Keith Addenbrooke

Not sure it’s N scale? Must admit I was going to ask about it too - I just thought it was HO a bit further away . Looks to have an interesting selection of grain elevators, and do I spy the Walthers Sunrise Feed Mill at the end of the spur?

Further to my earlier posts, I’ve been thinking about Kato RhB with a view to a desktop layout, as my plans for anything larger keep running into delays due to space problems. How the needs of the family keep changing faster than I can build baseboards has been well document elsewhere on RMweb! I’ve had a valuation done on items I’d need to sell for an additional interest, and while I was pleased with the worth of some of my stock, overall I’d still be short of what I’d really want to get started. So although I’ll continue to be interested in the concept and look forwards to seeing more projects and layouts in Nm9, I’ll need to buy a rail pass so I can ride as a passenger rather than join those who are driving the train. Thanks, Keith.

Please can I jump back up the page a little bit and ask about the approach to tracklaying: is the track just glued down to the roadbed or are there pins as well? Just trying to work out which way will work for me (I’ve tried just pins direct into plywood in the past, which bent a lot of pins). Thanks, Keith.

I think for me it is that sense of a large ‘middle ground’ in continental railway modelling that appeals.

I thought I recognised the layout, though I’ve not seen this particular video before. There’s a link at the end to www.track-plans.net where there’s a lot more information about the layout which may be of interest for railway modellers. Of course, the key thing being demonstrated with this design is that the through station has been disguised as a terminus. It’s great for running trains and reminds me of plans from a Faller track plan book I had when growing up (and which I wish I’d kept). The clever design relies on locomotives and coaches (and some European coaches are very long) that can go round very tight curves when behind the scenes. I suspect the layout doesn’t see the kind of in-out operation of a classic Minories, but I do like this layout for what it does offer. Incidentally I’m sure I’ve seen other videos of this layout, which are perhaps more aimed at railway modellers (a couple of short ones are also on the website), so I suspect this particular one was put together with more of an emphasis on entertaining a wider audience - hence the choice of music and approach to editing. It’s got us talking, so it worked! Thanks to @Satan's Goldfish for sharing - nice to see it again.

I’ve bought a large bag of a reptile bedding product called “Calci Sand” which looks OK. Probably not the cheapest option, but I had some time to fill this afternoon and just happened to be near a pet shop so had a look inside. It's a bit lighter in colour than may be ideal, but in my (very limited) experience with ballast it tends to darken when soaked and glued. And this stuff is safe for reptiles to ingest (in small quantities). Word of Warning: I discovered when I used it this changes colour to look more like sand when soaked- it does not turn a darker grey like stone / slate-based ballast chippings.

Hi Jim. I wonder if I might ask a question. Elsewhere, I’ve been enquiring about track and points to use for an H0e layout, and have been advised against using 9” radius Insulfrog points - with Electrofrog points strongly recommended. The ladder of points into the fiddle yard in the photo above look to me like Peco Setrack N Gauge Insulfrog points. While I realise this isn’t H0e, if I’m correct I just wondered if you’d found them to be OK? (I appreciate one reservation for using Insulfrog points for Narrow Gauge layouts will be the number of short wheelbase locomotives typically found there, rather than the 4/4 Locomotives here, but I’m just interested in making the comparison). Hope that’s Ok. Thanks, Keith.

I realised this morning that the Nm9 stock is designed to go round a 150mm (6”) radius curve*, which is incredibly efficient on space, so with a bit of spare time today I’ve taken the chance to re-read through the whole thread in a bit more detail, and remain very impressed: from what I can tell the overhang on the tight curves in @PaulRhB’s videos is not as obvious as I’d imagine it would be. While I can see challenges in modelling in this small scale, I suppose the invisible overhead electric lines might offer some compensation (ie: they don’t need modelling). (* There’s a Kato 20-150 curve in their N gauge track range which confused me - though this has a very broad radius of 718mm (approx. 28.25”), so I should have known better. Must pay more attention).

I don’t know anything about wiring (I do like the phrase ‘electric knitting’ - especially given this photo), but I’ve always thought it was often accompanied by occasional and sudden rather loud “Bleeps!” What I’ve been wondering, and I may have missed something, is whether there will be a way for trains to get from the lower level to the upper level - even with the gradients you’ve shown us the trains can climb, the gap between levels looks quite significant? Just wondered, Keith.

Hi Jerry. Thank for inviting comments. Your layouts always turn out well and this will be no exception. My suggestion would be to perhaps add some metal railings up top, along the parapet of the bridge, to maybe make it look more like an industrial estate and less like a through road. I’m not sure the small industrial units would have loading doors that open up onto a busy road. One of them could then be a motorbike workshop, giving you plenty of reasons to park any motorbike you fancy outside. Peering at the photos closely, it looks to me like you’ve found space for Streamline points, rather than the tighter Setrack points. Is that correct? If so, it helps make the layout look that bit more realistic - the locomotives can glide in and out. Looking good so far, Keith.

Hi Neil. I’ve not commented here before but I think your Czech layout is great and I really like the way this one is developing. I’m not an expert on Belgian Railways (or European rail in general), but if I may offer an amateur observation on the bridge options based on the photos: Like others, I’m impressed with the girder bridge (A), but I just wonder if that type of bridge might more commonly be seen crossing a wider span, or a deeper valley. If that’s the case, then to make it fit here, I would change the pillars (not the bridge), and have sloping grassed or concrete embankments instead. Just a thought (feel free to ignore). Hope that’s OK, Keith.

In our case, peninsula living does come with plenty of beaches - the play sand was bought when we briefly lived inland. It's not a good day for collecting sand today though (our turn for the thunder storms).

I wondered about sand as I do have a supply of good quality (clean) play sand - I’ve been using it as a weight when gluing down the cork sheeting! Can I ask how you re-colour it though? Edit: now I’ve seen the photo in the post above, it is a less yellow sand than play sand to start with. Thanks.

Lesson 2: it would have been a good idea to check how much ballast I had in stock when ordering the track. I was given 6 tubs of assorted scenic materials a while back and hadn’t realised the supply of ballast was the most depleted. One tub labelled “scenery ballast” is actually a much darker grey and is a fluffy powder rather than fine stones. If I leave the ballasting until later, it may never happen, so there may be (another) short delay now.

Thank you - I’ll pass on the coconut though, I’m a bit shy for that sort of thing.

Hi there. I’ve been reading some stuff recently that has made me curious about larger home layouts again, including rereading as an adult about some of the awesome US basement empires that used to enthrall me when reading Model Railroader as a kid. On top of the obvious things of money and time that I would blissfully overlook when daydreaming as a child, three more strike me these days, and I wonder if they may be helpful: 1. Good health as we get older. I’ve seen some designs that allow for us becoming less agile in the prime and prime+ stages of life by avoiding narrow aisles, excessive reaches and contortionist-only access spaces. I’d make this a design criteria. 2. At the risk of appearing to pour cold water on the grand plan, which is not my intention, I note that references are often made in the write-ups of big solo projects noting how far back the work actually began - collecting / making appropriate rolling stock, buildings and sometimes even scenic features or sections sometimes began years beforehand, simply to be ready when the time came. In a similar vein perhaps, I read recently of a Canadian layout builder who paused his project for 5 years when interest waned, before picking up the build again. So…if starting from scratch (and with a house to build first), my suggestion here would be to have a simple, basic plan that can be up and running fairly quickly, with plenty of options for future details and additions - which I probably wouldn’t even try and design at this stage. It wouldn’t matter if some of it never gets built - you could still enjoy the bits that are done anyway. In other words, there can be a difference between a “layout of a lifetime” and a “layout that takes a lifetime.” (And, as a strange plus point perhaps, a train running across plywood can be wherever in the world you imagine it to be.) 3. With apologies for being rather sombre at this point perhaps, but noting the observation earlier that the only dismantling will be left for others to do, it might be wise to design in and document a process for dismantling such that those items that can be salvaged and passed on and / or sold don’t get damaged or thrown out by accident. It’s the ultimate future proofing perhaps. Don’t know if this helps, but a few thoughts. Would I start with ‘Continental’ HO? Absolutely definitely. Keith.

I did misread it as “*** USERS MAY EXPIRE” - but we’re still in heatwave up here, so that made sense. Whatever the message is supposed to be, I guess I’ve been put in the other group: the “may nots”

Hi there! These look great. I’ve only just tried plasticard for the first time, so am still learning about it. I note you’ve used .010” thou for these. That seems very thin (1/4 mm). Do they need reinforcing to keep them straight (and hold up the roof)? Keith.

I came across this layout thread a few days ago while looking around in the Swiss Railways Forum and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed working my way through it all (just a few of the longer videos still to watch). Perhaps the most telling thing about the whole concept were the various comparisons to well known museum layouts - I think that shows just how highly regarded Hufeisental was when the build was in full swing. For a solo project that’s some compliment, and well deserved. Although I’m rather late to the party, I’d still like to record a thankyou to @Alan Kettlewell for sharing this journey. Keith.

With the Combine completed, my next Summer project is to lay the track for the small test track layout. My track-laying experience is limited, so the test track is a good idea. I don’t have a lot of spare Narrow Gauge track, so I need to think things through first. I think my biggest practical challenge will arise from not having a dedicated indoor layout space where I can work on the layout from time to time - then leave everything to dry / set rather than having to put it all away again. So where am I starting from? After many years using OO Setrack for occasional running sessions with my collection of trains, I did pin down a Setrack Table top layout in 2013 - it was great fun to operate, but it was not an essay in scenic model railroading. I rebuilt a simplified version of it using Streamline in 2016, but again this didn’t get as far as ballast or scenery. I tested the idea of Narrow Gauge with some Peco 009 Setrack. I’d used standard N Gauge track when I had a very brief foray into H0e a decade ago. I like the way the 009 Setrack avoids the larger end sleepers in SG Setrack, though it feels a bit more fragile. Nevertheless, I was sufficiently impressed to make the jump into Narrow Gauge modelling. My main NG layout will use Peco 009 Streamline Track alongside the Setrack, and I would have been quite happy with more of the same for the test track. However, I was able to get a few lengths of the alternative, Mainline Narrow Gauge Streamline instead, which is aimed at the kind of European H0e I’m running. I note that the Mainline Flextrack has more sleepers per yard (120) than the irregular patterned track (106), but the arrangement of the webbing under the rails is the same as the SG track I’ve used before. Lesson 1: Thinking about it, the main unlearning I need to do is to appreciate that this is not a simple task to be completed this afternoon - unlike the kind of SG Setrack circuits I’ve sometimes laid out on a day off! With that in mind, I can plan ahead.

I could be completely wrong on this, but a puzzler is always worth a shot… …if I’m reading the small print correctly at the extremities of the Wye, the line from the Pentowan terminus enters at bottom left, but is now shown as passing straight through the point - in earlier plans it diverged to the left (the connection to Polperran having the straight route). Similarly the line from Polperran to St Enodoc, which enters at bottom right, also now goes straight through the first point it encounters, whereas previously it took the diverging route through a right-hand point. That’s my guess - if I am correct and there is room, it would make sense. Just my guess, Keith.

Hi there. You may already have these, but Carl Arendt wrote an online article: “Build Peek’s Pike” dated 11th April 2005 which specifically mentions proscenium arches when describing the framing he used. It’s still available online. Another of Carl’s articles was called “Theatrical Layout Design” (cited as originally published in “Layout Design Journal LDJ35”). I’m not sure of the date of this one, sorry, but the term proscenium is used. The article ends with Carl’s idea for “The Midnight Flyer” - a theatrical layout with interchangeable backdrops - just like in a theatre. Again, it’s still available. I don’t think either of these articles specifically mention your own work, but I’ve only had a quick skim read through today. Of course, these are ideas for micro-layouts rather than multi-section layouts, although there is clear referencing to exhibition layouts in the examples quoted. As you’d expect with Carl, there was plenty of practical evidence to back up the theory, as well as having everything clearly written and well explained - making the concept accessible. Hope it helps, Keith.

…and…stop! I think I can call this finished now: Plenty of room for improvement of course and there’s no interior detailing, although (ironically) the very apparent flaw with the handrails nearest the camera is an optical illusion: they are in fact both more vertical and parallel than the photo above suggests. This is the same end in close-up: The trucks only just clear the steps on 9” curves, but this is a ‘maximum length’ 40’ car so I should be OK with future builds. The large decals are some surplus Railmatch ones my Dad had had made up for his freelance SG ‘Chicago & Atlantic Lines’ road name (probably now to be known as the ‘Carabassett & Atlantic’ ?), and the small car details are actually some dry rub transfers he’s passed on. The decals were very easy to apply (especially given their age) so I could have cut them out closer to the lettering - there’s always something to be learning. The only items I bought were the Peco GR-106 trucks / couplers. Overall, it is quite delicate and light (some extra weight may be needed), but the chassis has already been tested with the previous body so I think I can be reasonably confident with the running quality. For a first fully finished attempt, I’m more than happy. Keith.

Great to see this building has a home - I do think it looks better in these more spacious surroundings (than in the 8” cakebox). Looking forwards to seeing more, Keith.

Hi Jerry, the two buildings are very nice - be a shame to lose them from the layout, but you’re right that they would look out of place without road access (which would be difficult to do plausibly, as vans would need a turning circle). Two options would be: 1. Use them to help screen the fiddle yard at the front of the board but beyond the bridge? 2. Widen the bridge and have them up top - make a change from the usual overpass / bus combination. Just a thought, Keith.