Keith Addenbrooke

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.

Hi there, an interesting blog post, thank you. Just to reassure, track can be taken up and re-laid if needs be (the real railway does it). It is usually best to give new track a thorough testing before progressing to any ballasting or scenic, just in case and odd problem arises, sometimes just with a particular piece of rolling stock, or in a certain direction of travel. To answer one question: back in the day I think RTR when referring to track was called “Ready to Lay (RTL)”, though I’m not sure I’ve heard that term in a long time now. Resin Structures have been called “Ready to Plant (RTP)”. Hope that helps, Keith.

Looks great - I tried a similar track plan for a GWR micro-layout BLT in OO a few years ago: it was fun to test run, but I didn’t get as far as scenics, I’m afraid. In terms of switching the loco release to the front, the idea of the platform line becoming a siding reminded me somewhat of the arrangement at Hemyock (OK: there wasn’t a run-round by the platform, I’m just thinking there was a short siding at that end of the platform). Don’t know if that helps, but will be interested to follow progress, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In terms of the model of caravan, it’s quite close to this one - a Bluebird Dauphin: Mine does have a single, central rear window though, but other than that the styling looks similar, suggesting perhaps a different Bluebird model? Just a thought, Keith. (I have no idea if a Morris Minor would actually have the power to tow a caravan?)

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.

Hi Wendell, thank you for posting this here. Like many fans of American Model Railroading I guess, Jim Hediger's name will always be associated in my mind with a golden era for MRR magazine. As a youngster reading my Dad's copy of the magazine, I never realised the Ohio Southern wasn't a real railroad, it was that impressive. In particular I well remember an article in which he explained how he devised a large 'X-shaped' frame to support the upper level of his double deck layout. That kind of thinking just blew me away! Another sad loss to the hobby, Keith.

Just watched a couple of videos of the layout at the Erith 2024 show (thank you for the pointer). Absolutely loved the way the layout comes across - the videos really capture the spaciousness of the model*. Some brilliant detailed modelling too, a lot to see around the tracks. Very impressed. Thanks, Keith. (* I note in the audio I can hear an explanation that even still there had to be length compression of this US prototype to fit)

Just curious - which firm is ‘the Dutch firm’ ? It’s probably obvious, but doesn’t come to mind, sorry. Keith.

Sorry, that final phrase made me smile - @F-UnitMad and @Oldddudders especially have done quite a lot to educate me about The Rock, which (my words) could almost be described as a Railroad which managed to get even the basics wrong - hence requires more effort as a modeller to portray it “right”. Must admit, your HO Florida switching layout is one I would love to have the chance to see - looks excellent in the photos here on RMweb. Certainly the sort of layout I’d expect to happily spend a long time watching, Keith.

With some free time I searched out this thread after seeing a reference to it by @Oldddudders . I don't often venture into this part of RMweb, so it's been interesting reading, thank you to all, and to @TEAMYAKIMA for the prompt. Much to agree with in many posts (I am a fan of standard and narrow gauge US and 'Continental' model railways), but if I could add an experience I had a couple of years ago that hasn't been covered: I was building up a collection for a possible European project and saw a layout of that prototype would be at a show I was going to. I sought it out, had a good chat with the exhibitor and (with their permission) took some photos. What I didn't let on was that I didn't get the spark I was hoping for. Nothing wrong with their layout at all, it just didn't 'do it' for me. My point: seeing a good quality model of a prototype I was interested in (and still like) was a good use of my time, but on that occasion encouraged me to look at something else to pursue. Another Continental layout making its debut at the same show (so I hadn't heard of) captivated me. It's not of a prototype I plan to model, but I really enjoyed it, and the approach taken, and standard achieved, really caught my attention and interest. I don't think a UK layout would have had the same effect - it took something different. In other words, from a modeller's perspective, exhibitions can also serve as a good place for research, sometimes with interesting results. Layouts of different / overseas prototypes have much to offer here. Just a thought. My only other comment is to say a big "THANK YOU!" to everyone involved in the exhibition circuit for all you do, so much of it behind the scenes. It really is appreciated, and I wouldn't want that to get lost in some of the reactions people have had that have been mentioned above. Hope that's OK, Keith.

Train length is one of the recurring themes in my musings. My blog post above concentrated on passenger trains. What about freight? When I was looking at TT, I could comfortably get a 5-car freight train (with loco) onto a yard length of track: Although I’ve stepped back up to H0 Scale, moving my era back in time to the 1980s (approx.) means I can get away with shorter wagons - so I can still fit a 5-car freight train and locomotive onto a yard of track. I really like this short train: (Stanchions need to be added to the flat stake wagon with the wood load). This also compares favourable with the 44” needed for what was (operationally) a four-car freight train for my American HO, as that needed a caboose as well as power. From what I’ve seen on film, German mainline freight trains (as in other Western European countries), tend to be kept shorter so they can run fast, so as not to hold-up to passenger trains. Thanks, Keith.

I only set myself the limited objective this week of adding the lining to the roof trim - mainly so as not to rush! I didn’t try lining the inside edges of the trim - but settled instead for a result I can be happy with by just doing the outward facing side of each piece and concentrating on getting it as good as I could. For someone as bad at painting as I am, this is better than I could have hoped for. Have a good week, Keith.

Good point - solo games of ping-pong may provide lots of exercise, but the novelty soon wears off. If you’ll forgive me using your experience as a case study again, I suppose there’s an argument for swapping it all over and suggesting the station part could be the removable section in similar circumstances - as long as the fiddle yard has capacity for all the rolling stock, it might be better off as the fixed section. The station could then be stored over the fiddle yard and act as a dust cover? Seems counterintuitive but there could be some inverted logic in the idea. Just a thought, Keith.