Keith Addenbrooke

1 hour ago, AndyB said:

But there are some nice photographic backscenes available, e.g. 

ID Backscenes ID-P260A.

 

Either way I think a backscene would probably need to be removable. 

Andy

Hi Andy, thanks for this - and for pointing out the ID backscene (I’ve had a look and P260B might be closer to what I’m after). A removable backscene is definitely the kind of thing I’d be after: quite often mountains are in the background of the prototype videos I watch.  Thanks, Keith.

35 minutes ago, James Hilton said:

Take a look on Dave Blazejewski’s Flickr for some inspiration. There are some smaller prototypes with short trains that operate on an industrial lead in Anchorage… that’s where I’d start… ditch the passenger cars and go for a layout a bit like my Beaverbrook, more on the blog under the Beaverbrook label:

https://paxton-road.blogspot.com/search/label/beaverbrook

 

The APU spur - as good as a section of street running!  Interestingly, if I've read the track diagrams correctly, this runs from the main close to the passenger depot, rather than from the freight yards.  Definitely agree it would make a very nice basis for a switching layout (afraid I do rather like passenger trains though)

There are other industrial leads on the other side of town, across from the freight yards, including one which I think is for oil unloading with a full reversing loop (three track).  Thanks for the link, Keith.

Thanks Andy - “Round and Round they Go!” on the legendary Carl Arendt’s website does indeed mark my one possibly unique contribution to our wonderful hobby: working out you could fit a double track continuous run circuit in OO / HO onto a micro-layout baseboard using no more than 4’ sq.  (it does need 1st radius curves, but we’re going back far enough that they were still a thing!).

Glad you enjoyed Frutigen’s layout - as you say, the schematic does indeed mirror one you’ve also suggested.  I’m planning to take a bit of time now as I (re)consider my options, so the next blog entry may not be for a while, though I did manage to get into the garden and do a bit of baseboard painting yesterday now the sun has come out.  Thanks, Keith.

39 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Keith, as ever you've produced a very considered post with nany interesting points.

 

In quoting Lance Mindheim you've helped me understand why my current roundy-roundy appeals to me more than a layout focused on operational interest. Perhaps watching trains go by takes me back to spotting says on the Great Eastern line! 

 

I'll be interested to see what prototype inspires you for the HO standard gauge layout. I took a look at "Layout Designs for Operation" this morning which has a number of designs for continental layouts which might be of interest. (aware of the irony looking at a plans book titled "...designs for operation"!!)

 

Looking at the tag line of your blog: "The ramblings and reflections of a perpetual project planner - and my attempts to build a model railway." I'm wondering if you'd be best cracking on with the smaller narrow gauge layout build whilst you mull over the possibilities of your larger standard gauge layout?

 

Anyway. As ever your blog is a pleasure to read and, like others, I'll look forward to further installments! 

 

Thanks Andy - appreciated.  Is that the book by Stephen Rabone ( @steverabone ) and Trevor Ridley?  I understand it’s very good, although I’ve not yet read it myself.  I have a booklet with the same name by the late Andy Sperandeo from Kalmbach though that’s just American outline.

I do enjoy the process of trying out new ideas, and hunting out and buying new things is a good game (as I buy it all pre-owned).  Key to enjoying it is exactly what you suggest: having other things to work on - my workbench has a range narrow gauge items and part-built structures to keep me busy.

Key to progressing layout builds is having free time that coincides with good weather, as baseboards are built outside here, though the narrow gauge board is now ready for painting.  Rain stopped play is where frustration can kick in!

Of course, there are moments when I’d like to have a ready built standard gauge layout where I can just go and run some trains, but I’ve still made more models while I’ve been trying out ideas than I did before, so all is not lost.

Have a good weekend, Keith.

A delightful layout - compact when seen in full view, yet spacious close up: Paynestown looks very effective in the pictures.  A good and valuable cause to support too.  Pleased to read it went well, though not sure I’d trust myself with a mallet on my own small layout - I’d probably knock it right off the table!  Keith.

2 hours ago, AndyB said:

Hi Keith. 

Thanks for the update. 

FWIW I think downsizing the baseboard will work well for you. To be able to easily get the layout in and out of the house has to be a good thing. 

I'd be interested to know what the scenic treatment will be in the centre? Reason for asking is that you've got your much-desired continuous run. BUT if the train is in sight all the time then this will (IMHO) detract from what might be achieved?

I'm wondering if you could build up and over the 'rear' of the circuit then you'd see trains appear and disappear; maybe a pine forest? Also the amount of scenery would be increased to give an increased sense of distance.

I know that manoeuvrability is important. So you could maybe build up the scenery on removable layers of foam? 

 

Final thought. The hole in the middle would allow you to drop scenery below the track datum. Could be a lake or river in there? 

 

Anyway these care just some thoughts...looking forward to hearing how this progresses! Andy

Thanks Andy, all very good suggestions, thank you.  I have to admit I haven’t given it any real thought yet, so I’ll bear these ideas in mind - any or even all of them would fit the vision I have, but I don’t have much experience with scenery, Keith,

Thanks Andy - what an excellent idea!  Many years ago I used to have 1960s editions of CJF’s plan books, so I know the kind of thing he would go for.  I’ve just returned from a week away this afternoon and have a number of family and work commitments coming up, so it’ll probably be longer than I hoped before my next instalment (end of the month?).  Certainly something to add to the pile of concepts to consider: baseboards that separate vertically for portability.  It could be done, Keith.

Hi Andy, good question.  I’ve shared some of my response elsewhere, but I’ll put it all here for reference if that’s OK:  

I feel N Scale has two clear advantages over H0e / HOn30 which I observed:

• Narrower bodies on rolling stock (less overhang) meant getting everything on the rails was easier and quicker.
• And a sense of distance is easier to maintain (obviously).  Your Nantford Spinney layout is a great example.

My two issues were:

• Couplings - scale is more of a defining criteria than gauge, and while I can manage the traditional chunky Arnold N-Scale couplings (and Märklin Z-Scale ones), I couldn’t properly see Micro-Trains US couplers to work with. 
• The issue with eyesight means a) I couldn’t read all the impressive finely printed detail on modern r-t-r rolling stock, even under magnification, and b) the proportion of modelling / kit building that may involve smaller, fiddly bits I can’t really see is higher (eg: on structures - there may be fine detail in larger scales, but other parts of the task are easier, and I like at least some of the job to be straightforward).  A comment I remember from your own thread concerning detail on your laser cut N-Gauge station building is that digital photography means the level of expected detail is now much higher.  Full credit to the manufacturers for responding to this: I’m not that patient.

As for track, some things may be identical between N Scale and 9mm HO / OO narrow gauge track (eg: fishplates, wiring), but this comparison photo also shows a visual difference - both are Peco Code 80 products:

When it comes to ballasting, the larger scale track has more room (and ballast stones can be bigger).  It can also be argued of course that Code 80 N-Scale track is over-sized, and Code 55 or Code 40 may be preferred, whereas for the larger scale, Narrow Gauge modeller @Hobby calculated that the Code 80 of this ‘mainline’ narrow gauge track (Peco SL-404) is actually in line with the prototype rail used by some Austrian Narrow Gauge lines (eg: the Zillertalbahn).

Hope that helps - I certainly agree that the current 009 r-t-r models are superb - and very hard to resist, Keith.

32 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Keith. 

I'm late to your blog but have enjoyed reading it very much; looking forward to further installments.

 

I think one of rhe most important points you make is:

"Through 2021 and 2022 I had great fun trying new things."

 

Well, if you achieve nothing else you've done the most important thing. 👍

 

All the best. Andy

Thanks Andy, part of the enjoyment comes from sharing the journey too.  The next instalment wont’t be too long now, although a long sequence of wet days here has prevented baseboard building.  Instead I’ve been refining both my H0e and HO standard gauge collections, selling on some items I no longer need and building a small fund for new purchases as I look towards a layout again.  I also have a number of builds on the go (six narrow gauge freight cars and two building kits as of today).  All good stuff, Keith.

Nice to see the update - and all the best for the house move!  
 

The advice to build something (anything) when progress on a layout pauses is probably the best modelling advice I’ve ever received - it keeps the hobby alive, helps develop skills and demonstrates progress to the family (always a good move), as well taking the pressure off.  Good to see you’ve also had the same wisdom passed on too.

An impressive set of resources for research as well.  Although I did run into a problem with one layout project I started a couple of years back: I found I enjoyed the research stage so much that I had all the fun I was going to get, so moved on without actually building the layout in the end at all😀.  Not to worry, all good stuff, Keith.