Keith Addenbrooke

Ok, so I put off ballasting until I have time to set up a workstation I can leave out while it dries in place, and put together the building I want instead. You can see how the source kit has been modified by comparison with the photo at the end of the previous post. I inserted clear plastic in front of the printed card window frames for a simple glass effect. The printed door supplied looked too over-sized to pass for HO scale, so I used a corrugated metal sheet print from the BRM kit as this is featureless. I wanted a run-down but not disused appearance, so the doorway (and one window) have been boarded up from the inside - if the building was disused and boarded up externally, I'd expect any remaining windows to have been broken too. I've also gone for a low-relief building rather than the fold-down building flats I'd planned as the model needs to be viewed side-on as well as front on. A design for a railroad overbridge has also been mocked up in card and gives the effect I want. I've had to cut away a parapet I left across the bridge to get a low-enough viewing angle for the reflections under the bridge (I'll need some railings instead).

After a few weeks marvelling at the wonderful ideas being developed by some very creative and talented cakebox modellers, the chance to make progress on my little model is on the horizon, with half-term just around the corner. Much of what I learn is by trial and error, so my ability to make lots of mistakes could be a blessing... I found some sheets of 1/4" MDF (left by a previous resident) in an outbuilding, suitable for a small baseboard. It's not too obvious from this winter evening photo, but my first lesson reminded me that, even 35 years after 'O' Level woodwork, I still can't cut a straight line: something I'll need to bear in mind for future, larger projects. NB: The coffee tin really is big: just shy of 7" tall (this is an American model) The roadbed is just corrugated card painted grey, while the gravelled area to either side came from a roll of "Premier Cork Underlay" I had. I don't know if it's still available: the sheet I found is priced at 2/- !!! Not sure why it's double sided? The main problem was rolling it flat after, presumably, at least 48 years in the packet. I've made up some cereal packet box frames for the retaining wall and building on top, revealing two more basic errors (D'oh!). First: I forgot to include a parapet on top of the wall (there'll be a fence on top, but a parapet would also be conventional), and second: after carefully bracing the inside of my box frame with thick card formers, I then stuck all the spare brickpaper I had on the back! Fortunately, building each part separately (in case of mishaps), all I need to do is turn it round. The building will be created from a downloaded BRM freebie from a couple of years ago that I never made - the original was for a 4mm scale Engine Shed Office, and while I've decided on a 3.5mm scale low relief warehouse, modifying it with a more typical American flat roof should look OK. One of the most common problems with card kits is achieving 3-D relief, but with US buildings often not displaying prominent external drainpipes (for example), I'll be covering the printed-on ones. Under the heading of things I wouldn't have guessed, it would appear that some standard brick sizes in the US are actually smaller than in the UK. Working to a scale 7/8ths the size, I should therefore have downscaled this kit by a bit more than that before printing it, but given the cost of printer ink I'll live with the difference. Next step: ballasting the track and settling on a suitable final design for my second railroad-related item, the overbridge. Traditional brick arches aren't as common in the US from what I can tell, but I want something fairly non-descript as it will be reflected multiple times in the final model.

Had a quick scan through this afternoon - looks like another excellent edition with a strong balance of things I want to read when time allows, thank you all.

Wow! That is absolutely brilliant - an amazingly creative idea, perfectly executed with such attention to detail (an excellent advert for 7mm modelling). Thank you, Keith.

Reviewing the previous post, it therefore looks like the two railway related items will need to be: 1. The single track that forms the centrepiece of the diorama 2. The railway overbridge which serves as the viewing point. Looking at the cardboard mock-up also shows how I can break the project down into sections, so I can build each one in turn (one per week). This will allow me to try out various ideas at each stage without risk to anything else, bringing it all together at the end. With limited time I can also pace myself, and this will show me how long it might take to build a larger model, maybe even one day a layout! My six pre-built items will therefore be: 1. Ballasted single track - HO Scale 2. Retaining Wall 3. Railway overbridge 4. Any detailing of the top surfaces of the bridge / retaining wall. 5. Building flats / backscene up to 6" total height 6. Small embankment / city park section __________________ PS: Looks like the 1830 Liverpool to Manchester is running very late...

First off: thanks for the various acknowledgements and advice so far - it's helpful and encouraging (and gives me some options as well). Having drawn a paper diagram I'm happy with, I've now made a simple mock-up of the proposed model from a used cereal packet. This shows that leaving sufficient clearance under the bridge for the smallest US loading gauge (AAR Plate B), leaves no space within the allowable 6" for a further drop in the foreground (for a small dockside, for example). The photos instead show a small embankment: going back up rather than further down. More significantly, the exercise confirms that widening the bridge for an inset street track restricts the view down the line too much: Halving the width of the bridge from 2" to 1" renders a significant improvement, and gives a view not much different to the very first paper mock-up (which had a 1/2" bridge when testing the concept): The narrower the bridge, the better the view when waiting for a train.

49th Street Bridge It hasn't taken long to settle on the idea of a bridge as a viewing point. A simple paper mock-up of a single track overbridge shows that the multiple reflections still work OK: This was then widened to look more like the calendar photo posted previously (using the "haircut principle" that it's easier to cut more away than put it back, even though this was preferred look): A quick internet search shows that Gravesend station in Kent has just such an approach, with multiple overbridges, but I've decided to stick with a US-inspired approach, using John Pryke's 2000 Kalmbach book, "Building City Scenery." Chapters 2 and 3 on Backdrops and Scenic Modules are particularly helpful, but copyright means I'll just share the cover: So I now have a plan, developed using my preferred technology of a pencil and ruler. There are still some areas to clarify, but getting started (and really getting started) should be my next step. I'm not sure what a crastinator is, but I've been a pro for far too long...

Hi. Has there been a BRM Express since 30th Nov 2018? Something I read about the 2019 Cakebox Challenge suggested there has been - if so it looks like I didn't manage to register correctly when I tried updating my preferences in my World-of-Railways account at the end of November as I've not had anything. I asked the question on the cakebox challenge thread as I couldn't find a generic BRM Express topic / thread to use but should probably have posted it here instead, sorry. I have checked for spam - in my email and kitchen cupboards...

There's always something I've not considered - no sooner have I paused to spend some time working on scenic ideas for my cakebox, than another thought crosses my mind: I need to explain my preferred viewpoint in a way that can also be reflected multiple times, not just the trackside scenic treatment - while I've often looked into the far distance while waiting for a train on platforms, by level crossings (roadside) or on bridges, I've never done so while invisibly suspended some 20 feet or so off the ground. Fortunately, it just so happens that the following scene from downtown Chicago is a January 2019 calendar photo on our wall this month. Replace the Chicago River with a railroad cutting and the multiple bridges are there in situ. They're not quite identical, going into the distance, but near-to look very similar, even down to the control towers (OT: I believe they are all lifting bridges). I'm not suggesting I'd ever be able to model anything this impressive - but when a prototype is needed, one can always be found!

With a bit more spare time - and lousy weather outside this afternoon - I've split the mirror I bought this morning (carefully scoring and re-scoring the back with a Stanley knife until it could be snapped cleanly in two). Serendipitously, my undersized cakebox turns out to be the perfect size for test photos using a standard single straight of Settrack: Getting the ideal angle for photos of the concept is a bit more fiddly than I'd like (a deeper box with larger mirrors might be easier), but this captures something of the desired effect. It will help in determining what kind of scenic treatment to go for. So that'll be it for a few weeks I expect, while I try out and refine some scenic ideas. _________________________ PS: With better curvature than here a complete 'pizza layout' could appear to fit into a cakebox - a circle model train track waiting for a train to be placed on the track - round a Christmas Tree for example.

A great piece of advice on RM web for anyone planning to share modelling progress on the Forum, is to make some progress before putting up the first post. I should have got further than acquiring a cakebox! Seeing my musings staring back at me highlights a glaringly obvious question: what am I aiming at? Reading other postings flags up another issue for a late starter - as well as lacking experience, I don't have a box / collection / supply of bits and pieces to use. Where now? I was given some Model Railroader back issues to catch up with over Christmas, and flicking through them last night gave me an idea: mirrors! There's nothing new in using mirrors to expand scenes, but seeing one used to capture the enormous size of a US building reminded me of something from my grandmother's bathroom many years ago. There were matching wall mirrors on either side of the room that created the illusion of an infinite space. Could I place one either side of my cakebox, to create the illusion of looking down a straight line that disappears into the far distance - waiting for a train? At this point I must offer my apologies to anyone who used this idea last year - I've not seen all the entries, but this will be the basis for my attempt.* Here is a mock-up, using a borrowed bathroom mirror on one side, and a small non-glass mirror I bought this morning on the other (the intention is to halve the size of the non-glass mirror and place one piece on each side). The first photo shows the set-up for the test: Move the camera to a position at the right of the set-up, and the second photo taken peeping over the mirror shows that the idea could work: * It still doesn't say exactly what kind of scene I'm aiming for, or what the second piece of railway equipment besides my straight track will be, I've several ideas (all untested as yet). The challenge of course will be to create a real scene with some interest that doesn't give itself away when reflected multiple times. Incidentally, a close-up of the ruler reveals an approach to measurements I've not seen before - look closely at the length of the 2nd and 6th inches!

Next comes the need for an idea. Level crossings seem popular, so my first thought, of a Rail Replacement Bus at a level crossing (bluff or double bluff) isn't that original - crossings are being much better done by others: if I'm to contribute anything useful, I'm just aiming at the: "see, it can be done" level. My wilder ideas began with two dinosaurs in a country setting (they have a long wait for a train, but don't actually know they're waiting for a train - so not eligible). Next stop is the New York City Metro A train "Waiting for A-train" as I think it stops at the Museum of Natural history (more dinosaurs?) as well as reaching out to JFK airport - a flight of fancy which only explains why I don't ever get round to modelling anything. Back to basics. According to the Kalmbach's Operating Manual for Model Railroaders a train is only a train when "displaying markers" so a locomotive without headcodes or lamps might be waiting to be a train (it would show I've been reading BRM long enough to have learned something from the good Mr. Wright). Think again. I have a recently-built signal box with signal man installed, but he's not very visible at normal viewing distance (and I've glued the roof on) With the steps, it takes up a lot of my 7" though. A smaller building that could offer a lineside scene is the recent BRM cottage - I've coloured the card edges since this appeared on page 40 of the Feb '19 BRM (it needed nothing more than an ordinary HB pencil to make a big improvement), and added a gentrifying porch from another Metcalfe kit (the brickwork doesn't need to match, as it's clearly a later addition). My point: it's worth having a try, and it'll be good practice for that day when...

Here goes: I've been a keen follower of railway modelling for over 40 years, I've not got as far as anything that could be classed as scenic modelling. I've had many good intentions, and learned a lot, but there comes a point where I ought to actually give it a go. I don't expect to trouble the judges, but I'll see if I can get past "Go!" So, I've been to the bakery and acquired a cakebox. Mine came pristine (ie: without a cake), but doing the sensible thing first and checking my measurements I find that cakes where I live seem to be smaller than in my native West Midlands: my box is 7" x 7" x 3" tall.

If you airbrush the models, will they lose the extra, or does that only happen in fashion / celebrity publications? ___ I've got the DVD - I'd not considered height as a factor in forced perspective for viewers, but Mr Parker is 8.7% taller than Mr York, so a layout will presumably look smaller next to Mr P?

As some of the contributors have already noted, the answer depends on many factors. Twenty years ago I bought a set of standard 4' x 2' (nominal) 12mm ply boards from a well-known DIY store, which I braced with nothing more than 2" x 1" softwood underneath the four edges (ie: no intermediate cross-bracing). On the plus side, they have survived 7 house moves, been stored loosely upright for nearly all that time (mainly in garages) and remain true and flat to this day. I have on occasions briefly put my weight onto them without harm (to me or the boards). So, in that sense, they've proved durable if that's a priority in your plans. On the down side, they turned out to be much heavier than I thought they would. They're also not nearly as portable as I'd hoped: the 4' x 2' size is bulkier than I'd imagined it would be - the warehouse wasn't a good reference point for the rooms in my house, so the convenience I experienced when making a quick purchase one lunchtime has come at a cost down the line. I can't comment on the effects of adding scenery (both weight and liquid) as I've never got that far, I'm afraid. Just some things to bear in mind I wish I'd known at the time. Hope it helps.

Thank you - I still have my print copies of the Edgeworth supplements (I thought it was a good series at the time), so I should dig them out too. I'm sure I'll have some more detailed questions, but those would be for a different thread. Keith.

A plea for help I guess from those in the know / on the inside: have I missed it? Noting that there's article in today's e-newsletter on plywood baseboards which I'd be very interested in seeing, I've logged into my account and updated my preferences accordingly to start receiving the e-newsletter, but have only been able to do so in the past few minutes (when people who can have gone home for the weekend). I'm therefore wondering if I've missed this edition - and the article I'm after. If I have, is there another way of accessing the content? It sounds like there's some fun stuff too, but I'm focusing: it may have taken 40 years for me to realise that failure to ever build a proper baseboard has probably hindered progress on any of my many layout ideas, but I'm getting there. Mind you, the amount of paper I've drawn on over the decades could also have made up a decent quantity of wood too...

Thank you for the video - great to see the layouts up close, and to hear the sound of young children taking an interest (certainly in the soundtrack to Santa's holiday, even if not quite so happy sounding in the background to the final section with City of Tiers, I hope the parents enjoyed the show). Not having been at Warley, it's nice to see something of what it was like. True, the children may be more interested in Santa than other aspects of the modelling - but he brought me my first train set, I'm sure.

Pulling these points together, one modelling attraction of Fairford is the roadbridge just before the station platform. It provides a good scenic break, as per Harlequin's designs that lead this thread, and as appears in Roy Link's 1978 article too (I admit I was amongst those influenced by it when it came out). If a curved entrance to a right-angled fiddle yard is required to fit a room, this can be easily hidden and therefore as tight as rolling stock can negotiate, even when not part of a prototype that would follow the rules mdvle outlines. However, I wonder if the roadbridge also explains the kickback arrangement - there simply isn't room for it at the other end of the platform? Keeping it as part of the building work for the station platform presumably simplified the task of building the station, as well as making access from the station forecourt / road entrance easier too. This might would explain why such arrangements can look like a bay platform elsewhere (when none is needed)? If this is the case, then what I might see as an awkward siding for operation has a number of other reasons for it - that were of greater practical consideration to Victorian 12-inch to the foot layout builders? I'm still curious as to the other kickback siding at the turntable end of the goods loop. My best guess is that it might just be for siding capacity / to help with shunting. The map doesn't seem to give any clues as to other uses - the location adjacent to the turntable looks a co-incidence?

With regards to Fairford, what were the kicbacks by the station and turntable used for? Is this covered in the Karau and other books on the line, the platform end one looks like it's for end loading?

Oops, still learning how to use RMWeb (esp. on a phone). Introducing a right angle gives the potential for a longer run, but raises new issues of the curve, eg: radius, rationale. Trying to think of an example (St. Ives is different as the station is curved), but that would be a new topic.

Thank you for sharing this - looks great! As with other commentators, the iterative process has drawn out the different aspects of the (necessary) compromises well. Forgive me if this is a well-known tweak* but it's the first time I've seen the traverser with a point for the final (bottom) siding that effectively means you can have a 7-road storage yard without needing to bash a hole in what may presumably be a wall behind the layout. I'm looking for a GWR BLT plan to turn into a 4mm / OO layout that'll be more than the obvious - and this could have done it - but unfortunately my wall is only around 10' long - so I think I'd lose too much squeezing Fairford further, more's the pity. Keith. * I've only been on RM Web a week, so have no hope of picking up everything in the assembled body of knowledge any time soon!

Greetings! After several years of occasionally perusing RM Web, it's time to join the party. I've been interested in railways all my life - it's inherited - and have collected models from the age of 9 or 10 (several decades ago now). I grew up on a mixed diet of my Dad's 1970's Railway Modeller and North American Model Railroader magazines, so it's no surprise my two main influences are GWR Branch Lines and American layouts (I rather like 8' x 4' starter layouts - though understand why that's close to heresy for some). I've had many ideas and had a couple of attempts at pinning track to bare baseboards over the years, but never got beyond that, despite my best intentions. I am now trying Metcalfe kits and some basic rolling stock (the Ratio coaches in the photo are mine, though the 14xx is a second hand Airfix model). Some years ago my real passion became my job, at which point my interest in railway modelling as a way to relax became more relevant, but I'm still trying to work out where I can put a layout that will meet my mixed interests in a home that is also my weekday workplace - or am I just not very good at actually being realistic about what it takes to get things done and getting on with it...

Sorry I couldn't add a clarification when this topic was running in May* but the mystery layout builder wasn't me - although Shortliner was kind enough to provide a link to some ideas I did develop with Carl Arendt 15+ years ago. My contribution was really mathematical / theoretical / just for fun: I realised it is possible to fit a double-track continuous run layout in OO/HO using standard track components on a baseboard not exceeding 4 sq. ft. (Carl's limit for a micro). It's all in the maths: cut a hole radius 13.5" into a circular baseboard of radius 19.1" and you're cutting a hole with an area of 4 sq. ft. into a board with an area of 8 sq. ft, so the remaining doughnut / donut must also have an area of 4 sq. ft, onto which a double track circle of standard Peco / Hornby 1st and 2nd radius track will fit. Carl thought we could improve the idea so used Roco track components and an off-centre hole to create a track plan to which I then added a couple of scenic / operating suggestions he felt were good enough to publish. Of course, 1st radius curves (and equivalent) aren't really suitable for modern r-t-r stock, and I never actually tried to build the layout (or climb into the hole), but it's nice to know the idea still resonates. Keith. * I only signed up to join RM Web this past week