Keith Addenbrooke

Hi there. You asked for some views. Overall, I think it looks great and well proportioned. The one thing that stands out for me are the small cylinders (which you also note in your list above). I’d be inclined to try and fashion some bigger cylinders, and see how they look. I suspect you may well find that your first option - just adding the various ‘bits’ below the running plate - then works. Hope that helps, Keith.

Keep the boxes and look after your locos and they can also sell on well when the time comes too - so you can raise funds to buy... ...more locomotives

Thanks Richie - the idea in this thread suggested by a couple of people of 'keepers' fastened to the ends of the baseboards is a good suggestion to reduce the risk of catching rail ends (I'd not thought of them for home layouts, but once suggested it's kind of a "why ever not?" idea). Getting on with ballasting before too long is a good idea to help fix things in place too. Just to clarify, the plan I've been looking at has an angled straight across one join, not a curve (as noted, a curve can be a different proposition).

Thank you - I agree about using DCC Concepts alignment dowels: I have fitted these and found them both very easy to use and reliable. I also use coach bolts with wing nuts and large washers for fastening boards together. For home made boards for home use this combination seems to work very well. Thanks, Keith.

A really useful thread with some very helpful advice. I'd not seen @MarshLane's American layout thread (it's in the main Layout Topics Forum rather than the US and Canadian Modelling section) but it is definitely well worth a look. Instead of starting a new thread with an almost identical question, I hope it's OK to post a variation here: I've been looking at a plan also with 9mm track, though in this case HOe / 009 rather than N-Gauge. It has four lines crossing baseboard joints and would also be for a portable home layout. Three are straight at 90 Deg. but with enough straight either side you could lay pieces of Setrack either side up to the join and not need to cut the rails (Peco 9mm Setrack for Narrow Gauge has the same sleepers as Flextrack, unlike Standard Gauge Setrack with chunky end sleepers, so it is visually OK). Q1: Will the stronger Setrack sleepers and rails be sufficiently stiff for this to work if well secured to the baseboard? (if not, the ideas here will still be useful, of course). The fourth line is also straight track but crosses at 22.5 Deg. (ie: one Setrack curve out of perpendicular). It is a hidden section, and long enough that a piece of unballasted Setrack could be loose laid across the joint with pins slotting into pre-drilled holes. Q2: Might this be preferable to trying to cut and then align 9mm track at the 22.5 Deg. angle? I note the Modeltech product is available for 009 track so is an option. Any thoughts? Keith.

Agreed - if I search for GP18 models loads of similar pictures come up. What I haven’t found is a prototype photo of a GP18 in UP livery to suggest a number though? If they didn’t actually run that particularly model, it could be you have a free choice

Hi Chris, as a four-axle diesel it looks a good choice for your layout. The ‘horn hook’ couplers suggest it’s an older model, but in my experience these can be great runners (esp. when compared to equivalent UK models from the same era). As for the prototype for this particular one, I’m not an expert and don’t have the relevant reference book to hand, but I’ll have a guess that this Loco is one that was mass produced to sell in large numbers in the popular road names, such as UP, which means there may be some compromises on roof / vent details etc. to keep the price down (as opposed to today where higher prices come with an expectation of bespoke detailing). I’d therefore go for an early Phase 2 EMD GP9 with a number in the range 220 to 230 as probably a safe bet - it doesn’t have the dynamic brake system ‘pods’ that stick out of the sides of the long hood. Others will know more and can no doubt correct me if this is way out - please do. Keith.

Hi Paul, this looks really good - I do think gentler curves are well worth the extra time spent: the visual effect (and sometimes operating benefits) will last for the life of the layout. PS: I realised I didn’t reply to this - our train Service is excellent! (I understand the question ). Keith.

Not being funny, but how do your read the unloading instructions when the car is fully laden? Genuine prototype question.

Perfectly placed to mess up complicate operations, too.

I found the same combination worked for me - like Paul, I also painted the undersides of my small test layout white: In my case it wasn’t for wiring (it only has two wires), but to blend in with the white IKEA table top it sits on which meant any other colour would have clashed: The actual tops of the boards are lime green (it was being sold off cheap) but I used light grey for the cork sheet as a scenic base. As Paul’s photos show, the combination works well, and painted baseboards are much more popular at home - all part of the deal for layout space (worth the effort). But that is the catch - painting is an outside activity for me, which means I probably have to wait for next spring to completely finish the boards I’m now building for my layout…Keith. (Photos borrowed from my layout thread, hope it’s Ok to share them here)

Hi Hobby - I’ve been told the Roco 1099 Mariazellerbahn electrics won’t go below their 10.5” curves, due to the 6-wheel bogies with coupling rods and the cab steps and underframes? Not directly relevant, but - as I’ve found - it doesn’t take long before all sorts of second hand narrow gauge bargains start to catch the eye (I cite myself as entirely guilty of this). I think Bachmann have said their new Double Fairlie will go round first radius (ie: 9”) curves - but I wouldn’t want to be quoted on that. Others will be better placed to comment.

Hi Penybontshed. Looking around RMweb, I’ve happened upon a couple of your other threads about narrow gauge modelling - specifically about using an IKEA table top. The 1000mm x 600mm dimensions do rather constrain the maximum radius - this is a photo using a Peco Setrack starter set which has 9” (228mm) radius curves: This Loco is a short wheelbase Liliput 0-4-0 diesel, which does run fine with the Setrack Insulfrog points, though I think the wheelbase is longer than the for the Hunslet. I then built a test layout, which I didn’t put directly onto the table, but built a simple baseboard to sit on top of it (for this I bought some Flextrack for transition curves): While I have stayed with Insulfrog points, I checked it out carefully (on NGRM) first, and I’d agree with @Hobby’s advice: The other piece of advice of course is: have fun! But I think that’s taken as read 😀. Hope sharing what I’ve learned helps, Keith. (Test layout photos borrowed from my Layout Thread).

If you later want to buy some of the bigger 009 locomotives (eg: from Heljan or some European H0e from Roco, for example), do note they’re not all designed to go round the 9” curves: a bit like standard gauge OO and traditional first radius Setrack curves won’t accommodate some contemporary r-t-r. Just be aware.

Thanks Andy for the quick response on this. Certainly for me on my iPad, the screen width has gone back to full screen already which is much appreciated (easier to read). As a bonus I have a new bigger button for scrolling up - even I can’t miss this one. The scrolling speed seems more gentle, which is nice, but I don’t know if that’s deliberate or down to my internet speed etc. (that is merely an observation, not a problem, and it gives me a chance to add my own sound effects as it rises)

I note @AY Mod has picked this up, so this is additional information only just in case it helps - I’m running on iPadOS 14.8.1 which my iPad says is up to date (it calls itself a 7th Generation iPad). My screen now looks as @SteveyDee68 describes. The narrow column presentation is new - don’t know if that is also something that will revert to the previous full-screen width?

Has a nice ring to it - I think it evokes the right kind of atmosphere: if you started with that name, then showed us the layout plan I think it would seem right. As for a CJF reference - I think @Harlequin‘s layout design does that anyway: compact continuous run with terminus tracks but no fiddle yard. Would get my vote.

There’s a Hornby Road in Birkenhead, quite near the site of the old Woodside Terminus, which has always struck me as a slightly odd name for a quayside station. I must admit Derngate is growing on me as a name / concept, but I can only claim interested bystander status of course.

If it’s Ok to share an aside, I was on holiday in Oxfordshire over half-term. Driving past Witney and heading into East Gloucestershire, I explained to the good Mrs, A that, while I’d never driven that route before, all the place names were very familiar - the result of researching the Fairford Branch last summer! (I think we were in @Zomboidcountry too). No relevance to this thread, except that everywhere is local to somewhere, as @ITG has just shown too.

I like the plans this thread has produced, but I’m afraid I have no imagination when it comes to layout names so have just been reading this section with interest (“Nearholm and Maldon” was all I could think of). I’d been imagining a Home Counties setting (although Maldon is in Essex, I think). If we’re looking at Merseyside however… The Copperas Hill I know runs from the Adelphi Hotel in the centre of Liverpool up to and over the station throat at Lime Street as it enters the tunnels, so is laden with hidden meaning (incl. the idea of a Station over the tracks, although it’s beyond the other end of the platforms to the actual concourse). Just two things missing from the plan for a station to be called Quarry Brook though…? Neston isn’t quite Merseyside in my book. Although it is on the Wirral, it isn’t in Wirral, but in Cheshire West and Chester (CWAC, as in duck), so not now counted as part of the modern Mersey City Region as such - rather part of the historic county of Cheshire. While there are places big enough to imagine extra stations (Buckingham being the obvious example) Neston wouldn’t fall into that category, I’m afraid. Derngate sounds a bit Manchester to me (“Deansgate”) but I suppose it depends on what ye olde English ‘dern’ was…? For a small continuous run layout idea I once built a small halt named “Station Road” :- a circular argument station name for a circle layout. The other alternative would be to adopt the once popular approach of applying famous place names to totally unrealistic layouts (presumably to justify running express train locomotives), such as Kings Cross and York…perhaps not.

I’m with you there - though it’s ‘just’ 40 years for me (so far) trying to get past bare boards. But I’m nearly there…

It’s really helpful to see the plan drawn out, thankyou to @JAMO. @Regularity’s description is really helpful - if I look at the plan as I would a contemporary Mindheim-style switching layout, I think it works well for today’s modelling world, even though the basic dimensions of the space (in HO equivalent) might have suggested to me something from a Linn Westcott-era / Model Railroader starter layout 8’ x4’. Very informative.

Looks to be sorted - hasn’t appeared at all today. Thank you to @AY Mod and the team for responding to this. Keith.

Looks to be coming along very nicely. If I might make a couple of suggestions based on the photos: 1. There’s a ‘double S-curve’ from the outermost loop line onto the running line here (presumably to fit Setrack geometry). Might be worth having a look at, to ‘flip’ the point onto the curve (or used a Streamline Curved point if there’s room). You may get away with it at slow fiddle yard speeds, but I’d try and avoid it. 2. For the branch line fiddle yard, would it help reduce stock handling to add a run-round loop. Just a couple of thoughts. As for using buildings to hide the fiddle yard entrance, have a play and see what works - the combination of a couple of appropriate buildings and a tall tree or two seems to work well. Hope that helps, Keith.

Really enjoyable - videos like this do more than anything else to encourage me to press on with my own little layout building attempt. Thank you for sharing: a really well put together film.