Keith Addenbrooke

Yup - I phoned my Dad to check: he has two, both #5226 (one will get renumbered in due course).

I’ve had a bit of time this afternoon to check and there are multiple product runs / variations available for the “State of Maine” car I suggested this morning so, as Patrick and others have noted, its ubiquity will not be quite in line with the rules of the game. (I had the experience with my OO UK collection at one time of having two different locomotives of different classes but with the same running number, but that would be another game)

The “State of Maine” 40’ boxcars in a red, white and blue striped paint scheme (Bangor and Aroostock?) would be my nomination, perhaps for HO layouts set slightly before the ubiquitous Railbox era. Seem to see a lot of them in layout articles. That said, I don’t have one myself to photo, but my Dad does on his layout.

I was actually present at a School Assembly where our Headmaster - commenting on how badly we were crossing the main road outside the school - really did say: “If you get knocked over and break your legs, don’t come running to me.” Restoring order in the Hall took a while. (It was the kind of School that had had a Model Railway Club, which was still in the Prospectus, but had folded by the time I arrived)

I’m not sure it looks particularly safe for the two workmen standing on a running line with trains passing either side though?

(Sorry, photo no longer available) Maybe not, but it’s one way to test ideas... (Sorry, photo no longer available)

Having switched to Narrow Gauge to help me achieve my aim of building a working layout, it’s important (to me) to maintain some momentum. I’m therefore posting this really for my own benefit, as I knew the second module (the ‘industrial’ end module) would be the biggest of the four to do: the end modules are slightly larger, and this one has the most baseboard - it weighs 4.2kg with this much 12mm roadbed, and has an additional cross-member supporting the risers along the rear line. Getting this far also has another benefit: it becomes increasingly less likely I’ll want to delay the project by radically altering the track plan to go for a different type of operating scheme (the penalty of too having many ideas) - instead, I can start to visualise how this scheme might look, which encourages me to press on: I’ve started looking at ideas for buildings - I can now think of structures of appropriate sizes, at least for the railroad part of the layout. Modules 3 and 4 will be simpler and a bit lighter, as each just has a single track line. The tricky bit will be plotting and cutting the curved roadbed each one needs, but that’s a job for next time. Keith.

All makes good sense. As someone else who’s juggled various interests, experience taught me not to be too hasty in writing something off I’d lost interest in for a moment - in case all I needed was a break and enthusiasm was going to return. Noting points 1. and 5. above, but also looking at your Hennock thread, I just wonder if it’s worth setting it up in the space when you get there / if it’s moving with you and while you have fun with large scale live steam. It will reserve the space as a layout space, give you a chance to see what a small layout actually looks like in the space, and in good time, who knows... Just a thought, Keith.

Give everyone 11 votes?

With a bit more time over the weekend I’ve been able to fit the main Station Board onto the subframe. As the main flat top area this one uses 8 of the risers. Here’s the first test in the proposed layout space. I weighed the module on the way up to the attic room - 3.6kg at this stage: The pen is actually a small spirit level - this is a genuine first photo! The woodwork isn’t actually that good - the ply in particular shows it’s age and the fact I can’t cut straight, but I’m obviously happy so far. It gives me every encouragement to continue, and hopefully shows that it is possible - no special tools or skills required! Take care and have a good week, Keith. (PS: Daytime photos in the layout space aren’t going to be easy - it faces a window, and the rest of the room contains non-railway stuff that’s not mine to show).

Good idea - at some point I should definitely try at least a diorama using polystyrene to see how I get on. Thanks for the link: it’s not as expensive as I’d thought, and it is important to get the right sort. The environmental aspect is however something we’re all now much more conscious of - appreciate you pointing that out too. As I’ve already sourced enough wood, I think I will try this traditional method first. With some free time this morning and a sunny day I’ve been able to set up a production line in the garden and now have a full set of 28 dominoes risers: For me, this is quite astonishing progress!

If someone modelled water to match the blue of the river in the first of those photos my guess is we’d think it was too bright! Stunning photos of a great location. Thanks you for sharing them here, Keith

More please . I know very little about US logging railroads, but I know this looks great. Cass / Mower is something else I was introduced to via Carl Arendt’s website (he did a feature in one of his books, I seem to recall). In the past few weeks, logging / timber industry modelling has come at me from three independent directions - all of which have been very impressive. Thanks for sharing this here, Keith.

Thanks Woody for the encouragement. The next stage of the build will take a while, as I need to make a load of risers to support the roadbed - it’s a bit like handcrafting dominoes. I’ve managed just four this week: They don’t have to be perfect (thankfully) as long as they are flat across one end. It is tempting to skip this step and just fasten the plywood to the sub-frame, but lifting the roadbed a couple of inches will give me a greater incentive to progress to the scenic stage when I get there. I’ve also revisited the track plan again, for two reasons really: 1. I’m an inveterate layout planner who can’t resist fiddling, and... 2. As I read more about narrow gauge modelling I’m thinking I might one day regret the restricted run-round loop length. @Hobbymade the suggestion (on NGRM) that it might be worth an extra track across a layout join at the Station, so I’ve played around a bit and am thinking of this: It doesn’t change anything significant, but could sustain interest for longer. I don’t need to buy any more track - I just need to keep cutting risers! Hope everyone has a good weekend, Keith.

There will be engineering answers for situations where the centre of a curve cannot be easily identified for triangulation (eg: line along a sea wall!), but I’m afraid I don’t know them, sorry. Whatever technique was used for marking out curves of a constant radius to be joined here seems to have given a neat result too of course, though I understand that can be done without knowing the centre point. I’ve had a play over lunch, but I’m afraid all I’m coming up with is what I think you’ve already done Once again, this is easier to draw (or prove) when centres are known. I think at this point I have to concede the limit of my knowledge, although I suspect there’s an obvious answer I’m not seeing either, Keith.

With these short tangents, I guess knowing a measurement for Ta + Tb also helps check the tangent will be long enough to avoid buffer locking on the reverse curve (before being able to play test it with rolling stock on the actual track)? If my pencil lines on plywood could be as neat as these, I’d be tempted not to ballast the track and leave them showing .

Thank you - it was question 2 ('Tb') where I think I have a different answer: your original shows: Tb = Sq Rt of (Rb*Rb) - (Db*Db) whereas I get: Tb = Sq Rt of (Db*Db) - (Rb*Rb) As you say above, Tb is needed to calculate Ta. Either way, I suspect the class who opted for music so they could listen to the records instead are probably glad they skipped maths. Hope the family house move has gone well today, Keith.

I don't use much maths in my present job, so find it hard to keep up with my kids, so I've taken a lunchtime maths test to see if I could work out for myself how @FarrMan's calculations work. Starting with 'Ra', 'Rb' and 'D' (which I understand) I think I'm OK with the derivation of 'Db' and 'Ta,' but I've got a reversal in my formula for 'Tb'...? Have I missed something: Sorry, not much to do with trains. Just curious, Keith.

Really good to see how this worked out. I must admit I’d not realised Tudor Grange was one of the Grange class locos - having also grown up in Solihull the name of the School was instantly familiar (although I personally went to a different School and in the 1980s). I had an earlier Hornby Grange for some years - lovely loco but limited pulling power. Keith.

While Australia sleeps, we can ponder. I’ll take a punt and say I’d use it like this: (Sorry, photos no longer available) You can also match the outer rail (or even sleeper edge) at A to the inner rail at B (and vice versa). To achieve this with a straight ruler, I think it would need to be exactly Gauge width at the touching points. I can’t cut card that accurately. Hope this is correct (I’ve made a right wally of myself otherwise of course...)

Thanks Clive - so was there a gap that allowed the traverser to slide that doesn’t appear to be so obvious (to my eyes at least) in the angle of the photo? Your Sheffield Exchange layouts are certainly very good examples to cite in defence of DMU operation - something this photo shows well.

How did the traverser work for access to the outer tracks (the five to the left in this view). It looks like a rather solid wall to the right? As an obvious general layout design point, traversers and train turntables both need room to slide / swing, perhaps making them less ideal for some Minories schemes where the station layout naturally suits a shelf. For a traverser you could ‘flip’ a Minories so the exit tracks are at the front of the board, and there are train turntable designs that pull away from the wall for turning: I saw pictures of one recently that was made like a tea trolley for ease of turning.

I like this idea - child / small dog safe, compact and neat: But I think it would need at least two people (one each side) to open / close safely to avoid bad backs when opening, or would want a supporting pivot as suggested by @Flying Pig. As an alternative, would it work if the two boards weren’t hinged, and lifted out / slid in one at a time (when lifting out, open the leg first)? You could avoid modifying the original drop-leaf table if wings are used to support the layout? The gate-leg table I use as my desk is a ‘front loader’ with a door to the central storage piece as an alternative to the ‘top loader’ above. This particular design only has a very restricted central space, but it’s the concept I’m referring to. Keith.

Would it be an idea to lengthen the warehouse track? Smooth out the S-curve?

My post-Easter break is drawing to close as the Summer Term here starts tomorrow. With my Cakebox entry now submitted, I'm breaking cover and explaining what my next project and the pile of wood is actually for (29th March post above): A Narrow Gauge Misadventure - a first layout in H0e. I'm still trying to get that elusive layout built - I'll see how I get on with this one! Keith.