Keith Addenbrooke

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.

3 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

In response to the original question on this thread (appreciating that it was a while ago) I can thoroughly recommend the albums of Werner and Hans-Jorg Brutzer on Flickr, where you will find these five photos and about a million others. (edit: sorry for the exaggeration, the Brutzer albums contain only about a quarter of a million train photos!)

 

 

 

 

 

To be fair, there are only about 1000 photos of Re460s, in these albums:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42309484@N03/albums/72157697407081361/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42309484@N03/albums/72157671185315168/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42309484@N03/albums/72157669142901437/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42309484@N03/albums/72157671185509448/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/42309484@N03/albums/72157629845403314/

 

There is similar coverage for other classes should you be interested!

 A nice reminder how long the Re460 locos have been around, seeing them with mainly green coaches, Keith.

Just wondering how long the stub end of the centre track is - I'm guessing it will serve just as a loco release / run-round?  Looks like an 08 may be OK, but not a bogie loco?  Just wondered, Keith.

2 hours ago, ian said:

That looks like lots of fun.  Hmm, I wonder if I could get a tram in at Maifeld.

Yes, I'm sure you can. 

Whether any of the rest of us could might be a different question.  Here's one way it's been done - the "aisle filler" technique:

The commentary is in German, but English subtitles are available on most of the videos (sorry - not this one apparently).

Keith.

4 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Indeed, but sixty odd years ago, very young and broke, sewing machine oil from mum was what was available - if you peeled the taters,  laid and cleared the table and did the washing-up without complaint.

 

Grease came later when in my teens, and had a Saturday job and a  bike. Quickly discovered that the plastic hub insulators on Triang-Hornby mechanisms swiftly became about as strong as liqourice and 'all wheels fall off right now!' when Moly grease for the bike bearings was trialled.

 

Now I use plastics compatible grease for all the drive train  and exterior moving parts in RTR and kit model mechanisms; with the sole exceptions of crankpins on a bi-monthly oil round schedule, and (extremely rarely) motor bearings when one complains, which get oil.

 

Reason is that the grease stays put and keeps on doing the job with no attention required. I learned this back in the 1970s with the Athearn PA1 centre motor mechanism (transplanted into Brush 2 bodies) and various US steam models; all now gone except my 52 Y.O. Big Boy, still going as well as ever.

Could I ask which brand(s) of plastics compatible grease is / are to be recommended?  Might be wise for me to get some now my collection is almost exclusively second hand locos; even if they don’t get run very often I’m trying to maintain them better, Keith.

4 hours ago, AndyB said:

 

Well it'd make a change from a model railway having the obligatory church + funeral scene. 😂

 

OK, a little bit of thread drift here, but how about a present day prototype railroad that cuts the corner off a Churchyard (see around 1.30 to 3.30):

Helpful for layout planning perhaps?

Keith.

Welcome, the Diorama looks excellent - and the locos look like a nicely weathered fleet, just as I remember them from that era too.  Looks like a great start, Keith.

I just thought it might helpful to add an update to this thread as we’re in the process of getting ready to move house to a more accessible property and are working our way through everything stored in our cellar (stuff that had nowhere else to go).  

How do things look three / four years on?

The last couple of winters have been milder and our dehumidifier has been working overtime - but it has still become noticeable that the rate at which any paper or wooden items having been getting damp and going mouldy has accelerated.  We’ve even found damp / mould on hard plastic (Lego pieces).

The passage of time has therefore confirmed the points made here back in 2020 - in less than four years, anything I might have tried  in terms of a cellar layout would almost certainly have needed to be abandoned, wasting of a lot of time and money.

I remain extremely glad that the idea of a cellar layout was questioned (with thanks to @AndyB , @The Stationmaster and the others who spoke up at the time).  It was clearly the right advice.  

Our next home doesn’t have a cellar at all - though where a layout might go will be another story.  Thanks, Keith.

So…what happened next? (I’d actually not realised it was three years ago I paused here).  The project took a back seat but was never completely closed.  Numerous changes to the space I have for modelling over the past couple of years, plus the excitement of exploring several other possible projects, meant that Union Station has just been sitting on top of a wardrobe.

Now however the time has come to formally close this thread - we’re moving house soon to a more accessible but significantly smaller property.  The rolling stock I had from my Dad has been returned to him and I’m making arrangements to pass on Union Station, along with a couple of other Walthers Kits I made:

Walthers Merchants’ Row I also appeared earlier in this thread:

Merchants Row II didn’t but complete the trio:

(The marks inside the second window along the frontage are much fainter in reality - I’d not noticed them before)

I’m part way through building an HO wooden craftsman kit for another store - when it is lined up next to these buildings it shows how carefully compressed the Walthers’ kits are: the wooden building is just one town store:

I really enjoyed building these - especially as they are very familiar from the pages of Model Railroader magazine.  Although I’m no longer planning to complete my Union Station Diorama, I’m still a fan of station kits - over the past year or so I built five:

(Moorbach is European TT, while Pagosa Jct was for a Narrow Gauge HOn30 mini-layout.  The largest one at the rear had almost 400 parts and took two months - it’s a Faller model of a Swiss BLS commuter station).

Tackling Union Station gave me the confidence to keep building, knowing I can do the job well enough that I can enjoy both the building and the outcome.  Hopefully - after we move - I’ll be able to take my next project further.  Thanks, Keith.

Thanks for the reply - as far as I’m aware, the Heljan Lyndon and Barnstaple locos are the only new generation 009 r-t-r ones I can think of that specify a minimum radius larger than 9” (I believe 12” is recommended), so you should be fine in N. Wales.  Bachmann assume a 9” minimum radius I believe (always worth double checking of course).  As @009 micro modeller indicates, the actual minimum radius for a lot of narrow gauge locos can be less than it says on the box, and older models should certainly cope.

Of all the plans and ideas you’ve shared on RMweb in recent years I think my personal favourite was the spare room / home office U-shaped 2mm FS Terminus to Fiddle Yard, but if I remember correctly that was for a previous abode so no longer applies anyway, Keith.

Ultra-minimum radius narrow gauge layouts do get built, so my suggestion would be to do a bit of experimenting to see what it might look like, and what runs.  Modified couplings are often cited as a necessity in these circumstances, something to bear in mind.  While the layouts I’m thinking of are well made and fun to watch, making them look realistic (instead of toy like) can be the challenge.

I guess one key question is to determine which is the top priority:

1.  Something (anything) to use the shelf?  Or…

2.  I really want a Narrow Gauge Layout.  If it won’t fit the shelf, I’ll modify the shelf, or build it for elsewhere. Or…

3.  I’d like a Narrow Gauge layout, but only if I can get a continuous run on my shelf.

The other key question is what happens to the things on the shelf - my first thought would be tidy it up:

• Paint keeps better in tins rather than boxes, for lots of reasons.
• Not sure what a half-printed part is?  (I’d guess 3D printed, but what is the other half…?)

Just some thoughts, Keith.

All I can say is: “Well done!” for tackling sleeper spacing.  A few years ago I tried it on a Micro-Layout (OO) to use up some old Setrack:

I probably only had to do three or four yards’ worth - but that was enough to put me off for life!  One day I’d be curious to try making some track, but unless or until that day comes around I’ll live with the compromises in commercial track, Keith.

3 hours ago, Nick C said:

Polperran Perfectly Prepared Plywood Point Panel Prop Prevents P!ss Poor Plywood Point Panel Propping?

Probably

Thanks @Nearholmer: it’s this (which - no surprise or complaint - no longer seems to be listed on the Javis website):

The spill which stained the labels happened many years ago.  It was most likely bought in the original Hattons Smithdown Road store in the late 1990s - the only real clue as to the age of my bottle is probably the absence of the more modern safety labelling.  There is no sign of the contents separating, Keith.

22 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Modern synthetic oils last for absolutely ages. I’ve got both synthetic oil, and grease, at least 25yo, and both fine. The old mineral oils and greases were very different.

Thank you - I suppose for me the question is when the change from “old” to “modern” types (roughly) occurred - sounds like it was longer ago than I thought, Keith.

17 hours ago, AndrueC said:

Lol, I don't have much else to do. The rain is making it difficult to get onto golf courses.
 

Funnily enough though I did think today that perhaps stringing wires for my telegraph poles might be next. Trouble is that'd interfere with track cleaning.

Quite a common ‘trick’ with N Gauge Continental layouts that need OHLE / Catenary is just to model the posts and omit the wires altogether, as too thin to actually see anyway (there are prototype photos available where the wires just can’t be seen).  
 

I don’t know if it will also work with wire fences / telegraph poles as well, but it does at least solve the track cleaning problem.  Just a thought, Keith.

On my Samsung phone (and sometimes other devices too), I find it helps to slightly edit each photo once I’ve taken it - this can include rotating it as well.  Once “re-saved” they usually seem to load OK.  Not sure why - I guess the editing process ‘breaks’ any auto-assumptions the device is making for me.  Just a thought, Keith.

I appreciated the help and advice last time I posed a question here, so I hope it’s OK to ask another, very general one.
 

Some years ago now I bought a small bottle of Javis Model Oil for lubricating my locos. The oil still lives tightly sealed in the original bottle, which is itself kept in an airtight tin.  I don’t have a permanent layout, so rarely run trains, which means the oil is very little used once I’ve run in each new purchase (I buy second hand).  The oil still looks clean, and when I dip the sewing pin I use for occasional light lubrication in the top the viscosity and colour look fine to me.

But I know nothing at all about petrochemicals, so have no idea if my oil should have a “use by” or “best before” date - it’s possible I’ve had it for fifteen or more years already, and there could still be enough for at least the next decade at the current rate of usage.

Would it be wise to replace it at some point?  The locos I currently own are nearly all Continental outline H0 Roco or Fleischmann models also made between ten and thirty years ago (ie: my oil can probably be described as era-appropriate).  
 

Just wondered?  Thanks, Keith.

Personally I’d stick with the matching paint inside and outside - not just for an easy life, but because the high seat backs are both inside and outside at the same time (visually).  Also, with the wooden seats, there will be a different colour inside anyway (I’d fancy a nice wood stain or varnish rather than paint for them).

All depends if the Gaffer is the kind of bloke who’ll go with any suggestions from the shop floor, or (out of habit) insist on going for something different as a matter or principle - I’m sure we’ve all worked with / for management of both types, Keith.

10 minutes ago, Duncan. said:

Hi Keith,

from the lowest part of the scenery to the highest part is 12 inches.... 14 inch overall inclusive of backscene.

Cheers

So 148’ when scaled up - no wonder there’s a wow! factor, Keith.

Hi @Duncan., fair point about inviting comments, not just ‘likes’ (though I do like this layout as well).  

Having been around at the start of the Billy bookcase discussions, it’s great to see this one coming to life - especially as it makes such good use of the ‘vertical’ space as well as the 30” x 10” footprint.  Can I ask how tall / deep it is (my apologies if it’s been mentioned and I’ve missed it)?

Personally, I find the ‘hanging railway arch’ a bit disconcerting, but at the same time the opportunity to include lengthwise shots of the layout from beyond the buffers is excellent and really captures the character of the model.

As for the state of the hobby / state of N Gauge - N has certainly come on tremendously since my first model railway in 1970s N, in terms of choice as well as quality (both running quality and detail).  I don’t have any objection to layouts just using r-t-r equipment and components if it’s what brings happiness, or even if it just enables a layout to get built (something I’m really not good at).  There can still be creativity in the composition.  However, I’d also agree that the practical, creative side of the hobby is a wonderful world it’s a shame not to explore - in my experience the worst that can happen is that I learn more, and get to try again.  There’s nothing to lose.

My own idea for a modular Billy bookcase micro layout faltered when I lost the use of the bookcase I was banking on - but we’re due to move house soon, so it’s a concept that may soon come back onto my radar.

Keep up the good work, Keith.

5 hours ago, Chimer said:

At first glance, I'm not sure having sidings going in both directions can work without some way of a loco running round wagons.  But if you can visualise how to do it, please ignore me!

Hi Chris, the three most commonly deployed methods when modelling are probably these:

1.  Use two locomotives, one pushes wagons onto the quay and one pulls them (or some variations thereof): “Oh no, I need to buy another loco 😀”

2.  Use the Fiddle Stick as a Sector plate to complete a run-round loop, probably using the front two tracks in this example.

3.  Loco operates first in ‘push mode’ shunting the front siding, then withdraws to the fiddle stick, which is then either be re-arranged or simply turned 180°.  The loco then pulls the remaining wagons onto the quay to shunt the kickback sidings.

The most commonly used prototype method was probably to shunt either using chains, or a horse, or shunting poles, and on a quayside there’d probably be capstans that could be used to help?

Hope that helps, Keith.