Keith Addenbrooke

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.

Hi Andy, I thought about a couple of books I have that describe ways to compress city / uptown scenes, but both are American books and assume buildings have flat roofs, with lower buildings also likely to have front-facing facades hiding the roof anyway. One thing you can work out / test is your usual line of sight: at what angle do you look down on your model world? My guess is it’s likely to be more of a factor with N scale models than larger scales. Keith.

Hi Huw, thanks for your post - a tram-themed cakebox would be great (of the top of my head I can’t remember seeing one previously, though I stand to be corrected and apologise to anyone who’s done one). Part of my motivation is that I’m in the fortunate position of having a portable layout idea where I can re-use the Depot when it comes out the cakebox. When I first did a cakebox (Round 1: 2019) the added incentive then was it was my first attempt at a scenic model, so on both occasions I’ve been lucky to have a personal goal too, which I’ve found helpful. All the best, Keith.

Hi Andy, I wonder if you might play around with some card mock-ups to test the roof angles ( @stivesnick makes a very good point here). I wonder if artificially lowering the some roofs might help where buildings have been narrowed?

Hi Liam, as you’re setting is quite contemporary, a lot of track would have been simplified (and there’d probably be some industries that are no longer rail served too if you have any spare buildings to use). I’ll have a go at making sense of it, but I stand to be corrected by those who know more than me: I think the Georgia Northeastern RR of Thomas Klimoski you’re referencing models an independent (or subsidiary) Short Line, so they might logically have a small yard to sort (block) incoming cars for distributing around the industries they serve. I’m inclined to agree that I’d expect a modern BNSF-served industrial park to be switched with cuts of cars that had been blocked in advance at a bigger yard nearby, which might also be where the locomotives would usually be spotted and serviced (overnight). However, I think you could also create a backstory for your layout where BNSF had taken over another operation, or where passing freight trains leave cuts of cars for blocking in the small yard you have. I think there are also examples of locomotives being stored overnight near the industries they serve if crews don’t have time to make return trips within their allowable shift. As for the runround, if I’m following your logic correctly, I think it is more likely these days that cars would be sorted and then shoved into an industrial park, there not being a second runround at the end of the line, unless historical placement of industries made this necessary. As for ‘siding’ terminology: if I understand the question a single ended stub siding is most often called a spur, which distinguishes it from a double ended (passing) loop, which is called a siding. Again, I stand to be corrected, but your whole layout might even be referred to as a ‘siding’ as it’s not a main line, just to confuse things. Switchback Spurs (one leading back off another) are more common on model railroads than in reality (they are a nuisance to switch, so to be avoided, although I admit most of my own layout plans do have them). You could model your second “entrance” line (which is now ‘spare’ ?) as a loads-in / empties-out industry as it goes off scene? Don’t know if this helps - where others can help more than me is by suggesting BNSF and other prototypes to check out.

Day 42 - I had no idea how to do this next bit...! (...might as we’ll be honest). As we’ve reached half-term, I have a few days leave. The main task this week is to rearrange rooms in the house, which will involve disassembling and assembling some wardrobes and other furniture, but space for a portable layout is part of the plan, so no complaints on my part. Back to the cakebox, I’ve had some spare time tonight to try and work out the gable roof for the bay window. This is where steps 7 (bay window), 8 (roof) and 9 (assembly) meet, but I’d got no real idea how to do this, so opted for trial and error. No doubt there are ways to correctly calculate the angles and lengths I need* but as I have plenty of card to play with, this is what I came up with (it was the fourth attempt): 1. Using a ruler, measure the dimensions for a thin card inner. 2. Stick this on first (in a reverse of the usual way I’ve done it). 3. Then, using the hole in the thin card I cut the inner from as a rough template, mark out and cut a thick card overlay. Try it, then decide an extra 1mm all round is needed, so use that one as a template for a bigger one. 4. Glue the second piece of thick card onto the thin card already in place. 5. Pretend that was the plan all along. ____________________ *I actually realised / remembered how to do it after I’d finished: for future reference this is how to calculate the sloping diagonal: Lesson learned! Keith.

Thanks Chris for the comprehensive response: I think the inclusion of the cassette option really helps with the operability of the whole scheme - it can transform the fiddle yard from staging loops into a working fiddle yard and potentially makes all the difference. Do you have a place to store the cassettes? (Worth including on the next iteration of the sketch), Keith.

Hi Chris - could I just ask if this is a starter for ten for a layout you can now proceed to build, or the next iteration in your long-term thinking? Nothing wrong with either of course, but if it’s a layout you can build now, I think there are some subtly different considerations (and I hope it works out): Live Project Questions: What level of complexity do you currently feel willing to tackle? (alt: what might this layout help you practice for any future developments?). Related to this, how quickly do you want to see something running? And what stock / track do you currently have that you want to incorporate (as opposed to plan to invest in over time for a future layout). That said, I like the basic idea: if the things you like / want most are an MPD, a Branch Line Terminus and Mainline running you’ve got them all into the space you have in a way that I think could make sense visually to a visitor entering the room. In terms of details, I wonder if you’d want to work a turntable into the MPD? I also agree with @Harlequin that the entrance to the MPD could do with a further look. The BLT is a generic starter for ten, which is fair enough, but I would still counsel against the kickback sidings, on two grounds: I don’t think they’d be Loco-shunted if they existed (I’m thinking Ashburton as my example - wrong railway perhaps for yourself, but right one for me), and I’d want to have space to model the industries they served if I included them. There are of course plenty of CJF plans with dairies etc. in this exact arrangement. Thinking about the big picture: I suppose my question would be whether this will also hold your interest operationally over time? It depends what you want, but I’d try to expand the fiddle yard to serve the branch line a bit better, and are 6 loops enough for variety when there is no on-scene shunting other than loco coal and engine swaps? Try and imagine an operating session and see how it goes would be one way to test these questions. Hope this is Ok, Keith.

I really like @Flying Pig’s idea of a removable fiddle yard that lowers and tucks under the layout when not in use: a really good way to keep some “non-railway” living space and shows the layout as scenic to any visitors. Taking that idea a step further, if it was made reversible (rotatable?) then it could solve the problem of turning trains between sessions, if it had enough tracks for a good operating session. As I understand it, the “Denny” pattern fiddle yard worked like that - the catch is it needs a fan of points so all tracks are accessible, but the plus is it only needs turning occasionally. The layout could then be on one level (my suggestion for a double level fiddle yard isn’t then needed). There’s no real engineering involved in making a removable fiddle yard rotatable as well. But you could also make it into a Traverser? That does involve a bit more engineering. Keith.

I’ll be fascinated to see how this turns out (no pun intended) if you go for the Barry slip. I’m not a track builder, so I’m interested to see: my guess is that planning it is made more complex by the absence of the second (diagonal) straight line, but might making it then prove to be easier (fewer parts to line up precisely)? I can see from the track diagram why you don’t need to full double slip - the key thing will be to remember / train visiting operators that Track 6 is not the headshunt for Tracks 1 to 5! I like the way you’ve designed the fiddle yard though: the headshunt (track 10) may be described as the shortest, but the ‘effective’ length of the headshunt is from the buffers on track 10 round to the slip point, making it more useful, while keeping the longer tracks 6 to 9 for storage. Very clever.

Day 40 - there’s good news, and there’s bad news (then there’s some progress). The good news first: I needed to replan my main portable layout projects as we’re shuffling things around between rooms at home, but it looks like a new space has been identified I can use, and a plan that could incorporate this Depot looks feasible (my first few dozen tries frustratingly needed a mirror-image model of the depot, but persistence looks to be paying off). Now the bad news. I was feeling quite relieved that I didn’t seem to have made as many mistakes as I’d expected... ...Then I tried assembling the whole building this morning, at which point I discovered that I’d made my very complicated bay window too tall. I’d built it with the diagonal sides lining up against the full height of the front wall, when I should have lined them up with the (lower) edge of the roof overhang. Working in card, I could cut a bit out, but the layers and diagonals meant it got a bit untidy, but I’ll live with it rather than start again: The loading bay is supported by used matches, as planned: And the roof is held in place with the help of extra card pieces glued inside that look a bit like sticking plasters (which is what they do!): Overall it fits the board, so is within the 8” limit: The roof will have an outer layer in softer card, which will be painted and scribed with the shingle pattern I need. That’s the next job. Roofs are key to model buildings (my layout ideas are not for eye level viewing) but I’ve never had much joy with tiling. The other US buildings I’ve tried all had flat roofs, which don’t need textured tiling in the same way. I decided to fasten this first layer of roof before making the second layer, so I can make it to fit. The plan (and photo) of the prototype doesn’t need UK style guttering and drainpipe details, which will save me one job. That’s all for now. Stay safe, Keith.

Excellent! Thank you for sharing these pictures.

With the buildings this sort of size, I think it really helps to be able to place them on the boards before finalising track layout. You’re ahead of me (I’m having to replan my layout for a different space) but I think I’ll follow your example here.

You’ve nailed exactly the reason I drew it as I did - to avoid a gradient on the lift out. If the lift out is straight, the curve beyond it might also be quite tight a radius (not a good idea at the base of an incline?). A smarter option might be to have the “layout level” somewhere in between the levels of the “lower” and “upper” fiddle yards, with gentler gradients either side of the station. The big thing in this space will be how to manage all the curves. No doubt there are much better ideas than mine: it’s an interesting challenge.

Hi Andy, my suggestion was for a “Fiddle Yard - Fiddle Yard” scheme bent round into the available space so that trains can be run through the station scene without reappearing. The ‘branch’ is simply a disguised continuous run connection mainly included for testing purposes (in case the layout replaces the existing test track). It is just an idea: I haven’t made any assumptions on curve radii, gradients or train length.

These drawings are worth a prize in their own right - I think they capture the essence of your source theme brilliantly!

One idea could be to have a double-deck fiddle yard off to one side. There would be various clever ways to arrange such a fiddle yard (beyond my level of woodworking, but eminently possible). An operating session starts with trains ready to depart from both fiddle yards and ends when they’ve all swapped over. The operator then emerges from the central area, refills their coffee and resets the fiddle yards for the next shift. A disguised branch line offers a continuous loop for testing and tracks on the lift out are kept level. If the ‘critical curve’ can be broad enough for the incline I think this idea could perhaps work. Just a thought, Keith.

I like the points @Schooner makes, and for me the suggested revised shape answers some of the questions - but, as you say, also raises new ones. If someone offered me the shape you’ve now drawn I’d be more than happy, but my objectives aren’t the same, even if the locos share the same livery. Looking at the space as drawn, I wondered how flexible it might be? A couple of variations (the first is from the @Harlequin playbook): 1. Gentle curve across the bottom right corner? 2. Fillets to ease the curves in the corners (I’d suggest only reason not to have them would be they do make portability a bit more awkward)? Is there room to stretch the fiddle yard - the picture in my mind is your Minories Fiddle Yard, so the extension is for a locomotive turntable (as opposed to a Denny-style fiddle yard turntable). Hope this is helpful, Keith.

Just catching up with this - I also lived not far from Bentley Heath Signal Box when growing up and would sometimes go and stand on the footbridge with a friend in the hope of a Merry-go-round train passing underneath us (they were loud, dirty and smelly when they did of course!). Even into the early 1980s there was quite a bit of goods traffic moving around Dorridge Station (Tyseley shunter 08 647 was usually on duty, if I remember correctly). The sidings shown as Up passenger sidings served the Land Rover loading yard where vehicles built in Solihull would arrive for loading onto MAT Trans Auto wagons, which would be shunted to the Down Sidings between DMU movements. As the Birmingham Moor Street Services either terminated at Dorridge or continued on to Leamington Spa there was quite a bit of movement for an outer suburban Station, even if there wasn’t as much variety in Loco types / DMU classes or liveries. I hadn’t remembered Bentley Heath Signal Box being as big as that, but still very sad to see the demolition photos. Getting back on topic, I’ve built more signal boxes than any other type of kit, but none anywhere as good as the one this thread is about: very impressive. Keith

That does rather remind me of all the problems we now have with non-standard cellphone / laptop / other device chargers - it’s not a new problem or an old problem, and there will be many other examples (sorry, not very helpful - just a thought), Keith.

Hi Chris, looking at the photo of the Depot, it seems that the plastic base it comes with slopes up towards the trackside edge (I don’t think this is an optical illusion - the stonework supporting the Depot slopes down to keep the building level). This suggests to me it was perhaps designed for use alongside the kind of track that comes pre-formed with ballast shoulders as an integral part of it? Raising the track would be one solution I noticed earlier you’d considered, although that would then mean the UK platforms were (relatively) lower next to the track. However, for a UK light railway that might still work - it depends on the kind of coaches you use. Just a thought, Keith.

I must admit, I was looking at an old track plan for a model railroad set in Vermont yesterday evening, and the thought of modelling all those trees was the one that jumped out at me from the photos: I might want to borrow some of the track layout for my proposed Santa Fe Southern Mid-West layout, but I wouldn’t want to swap the location.

Hi Phil, I've read your thread over lunch and a few thoughts jump out at me which I hope it's OK to share: 1. I think any idea you keep returning to is one worth pursuing - that fact alone passes the first test ("Am I really interested in this?). 2. At the same time I think there is a tension in the concept to resolve: If I'm understanding it correctly, achieving the kind of "front of house" operation you'd like does come with an expectation / assumption of a quite extensive fiddle yard. Further, if you want a train that has passed through in the "Up" direction to next appear heading "Down" (which I think I've read as one of your preferences), the ability to reverse trains is important, and needs more than just staging loops. If this only applies to locomotives, a "loop-to-loop" design might be an option. If you want coach sets to remain facing the way they were you do need more extensive fiddle yard operations (to replace two terminii). Looking at the original design, the inclusion of cassettes, the absence of a turntable / wye, and the Slip Coach Launcher (nice!) suggest a lot of time will be spent driving the Fiddle Yard - ie: operating from the rear. So my main thought would perhaps be to revisit operating a home layout like this first. 3. In terms of space, the thought was forming in my mind that building over the test track (which is quite low) might be a space saver. I then got to the photo and had second thoughts: would you be blocking out too much light with a higher layout? The sunspace is an excellent feature which I suggest may bring light into the rest of the living space, depending on the aspect of the property: 4. My final thought is about time? How much time do you have for layout building (I know and have benefitted from the amount of time and attention you invest in helping with layout design)? It's stating the obvious to say any large layout in this space would have a significant impact - but I'd worry that any large, unfinished or part-build layout in this space could really start to take over everything, for a very long time. Just some thoughts - hope they help, Keith.

Or perhaps, which should I build first? Which is the most achievable in the midst of settling in to a new home? And what will help you get started on the journey towards your eventual destination (as @woodenhead suggests). Just a thought, Keith.