Keith Addenbrooke

Happy New Year! Well, I hope so. As we enter 2024, I've been thinking about setting some modelling objectives. Some find them helpful, whether it is the hard and definite deadline of a committed exhibition or show date, or practical steps to maintain progress on a larger project, or simply aspirational targets to aim at - in order to maintain some degree of modelling focus. Some might be looking forwards to retirement, and want to structure their time in order to make best use of it, for others finding time in a busy schedule means that identifiable objectives improve the chances of something actually getting done. Some well organised modellers end the modelling year with a review of progress, ready to go again after the holidays: three 2023 updates from layouts I follow on RMweb are @AndyB's Bentley St. Mary - A Southern vignette in N gauge, @St Enodoc's Mid-Cornwall Lines - 1950s Western Region in OO, and @ian's Die Ercallbahn - Fulfilling a childhood dream. In my view each deserves a round of applause - not only for making regular progress, but for sharing it with us too. As for me, paddling in the shallow end, I tried breaking down an early attempt at a project micro-layout into smaller steps to aid progress: But a bookcase I planned to use for display and storage was repurposed and I lost the space I wanted (the bookcase later went mouldy while in our cellar). Then a couple of years ago I tried setting myself a project progress target date: Again, I'd not considered the potential loss of space that also saw a premature end to that idea too. What have I learnt? It seems that setting objectives or targets is not in and by itself enough: my ideas have been too vulnerable to external changes, such as when space is needed for other purposes. That's particularly relevant for me at the moment because, as previously hinted at in earlier blog posts, our domestic objective for this year is as follows: Move House We need a more accessible house due to health issues, and as our home is also my office and workbase, I have to have a suitable working property too. A possible place has been identified, but it will require us to massively downsize (something we should do anyway). I will also lose nearly all my modelling and storage space, leading me to another project re-think. I need an approach to modelling for 2024 that does not depend on having any particular space. At which point I refer back to a video from Dave Meeks' Thunder Mesa Studio I included in the first post of this blog, and the #1 thing he suggests we need to consider before starting a layout project (watch from 20:45 onwards for the relevant section): "What kind of story do you want to tell?" As someone with too many interests, and perhaps too few attachments to any one era or genre, I've been finding this really helpful. As my previous blog testifies (Hot to Not Build a Model Railway) I've had no shortage of ideas or attempts along the way. Don't get me wrong - I've had loads of fun enjoying the hobby, have learnt far more than I ever thought I would, and have built some stuff - but that larger layout project has remained elusive. Right now I can't plan in much detail, but I can think about the stories I most want to tell. In some ways it's a development of where my thinking was nearly four years ago, when I was looking at UK GWR OO Branch Lines. Where am I at now? For some weeks, there has been a grid sitting on my desk in which I set out, scale by scale, what I was interested in: Looking at it, it's clear I had more North American HO equipment than anything else: But there’s a catch - North America is a Continent, and what I had would tell three different stories: from the Alaska Railroad, the Santa Fe Rly and the North East / New England. It was not one cohesive collection for taking forwards, and was ripe for slimming down anyway. But even after the clear out I mentioned in the first post of this blog (that reduced the collection to two themes), I still felt somewhat overwhelmed by how much I was left with. That didn’t help when it came to thinking about moving house: Maybe it's not a large collection by the standards of many RMweb users, but for me the amount of space needed to do justice to the impressive size of these locos and freight cars - even if there aren't that many of them in total - meant American HO wasn't ticking the right boxes for me for 2024. I'd not managed to settle on a track plan I like, partly because the kind of industrial switching layout that would suit my space and interest in structures doesn't quite convince me. A switching spur doesn’t give me a story I feel committed to. Instead, I've identified three stories I really want to tell - and for me I don't think I'll get the number below that. I like Short Lines, Branch Lines and Main Lines. So, how best to tell them? This is what I'm looking at: 1 choice of Scale - HO. It is a scale I feel comfortable with, and while that also applies to TT, sticking with HO for now gives me all the options: How might this look: for a Short Line common carrier I can combine my interest in Narrow Gauge modelling and North American prototypes by continuing with HOn30, and to this end have started a new project thread in the Narrow Gauge Forum with that in mind: The Carrabassett and Atlantic Lines: US Modelling in HOn30: When no-one is looking I can run my H0e on the same track too: Rather than return to UK OO Modelling for a Branch Line idea at this point, I've been looking at Epoche 1 German outline ideas, taking advantage of the very high quality models available at great prices second-hand: While another loco (or two) would be OK, I have the four basic branch line trains: Branch Shuttle (A Wittfeld Accumulator battery electric railcar) Branch Passenger Through Passenger Local Goods Older Fleischmann flanges need me to stick with Code 100 track, so I can also get out my few remaining pieces of legacy UK OO when the cameras are off. That 'just' leaves the Main Line story - which has been my undoing before (see here and here). Trouble is, I do rather like full length 26.4m close coupled H0 coaches: But with a four coach train (for example) measuring around 57" am I still being too ambitious, when my Branch Line Train is just over 2' long and an equivalent Narrow Gauge train in the same scale only needs 18" ? That's my work in progress. But I can make a start with some structure kits confident they'll fit the story, even if the size of the page is not yet known. Of course, this has long been obvious to many, but it may now help me set and reach some objectives, rather than too often re-starting instead. I expect things will move slowly this year while the house move progress (or if it doesn't). I don't expect to share another update until February, when hopefully there'll be some modelling to report on at last. It would be nice if that happened next. Until then, thanks for reading, Keith.

Excellent - thank you for sharing your layout here. Looks like you’ve made very good use of your head-start in scenic modelling in creating something good to look at that will be enjoyable to use. Always nice to see something in Narrow Gauge posted here too, Keith.

Hi Neil, this looks remarkably like a loco I was keeping my eye on on the pre-owned eBay website of a well-known UK retailer recently. If it is indeed the one, niceto know it’s gone to the right home. Looking forward to more in 2024: always good to read and watch your updates here, Keith.

Could be just the job. As it happens, I was sharing a display table at the November meeting of our local 009 Society Group with @ColinK (who first mentioned Audacity on the previous page). His rather fine micro layout next to my collection of 009 scratch and kit built models. The gentle sound of appropriate ambient noise would have complemented the day quite nicely I think, so I hope this all works out. Keith.

If I can add my apologies to @ian for the continued thread drift, but just to pick up on @Jon Gwinnett‘s reference to Fleischmann Profi couplings requiring a push to get them together. My understanding is this is in fact deliberate, so some gentle shunting push moves can take place without couplings always engaging. In the tests I’ve done they’ve worked fine. Personally, I’d take any European close coupler over a UK OO tension lock coupler any day. And to get back to Die Ercallbahn, as the videos demonstrate, it’s worth noting Maerklin technology was decades ahead of its time. Keith.

I had a good look at a Bachmann On30 Mogul like this last time I was in the Hobby Shop. Looked very nice, but I didn't fancy moving up to a bigger scale for buildings, etc. Problem largely avoided if you go outside. Good idea, Keith.

Hi Paul, I see crests and writing, so my guess would be it’s not a picture / photo as such, perhaps a poster of railway heralds? I see the picture on the box isn’t much help 😀, Keith.

Hi @Alex TM, as someone else currently downsizing in advance of a planned house move, I can hopefully empathise with your situation. Really like the idea you’ve come up with to remain actively modelling, an excellent compact project idea. Look forwards to seeing more, Keith.

Must admit that freight house does cry out to be modelled - lovely photo! Happy new year: looking forwards to seeing how the project develops through 2024, Keith.

Update When I paused this thread at the end of October, I'd already been happily meandering for almost a year looking at different ideas and plans. What stood out for me from the final photo I posted above however was the width of the Code 100 railhead on the track I've been using - and once seen it was something that couldn't be unseen! Peco's Code 70 looks much better, something I reviewed in a separate thread here: I bought a few pieces with a view to trying them out in a straightforward Inglenook (so I'd actually build something!), a plan aided by the arrival on my birthday of a long-desired 'Bud's Trucking' Low Relief structure kit: That proved to be the final roll of this particular dice. I also mentioned when I paused the thread that we may move house. We need a more accessible home, and one has been identified which should also meet the requirements for the working property it also needs to be. Moving will be complicated, and in practical terms we now know it will require us to downsize significantly. This includes my modelling collections and space (both for storage and layout building). While I've already slimmed down my US HO rolling stock, to me it still looked quite a lot when I laid it all out together: Even discounting some of my larger buildings, there's no getting round the large size of the locomotives and freight cars (after all, that's what makes them so impressive!). Boxed up, they need room to be stored too. Looking back through the mock-up photos I've taken over the past year, there are a couple of shots that really work for me, though interestingly not necessarily those based on the Santa Fe: So what's my next step to be? To save space, I'm planning to focus my US modelling on Narrow Gauge again, and have started a new project over in the Narrow Gauge Forum for this: The Carrabassett and Atlantic Lines: US modelling in HOn30. Some of the building kits that have appeared in this thread will find a home there. I'd like to finish the Grain Elevator kit, and am thinking of taking up a suggestion made in my blog thread by @AndyB to do this as a diorama - I've kept hold of the ATSF and UP covered hoppers I kit built: (Edit 3rd March 2024 - photos of the completed grain elevator are shown here) The rest, including the GP35, has been sold on, with the funds raised being concentrated on my other, more compact interests (I still have too many). It means I'll have ideas ready to try out when the move happens. Some of my other buildings may be suitable for a European layout (see here). I'll cover my other plans in the new year in my next blog post. It just remains for me to say thank you once again for all the help and advice - it may not look like I got far, but that would be to underestimate the value of what I've learned: I'd not actually changed a Kadee coupling or kit-built an Athearn HO freight car before. My US modelling will continue, albeit at a more leisurely pace, and on narrow gauge tracks. Thanks again to all, Keith.

Prototype Context Maine, New England. The Easternmost State in the US, with a longer land border with Canadian New Brunswick than the neighboring US State of New Hampshire. A State of dense pine forests, quaint coastal inlet ports and cold, snowy winters, where the State Capital is less than 250 miles from Montreal yet 400 miles from New York City, nearly a thousand miles from Chicago, and as close to Reykjavik in Iceland as it is to Los Angeles in California. A State that was once home to a dozen or more 2' gauge railroads, common carriers and logging lines with a nod of inspiration to the Ffestiniog Rly in North Wales. Modelling the Maine two-footers in HO Scale Modelling the Maine two-footers in HO Scale using N-Scale 9mm track was perhaps popularized for many by Bob Hayden and Dave Frary's 'Carabasset and Dead River Ry' in the 1970s and 1980s. Hayden's November 1981 Model Railroader article on designing a new version of the Railroad remains one of the most inspirational layout design articles I've ever read: a double page artistic rendering of his proposed proto-inspired Kennebecport waterfront (based partly on Wicasset) still gives me a "Wow!" every time I think of it. They took the idea of the Maine two-footers and imagined they'd survived longer than they did, into the 1940s and the early days of the transition to diesel power. When I wanted to activate my dormant interest in Narrow Gauge modelling a couple of years back, HOn30 (formerly HOn2 1/2) was the natural place for someone with my long-standing interest in American Railroading to look, which I did in a thread here. The Idea: Part 1 (Background) Having been more of a collector than a modeller for many years, I needed an easy point of entry into practical narrow gauge modelling, which was covered in my previous thread: Narrow Gauge Beginnings - getting started in HOn30 and H0e. While my initial layout design turned out to be more than I had capacity for at the start, I nevertheless managed to achieve my objectives despite my rather random approach to modelling, and by the time I completed the thread I had a successful working mini-layout, a couple of weathered resin kit locomotives and some kit and scratchbuilt rolling stock: But what am I going to do next? At some point in the new year we're hoping to move house. We need a more accessible property, and there are some issues with our current home which make it more difficult to use as the working property it also needs to be. As our home is provided for my work, moving is a bit complicated, though a potential property has been identified. It meets all our family needs but has very little storage space, and if the move happens I will lose the room I've had for modelling this past year. With that in mind, this is what I'm currently thinking: The Idea: Part 2 (Next Steps) At various points in my previous thread I shared proof of concept photos framing my thinking for next steps, such as here: This is the direction I'd like to go in. At this point, I can't say if I'm aiming to build a layout, dioramas or just some individual models whenever it takes my fancy, but the freelance theme of the Carabassett* and Atlantic Lines (named to use some old 'CAL' decals my Dad gave me) provides me with a framework within which to model. I already have some structure kits I'm keeping - starting with a Craftsman Church kit that I need to complete: I'm not a big fan of complex roof modelling, so this has been on pause for a while - the long curled strip is/are the roof tiles: I then have a couple of Branchline Laser Kits for rail-served industries (the prototype store had a loading dock at the back): In terms of rolling stock, I'd like to scratch or kitbuild some more scale-like items at some point. The MinitrainS Fiddletown and Copperopolis range are excellent, very well made and nicely proportioned, but they scale out at a bit less than 1:87 HO. Taking passenger Sam (who is a full 6' or 21mm tall) shows the issue: To be fair, showing Sam on the balcony of a Liliput scale H0e carriage shows how narrow those doors are, but they are taller: I've traded on the F&C rolling stock I had for CAL1 and slimmed down my H0e collection to free up space. So that's where I'm at: no specific plans, targets or design objectives I'd fail to meet, but a story I'd like to tell - of a Maine two-foot common carrier that (like Hayden and Frary's C&DR) has somehow survived into the 1940s and maybe beyond, a line with big ambitions, no money, and no real idea other than that life is for living, and who's in a rush? It'll be fun, Keith. (* Spelling seems to vary between Carabassett and Carabasset, though I think the former is officially correct)

Hi Dave, welcome on board! Sticking with a scale / gauge you’re familiar with can be a good move - not only does it make good use of what you already have, but it can also be what you’re subconsciously used to as well. Oh, and when I was a kid I lived in Countesthorpe for a few years - and was very happy there! Have fun, Keith,.

A very good video, thank you @James Hilton. Some of the themes pick up from earlier posts and videos, which I think is a good thing (it would be odd if a personal project like this one was too full of big surprises). Most enjoyable. As someone constantly wrestling with the constraints of both space and budget, it was a really helpful and timely reminder of where a lot of enjoyment comes from, and that this is a marathon, not a sprint (a reminder I need regularly). On a practical note, as someone also with too many interests, I found it helpful that one of your N Gauge projects was also in shot at times below Beaverbrook - it showed the comparative size difference really effectively, not just of individual models, but of the kind of space a compact or micro-layout in each scale might use. Very informative. Thanks for that too, Keith.

Further to comments above, the loco has now safely returned in time for the Santa Specials. The considered view of the retailer is that the smell will fade and is nothing to worry about - it’s simply the consequence of thirty years in storage before being run-in for the first time. Certainly, performance seems unaffected across a range of speeds. I don’t currently have the facility for a long run-in, just a shuttle track back and forth, but giving it a quick re-run following its return home, I don’t think the smell is as bad as it was before sending it off for checking. I mentioned in a German modelling thread last year that I’d always dreamed of owning a Fleischmann loco when I was a kid (I modelled in N Gauge in those days, so it was a dream well beyond my means!). Now I can say that dream is being fulfilled. Happy Christmas everyone, and thank you for the help and advice - always welcome and no doubt of future value too, Keith.

Hi Nick, in response to your question on classification of cars in yards, if I may offer a non-expert view (some contributors to this Forum have worked on US Railroads, so will know more): If you like model railroading books, one that might be worth reading is Lance Mindheim’s 2021 Kalmbach publication: “How to Design a Model Railroad.” It certainly updated my thinking. His description of classification yards is that they do block cars by destination. That’s one simple answer. However, if you want to get more involved in yard switching there are some other factors that can come into play, some of which may be era-dependent: 1. Are there any hazardous products being transported in your train that require barrier cars and cannot be placed immediately next to a locomotive? 2. How are your spurs arranged at each town - it’s easier for a local to switch all the spurs in the trailing direction on each leg of the journey - more efficient than switching every spur at each town, as this may involve run-rounds. 3. Do any of your industries - the one in the picture above could be one - have load specific car spots: the customer wants car 1 next to loading door A (etc), for example? 4. Do any of your customers receive or ship fresh or time bound product, or pay a priority rate? 5. Can your assigned power haul the number of cars needing delivery / pick-up, or are there grades or other issues en route that place a restriction on the length of a train? Combine this with item 4. and it can get more complicated? You might also factor in: is the same crew running the yard switching as well as the local - in which case how they classify the cars for each destination may be up to them, as they’ll be delivering them? Or is there restricted yard capacity at one or both ends of your line - making it more difficult to classify cars into the optimum consist before departing? Perhaps there is a time limit before the next through train is scheduled to arrive, so they need to set off - I don’t know if this is prototypical, it’s just a thought. How long is a crew shift - that is a real life safety issue? Is there somewhere en route to spot cars to be switched into facing spurs on the return journey (when those same spurs will be trailing)? What is the railroad policy here? And so on, and so on…until time us up. Just some ideas from my own reading and watching over the years. Hope that’s OK, Keith.

Hi @Woody C, I’ve just enjoyed watching your Chalkdon 4 video on the YouTube channel. I found the summary of time and cost really helpful - particularly the way you break down the cost into a ‘per hour of enjoyment’ figure. Not only because it is far less scary for those of us on a budget, but also because it shows the tremendous value for money achievable in the hobby. We’re due to move house in the new year (hopefully), so I’m having a clear out and planning ahead for a(nother) fresh start. Setting a four year time budget of £600 - £800 for a compact layout gives me some useful parameters, thank you. Keith.

That’s an impressive collection of Epoche 1 sets - inevitably some compromises for them to appear together, but if the alternative is leaving them sitting in their boxes, then I’d say go for it! Look forwards to seeing more, Keith.

Sorry, an unrelated question - I was just wondering how long your mainline / express coaches are? Are they scale 1:87 (303mm for a standard 26.4m coach), the shortie 1:100 (265mm), or even the intermediate 1:93.5 (282mm)? Watching the shortened trains (3 or 4 coaches instead of 10 to 13) on the videos doesn’t look odd as it’s a retro layout, but I wasn’t sure how long each vehicle in the train is. I dabbled in retro N scale last year, where the shortie coaches were 1:200 instead of 1:160, and that difference was very noticeable (but the prices were great). Thanks, Keith.

@MichaelE is based in the States, so I hope it's OK if I reply quickly as it's nighttime. The place to look is the Swiss Forum here on RMweb, where Michael has a number of threads, some with embedded links to his videos, others with photos of the layout: here are some of them RhB in the USA Building Langwies Continuing Work at Langwies Hope that helps - sorry I haven't time for a more detailed reply (bit busy this week, sorry). Thanks, Keith.

Having spent a lot of time happily watching the YouTube videos of this layout, I’d agree the train length fits the space well. The layout has developed quite a bit since this plan was drawn too - worth noting as it shows the design offers good possibilities for later expansion (always worth bearing in mind), Keith.

Oh dear! Some loco detailing just clips back in, but if it needs gluing one option is Deluxe Materials Glue ‘n’ Glaze. It was recommended to me for attaching details to rolling stock - as a polymer it dries clear and doesn’t melt the materials it touches (I think that’s how it works - I’ve had no problems). I haven’t done many rolling stock repairs, but the ones that have been most successfully have been those where I’ve used far less glue than I would expect to and applied it very carefully. Good luck, Keith.

Thank you @rekoboy, @Bernard Lamb, @doctor quinn, @Metr0Land and @Gordonwis for your replies - all helpful and informative. My apologies for the labelling error with two C’s and no F - my fault (oversight and poor proof reading, sorry). Just one point of clarification on C1 (low relief warehouse). I’ve not yet unsealed the box, but my understanding is it’s a modular kit so the doors can be relocated if needed - as doctor quinn notes, they are set up in the photo for 50’ box cars. From a modelling point of view, the main weakness in my eclectic collection is kits have not been bought following research into a single project - they’re from different ideas, so it was worth seeing how usable they may still be: A and B (which is actually sold as a Commissary building) were for a Union Station diorama a few years ago, but the bookcase I planned for displays and micro-layouts went mouldy in our cellar while in storage! C1 and C2 were for an American switching layout which has been the casualty of our impending house move. D and E were opportune bargain purchases for an American HOn30 layout idea, but I stayed with a smaller design. G was very cheap and I liked it, so bought it for the fun of building it with no real layout idea in mind. The other kits in my stash are German designs from Noch or Faller. Thanks again for your help, as always. Keith.

It’s also available fitted to a Bath and Hammondsport Box Car, catalogue code 14910, I think. Not a grain hopper, and not cheap, but might be of interest. Keith.

Hi there. On many occasions that’d be a very fair point, but in this case it’s a retailer I regularly do business with, and I know it was tested: trouble is the smell has been getting worse as I’ve run it more, hence their offer to take a further look at it even though I didn’t immediately return it when I got it and first ran it, so no complaints from me. On one occasion in the past the same retailer ran an older loco I was interested in while I listened on the phone, so we could discuss how well it ran before I bought it. I’ll update the thread to complete the story when the loco returns, Keith.

Happy Christmas! Can I just wish all @stan williams other readers a peaceful and, I hope, a Happy Christmas before I get too busy in the coming days. Hope to see folk in January, Keith.