Keith Addenbrooke

Hi Ben, the grade crossing has the makings of a really nice ‘cameo’ scene. I think there were examples of wig-wag signals in rural locations - I believe their electric power requirements were quite minimal. I do wonder if, for your remote location, it’s unlikely there’d be two cars waiting at the crossing though: more likely just one truck, and most likely no vehicles at all. Trying to visualise it, I realised I was finding it hard to imagine a grade crossing with no-one around, just because it’s something I never see (by definition!), but the signals would still operate. I imagine the road surface will look quite dusty and dirty too by the time you’ve finished blending it in with the rest of your scenery. I really enjoy the short videos of trains passing - good to see the layout running, thank you for sharing them, Keith.

Hi there again. The photos are really helpful, thank you. A few random thoughts: 1. I was just wondering, as the tracks pass through each “Station”, are they level or do they dip? This will affect whether you can uncouple a train and leave it there to run-round it (if you want to). If not, I’d suggest the sidings may need to be able to take a train away from the main line for uncoupling. 2. One of the problems I run into regularly when ‘translating’ US plans for UK use is where to put platforms (again: if you want them). The thought crosses my mind that you could develop the fan of sidings you have in one of the photos in area A into a Terminus station for short trains. I’m not sure if there’s room for a runround track there too, but with DC cab control you don’t need a run-round, if the ends of terminal roads are isolated and you have a spare locomotive. Or you may run DMUs / HSTs / Javelins, etc... 3. The original plan had the turntable on the outside, but couldn’t have any loco storage roads off it (as shown here in the 3-D Scarm render on page 1). Modellers tend to have more locos these days, so @Chimer’s suggestion has clear merits on that front: storage for 6 spare locos is not excessive. 4. Now we’ve seen the photos, I get why you’d like to settle on track arrangements for A, B and C to finish off (as opposed to my first response). The turntable you have also needs a hole in the baseboard of course (unlike the Hornby one, for example). Adding this all up, I’ll make a suggestion (finally responding to the original question ). Personally, I think I’d be inclined to go with a fan of sidings in area A, with two of them either side of an island platform for short passenger trains. If it were me, I’d be inclined to put the turntable in area C - with a fan of engine storage tracks as Chimer had them, but all moved to the other side of the layout. I’d keep area B largely scenic: even though it is possible to reach into that space from the outside, it means leaning over the raised running lines on the outside (not so easy with 8-year old arms perhaps?). You could perhaps put a coal mine or quarry in the hillside, with a Goods siding that had an automatic uncoupling ramp? There will of course be other ideas. Keith.

Hi Chris - you could probably add the baseboard joints to help here? From the pictures there are four sections across the ‘top’ with the fifth being the extension bottom right. The boards don’t look uniform size, but looks like @HR_Line has wisely placed the joins to minimise curves across joints (quite a feat with this plan): all looks very well built. (Yes, of course I want one...)

I certainly can’t think of any mainstream examples amongst diesels (as opposed to electrics, where there are several that could be cited). Across the continent, different railroads variously specified the control stands in cabs to be set up to run primarily short hood or long hood forward (or provided dual controls). From what I can tell, the move towards doubling up hood unit power as standard even on short trains was mainly to de-risk the problems that would be caused by a single locomotive failure (ie: not a regulatory requirement). For a quick, non-technical overview answer, that’s probably the best summary I can offer, Keith.

Just wondering, when did it become standard practice to have two power units on trains like these - I’m presuming it’s for safety (so there is always a leading short hood)?

I spent quite a lot of time last year planning a UK outline GW Branch Line layout. Each time I thought I'd got there, things unconnected with railway modelling caused a change of plan (I don't have a dedicated layout space, so modelling fits around family life). I'm getting closer now, but had to make another change following our half-term project to reconfigure various rooms around the house. We've been more successful than expected (which is good), but this means more access will be needed behind the proposed layout space in the attic room. I've therefore had to shorten the longer side of the layout so we can get past. Experience tells me that, once the ruling length falls below 8', options become much more constrained, so I've gone for something quite simple, again loosely based on a Kalmbach Model Railroader plan from some years ago: As before, I drew it up in Anyrail first to check it all fits, but I find redrawing is a good way to confirm my ideas: I've used the opportunity to remodel the Grain Elevator Spur part of the plan and make it longer. I can't extend the staging cassette further because of the door / doorway, but that's the compromise. I've lost the space at the Depot end of the layout for a small town scene, so may move this to the open curve. It's not an ideal spot, but I built a row of Walthers' shops as a first try at one of their kits last year (photo below). As this is really a starter layout, i could use them to get started. I've not tried detailing a building interior before, but this could be something else new for me to try at some point: As indicated above, the station layout has changed to give me the maximum length industrial spurs and run-round I can fit in. I'm happy it doesn't look too cramped, and by keeping the Depot at the far end of the layout, I can get a Team Track to run behind it: effectively I'm modelling the East end approach to a small town station. Looking at Sanborn maps of Pauls Valley, it appears that the sidings behind the Depot were split from the mid-1920s onwards, stopping either side of the Depot rather than being continuous. Although the rest of the plan is not based on Paul Valley specifically, this should be OK. Two of the three tracks across the middle board joint are now angled, but all are straight. After the different false starts I've had, something quite straightforward seems to me to be a wise choice. I think this should work? (this photo was shown on RMweb last year on one of the BRM lockdown modelling threads)

My thanks to @imt and @Joe61264 for linking to the discussion we had last summer on this - I learned a lot very quickly, and (as noted in that thread) was able to apply the advice given more generally to other things we have in the cellar too.

Fantastic - the gentle curve in the rock face makes the third photo especially appear so much larger than a cakebox. There is some stunning scenic work here, and some lovely details, and it’s very well presented (you can tell I’m impressed). Keith.

Here’s a suggestion for an operating sequence on a layout like this: 1. Make up a train at the principal (blue line) station. Train departs - does a few laps of the blue line, then takes a facing point cut-off onto the red* line, where it does a few more laps then stops at the red station (shunts as appropriate). 2. Make up a second train at the principal (blue line) station. Train departs, keeping to the blue line. 3. For a while, both trains can circulate their figures of eight - works better if one is a slow, one a fast. Although they both set off from the blue station in the same direction initially, they appear to be going in opposite directions during this part of the sequence. This is the genius of this plan. 4. After a designated period, the second train terminates at the blue station and is shunted to the sidings. 5. The first train can then return to the blue route via the second orange cut-off, where it heads back to the principal station to terminate. 6. A local goods train is then made up at the red station and makes its leisurely way around the layout, perhaps alternating between blue and red circuits. 7. While the local goods is on the blue route, a branch passenger (Autocoach or DMU) based at the red station does a few stopping laps of the red circuit. ...and so it continues. At times you are controlling two trains, at other times shunting one while the other keeps running. By the age of 10, I was making up simple sequence-based ‘timetables’ like this for my first layout (which was just an oval with one siding and one passenger train to start with), and it was ‘timetable operation’ on a continuous run layout that got me hooked on model railways. The only real suspension of disbelief that is required is to overlook the fact that a train that sets off from the station as an Up / Eastbpund train will arrive back at the same station still as an Up / Eastbound train when it terminates. It’s the same train - you pretend it’s a different station. That didn’t bother me when I was ten, and doesn’t personally bother me today, and it seems like @HR_Line has mastered the track laying already, so it all sounds good to me. ____________ (* green per @Chimer’s scale drawing on XtrakCad)

Agreed - subject to the wiring being per @Flying Pig’s explanation above, With regards to @HR_Line’s opening question as to what to add at points A, B and C, note that my versions shows them all as trailing points only because I’ve used American right-hand running designations. With British left-hand running, all three become facing points - albeit off the loops that have been included in this version of the plan. What to add (or how to do it) could be key to maintaining and developing the interest of HR_Junior: by the time an eight year old is 10, they are 25% older, so @Zomboid’s point about moving quickly is a very good one.

Agreed - my comment refers specifically to wiring the layout.

I’ve only had time for a quick look so far, but on a serious note I wanted to acknowledge the way @Tony Wright has written the Editorial - I think the wording and tone of his writing is spot on: recognising and explaining some of the wider context and consequences of the pandemic, outlining the legacy of Roy Jackson’s Retford and at the same time offering words of hope and encouragement. Achieving all this in just a few words (presumably written some weeks ago) is impressive. Yes, this may be a hobby to many of us, but it can also be something that offers more, and I think Tony (whom I do not know personally) has captured this very well. Thank you Tony - today I feel privileged to be a BRM subscriber.

If I remember correctly, the plan dates for the days when “loop-to-loop” plans for US table top layouts were seen as something to aspire to. This plan simulates that but (as you’d expect from John Armstrong) plays a few tricks on us: If I unpack the plan (without the extra L extension) and mark the main lines for right-hand US running it looks like this: (Sorry, picture no longer available) Across the viaduct and around the end curves, correct-handed double track running looks to be what is happening. The two orange cutoffs (which have already been built as I understand it) complement this by allowing trains to switch tracks without any ‘wrong-line running’ - trains starting on the red line take cut-off E and trains starting on the blue line use cutoff D. I think conventional crossovers between the running lines would introduce ‘wrong line’ running. If I unpack the schematic, I think it looks like this: (Sorry, picture no longer available) What this reveals is that Station A is the principal station - it appears on both the blue route and the longer route that uses the orange cutoffs. In terms of developing the layout, this may help determine what kind of sidings may be better at A (the principal ones) compared to B and C (as the ‘red’ station is a secondary station that can be bypassed). From memory, the original John Armstrong plan did just that - the ‘blue’ station was the main station - the red line did not have a passing loop at this point and was more of a bypass line. Checking this reveals the error in my first post: You are quite right - my mistake, there is no reversing loop in my drawing. I’ll correct my initial response to avoid confusion (It was Linn Westcott’s “HO Railroad that Grows” that had a reversing loop, sorry).

Hi there, you got my attention with the mention of John Armstrong - though I’m guessing your modelling is UK based with the reference to OO. Thinking back to when I had my first layout aged nine or ten, my overriding memory is of nearly wearing out the Setrack I had constantly changing the track layout each time I had a new idea. With that in mind, my suggestion would be to keep your options open - finish getting the two loops working (with DC you’ll need reverse loop wiring for this plan, but I’ll guess you’re on top of that already Edited as I was thinking of a different plan here) You can hold two or three trains on the layout as it is, so what I’d then do is lay some temporary Setrack sidings in areas A to C (including the turntable) so you can see what catches the imagination - and what doesn’t. I’m not sure how often the layout has to be disassembled and put away, or where the baseboard joins are (which could constrain more permanent track arrangements anyway) but my main aim would be to find a way to develop interest by being able to say “Yes” to each new idea and try it, rather than trying to be too prescriptive. Not sure if this will help at all, but it’s one way to look at the project. Above all of course, have fun, Keith.

Would another alternative be to keep that crossover “as it should be” but move it right a bit, so that a short train (a transfer run?) could pull into the yard from “main west”, pulling onto the second track next to “main east” if more space was needed. It could then back up a bit into the yard arrival / departure run-round. Would that be allowed?

Thanks Marlyn, it could be done with individual tiles, but would need more time (and patience) than I have. Part of the problem with using my daughter’s artist’s paints (the tubes are visible in the background in the photo) was that kind of acrylic paint seems designed to fill in and cover over any gaps and holes - whereas I needed to highlight my score lines. If I can get the building finished by the end of the month, I should have enough time to do the base / track in March; well, that’s the plan anyway. Keith.

Hi Jonny, it’s good of you to let us know - as @Marly51 says, your building is a great model in its own right (and already existed of course). If you do find the motivation to cut back the bushes in your front garden can you bottle some and send it north* - mine is in need of similar attention. Keith __________ I live in the North-West these days but grew up in Solihull, where my Dad still lives incidentally.

Day 44 - Seeing red The correct roof colour for the Santa Fe Depot I’m modelling was described in Model Railroader as: “red.” Remember, this was Model Railroader in 1979 - the sophistication regarding specific shades we might expect today still lay in the future, as did colour photos throughout magazines! I can’t find many photos of Depot roofs online either - photographers tended to stand by the Stations to take photos (from ground level) of passing trains, so I’ve based my choice of colour (color) on two things: Photos of American Model Builders’ Santa Fe Depot kits (very nice - but not cheap, and difficult to find over here); The choice of red paint I was able to borrow from my artist daughter, as I don’t have any in my supply anyway. First step was to mark out and scribe the diamond shingles onto the next piece of card - environmental considerations mean cereal packet card is less bleached than it used to be (this actually helps). This sheet is from a packet of my all-time favourite cereal, Quaker Oat Crisp: I then painted it red, before lightly ‘dusting’ it with a black crayon to dull the brightness and add a hint of weathering: I’ve not stuck it down yet: the light isn’t very good at night in my study, so I want to have another look in the morning. Although it all looks quite bright, it does seem to be quite authentic (from what I can tell). One thing I like about the Santa Fe is the choice of colours they painted their trains and buildings.

Nice idea thank you - It’ll be a little while before I get to that stage but I’ll try out these suggestions when I get there. The Grain Elevator will also be the first thing people see as they come up the stairs into the attic room (which is not a conventional viewing position!). It’s an impressive building - I have a Walthers’ kit but haven’t started it yet - so it could make a good ‘signature scene’, but I’m jumping ahead of myself a bit: today’s task is scribing diamond shingles for the Depot roof. Thanks again for the ideas - all good stuff, Keith.

If you use the Peco crossing, one way to make the track meet up is to have a single piece of flex track on the other side of the loop curved to fit - I think the radius would be a tiny bit wider than R1, and if it was just a 22.5 Deg. curve fitting between two pieces of Setrack it should be a bit easier to avoid kinks in the track. You could create a template by marking out the ends of the Peco crossing and working from there. Just a thought, Keith.

Hi there, I think we may be talking about two slightly different things: extending the grain elevator spur onto the cassette would allow me to push a cut of hoppers through the loading shed so each one can be loaded in turn (the curved track means the elevator won’t shift to the right along the spur). Adding a second staging track for another train would be a bit different. As I envisage it, a branch like this one would only see one train a day (mainly freight, but just possibly a mixed train a few times a week, although most had ended earlier than my period). It might be an idea to have multiple cassettes made up for alternate trains (less stock handling), but I only expect to need one at a time. I agree a longer staging track would be good: it would enable me to add another car to the train, which would add to the operation (and still fit the runround at the Station). It may be possible, I’ll need to see how it all fits around the door opening.

In my Jan 28th post above I explained we’re re-arranging several rooms in our house, and I’m now looking at a space in the attic room where I can set up portable layouts. It means I’ll have to carry the boards up a further flight of stairs (with a dog leg), so the size and number of the boards will be governed by that rather than the available space when I get there. I already have on file ideas for a UK layout that will fit the revised space, but it will need new baseboards. Using some boards I already have, and making minimal adjustments to them, I have 8’4” x 5’4” for a compact U-shaped US layout on four boards. It’s the other way round to the space I had before, but I’m quite happy with this - there are plenty of excellent layouts in this Forum in smaller spaces than that. I had a number of attempts at trying to design a station with an industry siding / team track running behind the depot (per my Jan 28th post), but I couldn’t make them look convincing. I therefore went back to first principles and started again. I’ve been greatly helped by following advice from @James Hilton, and it’s clear to me that one of my key drivers remains the model railroads I remember growing up, pouring over my Dad’s Model Railroader magazines and Kalmbach plan books. Layout design has moved on, but re-creating those memories has been the entry point for my renewed interest in US outline modelling, so I had another look through the books I bought (again) a few years ago and came up with this as an idea: I should explain I did my initial drawing in Anyrail, so I know it fits. I've also given myself the additional constraint of using track I already have: I don't have a large budget, and supplies are still limited anyway. The points I've noted are these: The length of the Cassette staging track is constrained as the door opens into the space - a longer removable cassette might be possible, but there is enough room for a four car train to be hidden behind the Grain Elevator. Ideally, the Grain Elevator spur would be longer, so cars can be pushed through for loading, but I may just have to pretend. For me, a requirement that is always high on my list of "Givens" is for trains to "go somewhere." This open curve is all I have room for, and requires curved joints at either end of the board, but I do have some DCC Concepts alignment dowels to make it feasible. The small interchange yard doubles as a run-round, and is a feature I got from the plan I based this on. Each track takes just three 50' cars, but allows some yard switching (my previous plan didn't have this). I don't intentionally go looking for ways to include switchbacks - honest! - this is a function of the switches I have and the placement of the baseboard joint. It's probably fair to say that 'old-time' layout designers were more inclined to include this kind of arrangement than would be done today, but I've managed to leave an open lead track (in front of the mill) to make this easier to use. The #1 Combination Depot I'm scratchbuilding doesn't have any loading bay doors round the back, so I've run the spur up to the loading dock at the side of the building instead. I'm imagining the line continues off-stage in front of the Depot to the interchange (not modelled). Looking at Sanborn maps, this seemed to be the arrangement on the SF Alma Branch, which I looked at after seeing a video of an amazing model of that line. There are still a number of compromises in the design, but it gives a sense of the layout I'm working towards, Keith.

I think Standard Setrack geometry has the points and crossings designed for R2 (not R1). If you are using Hornby then they have a “left hand” and a “right hand” crossing to make it easier to create junctions - this would mean a figure of 8 would have the two sides slightly out of alignment with each other. Theoretically, to get a figure of eight to fit, I think it means you need a single R2 curve on the other side of each R1 loop to compensate for the R2 crossing in the middle. It should work with Hornby track. The Peco Crossing is, if I remember correctly, universal, but it may not quite work as I think each ‘side’ of the crossing is the same length as a standard straight. Whether your computer program makes it fit might be another thing, I guess it depends on how it models track joints. Afraid I no longer have any R1 track to test this out in practice for you, sorry.

If Liam doesn’t mind me asking a question specifically to this video, I’d have thought this was the kind of situation where a shoving platform would be justified (looking at the Google map link)? It looks like the train goes down a running line before reaching the industrial park, so it is not yet in the switching area. Just wondered - I know less about operations today, Keith.

Hi Liam, I like @long island jack’s suggestion for developing your layout plan. It prompted me to have a close look at your track plan, and if it’s not too late to offer an observation, it does look like the staging / fiddle yard as drawn is quite a lot larger than you’re likely to need for this layout (it’s quite a British Fiddle Yard in that sense). There’s only likely to be one train a day into your industrial park, but if you went with the idea of making the yard scenic - as part of the wider railroad - I agree it could add to the layout. My own US layout plan only has a single staging cassette - it’s all I need, whereas even a small UK Branch Line model typically has a three-six track Fiddle Yard (even if the line would only actually see an Auto train shuffling up and down and a daily mixed Goods). Hope it’s not being disruptive at this late stage, you’ve made more progress than I have this winter, Keith.