Keith Addenbrooke

For obvious reasons explained above, I hesitated before starting a build thread, but with the holidays now ending here, I think I have enough to share at least a start. I’m planning on using an open grid framework for weight and scenic reasons. The first photo shows the advantage for me of moving to Narrow Gauge - my two end board modules look quite small in front of reclaimed standard gauge boards: I now have all four module frames fitted with DCC Concepts alignment dowels (very easy to fit, incidentally): The overall size is roughly 6’ x 3’ and while this seems to be three-quarters of the 8’ x 4' Standard Gauge plans I had for a GW Branch Line almost a year ago, the beauty of maths (!) is that it is just over half the size (9/16ths): much easier. I’ve also started marking out the track on 12mm ply top boards, but I’ll need to be careful to use the correct lines for this new project! I’d hoped to get further than this by now of course, so I just hope it’s not too boring to post these anyway. Take care and stay safe, Keith.

I've had a few days off between Easter and the start of the Summer term here tomorrow to start a layout project. It'll be my first Narrow Gauge layout, and although I've found RMweb to be a great source of encouragement and advice since I joined in late 2018, this is a new venture for me. Following a helpful response to a query I posted about American Narrow Gauge at the end of February ( A question about HOn30 in the UK? ) I'm looking to get started with European H0e instead. More seems to be available, and I was impressed when I dabbled very briefly in Austrian / German Narrow Gauge a decade ago. I've also joined the NGRM Forum. As I've not modelled in Narrow Gauge properly before, I should begin by managing expectations: since completing a Cakebox Model in March 2019 (my first attempt at a kitbash), I have had 7 attempts at starting Standard Gauge layouts in either OO or HO. This includes two micro-layouts (one of which did get as far as ballasted track), but excludes an HO diorama that is still in progress and a temporary Billy Bookcase-sized Inglenook that was never intended to be sceniced. I don't have a permanent space for a layout, and each time I've got close to a portable solution we've needed to move things around at home and it's been back to the drawing board. Is there a positive in that? Well, it did strike me the other day that I've only once reached a point of frustration where I thought about giving up! This was when I realised that the latest idea - using an attic room for a portable HO American Layout, was going to involve too much carrying stuff up and down a steep dog-leg staircase. Not just baseboards, but rolling stock boxes and buildings. I still have ambitions to model in American HO and British OO, and plenty of great ideas on file, but I also want to get on and build a layout. It was at this point that I realised that Narrow Gauge modelling could enable me design a more compact layout in a scale I feel comfortable with. This is how I weighed up my options: 1. The space I have: The scale / gauge combination to go for: European H0e seemed to fit the bill. The plan I've come up with is for a 1.9m x 0.9m continuous run layout. The first iteration gives an idea of the overall scheme: This has been refined following feedback on NGRM: I like table top continuous run branch line layouts, but I'm not personally a fan of Fiddle Yards, so this ticks the boxes for me for a starter layout. I've got some photos of progress so far, which I'll put into a second post.

Nice example. Agree completely - especially with quite a high viewing position (also suitable for a shelf layout). Good point. I thought about an additional connecting piece after hitting ‘Send’ as well. Guess the optimum arrangement depends on how long your cassettes are, how they are to be supported and how many you want ‘in play’ that need to be accessible (shelf under the layout?).

Presumably they’d still need to build a bridge, to get people and goods across? If it was originally envisaged that the line would continue onwards (partly to justify the double track bridge - and helped by the way the end of the line is laid out as if that was intended), then the river would need crossing anyway.

Hi Phil, I hope all’s well. I like this - the emphasis on the scenic setting as the ‘theme’ comes across well, and is especially suitable for a layout in the living space. As you say in the text, there are ‘shades’ of many GW BLT’s here - without being a copy. I just wonder if I might raise some things that may be worth discussing: Kickback sidings are discussed regularly. Ashburton is perhaps mentioned most often, as the Mill siding wasn’t Loco shunted. Here, I wonder if the dairy - with the volume (and weight) of traffic it generates - means the extra faff of loco shunting would be justified. So although a mill might be a natural water-side industry, the dairy works for me. The headshunt / non-headshunt is ingenious. But would the railway company (GWR or the independent who built it) want to go the expense of a double track bridge? I can see why it was worth bridging the river to get to the town, and it might have been broad gauge originally of course. Is there a prototype that can be cited (as ever, it only needs one!)? Where do you envisage coal being unloaded? The Merchant would probably want a small office, and a weighbridge? Would it help just to straighten out the line that goes onto the cassette so it’s a square connection? Hope it’s OK to ask these. As always, a really nice plan it’d be a joy to see turned into a layout. Keith.

Hi there. An interesting proposition! I think this could be one of those situations where the way things look in Anyrail may not tell you everything you may want to know. My suggestion would be to print out some Peco point templates (unless you have the points already) and lay it all out full size, perhaps even with some mock-up card buildings as well, and place your locos on the track to see how it looks. In this tiny space, little details such as what you use as a buffer stop on the minimal switchback track could make a critical difference to whether or not it all works. Also be worth trying a couple of wagons - the type and size of the couplings you use could also be significant. Are you thinking of ballasted or inset track? It can change the appearance quite dramatically (find some photos of a minimum space Scalescenes box file layout). Just some thoughts, hope they help, Keith.

Hi Chris. I hope all is well down South. For a layout like this, one way to approach the baseboards could be with a fairly conventional sub-frame (L-girder?) that supports a more profiled top. Key things when planning are to ensure joists are not under key pointwork, and to have a jigsaw (or a friend with one) to cut out the top surface. Another variation is to have the track-supporting parts of the baseboard on solid ply (supported by the sub-frame), and an open grid for the rest of the scenery. Fascias can be curved from hardboard (or similar). I’m not saying I could do it, although my latest attempt at getting started is looking at using an open grid baseboard frame, so I’ll see how I get on. There are plenty of examples and qualified experts around to advise. I saw a video yesterday from an accomplished modeller who built a very neat 1/10th (or thereabouts) size model of a proposed model so they could test and check the position of baseboard joints on a multilevel plan. I made a simple one out of cardboard once for a bit of fun - print off a copy of your plan and you have a template to work with. It’d be a good way to test the feasibility of the fiddle yard arrangement, for example. Just a thought, Keith.

Hi there. This looks like a great project. Regarding passenger trains, it would be perfectly possible to have a passenger-only layout with plenty of shunting, particularly for earlier eras. In addition to the types of tail traffic already mentioned, another example can be horse boxes (often marshalled behind the engine, rather than at the tail). Go way back and you have the Lord’s carriage on a flat wagon too - or come forwards and call it MotorRail! If space / rolling stock is available, you can also add / subtract buffet and restaurant coaches, lengthen or shorten trains for different times of day, add extra holiday trains to Summer Saturday timetables, there are Sleepers, Newspapers and Mail to carry, trains that divide (or join), slip coaches and observation Pullmans and no doubt others I’ve not thought of. You may not have space for all these on this layout (at the same time), but the possibilities can be endless. An observation I think belongs to @DavidCBroad is that, in the steam era, it was seen as an inefficient use of motive power to pull any more carriages in a train than were needed, so shunting was common. The rolling stock for my current very simple continuous run test track totals three 4-wheel coaches and one locomotive. As well as alternating which direction my train travels, I decided the other day to run alternate ‘Services’ as either two or three coach trains, and made it an arbitrary bylaw that first class accommodation must always be in the first coach immediately behind the engine (in either direction). Station stops were either one, two or five laps apart. I did not get bored, Keith.

Hi Phil, good to see the progress on Minories, both above and beneath the baseboards. Thinking about the weight issue, my guess is CJF assumed there’d be a second person around when needed - his writings often reference friends or family members. For exhibition use it’s always helpful to have someone else to ask if you’ve got the: extension lead, legs, rolling stock box, light fittings, spare controller, etc... A traditional upright porter’s trolley would be an alternative to castors - again perhaps a more common sight in the 50s / 60s? Presumably at some point you’ll have a second box for the fiddle yard too? Going in another direction, I’m sure I’ve seen example of an early layout in an Edward Beal book where it folded shut but didn’t move: instead the top became a cushion-covered seat (in which case weight and solidity would be good things). I concur - having tested the route up to my latest proposed layout space, which now involves an extra flight of stairs and another dog-leg turn, 4’ now seems too long for me but a metric metre works, so I’m working on that assumption too.

Hi Dave, thanks for the reply. With regards to my ‘Cakebox’ model I’m afraid I’ve not studied Signalling or Train Order Boards, so am bound to make mistakes. From looking at the photo and accompanying drawing of the example at Cumbres I referenced (called a ‘Harrington’ pattern in the accompanying text), it looked like there was a lens protruding above the pivot that would align with a light on the mast when in the horizontal position? Part of the problem is my photos can make it look like a separate light. As for the track plan, it was the intention with that idea that the line would continue off to the left past the Depot, an idea I got looking at the Sanborn maps of Alma in Kansas. I think the railroad the Santa Fe interchanged with there was the CRIP, which would be the most likely candidate for the model - based on discussion earlier in the thread and the proximity of the lines in the area I’m looking at (most notably at Ardmore, where we have your photos of the Depot that originally served both railroads, albeit one on each side in that case). My plan had to go through a further iteration, which dropped the interchange when I shortened the station boards. Subsequent to that, tests carrying things up and down our attic room stairs highlighted a problem with the length and weight of some of my boards when negotiating a steep dog leg, so I’ve paused this project for now and am looking at something more compact in Narrow Gauge in the interim. It remains a long-term project.

Writing 200 words and choosing just three photos for a submission has proved more difficult than I thought it would, but it’s the same for everyone of course. Here’s the photo that came fourth when I was choosing: (The one I’m submitting shows the shingle pattern on the roof better, but less of the rear loading dock). I also need to find a home for Home, as the window where it is at the moment catches the sun - but I do want to keep it. I started preliminary work on my next project today. That’ll be another story, but I think I can say I really have completed this one now. Thanks to all once more. Take care and stay safe, Keith.

The RMweb ‘Cakebox’ competition has gone to overtime (we’ve been given a few more days over the holiday weekend), so I’ve had a second go at the Train Order Board for my Depot model. I used some thinner card that was easier to cut into a more complex shape - and tried to glue the arms to the mast more in line with the pivot in the photo I’d copied (link in a post on this above): I don’t know if I’ll get chance to redo my “Final” photos in daylight over Easter weekend, but at least I know I was able to have another try (I had some unplanned free time today). (These photos are also on my Cakebox thread).

With the game in overtime, I’ve had another go at the Train Order board, after constructive feedback from a Professional Railroader on the American and Canadian Forum, who correctly noted that my first try wasn’t quite right. This time I’ve used some thinner white card which I could cut in a single sheet, making it easier to model the more sophisticated shape required (Train Order Boards are different from signals): I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to redo the “final” photos I’ve already taken in daylight as it’s Easter weekend now: I had some unexpected spare time today as a video we’ve recorded for Easter is still processing, but at least I know I was able to make an improvement.

Hi there Simon. Thank you for sharing the photos - makes it much easier to imagine being in your loft, and to frame the questions better. Having read the contributions above I’m basically in agreement with the main points being raised. If I could offer an observation which may or may not be helpful from my own experience over the past ten years, since I also became more active in the hobby again and started a couple of layouts - both of which I enjoyed but neither progressed beyond track on bare boards: 1. My first layout used Setrack. It was fun to operate (which was my priority) and I very much enjoyed it. But using Setrack points made it difficult to get away from the rigid look - it was the 22.5 degree curve in the short points that was too sharp to make the layout look realistic or flowing. 2. After seeing Peco Streamline Long Points in my local model shop I decided to relay the layout. I went from a busy Setrack layout with 16 points to a flowing Streamline layout with just 6 in the same space. The basic operating scheme was almost the same, and I had just as much fun (I ran the same trains!), but the layout looked and ran much smoother (the Peco Streamline points have a standard 12 degree curve - much gentler). It didn’t cost as much to relay it as I simplified it. 3. I must admit it was the absence of scenery and a scenic setting that meant the layouts were never quite convincing, and is now something I try and bear in mind when planning my next projects (but that’s another story, as yet unfinished). I don’t know if this helps - my apologies if it just sounds like I’m repeating the chorus of ‘switch to Streamline’ but if you’re at the stage of frustration - which we all go through - my experience taught me that moving to a simpler flowing layout was the way forward. Quite a long post, sorry - but to test this (for free!) you could download and print off some Streamline point templates from the Peco website and see how they look on the layout. If I’m guessing right, it could be that tight 22.5 degree turn in just over 6” that may be the problem. Keith.

...we blame the seagulls when that happens here - didn’t realise they reached Leamington Spa these days.

I’m sure you haven’t. I’ll ask the boss (we wouldn’t want the instructions issuing tomorrow morning - might not believe them ), Keith.

Warning! This morning I finished eating my way through another rather large packet of cereal bought a while back on discount (and as they’re Rice Krispies they’re sound fitted!) - and even though my Cakebox model is now finished, I couldn’t bring myself to put this big box of quality card into the recycling: Another one wasn’t in the plans…

Not sure - either could be used for cakeboxes.

Glad I’m up to date with reading this thread - I’m needing new wood for the first time in twenty-plus years, as boards I’ve had in storage have reached the end of their useful life after being chopped about once too often in various false starts last year. Our Wickes isn’t as big as our B&Q but both are local and about the same distance away, and what Wickes has does seem better. There is a clear sign saying it’s OK to open packs for single pieces if needed, though I just picked up and checked over the pack I bought. Thanks for the pointer.

Thank you - I must admit I am looking forward to getting going after Easter, although with something different next time. I’m still working out the details, but I’ll see how far I get.

I've invested my modelling time since Christmas having a go at scratchbuilding a Cakebox model for the revived 2021 competition: Home Depot - a Lockdown Cakebox. Now that's just about finished, my thoughts are turning to the next project. I'm afraid I've rather left Uphill hanging - it meant quite a bit to me personally because of my connections with the area, but changes we've made in our house mean the place I can set up portable layouts now involves carrying everything up and down steep stairs all the way to an attic room, and the space when I get there isn't quite long enough for Uphill with its Fiddle Yard anyway. I'm exploring doing something in Narrow Gauge instead, as this gives me more compact options while staying in a scale I like for modelling buildings, but this means I won't be progressing Uphill any further. Nothing is wasted though - this is what I've learned which I hope has been worth sharing: The research I did into "might have been schemes" that led me to start Uphill was very enjoyable and worthwhile. Seeing the difference I got from modifying Setrack to give a wider sleeper spacing was useful (if less enjoyable!). Choosing to use up some oversized ballast I had wasn't a wise decision - the large gaps around the point switchblades looked quite messy (especially in the photos), and is something I'll need to tackle differently in narrow gauge. So while this train will stop here, another one will be along soon - I'm looking forward to my next modelling day, Keith.

Hi @stegotron - this really looks excellent, thank you for sharing it: to me it looks totally believable, one of those where you look twice (or four times) at the photos to check if it really is a model! As for the competition, the usual means of formally entering has been to send a copy of the photos and words to an email address given out by @Phil Parker when we reach the deadline: do look out for that as we’re nearly at the end of March. Keith.

Hi Dave, fair point - I was trying to find a design I could copy and cut out in basic cardboard. It was supposed to look like this: Cumbres Section House Signal (which I recognise isn't a Santa Fe design anyway). I hadn't originally planned to include a train order board at all, but as a diorama it looked like there was something missing without one - because there was. I'm not sure I'll have time to re-do it for the Cakebox competition, but for layout purposes it would want replacing.

Simply to provide an update, rather than leave a loose end for anyone finding this thread when looking for UK HOn30: I very much enjoyed reading Tony Koester's Kalmbach book - for me it was ideal. I've also had a look at the links suggested above to find out more about what's available to get me started. I'm not an experienced modeller, or bargain hunter, so this is key. Adding it all up, European H0e looks to be an easier way to begin rather than US HOn30 at the moment: more seems to be readily available in the UK, and I was impressed with what I had a decade ago. As I'm finishing a small 'Cakebox' build project I've been working on in US HO, I'm looking at what's next. Narrow Gauge has clear benefits for the layout space I now have, but there'll be a German or Austrian flavour rather than an American one, at least for the time being. Thank you for the advice and pointers - it has confirmed the attractions of a Narrow Gauge Project; it'll just be a bit different. Keith.

After a month without posting an update, it's actually encouraging to see this thread has 'slipped' quite a way down Page 3 of the Forum: it suggests there's plenty to discuss (it's been enjoyable catching up with my reading this morning too). I've been working on my first Scratchbuild: a small Combination Freight and Passenger Depot made out of cereal packet and packing card for the BRM / RMweb 'Cakebox Competition' and built from plans in a November 1979 Model Railroader article. The full story of my build is posted in the Competition Forum (Home Depot - a Lockdown Cakebox), but here are some duplicates of photos I took when I just had the card edge corners still to paint: Needless to say it's turned out far better than I expected - to fit it into the 8" square allowed I only had to shorten the rear loading dock. I know the Train Order Board arms are too short (I think they were sometime shortened or removed when decommissioned, but I've gone for an earlier colour scheme so it would probably still have been there?). _______________________ By way of a general update, my previous posts described the latest iteration of plans for a starter layout - having also exceeded all my expectations when I started this thread. Layout plans have however now paused, as I found that carrying everything I needed up and down the attic stairs more onerous than enjoyable: a condition of using the space is that it can be cleared of all evidence of modelling when needed as a guest room. My long term aim to model the Santa Fe in 1970 in HO remains unchanged, but for now I'm looking at something in Narrow Gauge in the space instead. I think I've satisfied myself I'm comfortable in HO Scale, but I'd like to build something more compact, so that'll be my next short-term modelling project while I continue my research. Keith.