Keith Addenbrooke

It is sometimes possible to find the instructions / spares sheets on the internet or in the roco archiv, which may help? Based on the age of the box and other Roco locomotives I have from this period I'd be inclined to expect it doesn't have a socket, but I stand to be corrected by anyone with product specific information for this item, Keith.

What a beautiful runner - the way the loco glided on after uncoupling had me give a quiet “Wow!” when watching the video (esp. having noted the model is likely half a century old already). An excellent interlude in my day. Thank you, Keith.

Congratulations to @Tony Wright and all those who made the shortlist for RMweb Modeller of the Year. I find it’s not just the quality of the modelling (which is inspirational across the board), but often the standard of the communication too that encourages me to raise my game when it comes to Modeller of the Year. “Thank you!” to all. I know Modeller of the Year is the category I spend longest thinking about when it comes to voting (and, like @PaulRhB and others have already noted, I also only vote where I feel I can make an informed choice). Thanks also to @AY Mod for organising the poll - always interesting to see the results, Keith.

Am following with interest - commuter lines are quite possibly the most travelled and least modelled sections of railroad, so it’ll be interesting to see how this develops. As others have commented, the concept across two levels is really good. Just for information / reference, I understand the original definition of a micro-layout has an area that is usually 4 sq. ft or less (in any shape and irrespective of scale, but with the question of non-scenic staging not specified), but this is a hobby so outside of specified competition builds Rule 1 applies anyway. It’s certainly a compact shelf layout. Have fun, Keith.

I believe the simple answer is a comparison of run rates - which must favour the team who batted first, hence the term “batting out for a losing draw” (as preferable to falling short in an impossible run chase and losing in the process). As always, happy to be corrected by those who know more - whether it’s railways or anything else, Keith.

Excellent book - as much for the initial chapters on concepts as for the actual plans, which are well written up too, Keith.

I was really taken by Zeedijk when I saw it at the Macclesfield Show in 2022 (might have been its first outing?). Although a very simple ‘parade track’ layout, there was quite a variety of trains running and it was one of those layouts that just ‘worked’ for me. Not a great photo, but I tried to get one of this distinctive Dutch Railcar (an NS Mat ‘64 Plan V 2-car unit), Keith:

“D’oh!” Got it - sorry, it’s just how the yellow wire is lying in the first photo. If I only had a brain… Keith.

Hi Keith @melmerby, there’s something I’m not understanding here, sorry. To me, it looks like both the exit rails from the frog (marked A in my copy of your photo) are bonded together by the yellow wire and the black wire to the upper running rail (B): In my mind then, when the turnout is set straight, both running rails exiting to the right have the same polarity? What am I missing? Sorry, electrics / electronics are not my thing, but I’m trying to learn, Keith.

Very nice (I think it’s called “shed envy” 😀). Could make for a very nice micro. Just a couple thoughts if I may: Will there be an ‘end-on’ view when it’s done (or is the roof removable?)? If not just a bit concerned there’s very little open track for you to actually see your trains running in and out? Clearance looks tight at the corner of the shed for the stabling track so I hope it will take your longest vehicles OK (Health and Safety would no doubt want some very clear warning signs at the corner so employees don’t get caught out by trains coming tight around the corner). Hope that’s OK, Keith.

To my mind the removals lorry looks better with the paint stripped off than it did before - neat job of cleaning it off, Keith.

Further delays - I’m also trying to clear a small backlog of part-finished kits before we move house, so I don’t have to shift largely empty boxes. I say small, this particular one isn’t, standing over a foot tall (and long): The Wathers HO Grain Elevator - very much a not-narrow Gauge model, but one I’ve been wanting to tackle for some years. The start of this build appeared in an American HO modelling thread that has now ended. I built it largely per the instructions, just adding some extra styrene reinforcing pieces in the elevator head building (including one to cover the gap where the cylindrical silos meant there was no floor at all): A prototype would almost certainly be more heavily weathered than mine, even allowing for the low sun today making it harder to take photos. This shot shows a bit more - it was easier to weather the head house and unloading sheds before assembly: It was actually the thought of carrying structures like this up and down our steep attic stairs when I’d need to move my modelling stuff out of the attic room for guests that persuaded me to switch to narrow gauge modelling in the first place, so I suppose (in a roundabout way) it has a place in this thread too. Have a good week, Keith.

Hi @melmerby, I agree with the others who’ve already responded - £30 for a quiet running loco in almost new condition seems reasonable to me in today’s market. Bachmann Plus aren’t super-detailed models (compared to some other US brands), as you acknowledge in the opening post, but this should give many hours of enjoyment. In other words: good value. The key thing I always look at are the couplers - as long as a loco doesn’t have the old horn hook couplers fitted, I’ll take a closer look, Keith.

The ‘low relief train’ is something I’d never have thought of - it’s only the end on cruel close-up (2nd photo) that gives it away. A brilliant innovation for micro-layout / diorama modelling. Very impressed, Keith.

Water Gauge MkII is very impressive. Another well done @MAP66, Keith.

Does the team have adding some platform shelters (waiting rooms and / or awnings) on their list? Just a thought as they work their way round the layout upgrading it. The passengers might welcome some cover at some point (especially seeing the weather here today!). Have fun this evening at the club, progress looks great, Keith.

Hi Andy, are you able to check the “back to back” measurement for that wheel set - it looks from the photo that the flange is riding up on that third axle? Is it catching on the check rail* inside it? The other questions in my mind are the obvious ones? Does it just happen on one side of the loco? Does it happen on just one side of the slip - or in all directions? Does it happen on any other Code 55 Insulfrog points? Does it happen with any other rolling stock (you mentioned lightweight wagons - do the same tests with them?) Basically it’s all about eliminating the variables before any irreversible filing begins - just as with electrical problems (which I know nothing about). Nothing original in my thinking, but I hope it helps, Keith. (* may not be the correct term in a double slip)

Afraid I can join the chorus - suggests it might not just be a common problem still, not just an isolated case or two, sorry. Keith.

Hi Chris, if I might make a suggestion, one way would be to use a jig - perhaps from thick plasticard or wooden coffee stirrers glued together to form an inverted L bracket on the workbench (or maybe just stiff cardboard creased to the desired angle). Make the small slate roof on that, then transfer it to the model. If it doesn’t work first time (I’m sure mine wouldn’t) then no damage is done to the model. Just a thought, Keith.

For N Gauge you will probably need to sieve it. For my H0e / HOn30 mini-layout I used Calci-sand (another pet shop product): Being a sand, it did turn the colour of, well, sand, when I wetted it, so it wouldn’t work for everyone, but the size was OK for 9mm gauge track in the larger scale, Keith.

I’ve got that T-shirt! Made the mistake with an OO micro layout a few years ago of using Ballast sold for 4mm scale - not realising it’s standard practice to use ballast for the next scale down! That project went no further. Shame was I’d spent ages widening the sleeper spacing on the OO track I was using, removing the webbing and making it look like track spaced for UK use. A bit like @AndyB and his point (though I was far less brave), widening the sleeper spacing was something I’d been keen to try, but just did not enjoy (at all). Meant I could decide to accept the compromise that is commercial trackwork knowing I had at least had a go at an alternative (of sorts). One day I’d like to try handbuilt track, but probably not on a layout. Keith.

Hi @Camps Junction, there’s a fascinating discussion here that has made for very interesting reading. I wonder if I might add a couple of thoughts, although I am late to the party on some points. Hope that’s OK. My first thought has been addressed - although this kind of project looks to me more like a ‘layout of a lifetime’ than a retirement project, you have explained your early retirement, so there should be time for something this ambitious. @AndyB has mentioned leaving space for a workbench, which I’d say is essential - I’d suggest it’s the biggest failing of published / internet track plans that they appear to exist in a vacuum: like a house with a great dining room but no kitchen! My next thought is about the choice of N Gauge. My suggestion would be to buy a few pieces of rolling stock and a couple of building kits to try out before you move. I’ve learned that what governs my choice of scale is not the big things (ie: how much layout I want in a given space), but it is the tiny ones. Some people stick with N without any problems, but for others time (eyesight and dexterity) will catch up with us. I started my modelling journey in the late 1970s with N Gauge, but when I revisited it a couple of years ago found it was now too small for me. The level of detail has improved massively, but I couldn’t actually see it all, and the finesse of some components (especially couplings - in my case the American Micro-Trains style), meant they were just too fiddly for me. I had plenty of fun with a tabletop test track, but had to acknowledge I’d be stuffed as soon as anything broke on a layout. I don’t have any UK outline stock to photo these days, but this picture shows what I’m on about: (L to R: traditional N Scale Arnold coupler, standard 009 coupler, HO Kadee coupler, and N Scale Micro-Trains coupler - a lot smaller than all the others). “Do experiment” would be my suggestion. One of the points made at the start was the desire to avoid a layout looking too much like a glorified train set. This may sound daft, but trying to imagine your space, first of all empty and then with a layout in it, I just wonder if the single biggest thing that makes a difference might actually be the baseboard width? I know this has been mentioned several times (it’s a lesson we all learn the hard way), but my point is a slightly different one: picture the empty shed (insulated). Then add in a narrower shelf layout - baseboard width perhaps 18” set at shoulder height. Even before any track is laid, this says “layout” to me - and the narrower baseboard can make the length seem longer. There’s more space to move around in: the room is less cramped. Now replace that layout with 3’ wide tables at a height that enables you to reach across, which is likely to be waist height (it’s where our bodies bend), with a smaller space in the middle. To my mind this may well say ‘glorified train set’ unless I’m very careful, in this kind of space. It’s just a thought and others may well have an entirely different perspective (literally on this point), but maybe something to consider. An American outline basement filler can get away with narrow aisles, but this space isn’t that big. A couple of other considerations: budget (money for baseboard wood, track, electrics / electronics and trains, and time for building structures and scenery). That’s for private consideration. Finally, visitors - how many people might you want to have in your shed (and might any of them be wheelchair users, for whom ideal layout height can be different)? @St Enodoc is possibly the best person to comment on this side of things, as his layout is both large and able to accommodate a team for operating sessions. He also understands signalling, but (as has been covered just above), might be expensive to invite over. Sorry for such a long post - it may be everything I’ve mentioned has been boxed off already, but just in case I hope it’s OK to add my contribution at this stage still. Thanks, Keith.

Hi @melmerby, I wonder if I might share a few thoughts? It might also be worth starting a thread in the USA and Canadian Railroads Forum as well, as some specialist US contributors may not follow this part of the Forum too. My first thought is that the space you have, in particular the lengths of each side, sound ideal for the kind of layout concept you're looking at, and a 16" baseboard width also sounds good to me. In some of his US track planning writing, the late great Iain Rice wrote about how different width s work for different settings, and I would say 16" offers a good compromise without crowding the room you're in. It's a great base you have to work from. Above and beyond that, the world (or at least, the North American continent) is yours to explore. The era you've gone for allows you to mix 40', 50' (the dominant size for the 60s I’d suggest) and some longer cars, and it's OK to use cars with roof boards / walkways, as they were not banned until the early 1970s. I know from my own second hand purchasing that it means you'll easily find plenty of rolling stock (although 40 cars is a good number to pause at for now). Everything is diesel, but the 60s is before a lot of the mergers took place that have given us the more consolidated picture we see today. My next thought therefore is to ask what kind of story you want to tell - or, in other words, what's your vision for the layout? Do you fancy something representing an industrial area on the outskirts of a city, or something more rural? I'd agree with @fulton that a 'less is more' layout could look fantastic - his own is a great example. As you mention the concept of a truncated line that approach may fit really well. You could happily spend hours on the internet looking through some amazing resources (no prizes for guessing how I know), and you'll find plenty of encouragement from the likes of Lance Mindheim and Thomas Klimoski. James McNab's models of the Iowa State are also worth checking out: he has a series on his Hills Line layout made for Model Railroader on YouTube. For some 'off the scale' modelling, check out Boomer Dioramas. Two more are John2618 and Red Dirt and Rails (the latter focuses on rural switching). There are plenty of examples here on RMweb as well of course. One key difference between US outline and UK layouts in similar spaces is that US layouts often do without a Fiddle Yard. There are several reasons for this, but the key one is that the kind of layout I think you may have in mind would quite likely represent a prototype that only saw one train per day. All you need is a staging track - make up your train before the ops session starts, and by the time you've switched all the car spots and made up the return train, you could easily find several hours have passed (the point being that specific cars get switched to specific spots for individual rail-served industries). An alternative, to incorporate @DCB's suggestion, which would be another common approach, would be to have a yard along one side of the layout, with industries along the other side. The yard could represent an interchange, either with another railroad or with a mainline. Again, load it up with the cars you want for an operating session before you start and there's no need for a non-scenic fiddle yard. In terms of industries, some thoughts: an interchange with an off-scene railroad (any or every type of car could use this), a team track / trans load facility - another easy to model track that just needs space for trucks alongside, perhaps a loading dock. A generic warehouse for boxcar traffic is another easy win (and easily modelled in low relief). A fuel distributor for tank car traffic. Gondolas could carry scrap metal (model lots of junk but all you need for unloading are suitable road vehicles with grab buckets and the like). Livestock / stock car traffic had all but finished, while covered hoppers (now the primary car type I believe) were still on their way in. It all depends if you want to model a number of smaller industries, or a few (or just one) larger one that takes a variety of traffic. Those are just a few ideas off the top of my head. Other things to think about are the type and size of buildings and structures you want, which part of the States (or Canada) you want to represent, what the dominant industries might be (and how generic / specific they are). I know I've happily spent much of the past year playing around with different ideas. in the end I've gone in a different direction (again, no surprises there for anyone who knows me), but one thing I can be confident of - you won't find any shortage of ideas once you get started. Two quick final thoughts - do get out your freight cars and play around with them - see what looks good, and what looks great; particularly given the size of US models, it's a great way to test ideas (my own recent thread was full of those kind of photos). And finally, finally, have a look at Tom Johnson's Cass County Railroad on the MRH Forum. Spend some time looking at his photos and modelling, and you'll never look at the hobby in the same light again! Hope that all helps more than it confuses, Keith.

Another sad loss - American Model Builder kits offered a large range of high quality products: the Depot kits in particular have always impressed me. Thanks for sharing the news here, I’d not seen it elsewhere, Keith.

Photos like that also remind us larger-scale modellers just how small N Scale (and this layout) actually is: made me stop and think, even though I use 9mm track for HO Narrow Gauge! Looks great, Keith.