deserves a round of applause - not only for making regular progress, but for sharing it with us too.
     
    As for me, paddling in the shallow end, I tried breaking down an early attempt at a project micro-layout into smaller steps to aid progress:
     
     
    But a bookcase I planned to use for display and storage was repurposed and I lost the space I wanted (the bookcase later went mouldy while in our cellar).  Then a couple of years ago I tried setting myself a project progress target date:
     
    Again, I'd not considered the potential loss of space that also saw a premature end to that idea too.
     
    What have I learnt?  It seems that setting objectives or targets is not in and by itself enough: my ideas have been too vulnerable to external changes, such as when space is needed for other purposes.  That's particularly relevant for me at the moment because, as previously hinted at in earlier blog posts, our domestic objective for this year is as follows:
     
    Move House  
    We need a more accessible house due to health issues, and as our home is also my office and workbase, I have to have a suitable working property too.  A possible place has been identified, but it will require us to massively downsize (something we should do anyway).  I will also lose nearly all my modelling and storage space, leading me to another project re-think.
     
    I need an approach to modelling for 2024 that does not depend on having any particular space.  At which point I refer back to a video from Dave Meeks' Thunder Mesa Studio I included in the first post of this blog, and the #1 thing he suggests we need to consider before starting a layout project (watch from 20:45 onwards for the relevant section):
     
     
    "What kind of story do you want to tell?"   As someone with too many interests, and perhaps too few attachments to any one era or genre, I've been finding this really helpful.  As my previous blog testifies (Hot to Not Build a Model Railway) I've had no shortage of ideas or attempts along the way.  Don't get me wrong - I've had loads of fun enjoying the hobby, have learnt far more than I ever thought I would, and have built some stuff - but that larger layout project has remained elusive.   Right now I can't plan in much detail, but I can think about the stories I most want to tell.  In some ways it's a development of where my thinking was nearly four years ago, when I was looking at UK GWR OO Branch Lines.  Where am I at now?   For some weeks, there has been a grid sitting on my desk in which I set out, scale by scale, what I was interested in:     Looking at it, it's clear I had more North American HO equipment than anything else:     But there’s a catch - North America is a Continent, and what I had would tell three different stories: from the Alaska Railroad, the Santa Fe Rly and the North East / New England.   It was not one cohesive collection for taking forwards, and was ripe for slimming down anyway.  But even after the clear out I mentioned in the first post of this blog (that reduced the collection to two themes), I still felt somewhat overwhelmed by how much I was left with.  That didn’t help when it came to thinking about moving house:     Maybe it's not a large collection by the standards of many RMweb users, but for me the amount of space needed to do justice to the impressive size of these locos and freight cars - even if there aren't that many of them in total - meant American HO wasn't ticking the right boxes for me for 2024.  I'd not managed to settle on a track plan I like, partly because the kind of industrial switching layout that would suit my space and interest in structures doesn't quite convince me.  A switching spur doesn’t give me a story I feel committed to.   Instead, I've identified three stories I really want to tell - and for me I don't think I'll get the number below that.  I like Short Lines, Branch Lines and Main Lines.  So, how best to tell them?  This is what I'm looking at:   1 choice of Scale - HO.  It is a scale I feel comfortable with, and while that also applies to TT, sticking with HO for now gives me all the options:     How might this look: for a Short Line common carrier I can combine my interest in Narrow Gauge modelling and North American prototypes by continuing with HOn30, and to this end have started a new project thread in the Narrow Gauge Forum with that in mind: The Carrabassett and Atlantic Lines: US Modelling in HOn30:     When no-one is looking I can run my H0e on the same track too:     Rather than return to UK OO Modelling for a Branch Line idea at this point, I've been looking at Epoche 1 German outline ideas, taking advantage of the very high quality models available at great prices second-hand:     While another loco (or two) would be OK, I have the four basic branch line trains:   Branch Shuttle (A Wittfeld Accumulator battery electric railcar) Branch Passenger Through Passenger Local Goods  
    Older Fleischmann flanges need me to stick with Code 100 track, so I can also get out my few remaining pieces of legacy UK OO when the cameras are off.  
     
    That 'just' leaves the Main Line story - which has been my undoing before (see here and here).  Trouble is, I do rather like full length 26.4m close coupled H0 coaches:
     

     
    But with a four coach train (for example) measuring around 57" am I still being too ambitious, when my Branch Line Train is just over 2' long and an equivalent Narrow Gauge train in the same scale only needs 18" ?
     

     
    That's my work in progress.  But I can make a start with some structure kits confident they'll fit the story, even if the size of the page is not yet known.  Of course, this has long been obvious to many, but it may now help me set and reach some objectives, rather than too often re-starting instead.
     

     
    I expect things will move slowly this year while the house move progress (or if it doesn't).  I don't expect to share another update until February, when hopefully there'll be some modelling to report on at last.  It would be nice if that happened next.  Until then, thanks for reading, Keith.
     

     
     
  7. Keith Addenbrooke

    Learning from Wulfstan

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction
    Introduction
     
    “The world is in a rush, and is getting close to its end.”
     
    A sentiment many of us might appreciate.  Trouble is, when the former Archbishop of York Wulfstan put it in a Sermon it was over a thousand years ago, in 1014.  I can only wonder what Wulfstan would make of life in our always-on, 24/7 world.  Just think about how we can shop: credit cards, same day deliveries, flash sales, eBay or Facebook marketplace.  Life is lived at a pace, and aspects of railway modelling are inevitably affected too. 
     

     
    My budget means I fish in the warm waters of the second-hand / pre-owned marketplace, a place of incredible choice and often great value, but not one that encourages me to take my time.  The best items just don't stick around.  They can be sold within hours (sometimes minutes) of appearing on sale.  In the same way, when I start to wobble on a project, I can pack up and sell everything I've collected in just a few days too.  It goes as quickly as it comes.  And then more comes in again.
     
    The market for new items can move just as fast - in BRM I read of products selling out before reviews get published.  Yes, pre-ordering can mean a wait, but batches may be small - if you don't sign up quickly you won't get one (or it won't happen).  This is by no means a complaint or a criticism - it is simply the flip side of the incredible range of quality models now available.
     
    But I need to slow down.  How can I take my time when time is not on my side?  A response from @AndyB to my last blog post (here) made me think:  "For as long as I can remember I've always spent a long time mulling over purchases."
     
    As a lad, I remember pouring over catalogues for months on end, delighting in the bright, colour photos of pristine (always) locomotives and rolling stock, dreaming of which one(s) I most wanted.  Lo betide any change of mind in the final few weeks before a birthday or Christmas, when it was obviously - or not obviously - too late for a rethink, because somewhere hidden in the house was a much longed for item, already bought and waiting for the big day.  With money tight and options limited, we were not only learning patience, but also how to value things.  It should have prepared us for adulthood, but even our hobby, our relaxation of choice, now sometimes moves at a rate Wulfstan could simply never have envisaged. 
     
    Buying can be exciting, unwrapping the latest purchase always a thrill, but to be a modeller and not just a collector requires me to slow down.  I've often commented on the importance of patience when building a model - my first Scratchbuild took three months -  but since then I've been moving rapidly from one idea to the next, trying to keep up with the marketplace, and trying to get ahead of regular changes in family life.  It's time to relearn the lesson from Wulfstan.
     
    Narrow Gauge Railway Modelling:
     
    I enjoy narrow gauge railway modelling as much as standard gauge - I belong to the 009 Society and I enjoy the monthly gatherings of our local group.  The advent of r-t-r 009 locomotives and other models from Bachmann, Peco / Kato and Heljan over the past couple of years has been almost as much of a surprise to some as the launch of TT:120.  Here on RMweb, the Narrow Gauge Forum may be a well kept secret - it is listed below Site Information and Notices, after all - but there's just as much wisdom, expertise and fun to be had in Narrow Gauge modelling as anywhere else.  I took it up to make it easier carting things up and down to our attic room, and still enjoy watching trains run on the mini-layout I built.  This will only take a minute:
     
     
    I initially wanted to model in American HOn30 rather than European H0e, but the availability of plenty of second hand good quality H0e provided me with a great way to get started.  I've also been encouraged to try some more scratchbuilding.  This trial piece:
     

     
    led to this finished model:
     

     
    And there's room for the inventive and quirky too.  This:
     

     
    became this:
     

     
    and after a bit more weathering ended up as this:
     

     
    I don't think Narrow Gauge modelling will completely replace my other interests or dreams, but as an antidote to too much shopping, I find a freedom to experiment that's ideal for someone with my limited practical skills, to set a standard I'm happy with for myself, and to surprise myself with what I can actually turn out:
     

    (a whitemetal Woodland Scenics Flagstop kit)
     
    I'm not sure what my next Narrow Gauge Project will be - a plan I had to expand my mini-layout with a Mk. II has been paused as we're probably moving house soon to a more suitable property for us (but one which will be tighter on space).  But I don't have to be in a rush to decide!
     
    One thing I'd be sure of though, if Wulfstan did come back to ride on trains, I think he'd quite like Narrow Gauge railways:
     

    WIth Christmas just around the corner, I don't expect to post another blog entry until 2024.  Thank you for reading my random ramblings - please feel free to comment if you'd like - and may I wish you peace for Christmas this year, Keith.
     
  8. Keith Addenbrooke

    When I were 'lad

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction
    When I were 'lad - Introduction
    They say nostalgia ain't what it used to be, and who am I to argue?  Memories of times past, when life was simpler and days were longer, trousers were short and knees were grubby, pockets were for train spotting books and paper railway timetables; those memories can all have a significant influence over us when it comes to our modelling choices.  I wrote in my previous post about the desire to recreate childhood memories.  I'd like to take that thought in a different direction this time.
     
    When I was going through my modelling crates to pull together items for a small display at our local 009 Society Group gathering last month, I found myself feeling rather overwhelmed by the amount of stuff I've got (and my collection isn't large).  Having written about the value of 'settling for less' and the benefits of a clear out at the start of this series, I hadn't appreciated just how much I've still  got tucked away in the crates under my modelling tables.
     
    For me, that afternoon unpacking and then repacking stuff away wasn't the fun I wanted it to be.  Some of the magic of the hobby: the joy that came with the innocence of fresh discovery when I was still a boy - it just wasn't there.  I'd lost the simplicity, buried it under all the accumulated 'stuff' of middle age.  I even wondered (briefly) about ditching the lot.
     
    It's not the same for everyone, but for me it was another significant moment.  It has meant continuing the clear out, not only to fit the space I have for modelling and storage, but enough that I can also create enough space to recover a sense of excitement when I make or buy something new - I don't just want to be wondering where I'm going to put it!
     
    From what I read elsewhere on RMweb, many of us have a stash to keep us going for a lifetime and beyond:  I think I've seen it called something like our Stale ("Stash Above Life Expectancy") - quite possible in a piece by @Phil Parker, a reputed expert in the field.  But if when I get something new I guess I want to feel some of the buzz I did when I first got started, and I'd never had one of 'those' before.
     
    So I'm trying to limit myself to the next ten structures I genuinely believe I really will build (and enjoy building):
     

     
    Freight car kits are more common in American HO that some other modelling genre's, and I've drawn another line for now with the ones I've got queued up - again, all ones I really want to build (and have already been holding on to for some time):
     

     
    My list of 'builds in progress' has also come under control - although there's plenty still to do on all of them:
     

     
    But, hang on, what are those Walthers' platforms for, and isn't that an OO station kit?  When did I start that?  Do I still need them?
     
    No, I don't need them, but one day I still want to finish them.  So they pass the "keep or cull" test - I didn't say it had to be logical.  The platforms were bought cheap as they go with a large HO station I've built, but don't expect to ever put on a layout.  I started the platforms when I was considering a modern Continental Project in H0 earlier this year, but unfortunately glued the key components in place before realising they'd no longer go back in the box once I'd done that.
     
    The Ratio OO kit was started in 2020.  In the past I've written extensively about my interest in GW Branch Lines (although this kit is of Castle Cary, which isn't a branch line station).  After getting involved in Narrow Gauge modelling (the subject of my next blog post) and picking up other long-standing interests, I didn't think I'd go back to tension lock couplings or steam locos without working lights any time soon (if at all).  Which means I have quite a few 'bits' with nothing to do:
     

     

     
    Why don't I get rid?  I think because this odd collection of pigs, sheep, level crossing gates, signals and signs still evokes that elusive feeling of nostalgia coming alive again that I'm after, even if they're not on a layout.  I just don't want to throw them away.
     
    TT:120
    The announcement on 6th June 2022 of Peco's TT:120 range came as a genuine surprise across the hobby.  It certainly caught my attention.  I found it exciting to be at the start of something, and it brought back a lot of childhood memories from my earliest days in the hobby in N-Gauge (very different in the 1970s to where it is today).  That connection was perhaps best summed up in a discussion on an early TT:120 thread about what might be produced first in r-t-r that tried to compare the 'green field' opportunity of UK TT:120 with the limited selection we had in 1970s N-Gauge UK outline. 
     
    In my case the choice of GWR branch line models for Peco's initial range of affordable laser-cut building kits was another attraction, so it was an easy decision for me to embrace TT:120 and begin a small project:
     
    Starting with some second-hand Auhagen kits from the 009 Society Members' online Sales shop, I made a start - and soon confirmed that I did not find the details too small (I now do with N-Scale):
     

     
    I scaled back my initial foray into Continental TT (1:120) as I couldn't source the coaches I wanted - wagons and locomotives were easier to get here in the UK - demonstrating the size benefit over H0 (this train is on one yard length of track):
     

     
    But why isn't UK outline TT:120 still top of my project list?  I think for me the bubble burst over the amount of debate about the merits or otherwise of TT, in particular after Hornby entered the market (nothing against Hornby, it was the debate I wasn't prepared for).  As someone not used to following Trade announcements, I was simply unaware of all the discussions that would ensue.  I just wanted to play trains.
     
    I still intend to complete the "Moorbach" diorama I originally planned, and continue to follow developments in TT:120 modelling with great interest (I still feel it is the ideal scale for today - that logic hasn't changed), but admit I'm no longer so sure when I'll take this interest further.
     

     
    As I write this I do feel some of the 'mojo' may be returning, so perhaps there's something cathartic in blogging after all, or maybe it's just the photos of what I have already made - straightforward and simple - that can still connect me to the world I'm looking back in search of?  We shall see.
     
    Once again, thank you for reading, Keith.
     
  9. Keith Addenbrooke

    An Introduction

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction
    Introduction
    Railway modelling is mainly a Spring and Summer hobby for me.  Autumn and Winter bring busier times, and as much of my modelling takes place outside (benchwork, paint spraying and big sticky jobs), or inside with the window open for ventilation (gluing and painting), free winter evenings are often spent on research and reflection.
     
    I enjoy exploring fresh ideas, dreaming up new projects and shopping around for bits and pieces.  I've discovered I also enjoy writing about railway modelling, sharing and learning from those with more experience.  Tidying up my current Project Threads for American HO and Narrow Gauge H0e / HOn30 at the end of my modelling season doesn't mean I stop reading, watching or thinking about model railways, so I'd like to use this blog for my onward journey.
     
    In my previous RMweb blog I considered why I don't get layouts built, despite (or perhaps: because of) all the ideas I have.  While Narrow Gauge modelling keeps me occupied, and I have a TT diorama to finish, I still dream about that more elusive goal of a fully sceniced model railway.  But another year has passed without a layout.  So where will I go from here?
     
    I 'finished' my modelling year with a display of some my kit and scratchbuilt rolling stock and structures at our local 009 Society Group meeting in early November:
     

     
    What about my Standard Gauge interests and layout project ideas?  I'll start with my long standing interest in American HO:
     
    Chapter 1 - American HO: "If only I'd known this years ago..."
    A short while ago I came across this blog post from American author and custom layout builder Lance Mindheim:  "Defining Model Railroad Design Success".  Two quotes jumped out at me.  The first explains why so many wannabe layout builders like me find it hard to really get started:
     
    "...there is what they “think” is the absolute bare minimum scope they need in order to motivate them to build something/anything. On the other side of balance is their actual level of time/energy/focus level. The problem is the two don’t match..." 
     
    while the second offered a way out of the trap:
     
    "...understanding how to be satisfied with less.  Less doesn't mean less sophisticated and it doesn't mean "settling"..."
     
    As I noted when I referred to this discovery in my current American HO thread: "Perhaps I should send it round to everyone who has helped me with all the different ideas I've explored with a heartfelt apology? I may now finally get it!"
     
    Although I've been refining my goals and objectives for a while, Mindheim's succinct summary hit home.  While I've often thought (and written) about achievable layouts and have my own "two locomotive rule" to manage my budget when getting started on an idea, I've not found a way to limit my ambitions once I get interested in a topic.  I invariably end up doing exactly what I shouldn't: setting a bare minimum for a layout idea that exceeds my practical maximum.  So I stop.  Again.
     
    How can I become both satisfied and motivated with 'less'?  Not for the first time, @James Hilton has come to my rescue (there's someone I owe a pint or two if we ever meet).  His latest "Hilton and Mears" YouTube Video: "Just Four" helped:
     
     
    It's another brilliantly simple concept for people like me with limited space (and budgets): you only really need four different locomotives for a small switching layout, or for each area of interest you have.  Doesn't have to be four, but then again, why not?  If that's a limit I'm going to set for myself, it may help keep my ideas manageable, and focus on building (not shopping).
     
    Choosing four for me was too easy:
     

     
    Two recently bought as new Kato GP-35s in perfect condition for my favourite American railroad, the Santa Fe.  I like passenger trains, so my Budd RDC-2 is another easy choice - it's another perfect runner.  The Baltimore & Ohio livery wouldn't have been my first choice, but this was a bargain too good to miss, and definitely a keeper.  My Atlas Bangor and Aroostook GP7 is the outlier, but it's another excellent loco I got for a bargain price in what I think is a very nice livery.
     
    A close fifth was my Burlington SD7, but after giving it some careful thought over a few days, I decided I'd stick with four.  Trading the SD7 (which I bought unused and have hardly touched) will also help free up funds for my other projects:
     

     
    A major factor in my thinking was that I'm concentrating my interests better: on the Santa Fe and the North East.
     
    But I've been considering the Alaska Railroad as an alternative to the mountainous European railways I like.  Where does this leave the Alaska Railroad plan?  Here I've been helped by a couple of YouTube videos from an unlikely source: Dave Meeks' Thunder Mesa Studio.  The first is this one - and I'm talking about the number one thing on his list of ten:
     
     
    The section starting around 20.45 covers the key question: "What story do you want to tell?"  I think it's a fantastic way to phrase the central consideration, irrespective of scale, gauge, prototype or era (the video explains it better than I could!).
     
    While I've previously asked myself what's the vision? the idea of story helps bring a project to life (it won't be the same for everyone).  What do I see as the centrepiece of an American HO layout?  For me it's a Walthers' Concrete Grain Elevator:
     

     
    While the Alaska Railroad is fascinating, all the pictures of concrete grain elevators I've seen turned out to be different angles looking at the same one - a redundant failure of an attempt to develop a grain industry in Alaska.
     
    Although I'm impressed with the Alaska Railroad Panorama cars, they're not my absolute top priority:
     

     
    If I don't pursue an Alaska Railroad Project, am I just repeating my all-too-common mistake of enthusiastically buying into a new idea, only to abandon it shortly afterwards.  People who know me will say that's actually not in my personality at all!
     
    Yet my project list for the past couple of years does look like that.  It's partly as I buy almost exclusively second hand.  I put together some key items before proper research, just in case they've sold by the time I reach my go / no go decision.  It's not always the best approach, and not one I'd recommend, but I have tried some nice ideas I'd otherwise have left untouched.
     
    There's also a possibility we may move house, so I now need to ensure my project list only carries ideas I'd want to follow through irrespective of whatever space I may (or may not) have.  The stuff I'm keeping reflects interests I've had for a while (or longer).  I think that's important.
     
    In June 2020 I wrote a short post in the Layout & Track Design Forum on the benefits of a clear out , but what I overlooked was my ability to rebuild my stash faster and faster each time I've tried something new since.  Which show my naivety!
     
    Another YouTube video from the Thunder Mesa Studio that has also made me think is this one.  I'd say it's well worth a watch for anyone finding themselves stuck in a bit of a layout rut - with a project they like but isn't progressing:
     
     
    While I don't model in On30 (that's not the point) and I don't have either that kind of space or a layout to redesign, what I found helpful was the focus on keeping what's most important, but using it better rather than starting over.
     
    So that's where I'm at with American HO.  Just that bit leaner and fitter, ready for next season when the Spring comes.  Nothing new...well, apart from this bargain mint condition InterMountain 60' boxcar that came today:
     

     
    In my next post, I'll return once again to that other great unrealised interest of mine: Continental modelling.  Until then, I hope my ramblings give some food for thought - and as always, discussion is welcome.  Thanks for taking a look, Keith.
     
  10. Keith Addenbrooke
    Introduction - Part 2
    One of my favourite layouts on RMweb is @ian's HO scale "Die Ercallbahn" in the German Railways Forum.  Drawing on childhood memories of the Marklin 3-rail AC system, Ian has brought those memories to life once more, creating the kind of system layout I'm sure many of us dreamt about when growing up.  I find it tells such an absorbing story that the first time I saw a video of the layout in operation, I was surprised when the doors of a small railcar didn't open on arrival at a station!
     
     
    The reason I'm referencing this grand opus here is because of the way the system has grown.  It began as a test track with just three points and a small branch line station several years ago.  It didn't just happen.  I spent my formative years pouring over pictures and track plans for American basement fillers, never imagining I wouldn't one day have my own, but I completely overlooked the bit about it taking years of planning, building, and investing to create an empire.
     
    I'm reminded of a famous experiment in psychology by a team led by Walter Mischel at Stanford University in California in the 1960s: "The Marshmallow Test."  The test is very simple: a child is invited to wait in a room while the adult supervising them pops out for a few minutes.  On the table in front of the child is a sweet treat - a marshmallow.  The child is told they're welcome to eat the sweet if they want, but, if it is still there when the adult returns, the child will get two marshmallows (not just the one).  This tests the child's capacity to understand (and practice) delayed gratification:
     

     
    What's the connection?  The team went on to show that those children better able to demonstrate self-control at a young age, could be shown (statistically) to be more likely to enjoy greater success in later life.  In my case, having put off for years the task of building a model railway, partly due to the distractions of life, and partly due to a sense I'd still get round to it one day, I thought I was being just like one of those children, putting off the good to wait for something better later. 
     
    I didn't realise I was making the same mistake again - all the child has to do if they want to receive the better treat is to wait.  But if I want to have a model railway, I can't just wait.  I need to get on and actually build things...(which I am now getting more practice at):
     

     

     
    My personal favourite American HO scale basement empire was Bruce Chubb's original Sunset Valley layout, featured in a six part series in Model Railroader magazine in 1979.  Chubb even noted that: "it didn't just spring up overnight.  It evolved little by little, piece by piece, idea by idea." (Model Railroader, March 1979, p81).  Bruce and his wife Janet began making structures and freight car kits while he was on military service with a young family, with nowhere for a layout.  Some scenic modules were completed, and then placed in storage at the home of Janet's parents (MR, May 1979, p87).
     
    Returning to The Marshmallow Test, the Team observed some children put a lot of creative energy and effort into not eating the first marshmallow.  They weren't actually just sitting there.  The prize, the goal, required effort.  Bruce and Janet Chubb took their creative energy and invested it in a future layout.  They took their dream and converted into a plan, with a strategy to get there.  I get that now.  As railway modelling wasn't that important to me for many years, my dreams remained dreams.  I enjoyed them as dreams, but my trains sat quietly waiting in their box.
     
    As I explained in my previous post, it's time for me to look at it all in a different way...
     
    Chapter 2 - Continental Modelling: "But what about now...?"
    While I never had a Marklin model railway, Die Ercallbahn also speaks to my childhood dream in another way too.  My own first (unfinished) layout was in British N Gauge, very different in the 1970s to where it is today.  I'm sure I was not alone in casting envious glances at Continental layouts, mainly German, with their steam hauled express trains headed up by models of enormously long prototypes with too many wheels, all bright red and shiny beneath their black boilers, or electric locos gliding almost silently past on their way to imaginary destinations I couldn't pronounce, in lands of great cities, huge forests and romantic castles.
     
    Interest in American Model Railroading is a given for me - it's inherited - but Continental Modelling is the stuff of dreams, and after re-entering the world of actual railway modelling through my small H0e layout, I've been drawn back to ideas for a Continental layout several times in the past couple of years.  In my previous blog, I wrote about how I've often keep running into the problem of space constraints, trying to fit too much into into spaces that are too small - grand ideas that didn't survive contact with reality for long.  For example, I tried the Glacier Express of the Furka-Oberalp in H0m, but I wanted this:
     

     
    when my space ended up looking like this:
     

     
    I tried N-Scale, to run those long express trains.  But they'd still benefit from an exhibition space, not a portable table in a spare bedroom:
     

     
    I also found the details and couplings on American stock too small in N-Scale.  It all meant that project idea folded too.
     
    Looking back now, the post I wrote a year ago when I closed down that project shows just how disappointed I was.  It was the correct decision, but not a happy one.
     
    I'll cover my experiences with TT (1:120) in my next blog post, but after I returned to HO Scale following my N-Scale idea, it wasn't long before the European railways I'm interested in (Austrian / German / Swiss) caught my imagination once again.  I was still inspired by mainline trains, developing grand ideas once again - this time inspired by YouTube videos of prototype mainline operations, and I had a look at some superb HO Scale models.  Could I squeeze in a layout after all?
     

     
    Inspiration doesn't make for a bigger house.  And when reality bit once again this past Summer, it looked like my Continental dreams were going back onto the shelf.  I just kept an assortment of unbuilt kits I'd bought and will enjoy making:
     

     
    But then I had a small win (£100) on the Premium Bonds, just as I was rethinking my ideas (my previous blog post).
     
    How about I apply the learning described in my previous post to my interest in Continental modelling as well?  My Premium Bond winnings went on this - a Fleischmann Train Pack:
     
     
    Stepping back in time: this set was sold as Epoche 1 and the loco numbering pre-dates the DRG.  I have everything to learn.  But the sheer childlike excitement I felt when the parcel arrived from Contikits and I unpacked the set has made it all feel worth it. 
     

     
    So now, if I take heed of the lessons I'm learning, maybe my own dream can still become a reality. 
     

     
    I have my other interests to follow too, but it looks like I can fit a short branch line train into just about 2':
     

     

     
    And that's the point of this story.  With a bit of luck (my Premium Bonds win) and some more careful thinking, maybe I can still give my child inside what I used to dream about.  Isn't that one thing a hobby is for?  Thank you for reading, Keith.
     
  11. Keith Addenbrooke
    Episode 1: “The only way is up!” - a nadir is reached…
     
    I’ve been interested in layout design and track planning for as long as I’ve been interested in model railways.  After all the books I’ve read, videos I’ve watched, and ideas I’ve doodled, I’d suggest there are two fundamentals to be decided on at the start.  Most importantly: what’s the vision?  What do I want my layout to represent, or achieve?  Trouble is I like a lot of different things and have far too many ideas, as demonstrated in the first five episodes of this blog (which collectively made up Season 1).
     
    In this second series of Blog posts, I still aim to plan and start building a layout.  Soooo: what’s the vision?
     
    I’ve settled on a theme for my existing H0e / HOn30 modelling, using the image of “the lonely siding” heading up this post.  I want to use smaller narrow gauge models to create an illusion of space - nothing crowded or busy.  I have just a few kits and bits to finish for my first, small, freelance HOn30 mini-layout (1m x 0.6m):
     

     

     
    And I’m thinking of expanding it with a larger, second version (which will have more room for the church building):
     

     

     
    But what about my other interests, and a ‘main’ layout project?  I’m impressed by many layouts large and small, on RMweb and on YouTube, but I’m not tied to a particular prototype, and my only non-negotiable is that I want a good continuous run.  I’ll return to the question of a vision later in this post.
    _________________________________ 
     
    Before I do that, the second thing to settle on is: a scale and gauge.
     
    The dilemma at the end of my first series of blog posts is that a small scale layout in N (or perhaps Z) would make sense for my space.  But when it comes to building kits and models, HO scale is the obvious choice for me.  There’s quite a difference between N and HO:
     

     
    My thanks to @AndyB for suggesting a layout using 12mm gauge track after reading through my earlier blog posts, either in TT (Standard Gauge) or H0m (Metre Gauge).  I looked at both last year, and Andy’s encouragement confirms my enthusiasm for TT:120 is justified, while my dabbling in Swiss Metre Gauge modelling last year also made sense!  But I have my reservations, at least at present:
     
    For TT, the UK outline models I’d like are some way off, so the building kits and track I’ve got have been put to one side.  I plan to return to them for a future project: a GWR Branch Line based on the Peco kits.  It means that box still has a tick against it.  What about now?  I was very impressed with Continental TT, but struggled to find a good source for quality second-hand coaches here in the UK.  When I slimmed down my project list last year, that counted against European TT for me (I don’t travel overseas much these days, which is when some modellers stock up).  American TT is very much a builders’ scale, and while @rodshaw’s layouts are examples of excellent North American TT layouts here in the UK and on RMweb, locos especially seem scarce and I’m already kit and scratchbuilding a bit in HOn30.  I have a Continental TT diorama to finish, and enjoy the American TTnut Forum, but TT’s not the way I’ll go for this next layout.
     
    As for 12mm Narrow Gauge, it’s not a scale common with US modelling, as HOn3 uses 10.5mm gauge track.  @JZ’s DRGW layout in the Narrow Gauge Forum is an example here on RMweb which is making good use of scenic space and craftsman kits for realism.  It was lack of space last year that meant I didn’t pursue H0m: I didn’t have room at the time to run the prototypical trains I wanted to, or for both my H0m and 9mm gauge narrow gauge.  While I now have a bit more space, I do want to be able to run US trains sometimes.
     
    That’s the catch.  Throughout my journey around the scales and gauges of European modelling, there’s always been a collection of North American HO from various sources lurking under my modelling tables and stashed away on top of a wardrobe:
     

     

     
    My idea at the end of 2022 was to bring it up top and use it, and I have added to the collection with a mixture of quality second-hand models and kits. Note that the recent addition of a B&O RDC-2 means I’ve breached my ‘two-loco’ limit for new projects: 
     

     
    I partly restarted American HO to save space on storage, even though the scale of the models is bigger.  While I could probably think of more North American prototype ideas for layout than for anywhere else, I haven’t managed to settle on a layout design. I keep trying to mix a switching layout with a branch line, and end up with a bit of neither.  I did reach a point of frustration and went out to the outhouse to just knock together a baseboard for a standard Inglenook switching layout, only to realise I’d used narrow gauge thinking and the baseboards weren’t the right size even for that.  But, doing a reality check, I’ve already got several years’ worth of rolling stock kits to tackle here, so it would be nice for them to have somewhere to run.  I have no interest in selling any of them.  US HO is in.
    ___________________________
     
    While I was wrestling with ideas for an American HO layout, this also happened:
     

     
    Listed alongside a retailer’s second hand American HO, this Roco HO ÖBB Class 1016 ‘Taurus’ resisted all attempts to avoid inclusion in my basket of purchases, and has perhaps come closer than anything else to providing me with some inspiration for a theme to pursue:
     

     

     
    (I’ve seen a photo of this exact loco in this pre-2005 ‘pflatsch’ livery pulling an ÖBB red/black coach in just this pose).
     
    Other purchases have followed, some of which appeared in photos in previous blog posts and elsewhere on RMweb.
    _______________________
     
    So it looks like I do have a scale: HO, and I do have a theme: Austrian / German / Swiss standard gauge railways c. 2000 - 2005.  It doesn’t solve the problem of how to fit a good continuous run in this larger scale into my limited space.  I realised I needed to do something about this when I caught myself idly leafing through a retailer’s eBay listings for other scales, while a recently delivered box of HO goodies was still sitting next to me waiting to be opened!  I hadn’t set out to be a collector, but was clearly becoming one!!!
     
    So I thought it’d be a good idea to replicate my success with H0e / HOn30 and build a simple test circuit layout for starters:
     

     
    Even designed for UK 3rd radius curves this is much bigger (and no transitions - which even my narrow gauge test layout has):
     

     
    I used 9mm ply for the standard gauge version, compared to 12mm ply for the smaller narrow gauge boards.  It means there’s a greater risk of twisting unless I add more weight with diagonal bracing.  As it stands, the completed narrow gauge layout weighs 5.3kg, and the boards for a standard gauge version twice as much at 10.55kg.
     
    This isn’t a layout design, but a placeholder to buy me some time while having a space to test run trains.  My layouts have to be portable, as the room I can use is sometimes needed as a spare bedroom, but my idea was to stack my two new portable test layouts against the wall when not in use, and swap them over from time to time.  This is when the wheels came off…
     
    The nadir
     
    It became very apparent when packing everything away in the outhouse after completing this new baseboard that I haven’t solved the problem of how to fit what I want in the scale I’ve chosen into the space I’ve got:
     

     
    Even though the standard gauge test circuit is very much less than a minimum space layout, together these boards are just too big and too cumbersome for my liking.  Layout ergonomics are important, and I wasn’t happy with what manoeuvring these would involve.   If I split them into smaller modules the process of swapping them over becomes more complex (as there would be tracks across baseboards to line up and more individual boards to store).  Something had to change.
     
    I’d ruled out a combined / interchange layout incorporating both narrow gauge and standard gauge circuits after ‘proof of concept’ testing highlighted the way the much larger standard gauge trains destroyed the illusion of space created by the narrow gauge line.
     
    “The only way is up!” - where next?
     
    So what’s my thinking now - what’s the message of this blog?  Having started this post by declaring a long-standing interest in layout design and planning, I have to admit this has been very much a blog about how not to plan a layout.  But I have one thing to do, and a  big question to ask myself as a result of my experimenting:
     
    To do:  While it is not the focus of this blog, I’m thinking of slimming down the baseboard for my new narrow gauge circuit, reducing the width to 0.6m to fit onto an IKEA table (as with the first layout), and the length to 1.8m (6’) for portability.
     
    The big question:  The question I now need to go away and reflect on is whether my insistence on a continuous run layout as my only real ‘given’ might now be the thing which is actually getting in the way of everything else a layout might give me?  Do I need to let go of that and look again at alternatives?  Is this the “Eureka!” moment I’m missing?
     
    In my next blog post I’ll look at some more ‘proof of concept’ pictures and ideas, as I explore where I go next in designing a layout.  Until then, thanks for reading, Keith.
     
  12. Keith Addenbrooke
    An important point was made in the comments below my previous blog post by @AndyB that is worth highlighting before I start: thinking through ideas for a Standard Gauge layout is not the only thing I'm doing.  I'm not a quick modeller, but my workbench has some narrow gauge scratch-aid kits and scratchbuilds in progress:
     

     
    And earlier this year I completed five different station model kits, (one in TT I began last year and four new builds in HO):
     

     
    The advice I often pass on to others thinking about a layout is to get started modelling something, don't just wait.  As I explained in a previous blog post, it can help form or shape an approach to modelling when it comes to layout building.  So I thought it might be helpful to flag up that I do some modelling as well as having fun thinking about new projects I can start.
    ___________________________________________
     
    Although I have plenty to be getting on with (including another dozen or more structure kits in the stash) I begin this post with a familiar planning dilemma: the concept I was keen to develop won't fit easily into my space.
     
    Am I sure?  In the case of overhead electrics, there's a simple question that tests this:
     
    Am I sufficiently invested in a plan to commit to building the catenary it will need?
     
    Without a layout plan I was sold on, I had to admit I wasn't convinced.  This was not what I'd imagined of course - look back through the previous blog entries and just about all of them include photos of European HO models.  Similarly, images of European HO models have appeared in both my Narrow Gauge and North American project threads this year as well.
     
    But it was time for another visit to the well of inspiration...I thought I'd take a step back once more and have a good think:
     
    1.  What kind of layouts inspire me (British Outline)?
     
    I've stated frequently that I'm as much influenced by other model railways as I am by the prototype, so it took me no time at all to draw up a list of four favourites.  All have appeared in BRM:
     
    Hammerston Wharf (BRM Feb 2007) - a linear O scale exhibition layout by Macclesfield Model Railway Group, Hudson Road (BRM Jan 2013) - a linear OO gauge exhibition layout by @Jon Grant 4472 Tawcombe (BRM Feb 2013) - a home layout in a loft with a linear scenic section by professional modeller David Wright, Up the Line (BRM June 2015) - a linear O-16.5 Narrow Gauge exhibition layout by @KH1  
    What all four have in common (apart from superb modelling I could never hope to emulate) is that while all allow trains to pass from one end of the scene to the other (or, in the case of 'Up the Line', to transfer onwards), none are continuous runs.
     
    And if I think of British Prototypes I find inspiring, and rule out the likes of Birmingham New Street (1970s) or Liverpool Lime Street (contemporary) as too big for me to tackle, then the three places that easily top my list are:
     
    Ashburton GW (despite its operational limitations as a model railway, we used to holiday nearby) Fairford GW (a particular favourite I explored for a OO gauge project in 2020) Welshpool WLLR (as it is today, another holiday destination)  
    All these of course are branch terminii.   It suggests my plan for a TT:120 GW Branch Line Terminus is good, but raises the question as to how committed I really am to continuous running, when I'm happy to watch trains in other ways too?
     
    Continuous running is what I grew up wanting, and still very much enjoy, but might other alternatives help me to get building now?
    ______________________________________
     
    2.  What inspires me (European outline)?
     
    Looking at European railways, my prototype knowledge outside of Narrow Gauge Lines is really limited to Railfanning videos of mainline trains, so model railways are influential here too.  Again, drawing up a list of those layouts I keep returning to is not difficult, and most are on RMweb:
     
    Hufeisental  in HO by @Alan Kettlewell - while it wasn't finished, I still found it an inspiring project Neustadt an der Suedbahn in HO - an incredible Austrian layout built up to the ceiling that I follow on YouTube Obermatt in N scale by @Frutigen - which is a Swiss outline continuous run layout Gelternau also in N Scale by @cornish trains jez which is a spacious through-running slice of Switzerland Wolfstatt a new Austrian HO exhibition layout by @duff man and team with a long linear scenic section  
    Again, these have plenty of space for trains to run, but other than Obermatt all are big schemes (and even Obermatt would scale up to more space than I have in HO).  That's what I didn't consider when I bought my HO Taurus class 1016.  As I discovered when I looked at the Glacier Express in H0m last year, my European Dreams cry out for more space than I have.
    ______________________________________
     
    3.  What about smaller layouts?
     
    Are there smaller layouts that I also return to frequently, and why do I find them fascinating?  Two on RMweb are:
     
    Exhill Works by @John Besley which featured in BRM earlier this year, and Obbekaar & Ribe Skibbroen by @Middlepeakwhich is a beautiful example of a simple 'run-through' layout in P87  
    Both are simple linear layouts displaying wonderful modelling (and miniature engineering) in less common scales.  To me, they tap into a leisurely world in a different way.  I could list other examples of European branch lines / tramways too.
     
    4.  What about something I could aspire to?  
     
    One example comes straight to mind:
     
    Kinross by @James Hilton, an HO Canadian Micro-Layout, also with a 'run-through' design.  
    In  space only about 1m x 25cm, an incredible sense of spaciousness has been achieved through very careful planning by the master of small layout design.  Given this, and the amount of US HO I already have (and am keeping), why don’t I take this on board and think again about North American HO after all.  Switching layouts and shortlines (or industrial spurs) have endless possibilities for any space.
     
    And if I choose the right concept and era and I could still run passenger trains after all:
     

     

     
    We all have our own inspirations, and there are plenty more I could mention, particularly when it comes to North American modelling.  What I need to do is to see if something sparks my interest with a flame that doesn’t quickly burn out.  Modelling American HO has always been a long term aim, but my thinking was initially along the lines of a garage-sized retirement project.  I’ve had a couple of goes at getting started, but not managed to complete a project design to the point of construction.  Why not look again?
     
    As I mentioned near the top of this post, I hadn't anticipated heading off in this direction, so I'll see next time where my ideas take me.  In the meantime, I do hope my ramblings here might help others not yet building a layout to think more widely about the alternatives.  Like me, there may well be things we've missed. 
     
    All that remains is for me to say a big and heartfelt thank you to all those modellers whom I've referenced in this blog post.  I don't know any personally, so I hope it's OK.  Your work inspires and encourages me, and I hope it does others too.  Thank you, Keith.
     
  13. Keith Addenbrooke
    The question I'm picking up for this blog entry is whether trying (and failing) to fit a good continuous run plan into my space is getting in the way of me building any sort of layout?  I decided to have another look at a terminus to fiddle yard scheme, an idea I’ve explored in the past in both standard gauge and narrow gauge:
     
    How to not plan a model railway (part 2.2) - Another view?
     
    Opening up my space would appear to offer a number of advantages.  This...
     

     
    ...could become this...
     

     
    With several benefits:
     
    Better than no layout! Room ergonomics - a comfortable walk-in design. Any variation end-to-end in the baseboards wouldn't matter: they don't meet up. Just one end curve might offer room for the longer platforms and longer trains I like? Easier to arrange more realistic operation, and more room to keep stock on the layout with a fiddle yard (or 'Shadow Station' as they are often called in Europe, which I think is quite an attractive term). Modelling focus on adding detail in the scenic area of the layout, which I'm looking forwards to.  
    I enjoy trying out ideas in situ, where the dynamic between layout and room is obvious.  I had in mind a kind of Minories style terminus station with a U-shaped throat running into a narrower fiddle yard.  I started at the station end:
     
    One thing I discovered early on was that using European close couplers means that - contrary to conventional planning wisdom - straight platform roads look better than gently curved ones, as the coaches don't start to pull apart:
     

     

     
    Taking this on board, I posed some proof of concept photos.  I rather liked these two:
     

     

     
    So far, so good, and worth taking further.  When I got to the end curve progress was less straightforward.  This is from some earlier tests I'd done with coaches marking out a 2'6" and a 3' radius:
     

     
    The Swiss EWIV coaches on the inside curve are not full length - they are a shorter 1:93.5 length for smaller layouts, but the curves still looks sharp.  A 4' curve would be better:
     

     
    That starts to eat into the space quite dramatically.  My vision was for a station running decent length intermediate services (not ICE).  However, a 6-coach train is still 6' long, even if I use even shorter 1:100 coaches.  I'd picked up some Roco ones at a very good price: they are still very well detailed and run perfectly - they're just shorter:
     

     
    A more realistic train length would be 7 or 8 coaches, for which an 8' platform would really be needed.  By this point it was becoming more difficult to fit everything in again.  Any sense of balance between station, station throat area (the only space trains run through) and the Shadow Station was starting to get lost.
     

     
    A good planning rule is to split a linear design into three more or less equal portions, something I'm clearly struggling to get. 
     
    Two further complications.  The first is that the push-pull trains most suitable for the era I've been looking at are less interesting to operate on a small layout - if they haven't got space to run they do rather go 'in and out' and 'in and out' again:
     

     
    The second complication arose after I determined that close up viewing would make a lot of sense for this project - either viewing the layout from a seated position...
     

     
    ...or raising the layout:
     

     
    However, in order to build my roster up quickly, I've bought a mixture of items.  All are excellent runners in perfect condition from good suppliers, but I'd made my budget fit by including some items that are great layout models but not as detailed close up, such as my 218:
     

     
    Excellent value for the price I paid and a very good runner (Piko), but if one aim of this layout idea is to focus on scenic detail and close-up viewing, maybe not the best fit given the superlative models also now available.  Having chosen the larger scale (HO), this is more of a consideration than if I'd gone with N-Scale, where I think a panoramic view can be very effective.  I wasn’t getting very far.
    _____________________________________________
     
    It’s been helpful to try out a non-continuous run idea, but when I revisited my list of benefits it was with a sense that I was still trying to convince myself it is a good idea for me, rather than explaining why it is.  Two comments then made me stop and think once more.
     
    One is a quote from a book on "How to Design a Model Railroad" by American author Lance Mindheim (Kalmbach, 2021, p25).  It challenged me to go back to my principles too:
     
    "A key question to answer early on is whether you want to model the journey or the destination.  Do you want to model the transportation process of a train going from town A to B to C, or do you just want to model what happens at C?  This matters, and it matters a lot.
     
    A "journey" modeler enjoys  watching the trip.  These modellers enjoy the operational theater associated with multiple trains going about their work without having cornfield meets.  A "destination" modeler may have fond memories of one specific town and want to be transported to that place and it alone."
     
    I'd already explored that very question in an earlier blog post and know my answer.  I took my sheet of notes and wrote across the bottom: MAKE MODELS AND WATCH TRAINS RUN.  And I felt much better when I'd done that.
     
    Although I’ve been having great fun playing with my trains (no other term for it, really), I clearly wasn't coming up with a layout design.  Inspiring though modern European trains are to me, it looks like the only fun I’ll have with them is in collecting and trying them out.  I hadn’t expected this to be the outcome of my experimentation, but the logical conclusion is to look again at the source of my prototype inspiration.  
     
    So, where next?  I'm sorted for my narrow gauge modelling but what about the Standard Gauge?  I was listening to an edition of the Second Section podcast where Grant Eastman was the guest.  His extensive N-Scale Southern Alberta Rail basement layout is one of my favourite all time layouts, not because of its complexity, but because of its simplicity.  Yet when the podcast hosts asked Grant whether he would still build the same layout if he had less space, he surprised them by saying no!  Despite the fact that his spacious design could be easily compressed into a much smaller space, he said he'd choose a different prototype that fitted the alternative space better.
     
    I've already ruled out changing scale back to N (or even Z).  I proved this to myself again this past week when I needed to repair an American HO Kadee coupling spring:
     

     

     
    It was at the limits of my vision (and still needed luck finding the spring when it jumped off the desk during my first attempt).
     
    To get something that works for me in HO scale, it appears another view is still needed.  I was struck by this thought:
     
    When I was collecting UK Great Western models in OO, the layout ideas I looked at ranged from micro-layout and Billy Bookcase Inglenook terminii designs through to generous garage-sized country runs.  The common denominator was the choice of prototype.  With my GW interest now firmly committed to a future TT:120 project, is there another prototype I could look at in HO? 
     
    Is there a different prototype and approach to layout design I’ve not yet tried that will hold my interest despite (or irrespective of) the frequent changes to my space, while still working with my available time and budget, and alongside my narrow gauge interests?  That will be the subject of my next post.  Until then, thank you for reading, Keith.
     
  14. Keith Addenbrooke
    At the end of my previous post I gave myself two objectives: 
     
    To do:  slim down the baseboards for my next narrow gauge project, and
    The big question:  to consider alternatives to a continuous run for a standard gauge HO project.
     
    Although August hasn't seen me doing practical modelling for my project threads, enough has been going on behind the scenes for me to split this blog update into two entries.  This first section is about narrow gauge:
     
    How to not plan a model railway (part 2.I) - The narrow path
     
    Proof of concept testing a few months ago led me to rule out a combined H0 Standard Gauge / H0e Narrow Gauge interchange layout.  I'd liked the idea of having everything all together, but in the space I have the size of the standard gauge trains was destroying any illusion of space I'd create using narrow gauge models.  Instead I put together a simple plan and built a baseboard for a simple narrow gauge layout (images from the previous blog entry).  It gives me what I most want by avoiding over-crowding, even if operation is rather limited as a consequence.
     

     

     
    Although the new baseboard would fit through the doorways of our house, it was more cumbersome than I'd expected.  Revisiting the plan showed me I could trim it to fit a space 1.8m x 0.6m:
     

     
    While this revised design places the loop tracks much nearer the front edge of the baseboard, it has two big ergonomic benefits:
    the 0.6m width fits onto the IKEA tables I use as a sub-frame.  As the tables are 0.6m wide there's no overhang. The layout is much less cumbersome: although there is only a limited weight saving (it's mainly the hole in the middle that gets smaller), the footprint is - and this surprised me - fully 25% less!  

     
    While the run will be a bit shorter, it is still almost double that of my first, start circuit layout.  A 1.0m passing loop can easily take a seven coach train of standard H0e Liliput 4-wheel coaches - this photo needed just one 1yd (914mm) piece of track:
     

     
    While it might be possible to squeeze in an eight coach train for Bank Holiday Heritage Specials, I think the illusion of space is easier to carry off if there is space either end of a loop so the train fits comfortably into it. 
     
    The O&K MV8 diesel will pull the train quite comfortably at narrow gauge speeds, but for my Kato powered road engine it's a breeze.  I do like running longer trains, as I've noted previously in earlier blog posts:
     
     
     
    Having decided not to pursue the idea of a contemporary era interchange station, I've traded on my H0e bogie coaches and class 2095 loco to raise funds.  In the past I'd have been sad to let go of them, as they were all very impressive models, but having more of a focus on what I'm aiming to achieve means I haven't regretted it, another point worth noting.
     
    It's not been easy to get time in the garden to work on baseboards this summer, but when the chance came I was able to take it:
     

     
    I did question my wisdom in deciding to shorten the boards by just 10cm (4") as it turned a one hour job into a three hour job (I'm not a quick worker).  But even though the board is still taller than I am when it is upright for carrying through doorways, it does now feel a lot less cumbersome.  I think the ratio of scenic space : hole will now be more attractive too.
     
    I'd already settled for a 9" (228mm) minimum radius end curve for this layout, so trimming the baseboards didn't change that.  I still have the template I used for track laying end curves on my first layout.  The first iteration of the design for this new layout had a different profile for the end curves, but with the reduced width I can now reuse this template as it is.  That will be helpful, not least as I already know a 1yd piece of flextrack is long enough to do a complete end curve with no breaks.
     

     
    This shot shows that I haven't fully boxed in the front of the baseboards, saving some weight where it doesn't show.  I wouldn't feel confident doing this with boards less than 12mm thick, but as I'm still using up heavier plywood it may be OK.
     
    Next task will be painting the boards (a house rule).  Without really planning a narrow gauge layout, I'm happy I've got something that meets my objectives, fits into my space, and is within my capabilities to get finished.
    _______________________________________
     
    But what about my standard gauge dreams?  Showing the new baseboard alongside the test board I'd begun working on for a standard gauge HO test circuit shows even more clearly than before how big the difference is - both are for HO scale:
     

     
    (I've also realised there's a measurement error in the top right corner of the standard gauge board - the end curve won't fit without a bigger fillet coming in from the corner).
     
    In the second part of this double episode I'll explain where my standard gauge thinking has been taking me.  Further updates on my narrow gauge project and builds will be posted on my narrow gauge thread.  Thanks, Keith.
     
  15. Keith Addenbrooke

    The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction and Background
    Note: This final instalment of my Introduction and Background has been split into two episodes, to keep the suspense up (???) a little longer.  Some content has been discussed in other RMweb Forums / threads:
     
    Episode 4 - The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two
     
    In this double episode I’m looking at possible project options, to draw this first series of posts to a close.  I don’t have a permanent modelling space, but I do have use of a room that has become spare, with the proviso that I can clear it out when the house is full (once or twice a year).  I need to build a removable layout, though it doesn’t need the full flexibility of an exhibition layout.  So let’s go…
     
    Project A - Workbench
     
    The first piece of advice I often share with folk wanting to build their first layout is to start modelling.  Make a kit or a small diorama while planning the dream layout.  Build some experience.  It’s something I wish I’d known years ago, and is something I do now.  So I’ve learnt that the first thing I must have is a workbench, not a baseboard.  This is the space (the 31.5” arrow bottom right is the door):
     

     
    …and this is the easiest way to fit in a workbench by the window and a layout - the baseboard can cantilever over the bed (which is not moveable).  A layout space of 9’ x 4’4” isn’t huge, particularly for a continuous run layout, but is more than I’ve had to play with before:
     

     
    The IKEA Kallax storage unit is not mine and access is not required.  The sink is useful, but could be blocked off (or reached from the operating well).  Other arrangements can be considered, but permanent shelves / wall fixings are not an option (several reasons).
     
    Project B - Layout Options (the Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two)
     
    A second piece of advice is to look more closely at prototype railways (important, as my primary influences were other model railways).  Once I stepped back from the idea of an OO Gauge GWR Branch Line, I had complete freedom to explore any prototype in any scale or gauge.  Through 2021 and 2022 I had great fun trying new things.  Each time I thought I’d cracked it something changed: my bucket list of layout ideas leaks!  The gift of this space means I can now settle down.  So I’ll tackle my possible projects list in prototype order.
     
    One final thing before I start - what is my Rule of Two?  It refers to how many locomotives I have for a potential project, and is something I’ve established to show my level of interest in an idea: while I have one locomotive an idea can be classed as a novelty, but buying a second one means I have a relief engine as insurance against loco failure / maintenance.  From this point on it can start to feel like I’m running a small railway.  So, what are my options:
     
    Project B1.1 - British Outline Standard Gauge
     
    In my case this would still mean a GWR Branch Line.  Other than a couple of items of sentimental value, I’ve finished selling off my OO Gauge collection, and only have these incomplete Ratio kits for a country station (Castle Cary) and platform awning (Generic):
     



     
    I started it in 2020.  Close up, I was making a decent job of it until I left some trademark glue marks on the awning glazing, something I’d now feel confident I could fix.  But with nothing else in my stash, I can’t see me returning to British OO Gauge for a layout.  Until Peco announced their TT:120 range I wasn’t sure I’d return to British outline modelling at all, but I was taken by their range of kits and have bought a set (I also have more Flextrack in storage, not shown):
     

     
    My plan is for this to be a future project, once suitable rolling stock is available, so it’s not the layout I want to build now.  With TT:120 now an option, I can’t see me going back to British outline N Gauge.
     
    Project B1.2 - British Outline Narrow Gauge
     
    As a Member of the 009 Society, I’ve seen the delightful models now being produced by Peco, Heljan, Kato and (especially) Bachmann close up and running.  With the promise of more to come, r-t-r 009 is becoming an established commercial option.  While I’ve modified some 009 items for my American HOn30 layout however, I’m not tempted to build a British Outline Narrow Gauge layout at present.
     
    Project B2.1 - American Outline Standard Gauge
     
    The American influence on my modelling is clear.  With my Dad still modelling in American HO, it’s a natural option for me to consider, and I made a fresh start around the turn of the year.  I have some building kits ready and waiting:
     

     
    And a selection of pre-painted freight car kits to build too:
     

     
    A couple of diesel locomotives (plus one awaiting repair) and a total of around 40 freight cars (including these kits and some needing new couplers) means I have all I need for a c.1970 freight based layout.  What’s the catch?  American HO Scale needs space - I’ve looked at small switching layouts, and while I enjoy watching them, have never quite persuaded myself to follow through on the layouts I’ve designed to actually build one.  I’d like to run trains at least 15 cars long, but with the four car train in my header photo measuring 44” my space and my ambitions don’t meet. I’m going to keep American outline modelling, but will it be this first layout?  Not sure at the moment.
     
    I have looked at North American N-Scale.  This KATO ‘Gevo’ was the smoothest and most impressive locomotive I’ve ever owned:
     

     

     
    (I like lights - this is DC too).  For test running it was superlative, but I found I could no longer read some of the detail on freight cars, and couldn’t properly see the couplings (far right in the photo below):
     

     
    Not a problem on an unscenicked test circuit, but I think I’d find it too fiddly / frustrating when anything broke / fell off on a layout, so I went back to HO.  I didn’t buy a second locomotive.
     
    American TT (also 1:120 or 1/10th of an inch scale) is impressive but has little commercial support, and modellers also seem to prefer the same N-Scale couplings.  A variant of these is used for North American Z-Scale, so I think HO is the smallest viable scale for me.
     
    One advantage of North American modelling worth noting before moving on: depending on the choice of prototype, it’s possible to dispense with station platforms (certainly high level ones).  This can save a lot of space on a model layout, something I’ve learned over many years while trying to convert American plans into impossible British outline layouts!
     
    Project B2.2 - American Outline Narrow Gauge
     
    One of my favourite all-time magazine articles was in the November 1981 issue of Model Railroader magazine.  Modeller Bob Hayden was designing a new basement-sized freelance 1940s HOn2 1/2 (now called HOn30) Carabasset and Dead River Railway.  It was my inspiration for returning to Narrow Gauge modelling in early 2021.  My modelling space at the time had moved up into our attic room, and I didn’t fancy carrying large Standard Gauge stock boxes (and buildings) up and down steep stairs when visitors needed the room.
     
    But HOn30 hasn’t really taken off.  On30 became popular when Bachmann introduced a range, and every On30 layout I’ve seen is wonderful.  But with limited space I’m not sure I’d want to move up to O-Scale, and with the Bachmann range now rarely seen on sale, a more realistic option would be to extend my existing HOn30 CAL.  I could do this of course, but with just a few freight car scratch-aid kits left to build I’ve found I’m content with what I have.  I have the two locos I’m happy with, and am not planning a bigger layout.
     
    …to be continued.
     
    In the next and final part of this blog post, I’ll look at the Continental European prototypes and models I’m interested in, then draw my conclusions for this section of my journey towards a model railway layout.  Until next time, thank you for your patience, Keith.
     
  16. Keith Addenbrooke

    Here’s one I made earlier - kits!

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction and Background
    Episode 3 - Here’s one I made earlier!

    Anyone who’s read my previous blog post might think I’d be content with a larger test circuit to run trains on.  Not so!  Many of the layouts I check out regularly here on RMweb and elsewhere are beautifully finished with amazingly detailed scenery, and quite often in finescale too.  I don’t aspire to such standards myself, but I do want to have a fully-sceniced layout.
     
    Our hobby teaches us a whole range of practical skills, as well as how to have fun operating a railway.  Before I review various ideas in my project list (in my next post), here are some of the practical things I do - and don’t - enjoy when modelling:
     
    Building baseboards - up to a point I enjoy building baseboards (it’s just I’ve built too many that have gone no further).  It’s an outdoor task here, and the arrival of better weather in April allows me to re-open my baseboard factory:
     

     
    Track Laying and Wiring - I don’t enjoy track laying much at all.  When I was modelling in OO, I spent some time laboriously cutting and re-spacing the sleepers on track for a small BLT test layout.  It looked much better, and used up some old Setrack, but for me it was the least enjoyable bit of modelling I think I’ve ever tried (sorry):
     

     

     
    It didn’t help that I then covered it with over-sized ballast I was using up.  It’s why that project went no further.  When it came to HOn30 I followed plenty of advice to make the task easier, but I still couldn’t say I enjoyed it:
     

     
    As a result, any track plan I actually think about building now is likely to be quite simple.
     
    As for wiring, I’m happy with two wires (DC) from a controller to the track.  I can follow traditional DC cab control wiring, but am easily flummoxed when it comes to live frog points, anything to do with DCC, or powered accessories.  One day I’ll use the soldering iron my wife bought me, but as it’s over thirty years since I last held one I’ll need plenty of practice before I feel confident (or even just safe).
     
    I’m not an exhibitor, so I can live with hand operated points - it’s not a cop out: often on American Switching Layouts it’s a point of realism to have the train crew (our “heroes”) operate switches as they come to them.  An interesting idea, which I quite like.
     
    Scenery - I’ve only ever tried basic ground cover, but I really enjoyed putting it down, and the transformation is well worth it:
     

     

     
    Scenery is something I’m happy to try more of, and I’ve bought a couple of beginners’ scenery and tree kits to help with this.
     
    Rolling Stock kits and scratchbuilding - I’ve made some Dapol ex-Kitmaster and Airfix static models, and more recently had a go at Narrow Gauge kit building and scratchbuilding, but there’s still plenty of room for improvement:
     
    Dundas Kits:
     

     
    Scratchbuilt:
     

     
    Resin on Kato chassis (weathered):
     

     
    Structures Kits (kits of buildings) - interestingly,  this is what I’ve found I enjoy most on the practical side of the hobby:
     

     
    I’m not a prolific builder, and I’m also quite happy following the instructions when assembling a kit.  I just enjoy it.  The significance for layout planning is that the scale I’ve found I’m most comfortable / enjoyable is HO.  I like making kits big enough to have presence, like the Swiss station above and this American one below, but I also find the fiddly bits don’t get too small (2nd below):
     

     

     
    I have also made a start with TT (1:120) and found that similarly OK for me (I don’t have great eyesight, and can be quite clumsy):
     

     
    My greatest area of weakness when it comes to kits is painting, but with structure kits I find I can work around that by painting most parts or sub-assemblies either when they are still on their sprues or at least prior to assembly.  Again, in HO or TT the parts aren’t too small (these are TT station lamps, clock and benches):
     

     
    I’ve only properly scratchbuilt one building - the small Santa Fe Combination Depot shown in my first blog post.  While it didn’t cost anything (its cereal packet card), it took three months - mainly because of the need to design and make each component of the building.  When I can afford to pay someone else to do that heavy lifting first by using a kit, I can focus on the assembly I enjoy more.
     
    We each have our own preferences when it comes to what we most enjoy.  This review shows mine.  As I turn towards my next post - the fourth and final part of my introduction and background - I’ll look at various layout options I have.  Of course, there’s nothing wrong in principle with making models in one scale and having a layout in another, but with limited space (and budget) I note the practical part of the hobby I get most pleasure from draws me towards HO and TT when it comes to a choice of scale.
     
    Until next time, I hope you have fun with whatever you most enjoy, Keith.
     
    (Note: the Models and some Photos in this review have been shared previously on RMweb)
     
  17. Keith Addenbrooke

    The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two (Part II)

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction and Background
    Episode 4 (part II) - The Leaky Bucket List and the Rule of Two
     
    In the first part of this double episode, I described the number of layout projects I’ve tried to start over the past couple of years as being like having a Leaky Bucket List.  Each time I thought I was getting somewhere something changed, so I started again with a new idea.  I want to break this cycle now I have a layout space I can use for longer, so I’m using this episode of my blog to review my options.
     
    I’ve already reviewed ideas for a layout following either British or North American outline, and I do have a future project for a TT:120 GWR Branch Line in mind.  For North American modelling, I have plenty of HO to play with but less space than I’d like.  I have a freelance narrow gauge mini-layout with an American flavour, but applying my Rule of Two tells me I’m not wanting to develop this further.
     
    The Rule of Two is my home made guide to interest in a project - while I own just one locomotive I’m actively exploring an idea, but when I buy a second I could start to run a small railway.  More than two means I’m thinking “this is it!”  Stopping at two means I’ve paused.
     
    I have two HOn30 locomotives (adapted 009 kit-built models) and two HO diesels (plus an old one awaiting repair).  I don’t currently plan to buy any more of either.  I don’t yet have any TT:120 rolling stock, but that’s OK as it’s a long-term idea anyway.
     
    What about Continental modelling?  I’m interested in German, Swiss and Austrian railways and model railways, and spend hours watching videos of them online (prototype and model).  My entry point was through Narrow Gauge, so this time I’ll start there:
     
    Project B3.1 - Continental Narrow Gauge
     
    When I reawakened my interest in Narrow Gauge modelling I was keen to explore American HOn30.  With little available commercially to get me started I turned to Austrian H0e, as it also runs on 9mm track.  I’d dabbled in H0e a decade or so ago, so my choice of locomotive was easy: a Liliput O&K MV8 0-4-0 diesel - the type I had before.  Beginning with a Peco Setrack 009 Starter Set, I dived in:
     

     
    I’m still keen on H0e, and while various trades in and out mean I don’t have a large collection of rolling stock, I do like what I have:
     

     
    All rolling stock is second hand, and I have the budget for a third loco if I see one I want.  As the photo shows, I also have some of the Peco ‘mainline’ narrow gauge track and points suitable for the kind of Austrian outline 760mm gauge trains I have.
     
    I initially looked at a layout inspired by the Zillertalbahn, but at the time found I got enough enjoyment doing the research and so didn’t progress with my layout plans.
     
    This taught me an important lesson: while I’d like a layout that doesn’t stretch the boundaries of plausibility too far, and follows a recognisable theme / prototype, I’m not wanting to commit myself to strict prototype modelling - impressive though it always is.
     
    Almost by accident I found myself looking at Swiss metre gauge railways, and in particular the network of routes run by the Rhätische Bahn (RhB), the Furka-Oberalp (FO) and the Brig-Visp-Zermatt (BVZ).  A year ago I was fully intending to build a small 1990s FO layout in HOm (12mm gauge).  I built up a decent collection of very good Bemo models (including, note, four locomotives).  A new squeeze on space however placed a limit on my ambitions, as is partly shown by this photo - taken when I had just two locos: both Furka-Oberalp Tunnel Motors (the complete class of two, as it happens. They were not actually used with Panorama coaches):
     

     
    The problem is this - to run proper length trains I needed space for four or five coaches, not three (as here).  I’d seen a very good exhibition layout running shortened trains.  It was excellent in many ways - and  much better than I could ever do - but after having watched a lot of prototype videos online I decided that short trains weren’t something I wanted to model in this way.
     
    On top of this, I wouldn’t have space for my HOn30 layout as well (seen propped up in the background).  I wouldn’t be able to easily run my H0e or HOn30 stock.  I decided that was my priority.  It meant parting with my H0m, which was a difficult decision I’ve often thought about reversing.  As it stands, a project including H0e would be very attractive, while a return to H0m now looks increasingly unlikely.
     
    Project B3.2 - Continental Standard Gauge
     
    When I was growing up, I saw Continental Standard Gauge railway modelling as the epitome of the hobby - but well out of reach for me.  Having experimented with H0m, I was happy to try European TT - part of my response to the launch of TT:120 for the UK.  I liked the feel of 12mm gauge track and bought some building kits and a bit of modern Tillig stock (incl. two locomotives).  However, I couldn’t find a plentiful supply of second hand coaches for the ideas I had, and when I needed to cut back on the projects I was trying to start I scaled back my ambitions here.  I still have the kits and am slowly working on a diorama as part of getting used to the scale:
     

     
    To solve the problem of also wanting to run 9mm gauge H0e trains on occasion, I’ve looked at late 1960s German N-Scale.  When no-one is  looking I could run any 9mm gauge train after all (minimum radius curves wouldn’t be a problem, as I set myself a 4th rad. limit).  I can still work with the ‘chunky’ Arnold-style couplings, and I think they don’t look too obtrusive on close coupled European coaches.  The quality I remember means that ‘retro N-Scale’ stock is now affordable.  
     

     


    I almost got to three locos, but the third one I bought (a BR Class 50 with Wannentender) turned out to be faulty.  As I want to be run North American stock as well, and had concerns about their couplings, I didn’t pursue N-Scale.
     
    Oddly perhaps, I remain fascinated by Z-Scale.  I think I’m less concerned about any detail I can’t see because I’m not trying to look for it!  Z-Scale brings a whole host of technical challenges, but I’m impressed with the models and layouts I’ve seen:
     

     
    (My photo - comparator above is 1:160 N-Gauge.  The freelance Z-Scale livery is from a Christmas set)
     
    While it’s unlikely I’d start a Z-Scale layout project, I may still have a dabble with some building kits to see how I get on.  There’s certainly room for something scenic, and while the couplers look huge, they fold together quite nicely and don’t look too bad (to me).
     
    This just leaves HO to consider.  I hadn’t planned to buy into European HO, until I saw this Roco HO ÖBB Taurus (c. 2000 - 2005) on sale:
     

     
    I knew from my N-Scale and H0e adventures just how good Roco products are, and this has not disappointed.  Before ordering it, I tried to persuade myself numerous times I didn’t need it, but it resisted all attempts to ignore it.  It has been followed by two more locomotives (yes, I have three), plus fourteen assorted coaches and a few wagons.  I’ve also been building a large 400 piece station kit (pictured in a previous blog post).
     
    Another important lesson: at this stage I’m following some helpful advice I was given when starting out in a new scale.  I’m buying items I like even if they are more loosely associated than I’d ideally want.  I can then refine my collection later, as my ideas crystallise.
     
    In my narrow gauge thread here on RMweb I’ve considered an idea for a Narrow Gauge / Standard Gauge interchange, inspired by Zell am See where the Pinzgauer Lokalbahn meets the ÖBB.  Mainline trains see a variety of Swiss, Austrian and German rolling stock, so it ticks that box.  The catch is the space needed - a full length European coach is 26.4m long, which is 303mm in H0.  Even a five coach train needs 175cm (69”).  Platforms can be lower, making it easier for them to be curved (the overhang / gap is less obvious).
     
    As with American outline, I’m well equipped to start a project in H0, and could incorporate both H0 Standard Gauge and H0e, but the space constraint I have limits my layout design options.  I want a continuous run, but not just a tail-chaser!
     
    Conclusion - How to Not Build a Model Railway
     
    That final point sums up my dilemma.  At the end of this first series of posts, I hope I’ve explained my desire to ‘break my duck’ and build a scenic model railway larger than my current HOn30 mini-layout.  I’ve described the kind of operating pattern I like - why a continuous run is essential - and noted that building kits (esp. of structures) is the practical part of the hobby I most enjoy.  
     
    Narrow Gauge obviously works for me.  For standard gauge, HO is the scale I feel gives the best combination of affordable product availability and ease of modelling, but a smaller scale would make a layout easier.  On the other hand, I find some aspects of detailed N Scale modelling / operating too small for my eyesight (so the same would presumably apply with Z).  You can see why I’m an advocate of TT, but product availability is an issue with my preferred prototypes.  How I might resolve this and develop a layout plan I’ll stick to will provide the material for my next series of posts.  At that point I’ll be starting to build a model railway.  Until then, have fun, Keith.
     

     
  18. Keith Addenbrooke

    Slim Shelby is my Hero

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction and Background
    Episode 2 - Slim Shelby is my Hero
     
    My all-time favourite book on railway modelling is A.C. Klambach’s “Operating Manual for Model Railroaders” published in 1944.  Writing under the pseudonym “Boomer Pete” Kalmbach interweaves practical advice still relevant today on cleaning wheels and track, ensuring coupler heights match and how to handle delicate models, with rich insights into the way the prototype operated, all couched in a knowledgeable writing style full of enthusiasm.  I spent hours pouring over Dad’s copy when I was a kid, to the point where I can still quote from it today, though I do now have my own copy - one kept well away from glue and paint!
     

     
    This is how Chapter 2 - “So You’re an engineer” begins:
     
    “Have you ever watched Slim Shelby coming into the station with the 5:15 ?  Have you noticed how he keeps the Pacific working steam until just about the minute she stops so that the slack between the cars is all stretched out and there’s no jerk as he starts off again?  And have you watched a freight train starting out?  Watch the care with which the engineer inches the throttle and judges the feel of the train so that he won’t jerk the rear end apart by taking up the slack too rapidly…
     
    …The conductor may be in command of the train but it’s the engineer who pulls the throttle and makes it go and that’s what you do when you run your model railroad.”
     
    I was hooked!
     
    I would also regularly read and re-read Linn Westcott’s “101 Track Plans for Model Railroaders” (Kalmbach, 1956), assuming one day I would build my own grand layout and never imagining for a moment that I wouldn’t.  I could cite other early influences from the pages of Dad’s Model Railroader magazines, such as Frank Ellison’s “The Art of Model Railroading” originally written in 1944 and later republished.  And I enjoyed the imagination Westcott and others invested in back stories for their layout designs, small or large.
     
    Dreams were being formed that would last a lifetime, the dreams I still hold on to today.  But there’s a catch.  A particular view of model railroading was being shaped for me without me ever realising.  And it’s this: for me, model railroading / railway modelling is ultimately about seeing trains run, more than it is about modelling a particular place for them to run to or through:
     
    There can be quite a difference between controlling the arrival or departure of trains at a given location, as opposed to driving a train while you watch it eating up the miles.  I’ve seen it described as being like the difference between “gods” and “heroes.”  The gods are those in ultimate control of everything that lies before them, while the heroes are down there on the journey, living the adventure as they travel from place to place.  It’s a metaphor, but one that makes sense to me, and I guess it means I’m with the heroes:
     

     
    Of course there’s an overlap, and many of us will enjoy both approaches to operating a model railway, but in planning a layout I’m more interested in having somewhere for a train to stretch its legs than designing a model of a particular prototype or location.
     
    How does this translate into the limited space (and budget) I have.  Frank Ellison suggested that “A run of not less than two scale miles seems essential” - and he was an O-Scaler!  That’s not the world I live in.  Kalmbach had a more modest idea, albeit one which requires more imagination:
     
    “A real railroad is built to carry traffic from one place to another.  A model railroad should be so planned that it will give an illusion of doing the same thing even if it doesn’t.  The simplest layout is a circle or an oval with a siding, station, or yards at one point on it.  That one yard or station can be imagined as both ends of the line and definite orders can be made up and carried out for moving traffic from the one terminal around the main line and back to the same point.” (p41)
     
    In practical terms - a continuous run (even if as part of an out and back scheme).  Fiddle yards didn’t figure - look through “101 Track Plans” and you’ll hardly see any hidden staging sidings even, although one track plan in Kalmbach’s own book had a scenic staging yard where a train could pause if needed.
     
    Not all the past projects on my “Shelf of Shame” (see previous blog post) had continuous run designs, but the ones that got furthest did.  Over the past couple of years I’ve updated my reading with some excellent modern sources, two of which are worth a mention here:
     

     
    Thomas Klimoski’s “Building the Right-Sized Layout” and Lance Mindheim’s “How to Design a Model Railroad” (which is not just about switching layouts).  But much as I enjoy reading about and watching US-themed switching layouts, I’ve not yet managed to remain interested long enough to build one.  For me, anything other than a continuous run design is a sure way to not build a model railway.
     
    At the same time, it presents me with a design problem I bang my head against every time I look at a new idea - end curves take up space!
     

     
    Next time I’ll look at another aspect of railway modelling I’ve discovered I enjoy, how this influences my choice of scale and gauge, and how it brings me back to the same problem I end with here.  Until then, have fun and keep modelling, whatever your aim, Keith.
     
  19. Keith Addenbrooke

    An Intro to the Blog & “The Shelf of Shame”

    By Keith Addenbrooke,


    Introduction and Background
    An Intro to the Blog - “How to Not Build a Model Railway.”
     
    I’d like to have a model railway.  I’m just not great at building them.  I do have a small layout, my grandly named freelance HOn30 Carabassett and Atlantic Lines (CAL).  It started life as a test scenic test circuit (1.0m x 0.6m) a couple of years ago and is fun to own and run.  It has shown me I can do this, but it was never intended to tick all the boxes.  I’d like to aim for something bigger.
     
    I’ve looked at a number of projects and ideas, had a lot of advice, help and encouragement from across RMweb and elsewhere, read books, watched videos and trawled the blogs of experts.  I’ve made numerous well-intentioned starts, a couple of dioramas, some kits and plenty of baseboards, but only the CAL has so far got much further than that.  It’s time for a change!
     
    I have some space, some wood, an idea (another one), and as much motivation as ever.  How far will I get this time…?  
     
    To understand why it’s a question worthy of a blog, I’ll begin by visiting “The Shelf of Shame”, the topic for this first blog post.
     
    Episode 1 - “The Shelf of Shame”
     
    “The Shelf of Shame” - it’s not a wonky switching layout or never-finished Inglenook, but the place where failed projects and fallen ideas reside, a concept I came across some years ago in another context to keep us humble and remind us not all our grand plans work out.  
     
    What’s on mine?
     
    My first layout, when I was aged 10 or so, was a tabletop British outline N-Gauge layout inspired by articles and plans from Model Railroader magazine.  No photos were ever taken of it (film was valuable in those days, and my little 110 camera didn’t have a flash anyway).  I never got as far as scenery or ballasting, preferring to change the track plan with increasing frequency instead.  The idea of progressing with a layout, then building another one, never dawned on me.  In the end it bit the dust when I thought I’d be able to rebuild it from the ground up to resemble an exhibition layout I’d really liked, in just three days* .  It never happened and I sold my N-Gauge when I got married and no longer had easy access to my Dad’s tools.
     
    Over the next thirty years I gradually built up a collection of British outline OO Gauge stock, eventually owning nearly twenty locos, more than forty coaches and a similar number of wagons.  Approximately half was devoted to the Great Western, while the other half was early BR steam.  A total change of career in the mid noughties meant my main ‘outside work’ commitment became my job, so my hobby took on a renewed interest.  A couple of layouts were started, one using Setrack and then one with Flextrack, but again neither progressed beyond track on bare baseboards.  Stock (and buildings) lived in boxes.  Both layouts were fun to run, but after our most recent house move in 2018 it was time to start again.
     
    Shortly after that I joined RMweb.  I’d been ‘lurking’ for a while, but wanted to join the discussion on the Great Model Railway Challenge TV Show.  After all, I could sympathise with anyone wanting to build a layout in just three days (* remember, I’d tried it - and failed).
     
    Once established on RMweb, I set about trying to plan a portable layout - the convoluted tales of my Great Western Adventure(s) are in the Layout & Track Design Forum.  I built / rebuilt sixteen baseboards for three different projects and a test layout (4 - 2 - 4 - 6), but only the test layout ever saw any track.  Constant changes in family needs saw my modelling space move around the house, and a change of plan on my part to pick up my long-standing interest in North-American Model Railroading.  To be fair, that interest remains alive, but I’ve not been able to settle on a track plan for the space I now have despite a re-start (and a re-stocking!).  My OO was sold off for funds.
     
    I tried scenery and scratchbuilding with a couple of cakebox dioramas in 2019 and 2021 - surprising myself with how well they turned out:
     

     

     
    Other dioramas and micro-layout ideas also sit on the shelf, over a decade after Carl Arendt published some of my designs.
     
    When I was moved up into our attic room a couple of years ago, a switch to Narrow Gauge made sense, and that remains my primary interest.  But my mind wandered again, from HOn30 and H0e to H0m (and back again).  Once used to 9mm gauge I had another look at N-Scale, but I can no longer see the detail (detail has got finer as well as my eyesight getting worse).  Fourteen baseboards for five more possible projects and the CAL followed (4 - 1 - 3 - 1 - 3 - 2).  I like TT and also dabbled in Continental TT before rationalising my list of projects (to try and make progress).  Two of my baseboards are being retained for a TT:120 project - I’d still like a GW Branch line.
     
    Last Autumn I even put on a show for the family so they could see what I had on the go.  I no longer own everything in this photo:
     

     
     
    (Note: American HO was in storage under the tables at this point).
     
    Why list all these?  At some point, I’m sure I’ll refer to some of the lessons I’ve learned and avenues I’ve explored.  But that’s enough for now.  In my next episode I’ll look at what I consider makes a model railway worth going for - and the joys and constraints that brings.
     
    Well, it’s either that or actually build something…
     
    Until next time, Keith.
     

     
×
×
  • Create New...