Keith Addenbrooke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peco Code 55 works on the same basis as their equivalent N-Scale offering: a double-webbed rail sunk into the sleepers.  Peco TT:120 left, Peco H0m right (passenger cars both European TT):

The webbing is then thicker for the Code 55 to disguise the illusion (chairs are modelled on the outside of the rail).  

Peco H0m top and Peco Code 55 bottom:

Hope that helps, Keith.

9 minutes ago, St Enodoc said:

With our next running session coming up on Saturday, I haven't done any physical work on the layout or stock for the past week. I haven't been idle, though, as I've been putting some time into the Paper Railway.

 

Now that there are enough coach and NPCCS sets, including the temporary coaches, to run the full sequence, I decided to start working out the track occupation for Paddington and Penzance, using the track occupation planning sheet and its sticky notes.

 

First I had to check that the sequence was, in fact, complete. This might sound trivial and, like all verification, checking that it would work was. The harder part was checking that it wouldn't fail to work and, in doing this, I found a small number of anomalies in the allocation of sets to trains. I think I've fixed these but until I do a dry run of the full sequence I won't know for sure. The most likely problem will be exceeding the capacity of individual roads at Paddington and Penzance, which will mean a bit of juggling. The other thing still to confirm is the platform occupation at Pentowan. I'll check both of these things before our following session in January - we won't be holding one in November as I'll be away . More on that topic later!

 

I now need to transfer the pencilled allocations to the master sequence spreadsheet. Once I've done that, I'll post it here (without the Pentowan platform occupation at this stage) so that the resident experts can pull it apart and tell me what they find.

The importance of the paper planning stage is not to be understated, so thank you for sharing it.  For those of us who haven’t worked on the big railway, it’s not always an obvious step to plan out in such detail - I’ve only occasionally read articles on ‘prepping for ops sessions’ in the UK modelling press (it seems to be a more common topic in the US).  

It is well worth the time and effort to get the most out of the layout - but worth noting perhaps it doesn’t just apply to large layouts.  I thought I had a design for a small US layout a few months ago until I tried plotting an operating sequence, only to discover I’d made a basic beginner’s error in the track plan and everything would grind to a halt within a few minutes of getting started.  On that occasion it spared me the pain of building a layout to discover my mistake when I was finished!

All good stuff, thank you, Keith. 

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

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

The design space:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have fun, Keith.

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

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

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

Continuous run or linear layout design ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traditional baseboards or ‘Cameo-style’ viewing box?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made up three standard sized boards using this approach:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 hour ago, rodshaw said:

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

 

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

 

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

Thanks, Keith.

13 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

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

I like that - a bit of style 😃!
 

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

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

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

Suspected case of overpackaging with last night’s delivery…

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorry, not a very good photo)

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

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

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

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

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

Summer hasn’t seen the usual modelling progress this year, due to family commitments.  I have however continued my occasional experiments with train lengths and viewing angles.  
 

My ‘big’ European idea has fallen foul of my space constraint (the story is in my blog - my fault for liking mainline European trains).  This means the pendulum is swinging back towards shorter trains - three fifty foot boxcars plus engine and caboose for example measure in at just over 3’.  With a four-axle diesel I do quite like the look of this:

I now have a range of photos of three, four and seven car consists to compare, which is helpful.

The loco incidentally is a Kato GP-35.  I found myself with some funds to spend, which is always dangerous, and unsurprisingly found I was spending far too much time on eBay (which I finally gave in and started using this summer).

To spring the trap I decided to play safe and picked up two Kato GP35 models (bought separately) - #3364 was preowned but brand new.  No marks or dirt on the wheels, perfect box and all the detail parts incl. handrails and horns still factory sealed:

Although the GP35s were built in the mid-1960s, the livery is a bit modern for my preferred 1970 reference point.  It is also after the class were re numbered (not sure when that was).  There is however a picture dated April 12th 1980 on rrpicturearchives.net of #3364 having already been repainted in this yellow freightbonnet livery though, so not too far out (and for Kato quality at the price I paid, a bit of a no-brainier to stop me dithering, being honest).  A happy customer.

I realise it’d be good for me to stop grabbing the horns by the bull and actually report some modelling progress in my next post, so until then, have fun.  Keith.

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Alternatively take a series of photos from a set height above the layout, (or from ceiling),

 

 

Then insert the photos into WORD and format as ‘in front of text’ and then select them all and resize them down and then move them around to create an aerial plan. You can tape it to a window or light box and trace a plan from it too. 

But is there, or is there not, hidden track in the tunnel?

(Looking closely suggests not, but if I remember the original plan for this one, and  look at the tunnel mouths, it suggests there could / should be?). Keith.

41 minutes ago, Chamby said:

 

It’s plastic axles (especially square ones) that are the real bugbears....!

Hands up everyone who had to read that twice to check it didn’t say square wheels.  I know I did.  Must be Friday.

3 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Very probably, Steve. It's marked

 

STEADFAST

MADE IN ENGLAND

5000V

 

The insulating tape holds in place a bit of the handle that cracked years ago.

Mine looks identical, but just says STEAD - guess I’ve got a slow one…and there was me thinking I don’t have any specialist tools for modelling with.  Well done with the couplings - they look very consistent, which I guess is key, Keith.

The past month has been taken up with other things (some of which - railway related - I’ll be writing up as a blog post).  This is something different.  As someone whose favourite locomotive colours are red and green, being a bit red-green colour blind means I don’t see the colours as others do.  I’ve always thought these Liliput coaches were red:

But I’ve now acquired a couple of the brand new ones through the 009 Society Sales shop, which are definitely red (right):

But for me the colour of the older wagon (left) has changed to brown / bauxite.  I now see it differently - and it doesn’t change back if I look at it without the new one for reference!  Have a good weekend, Keith.

Came across a SOO logo I’ve not seen before: large white angular SOO on a black italic background with a thin black border.  Loco was a (model) SD40.  Loco was white with a red front low hood.  Just wondered what era it was from?  Keith.

Sounds like a windy day: the pilot for the high level drone shots does a good job of holding steady while filming given the wind noise they were battling against 😀.

After all the hard work, great to see it come together like this.  Inspirational!  Keith.

New question: I’ve acquired an Exactrail boxcar with a loose weight inside it.  I can’t see how to open it up to sort it out.  Any ideas?  Any additional information that might be helpful - let me know.  Removing a truck didn’t seem to make any difference (so I put it back before losing the screw!).

I can’t see the join.*

Thanks, Keith.

(* cue Morecambe and Wise memories amongst our UK readers)

Looks like there’s been quite a pile up behind that caboose though!
 

Agree there’s no substitute for trial placing buildings when testing a new township scene - allows you to see how it looks from different angles far more effectively than it works with a piece of paper and pencil (or computer).  Keith.

Just seen something very familiar on the Pilentum YouTube channel - the layout comes across very well.  Well done @Robatron86.  Keith.

A really informative photo - at first glance it almost looked like the bits for a miniature live steamer! Will await the resumption with interest.  I see the loco is no longer a 7mt as in an earlier photo - a touch of classic workshop humour I figured.  Hopefully the drivers arms are somewhere around too, Keith,

For those of us who don’t exhibit, it all serves as a good reminder of the huge amount of effort and care put in to entertain visitors to shows.  Thank you for sharing the story here - and good to see the problems being resolved one by one.  Keep up the good work, Keith.

If I might add some thoughts, it’s an interesting starting question that’s been posed.  It’s also one with a number of different possible answers. Mathematically, as @Harlequin has noted, the theoretical minimum using an R2 (438mm) radius may be as small as a circle.  For running in purposes and testing couplings in ‘push’ mode in HO, I have on occasions done almost that:

But that was strictly for testing, not ‘operating’ in any meaningful sense.

There are also a range of aesthetic answers possible, where personal preference comes in.  If, for example, I want to be able to completely conceal my train as it turns round at the end of each run, then the ratio between radius and circumference comes into play.  To illustrate, I’ve taken the same four coaches, this time with a class 101 loco:

The rake of four, plus loco, essentially fills my R2 end curve - anything longer will poke out at the ends of whatever tunnel or screening method I use unless I increase the radius.

These are also shortened HO European coaches made for tight curves with a 1:100 scale length - they are 264mm long, not the full 303mm they should be for a 26.4m (86’) coach in 3.5mm HO scale.  I’ve compromised on car length to fit a four coach train (the minimum suggested) onto an R2 end curve, not something everyone would accept.  An OO Scale coach 264mm long is 66’ full size (so this would work with scale length 57’ footers however).

In terms of straight length, one big advantage with European models is the standard fitting of kinematic close couplings that tighten up on straight track:

Including a train length side makes my minimum circuit 438mm (x2) plus 1300mm long: 2176mm.  The circuit is 4 train lengths long (a bit less of a ‘tail chaser’ visually).

I also need to allow for clearance around the sides of the tracks. The table my sample end curve has been set up on is a standard 600mm x 1000mm IKEA table, for example, making my baseboard size 2.5m x 1.0m.

I’ve not yet added any points or other operating features…

Hope that helps, Keith.

11 hours ago, BWsTrains said:

 

Thx Keith,

 

this Is all that I get following that route, no "Privacy" option. Mysterious indeed is the world of RMWeb "blogging".

 

As it happens I've grown more comfortable having my Topics these days but at some point I really must get back to kit bashing the rest of my WC&PR coaches to finish off what I started in my other Blog.

 

Regards,

 

Colin.

 

 

 

Whereas I see:

Taking @Mikkel’s advice, I checked it out on both my iPad and my desktop (a Dell running Windows) and in my case I get the same Blog views and options on both.  I’ve added this to @Mikkel’s thread as non-urgent to await reply.  Hope that’s OK for now, Keith.