Keith Addenbrooke

Found it, thank you for the pointer - my apologies for the repetition, Keith.

Agreed - I did most of my growing up* on the line out of Birmingham Moor St (which has been built using a Minories design). We could generally tell which platforms the DMU’s would use depending on whether they were going to Solihull / Dorridge or Shirley / Stratford. I suppose my point would be that, if I was modelling a company / era that kept arrival and departure lines separate, Minories might not be the best plan to use. Although, of course, if you like it and it fits... __________ * Not sure where I’ll do the rest of my growing up, if it happens at all.

Did different railway companies have different practices with regards to separating or combining Arrival / Departure platforms? If modelling a terminus that kept them separate then I guess the flexibility / advantage of Minories reduces (other then the aesthetic). I guess it may be an ‘era’ thing? (My apologies if this has been covered previously - I’m only just keeping up with today’s posts, sorry).

Was there a modular version in one of the books, which added separate and different sized modules for an engine shed, a Junction, a goods depot (etc..?). From memory they all had minimum baseboards (ie: no space for scenery). I can’t remember if Minories was the terminus or another station? (Many years ago now I got rid of my CJF Plan books as I was spending my available modelling time reading and drawing plans and never building anything - it saved a bit of space I suppose). Platform widths can be another area for discussion / debate / selective compression - there are minimum prototype standards, but the combination of shorter trains (and platforms), viewing angles and low relief modelling can fool the eye in the modeller’s favour when it comes to width too. Harlequin has highlighted the original width of Minories as 9” for three tracks and two platforms (one being double sided). I suspect the platforms were very narrow?

A phrase I’ve come across in this respect refers to the Layout Designer’s “Optimistic Pencil.” I know I’ve worn my way through many packets of them over the years. With the ‘classic’ Minories I guess it shouldn’t be such a problem (clearances for the short engine stabling siding are perhaps the tightest pinch)?

So the question I wanted to ask about the fence at the front of the board is now about the fence at the back of the board. My modelling is nothing like as good as this, but I’d like to see what I can do? Are Wills kits “fiddlier“ than their Ratio cousins? Although my guess as to the board size sounds almost right - to be honest I thought it was a bit bigger than 48.5” x 13” - it shows how a sense of spaciousness has been achieved.

I believe it was the pier (or at least the island at the end) that was commissioned in the War. Could plausibly justify all sorts of strange wagon loads / tarpaulin shapes under a “Miscellaneous“ heading if so desired. (Off topic personal memory: I remember often visiting the pier as a kid to avoid the town centre crowds in Weston, although that was much later. From memory there was a small car park up the hill and a cafe on the walk down to the pier, where I once sprayed the first drink I was ever served with a straw - I didn’t know not to blow through it. I still learn by trial and error.)

Just saw this last night - this is great and I look forwards to seeing more: right up my street too. From what I can see, looks like the board is a tad longer than 4’ with the short Streamline points and Y points? The nature of photos probably emphasises the workbench backscene more for those of us seeing it for the first time than it does in reality, but made me wonder which side points to the sea? I also like the fence along the board edge: could I ask what make it is? (I’m going to need some for my own similar layout soon). Thanks, Keith.

I’ve just signed up to follow this thread - but even with lockdown I’ll struggle to read all 87 pages of backstory. At some point has Birlstone become Derngate? Is there a page to find a track plan? Help for a newbie. Thanks, Keith.

If the space to the left of the layout is a viewing area / space for a second operator an extension could be added with the spare board. If it is a loco works then mainly light engine movements might be appropriate, for which hands-off operation is fine.

A few years ago (I think in BRM) there was something about a company making the mechanisms you’d need to gently lower your layout from the ceiling to operating height. As long as you stand in the right place (an X on the floor?) the layout comes to you.

Repairing and preparing my baseboards over the Bank Holiday weekend has helped me appreciate the size of the project - for me this is a large undertaking. The open plan and the continuous run give me exactly what I'm after in the layout, but when it comes to track laying, ballasting and scenery, the same open design means there'll be no place to hide: there aren't any 'out-of sight' corners to practise techniques and enjoy learning from my mistakes. As an adjunct to the project layout, I've therefore also repaired and prepared a couple of 4' x 1' micro-layout boards I can put a small Branch Line Terminus on, to practise at each stage: IIRC correctly, I think I first saw the station design on a plan of an early version of the feeder branch line terminus for Leighton Buzzard Linslade on Rev'd Peter Denny's Buckingham (before it was rebuilt - I think using buildings from MkII Buckingham and maybe even a compressed track plan of said version too?). To be honest, it's not been a particular favourite among model Branch Line Terminus layout designs, but two things have changed my mind: 1. I'll be using leftover Setrack pieces - there is no budget for this extra module - and the genius of the design is that the Station doesn't have any 'S' curves. With 2nd radius Setrack points that'll be a really good idea, operationally and visually. 2. Using a pair of the larger radius Setrack curves (designed to go with Y points) at the fiddle yard entrance really helps breaks up all the straight lines, and gives that extra bit of space. This micro-layout is for two coach trains, and isn't intended to connect to the bigger layout, but I share it as the design has worked out better than I hoped for in what is really a test piece. I don't need a test track for running-in purposes, as the full layout has the continuous run, so this is more than adequate. The 8' total length means I can set it up in my same layout space. (Trains not drawn to scale - design train length checked against the Setrack Geometry). Keith.

Thank you for the whole summary - lots of really useful points and the layout really is a winner. With regards to the ‘scenic fiddle yard(s)’ idea one option I saw on the carendt.com micro-layout website a few years ago was to place the back scenes on alternate sides so that you could only see one or other of the micro layouts - rather than having them side by side (which could look more like a pair of dioramas). I share the idea in case it’s useful, but it really depends on two things: 1. How your ‘operating space’ is arranged - if it’s a shelf against a wall then that idea means you have to turn the whole thing round to use the other side. If it’s on a table, you walk round to the other side (for some proper “big layout” experience), and... 2. What you want. Quite a lot of published American model railroads have a small dock scene or wharf somewhere, so you might find a picture of one on a larger layout that could be modelled by itself as a micro-layout. Just a thought. Keith.

Thank you for the quick response and the reassurance: I called it right with regards to the Iain Rice book, and the book I mentioned I showed last year was definitely to promote it as an inspiration, with no direct quotes, photos or ideas copied. With the 1944 publications, the brief text quotes I included were referenced as I would in an academic type work, and were again to honour / publicise the works, not replicate them, which sounds OK with regards to intent. Thank you.

Could I ask about the following scenario: is it permissible to include a screen shot of the front cover of an unopened book? They can be seen on Amazon, for example (although Amazon will presumably have permission for them to be there), and often such images appear on eBay (presumably without express permission), so is an image of a front cover public domain information? Reason for asking: I recently referred to an Iain Rice Track Plan in a thread. It just so happens that said track plan was shown as a picture on the front cover of the book it was in. Had I included a picture of that front cover (I didn’t) would I have been in breach of copyright? As I would have been drawing attention to the detail in the picture - ie: treating the cover like content, I thought it better not to take the risk. It was also an American publication (Kalmbach 2009), but I don’t know if their rules are different. I did include screenshots of two 1944 publications, which I quoted from textually, in both cases attributing the quotes to the relevant sources) - I don’t know if the same 70 year rule which I believe we have on the UK is an international standard? On another occasion early last year I showed a screenshot of the front cover of a different American book, but I wasn’t specifically referring to the picture itself as part of my story - just referring to the book as an inspirational source. Just wanted to check I’ve not crossed the line - all the publications I’ve referred to here are American Kalmbach and I understand they take copyright very seriously as a commercial enterprise. Thanks, Keith.

Mark, I’ve just been catching up with the thread - as others have said, this really is on another level. I hope you’re enjoying it as much as we are! Keith.

...and then I started thinking about a narrow gauge version, either in OO9 with the existing buildings as suggested, or with larger scale scenery in O scale if the track centres still work. Perhaps as a ‘second layout‘ for someone wanting something different for a change, or considering a switch to narrow gauge modelling?

Would it be a fair assumption that a dairy would generate a much greater frequency of traffic than most other forms of branch line industry? My guess is that a small dairy would produce fewer wagon / tanker loads than a large one, but they would still need to be shipped out regularly (daily?) before the milk went off. Given that branch line model railways often have a traffic frequency very much in excess of prototypes, any industry with such a traffic pattern could be very attractive on a layout? That said, six wheel fixed wheelbase wagons such as some milk tankers may not like my tight 3rd radius curves?

An additional photo of the start position. After a recount, I believe I have a solution in 115 moves: I’d included a few uncouplings while stationary as engine moves, which saved a few, but I had the engine the wrong way round at the end so had to insert an extra trip round the wye in the middle of the sequence (when it was clear of cars). Of course, were this real, that would mean predicting the end point about 30 or 40 moves before finishing to plan ahead.

IIRC Bredon caused quite a lot of excitement when it first appeared in RM, as it showed what could be done, so it’s good to mention it here. I did make a passing mention to Bredon in my post on “Druthers” but didn’t develop the point further - and it’s always good to have a smaller plan that can be extended, particularly where space is tight. Good point about the engine shed, though I rather liked where Flying Pig placed it to break up the symmetry. When I get to that point I’ll do some visual experimenting before deciding I think. (I think your etymology for “Druthers” could well explain the term, thank you).

I don’t think there’s a dedicated Forum for Shunting Puzzles on RMweb, but here would seem to be the natural home for this one: my “baseboard” is just 3 x A4 sheets of paper after all. “Trains” are by Lego. ... and Micro Layouts and Shunting Puzzles do rather go together. It’s strictly just for a bit of light relief - (I painted some baseboards for a layout project this morning which are now drying). I must admit though I’d love to model this one day...and I have referred to this puzzle in another thread elsewhere on RMweb recently. Background: I first came across the track plan for the Sagatukett River RR in Kalmbach’s 1981 “58 Track Planning ideas from Model Railroader.” A reprint in a later 2010 Compendium (101 More Track Plans) identifies the original source as being MR March 1972 if anyone is interested (it’ll still be in copyright, so I’m quoting my source rather than copying anything). The model is for a delightful little short line, bigger than a micro-layout, but the accompanying article includes a fiendish shunting puzzle for one end of the line that has had me stumped for years (note: the 2010 reprint omits this puzzle). With a bit of time on my hands I’ve drawn out the puzzle to see if the only solution I’ve come up with works - I think it took me 116 moves... Let me take you to Equinox: Trains arrive from bottom right passing a quarry 1/4 mile from the terminus before pulling into Equinox, a small town with a small station, and a number of small industries scattered around a triangular yard. This is the puzzle: A short train has arrived at the Station consisting of an Engine, 3 Box Cars (Wagons) A, B (behind the station T) and C, with a Caboose bringing up the rear. The following shunting (or switching) moves must be completed before the train can depart - which it must do with the engine facing forwards to depart (having turned on the Wye) and with the caboose moved at the rear of the train: Freight Cars D, G and I will be in the departing train (in any order). Incoming car A is for the Warehouse Y, car B is for the Freight House U and car C is for the Woodenware Works V. Car E has finished stone to move from the Monument Works X to move to the Warehouse Y (it is too heavy to carry). Car F is now empty and needs to return to the Quarry Z. Car H has a load of stone to go to the a Monument Works X. Here are the railroad operating rules: Track capacity is given in brackets. I have drawn the layout using Parker Quink Setrack pieces to help. Additionally, a car can stop on a switch (point) or crossing if needed, but it will block the point. Each time the engine starts, it is counted as a move. The engine must stop before coupling, uncoupling or reversing. All freight cars must be moved by the engine - no “fly shunting” using ropes, poles, rolling under gravity or any other means is permitted. Cars can be spotted on the main line after or during moves: we are operating on a ‘one engine in steam‘ basis, though note this rules out a second engine coming to help. The suggested first move is to either back the train, or to uncouple the engine for it to run forwards - as the Caboose is standing on a point other options appear limited. ______________________________ If you’d like to build this as a model, good luck - I haven’t tried mapping it to see if it can be done with the capacities shown, but the original author Robert Silas proposed it as a proper track plan. Remember the wiring needed for a reversing Wye. Have fun, Keith.

Nobody was.

Nice ideas thankyou - several of my iterations had a small engine shed, but on the other siding of the pair: swapping it like this leaves more room for an industry: I think there’s room, so it should work where you have it. One advantage hopefully of having Flextrack sidings is that I can reconfigure them by eye when it comes to it, so I can see what I like the look of (I’m not constrained by Setrack geometry or straight lines). I’ve also held back from a detailed placing of goods yard infrastructure and buildings for the same reason. I could also shorten one or other of the left hand sidings to allow for a goods yard entrance too. I like the way you’ve kept the loading dock siding short and not been tempted to try and fit in any sort of bay platform, which would be out of character for this layout. The point could be where engines need to stop on my trains, with the attendant model railway risk of stalling, so for me the siding on the outer platform (at the rear of trains) works well, and is easy to shunt for tail end traffic. I guess a real station might have to put it where there was also road access etc. whereas I can work the other way round.

I like this. As you mentioned in my earlier thread, a Light Railway Prototype is an excellent idea for this kind of space: simple track layouts, short trains, maybe no connection to the outside railway system. IIRC, an old edition of the PECO OO Setrack planbook had a layout closer to 6’ x 4’ with a central operating well, and I think it featured on the front cover (ie: they had also built it). The sides were very thin!

Final Design marked out in Anyrail: there should be room for a low relief platform on the outer running line at the top station. The exact alignment of the 11" loading dock siding may change to a more gentle curve to give a bit more space. Where I have quoted a radius it is the minimum on that piece. Next stop: the workshop. Keith.