Keith Addenbrooke

Thank you. Interesting thoughts. I certainly haven’t lost my enthusiasm for railway modelling or for Narrow Gauge.

Further to my post on Wednesday morning (8th Dec 2021 above), I’ve spent a bit of time having another review of where I’m at and where I really want to go next. My next build is a non-railway kit I was given as a birthday present, so this is a good time to pause and take stock. Re-reading page 1 of the thread, I note it splits almost exactly 50/50 between the start of the H0e layout (12 posts) and my first look at HOn30 rolling stock (13 posts). That’s probably a fair reflection of my meanderings, so I’ve changed the thread title to reflect it. I also have a number of HOn30 kits lined up - the 3 box car part-kits and repurposed 009 diesel shown previously, plus a kit for some shops (Walthers) I spotted half-price and still factory sealed. But despite my good intentions (or perhaps because of them) I’ve not made so much progress with the H0e layout. I’ve not had the kind of enforced major reset that previously scuppered my OO and then my HO layout plans, and I’ve been thoroughly enjoying finding out more about Austrian Narrow Gauge railways. I’ve watched a lot of very relaxing videos! Only trouble is, I’ve started to feel I’ve ticked that box and am ready for the next chapter of the adventure, even though I’ve not built the layout. I’ve got the same space, and the same baseboards in production, but I’m thinking it won’t be Austrian Liliput trains that run on them: that Chapter now draws to a peaceful close. Take care, stay safe, and have a good weekend, Keith.

If I might add another consideration - again a general point. In some situations (and this came up in a planning thread for a compact layout a few months back), increasing the vertical distance between the levels can at the same time decrease the gradient needed: While it may sound counter-intuitive, it can become possible for a gradient to begin underneath the upper baseboard, and finish above the lower baseboard in such circumstances. This can reduce the height of climb in the open space between the levels. Details will vary layout by layout, but if the track plan allows, I think this gives more space beneath the upper level to reach into the darkest recesses of the hidden lower lines. Keith.

Re: clearance required. The observation has been made that our hands and reach don’t change size when we model in different scales. But if I might complicate things a little as part of the general conversation, using the following photo from my Narrow Gauge thread as an illustration: Both these locos are post-war HO scale passenger express locos. But if I need to lift one off the tracks for some reason and bring it into the open, how much space I need varies - and not just because the Standard gauge and Narrow Gauge locomotives are different sizes: lt also depends on whether the pantographs on the electric are raised or lowered (they are manual, sprung loaded and very fiddly). Swiss metre gauge pantographs also rise a long way - they may need to match the Standard Gauge height above rails, so require a big rise, which is replicated on the model. And, if I need to remove a locomotive (or other piece of rolling stock) that’s got tangled up with those either side, how easy it is to uncouple at a distance can be a factor too (not well illustrated in this particular photo). Some types of couplings can just be lifted vertically (Kadees or regular ‘Arnold’ N-Gauge, I think) while others - tension locks and narrow gauge ‘Bemo’ couplers, sometimes appear designed to defy any attempt at separating them. Just a couple of extra points to bear in mind, Keith.

Fair point - the photos of the prototype Stony Stratford Tram engine don’t show any big overhang, but the roof does overlap the edges exactly as you say - I’ve not seen photos of others that have been made from this kit, but I suspect I just sanded off a bit too much when smoothing the edges for painting (this being the first time I’ve used a resin kit: the roof edges were the first bit I tackled, so I may well have got a bit carried away ). For me however, I actually decided it was the red colour of the rest of it that was still troubling me - so it’s now black and awaiting re-weathering (or I could just put it outside for bit, given our weather today!) Part of the fun of having made this kit for myself is that I feel quite happy changing it - that’s new to me too. As for using the Kato chassis, there was a good discussion on the NGRM Forum earlier this year which I found very informative (led by @Hobby ). Having now had a go, my own take on it as a beginner is it’s given me a nice and very affordable “entry level” introduction to this kind of build, and a Loco with superb slow running qualities. The question for me now though is, where next? (as @HonestTom suggests). The most dangerous time for projects on my ‘to do list’ is when I’m finishing a build / layout design / research discussion (select as applicable). While I feel encouraged by completing something that’s turned out better than expected, and was more fun than I’d anticipated, my mind is now racing off in multiple directions: done that, what’s new, have you seen this, can I afford that…? I guess that’s why more than one of my threads have been titled ‘Adventure’ - I find there’s as much fun on the journey as there might be in actually getting anywhere… …but I would still like to have a layout. Until then, take care and stay safe, Keith.

Thruppence a day? Did I read that right? I thought I’d need to start working out how to justify another subscription - not sewing up the holes in my trouser pockets so I don’t lose it. Guess it might not be called “silver membership” though (mooted several pages earlier and elsewhere): now I’m thinking, copper, nickel or brass*. (* although brass has it’s own value in railway modelling).

As this is my first working locomotive kit (in any scale / gauge), I hope I can be forgiven for posting more photos - they’ll be useful for me to refer back to later. This one shows the plasticard strips to stop the body from wobbling. This photo also shows how I cut down the chassis: I’ll paint the ‘crossbar’ I’ve fitted between the sandboxes, as it is visible at certain angles. But I’m now calling this “finished”:

A few finishing touches have been added. The satin red livery had seemed quite bright in the first pictures I took, so I’d added a second layer of wash (rather than risk spoiling it with a repaint). Inevitably, the handrails and decals took longer to add than I expected, so the light had gone by the time I glued the Loco together for a posed shot: All that remains to do now is to add some plasticard to the chassis to hold the body in place and I can call this finished. I’m obviously happy with my progress over the weekend. While there’s a lot I can do better, for a first attempt I’m more than satisfied with how it’s looking. Have a good week, Keith.

I would normally working on a Sunday morning, but my enforced layoff has given me the chance to see the painted model in daylight. The concept of weathering still rather terrifies me, but the choice of the rather bright choice Satin Red for the livery requires it. I’ve therefore applied just a gentle wash to dull the tone.

Cruel close-up time: I’d originally planned to spray paint the locomotive with a Halford’s Grey Primer, but the ‘paint shop’ here is outside, and with today’s weather that was simply not an option. The resin however takes paint very well, and even though I make no claims to be a painter, it’s been a joy to have a try. The incredible detail on the backhead was really crying out to be picked out: (The faint horizontal lines from the casting are basically invisible at normal viewing distance - I’d not noticed them before!) Livery choice was done using the traditional method of looking in the paint box to see what I have in stock - I recently bought a tin of red as I’d run out and it’s a generally useful colour to have, so that settled it: I’d not appreciated the finesse on the boiler top detail until I painted it - what I’d mistakenly thought was a rougher piece of casting miraculously turned out to be a very well rendered central spring - worth trying to highlight with a metallic brass: Plenty of room for practice and improvement, but a more than satisfactory afternoon at the workbench for a novice like me.

I’m a firm advocate of regular test running where possible: The cab roof is not fixed at this point. Note that, in the final photo, the train was actually shunting backwards at slow speed over the Peco Insulfrog point without any problems. Three good things and three learning points. Good things first: 1. At normal viewing distance the tram engine skirts hide the Kato 11-110 chassis perfectly adequately for my purposes, 2. Performance of the train is fine - the light wagon can be shunted through the point at slow speed without derailing. 3. No problems with the Peco Insulfrog point. And three learning points: 1. The loose body on the tram engine wobbles out of position when going over the point, so does need to be held in place. 2. The test track relies on fishplates for electrical conductivity. Loose bits of grit are getting into the joints and affecting running (I suspect it is from loose bits of scenery and ballast that come off the layout when it is being put away upright). 3. The scale difference between 009 and H0e is noticeable (which is why none of the photos are by the 3.5mm scale huts). Have a good weekend, Keith.

Well done all! I note there is apparently no imagination here on the Wirral. Mind you, I’ve often thought about my life since I moved here that you couldn’t make it up… Happy modelling - or just musing, Keith.

Thanks - a useful insight. As I understand it, the locos I’ve bought through the Merseyside and South West Lancs 009 Group are resin castings as opposed to 3D prints (I could be wrong on this). They really are excellent kits, with minimal flashing / overspill (just a tiny bit which you can’t see under the raised boiler) and lots of fine, crisp detail - the backhead for the Saddle Tank is incredible, for example: (exploded detail from an earlier photo) From what I’ve read, the best way to cut this kind of resin is with a tiny jeweller’s saw and / or with guide holes made using a mini-drill. I’d tried gently and repeatedly scoring along my cut lines, but even trying to be careful it still cracked when I cut through. I can see why modellers who regularly work with resin build up a collection of needle-point files and keep a supply of filler to hand. Some fantastic results can be achieved, so it’s worth the effort and good fun learning.

I know I’m going to make mistakes as I try new things, and this evening has been full of learning: Going from right to left in both the photos above: I found the wheels on the single plank wagon were hardly turning. The couplings I glued to the Kato chassis on Sunday hadn’t stuck. And when I tried to cut coupler mounting holes in the body of the saddle tank the resin shattered, front and back. Some superglue, some fiddling around and some rearranging ensued: The sole bars on the wagon just needed gentle easing for the wheels to run freely again. The couplers on the saddle tank are now body mounted (although it did all get worse before it got better). I opted to cut away more of the plastic running plate on the Kato chassis to seat the body at the desired height: Resin isn’t a material I’ve used before. These are excellent quality castings, I just need to learn how to work with them. The body is still loose on the chassis, but I’m now thinking I might fashion holding pieces from plasticard to keep it in place. The saddle tank is a lovely little model, but a good one for me to practice on as it’s neither Austrian nor American, of course. I’ll probably be having a few days away from modelling now, then some gentle cleaning up before painting will be needed, Keith.

Hi @Smardale. Your question is a sensible one to ask, but as @Zomboid noted in an early reply, it could generate as many responses as there are respondents (if not, more). And none may fit your interests! If I could offer a few thoughts that I hope might be helpful: ‘Operational interest’ and ‘enjoyment’ may well overlap (significantly), certainly at the design stage, but experience has taught me that they can also diverge. I’d suggest a layout you enjoy is likely to be one that lasts. What do I mean? Some modellers find that a simpler layout actually proves to be more relaxing to run. And if it turns out you’re more interested in building kits or scratchbuilding, whether locomotives, rolling stock, buildings or scenic features, a layout that offers sufficient operation for (perhaps) less frequent operating sessions may get built quicker and last longer. One thing I’ve learned the hard way is to think about logistics as well as track layout. What I mean is this: Whole layout design includes the space around the layout (aisle width can be key to enjoyment, but is the bit that isn’t layout at all), size and weight of baseboards, whether you also need to carry boxes of rolling stock and large buildings around, how confident you are at wiring (etc), what your budget is (expect it to be exceeded ) and - crucially - how long you want to take to get a layout to a state you’re happy with. I then try and fit operating features I want into that equation. When I do get to actual track design for operation it can help to recognise the value of ‘balance’. What I’m thinking about here is this (the discussion in recent days on the Minories thread is a good example, incidentally): If I want to operate a busy Minories-style terminus station, it may be a good idea to have a Fiddle Yard at the other end of the layout, even if I wouldn’t naturally want to have a Fiddle Yard. It’s there to feed the station I’m focused on. It may help to spend time designing an easy-to-use Fiddle Yard, precisely because it’s the bit I don’t want to spend time on. Similarly, a length of ‘open run’ track that appears to do nothing operationally can be the key to a successful layout - it can put some much needed space between operating features, or add to realism, or just be nice to watch. I hope there’s something of use in those thoughts. If I can add just two practical suggestions: No harm in trying building something if you can now, rather than wait till you move. Perhaps a building kit, or a rolling stock kit, or even a short ‘photo plank’ so you can try track laying, ballasting and basic scenery. Every skill you develop now will come in use when the day of the layout arrives (this is something I wish I’d realised many years ago). And finally, to answer your specific question, my favourite operating feature is a continuous run - I simply enjoy watching a train build up some mileage and feeling like I’m watching a journey unfold (even if someone else would look at it and only see a train chasing it’s tail, that’s not what I see). The key thing is not to run the train too quickly. For me, gentler running is an operational feature that doesn’t appear on a track plan. Hope that helps. Above all, as is often said, “Have fun!” Keith.

Hi John, if I might make a suggestion - your own idea to “leave it open and see how it develops” is a good one: I’ve recently been reading about ‘negative space’ in layout design, which actually means intentionally (ie: positively) deciding to leave a gap between feature rather than visually overloading the viewer. If, in time, something catches the eye and you want to add it into the space, well - that’s what happens in real life anyway. In the meantime it gives the freedom to press on with track laying, ballasting, ground cover / detailing, etc. Just a thought, Keith.

…or someone like me who bought some boxcar kits at an event at the weekend so now wants to find out . I’m slightly colour blind (especially with reds), so it’s really helpful if I can pick a number off a list rather than trust my eyesight with mixing paint.

I’d not seen this layout before, so have just spent a very pleasant few moments reading through the thread and watching the video - very enjoyable: the atmosphere created is delightful. Having spent the past thirty years looking at 4mm OO / 3.5mm HO I’d also forgotten just how small N is until this year, which makes the layout (and the pictures) even more impressive. I hope you continue to enjoy it as much as the comments indicate the rest of us are. Thank you for sharing it here, Keith.

In case it helps, this is H0e - the far module is slightly longer at 0.9m but gives an indication of the gentleness of the S-curve over a similar displacement (the roadbed allows me to sharpen the curve a bit more if I want). The 90 degree turn at the right hand end is Setrack 228mm / 9” radius for reference, and the risers bring the roadbed about 40mm above the frame. I’m not aware of any H0e rolling stock / couplings that would have a problem with your S-curve, and running speeds are generally slow enough to help mitigate problems anyway. Hope that helps, Keith.

That’s a clear winner for me too - the extra space for a longer and gentler run into the station looks great - being able to watch trains come and go makes up for the loss of the an extra operating feature in front of the fiddle yard, and with the fiddle yard taking up a smaller proportion of the overall layout space, it doesn’t dominate visually either, by the look of it. As @t-b-g suggested, this looks like a good time to shift from designing to building, before ‘overplanning’ sets in (something I know I’m often very guilty of). The only comment I’d make, which again echoes @t-b-g’s response is to ensure the scenic treatment of the run-in justifies the distance between the terminus and MPD needed for the light engine movements - a viaduct is a good suggestion, and a visual statement for people standing in the doorway (viaducts out of Moor Street heading towards Tyseley spring to mind, although there was space for a third running line there). These are all good and informative examples, but from a strict model railway design perspective, it can be advisable to avoid stock movements that involve starting or stopping on point work, simply due to the increased risk of stalling. Running shorter rolling stock from an earlier era would seem to be a good option, and meets @Lacathedrale’s objectives. Just a thought, Keith.

The reverted loop fiddle yard also needs hidden track, but - as drawn by Armstrong - one way to conceal it was like this: Comparing this with the larger plan shared at the top of the page, this requires an extra train movement - hence being more suitable for turning trains between operating sessions. Interesting, though not Minories.

If I tried that, I’d get to the point where I crossed my arms and then I’d drop everything. Do you have somewhere to rest it while turning?

I believe the noted American Layout designer John Armstrong used that kind of reversing loop + stub sidings arrangement in some of his schemes, including his own Canandaigua Southern RR (I admit to looking up that spelling ). I think he also described it in his Kalmbach book “Track Planning for Realistic Operation.” But… It works best on the kind of layout where trains only appear once in each operating session (they run out of and into the single ended sidings, and can be carefully turned in-between operating sessions). So I wouldn’t advocate it for an intensive Minories-style scheme: I would go for the “extra (light) engine” described in recent posts by @t-b-g as most likely the optimum way to maximise operation / minimise stock handling. Carefully planned, the extra engine approach can offer a mixture of incoming and outgoing local suburban train movements, interspersed with ECS workings and associated station pilot and light engine movements for longer-distance Services to avoid a “yo-yo” feel to operations (as distinct from the ping-pong described a couple of pages ago).

Not necessarily - there are designs that lie flat to the wall, then pull out when needing to be turned (using the space where the operator usually stands after they’ve stepped to one side). IIRC, @RJS1977 may have one? Keith.

Looking at the wide array of N-Gauge chassis on sale (and in use) at the Merseyside and South West Lancs 009 Society gathering yesterday prompted me to have a look at the unmade resin kits made by the Group for Kato 109 or 110 chassis that I have. Mine both came with 110 chassis, so the first job has been to remove the buffers and railings and replace the standard ‘Arnold’ N-Gauge couplings with the Peco 009 ones I’m using. As the original couplers are sprung mounted, they don’t come with NEM pockets, so I’ve needed to cut away part of the moulding at the end of the chassis so I can fit new coupler pockets at the right height. That’s been this afternoon’s job: With regard to the other builds I now have queued up, it’s most likely I’ll just repaint the HO Geep for practice, rather than try and modify the model. I have plenty of other new techniques to try (as here). A couple of extra photos showing the body and modified chassis are the same length (fortunately): I’m not going to try cutting the resin this evening - better to leave the glue to set firmly on the couplers. Have a good week, Keith.