Keith Addenbrooke

If it's a vote, I say #2 the middle one, Keith.

Thanks. Just to clarify in case I've misread your post, my photos compare Code 70 with Code 100. I don't have any Code 83 (I had some a while back I got from @F-UnitMad but it has since been passed on to another RMwebber). Afraid I don't have any surplus good Code 100 now, the bits I've kept have previously been cut and pinned in an unfinished layout from way back, sorry. Keith.

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.

Wow! Most of the pictures I've seen of the Horseshoe have been in black and white (and when there were still four tracks too). Not sure I've ever seen on with such amazing fall colours before. Thanks for posting the link here, Keith.

My thanks to @Ian Morgan, @rekoboy, @Gordonwis, @DCB and @EmporiaSub for the responses and guidance: as always prompt, kind and informative (not just for me, but for others too I'm sure). The consistency across the responses is particularly helpful. Tillig Code 83 does seem to be available in the UK from some of the major suppliers, so may be worth a try, otherwise sticking with Code 100 is the way to go (as Gordon highlighted, it is really HO track after all, of course). I've therefore used a bit of spare time over lunch today to try the same two pieces of rolling stock on some Peco Code 100 - the photos seem to have come out better in the daylight, and the clearance looks quite visible. Fleischmann HO Carriage: Roco Professional Wagon: I've also dug out a couple of older photos of my own from a static HO cakebox diorama I made back in 2019: In both photos, both pieces of track are Code 100 Setrack - the left hand piece having had the sleepers adjusted to replace the sections designed for power clips and / or accessories before ballasting and painting. It shows the appearance can be improved, though note this was for an unpowered diorama so I didn't need to keep the rail tops or inner faces clean (note: it's not a big gap in the track at the back - it's a mirror). I'm really glad no-one suggested re-wheeling stock for finer track...some jobs will always be beyond me: Thanks again - at some point soon I plan to write up what I'm thinking about trying next, which will be the next post in my current RMweb blog. Have a good week, Keith.

I'm wondering which Code H0 track to use for running some European models manufactured in the 1980s / 90s? Is there a recommended or common range used here in the UK when modelling standard gauge lines? I've been a contented user of Peco Code 100 track for OO and HO, but am now wanting to switch to finer scale track. I've been trying Peco Code 70 HO US outline track this afternoon (details in the USA & Canadian Railroads Forum here). It's great for my US outline stock, but my wider flanged European rolling stock finds it a bit too fine. Comparing flanges shows this is no surprise: The European wagon in that photo (top) is an older Fleischmann model. I've had a go at taking a photo of a similarly wheeled Fleischmann carriage to try and show where the flanges touch the spikes holding the rails in place: The close-up photo isn't very clear, but hopefully shows enough. I've now discovered it's not just older stock. This is a newer Roco Professional Range butterwagon, which also touches the spikes as it crosses them: I accept I'm trying European models on US outline track, but I don't have any Peco Code 75 finescale track (for example) to try. Would that be OK? Another option that might make my life easier (though not realistic I'd imagine) would be Peco Code 83 US outline track. Just after any advice. I'd prefer to use Peco if possible for availability (and cost) here in the UK. All thoughts appreciated, though I've never handlaid track and probably don't have the tools, skills or patience for handlaid points. Thanks, Keith. (My apologies for the poor photos - not very helpful, sorry)

I don't think this has been covered in detail so I hope this is OK - my apologies if I've missed an earlier analysis. My plans for American HO had included a compromise choice to use up some Peco Code 100 Streamline track I have. When painted and ballasted I figured it wouldn't look too bad (the Code 80 on my H0e / HOn30 mini-layout looks OK to me). That was until I took this 'end on' photo for my own American modelling thread: I haven't been able to unsee the width of the rails! My local specialist model shop were happy to let me compare unboxed Code 70 and Code 83 Peco flextrack alongside some Code 100 (we included Code 75 as well). For the kind of lines I'm looking at Code 70 is appropriate, and looked the part, so I bought some to try. For anyone who's not yet seen it, this is what I've learned. First off, a much happier end on view: Comparing the Code 70 to my Code 100 shows just how much of a difference there is: Comparing a #6 switch (bottom) with a long radius Code 100 point (top) - note the Code 70 switch has a continuous switchblade. It's spiked about as far as the hinge in the other point, with the rest to the turnout free to bend when switched. I don't know how durable it will prove, but I like the look in close up photos: Did I encounter any problems? Just one boxcar needed the Kadee coupler 'brake hose' lifting to clear the switch, but it had slipped. How about older rolling stock: The horn hook on this older tank car did catch on the switch blade. I'll be swapping it for a Kadee anyway, but a gondola I have with a shortened hook had no problems: The only piece of rolling stock which had problems on the straight track was an older B&O hopper - bumping along. A quick look confirmed it has larger flanges, which was no surprise once I noticed the axles were stamped "Rivarossi" (on the left): Replacement wheels should fix this - the trucks look worth keeping: note the separate metal suspension springs - not bad for a model probably dating from the 1970s (or earlier). None of my US produced rolling stock had problems, including all the Athearn blue box and older Roundhouse kits I have. Everything glided beautifully along the track and through the switch. The flextrack is a lot less rigid than the Code 100, and there has to be a risk of rails 'springing' out of the spikes if not handled carefully, but overall I was easily convinced by the look and performance of the track (convinced enough to share it here). The only downside: my Fleischmann Epoche 1 German rolling stock won't run on this due to bigger flanges: But for American HO I think I'm sold on the product. Hope this helps, Keith. (My apologies for the poor close up photos - I've not found a way of clearly transferring them from my phone to my laptop while shrinking them to a smaller file size. My thanks to the staff at Hattons of Widnes for their in-store help)

Thank you @Klaus ojo, I expect I will have a lot of questions about Epoche 1 railways where I will appreciate your knowledge. I will make a lot of mistakes, but the trains are quite beautiful to watch, Keith.

Me neither, Keith.

If you're into Photoshop, then add some sky above the backscene to that final photo and you'll have a wow of a picture I'd suggest. Nice start to the weekend! Keith.

Thank you. Now I understand it's due to a stocktake, I wouldn't expect the removal button to reappear until they're done counting. I had a problem a few weeks ago that fraud on my credit card meant my Bank cancelled it and issued a new one. It meant I couldn't use the remove button on some small items I had to cancel from my Trunk, as the system couldn't then do a refund back to my card. Hattons processed the removal manually for me instead (refunded to my bank a/c same day). It was very efficient - I really appreciated it took Hattons extra time and effort on my behalf, due to no fault of theirs (or mine - the fraud was completely unconnected, just to be clear). I did then replenish my Trunk with other items, the ones I've now happily received. I was very grateful, Keith.

Thank you - makes sense. I'd processed my Trunk for shipping last Friday evening, so wouldn't have qualified for an email. I note the reference to Stock Take dates I'd previously referred to in the Trunk FAQ's has now also been updated with a more general explanatory note so it all fits together. As a customer of Hattons for many years it's helpful to understand - and the bubble wrap comes in handy in the run up to Christmas too. Thanks, Keith.

Out of interest, could I just ask if this means the "Remove item" option has reappeared? (My trunk is currently empty as I've had my items shipped). The website dates for stocktaking suggest a different timetable - has Hattons confirmed that was the reason? Just curious in case it happens again. On the subject of bargains, my latest purchase would fit that criterion: an HO InterMountain 60' boxcar that seems to be in mint condition (based on opening the box when it arrived). Paid far less than I have for other eqiivalent products recently. Very happy, Keith.

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.

A trick I've been taught for small components that can easily ping their way to oblivion is to thread a length of cotton through the centre hole - if they do then ping, they can't get far. Once the relevant operation has deen performed, the thread just pulls out. In my case it was specifically for HO scale Kadee coupler springs, and I must admit it works - as long as I don't lose the spring when threading it! Don't know if it would work for items like the bush you describe, but can't see why not. Hope it helps, Keith.

Hi there, I've only scratchbuilt a few wagons (in H0e so not too different to N scale). One thing I learnt early on was to use a double thickness base layer for the chassis to reduce warping - whatever thickness of styrene you're using. Of course, any reinforcing helps add weight, so is no bad thing. Good luck with the build - looks to be a very neat start, Keith.

I must admit when I made a couple of these kits I didn't even attempt to cut the glazing to fit each window frame separately - I just put a glazing strip along each side. Well done for doing the job properly, Keith.

Hi Mark, you’re a much braver man than I am, but I look forwards to learning from your build. Thanks for sharing, and well done for getting started - often the hardest step! Keith.

I think some of the coaches may be the slightly shortened 1:93.5 length, but I’m not sure from the photographs. Best thing is to cross-reference the product code with other sources to check. To my mind the prices look reasonable for today’s market - and if a 20% discount is applied then could be good value indeed. Can sometimes be worth making an offer on a ‘buy it now’ listing on eBay too - sometimes the difference between recommended offer prices as against list price is significant. Hope that helps, Keith.

I also have a couple of examples of coaches with brakeman’s cabins too: I’m afraid my knowledge of the period is really minimal, so I’d welcome any more insights from others, but it seemed relevant to this thread to show it’s not just freight wagons. Hope that’s Ok, Keith.

Some very nice trackwork on that layout too - really like the gentle curves, Keith.

Thanks - the bulk buy ones I have are 5mm wide, which is quite wide in HO (about 17”), especially when horizontal - but when vertical I think I can get away with them that wide more easily (I have started a structure where I split them but it is a rather thankless task). Keith.

Very nice. A blacksmith’s is a building that invites interior detailing. Can I ask how wide the planks are on the kit - it looks like the sort of thing that could be copied using coffee stirrers (and time)? Just wondered, Keith.

Thanks for the information - very useful. I’d agree that a 12” aperture is a bit tight and a few more inches should help, Keith.

Good spot Paul. Based on our weather here this morning, I’ll guess it’s probably raining in Manchester for the welcoming committee as well right now? Keith.