C J Freezer's own layout

[MartinWales]

Oh dear, now I suppose its going to be hard to find, because its called 'Junior Modeller' or something generic!

 

 Someone built it - I distinctly remember a layout in RM that was based on the plan, operated by a father and son team. At the time it was my idea of the perfect model railway. The young chap was wearing a 'Jinty' t-shirt in the photos. I've not seen it in perhaps 30 years, but I remember Superquick buildings, a Hornby Flying Scotsman on mainline express duties, and a rake of short wheelbase Esso tankers serving a siding with an oil refinery on the backscene. It was very much an 'achievable' layout, using RTR stock, building kits and Peco backscenes. I think the layout was stretched out to a slightly larger size, but the essence of the CJF plan remained.

 

No idea when it appeared in RM, best I can estimate is 1975-1980.

No! The layout that you both refer to is Owlcombe and Mousehill which appeared in the 'Special Extra' which was originally the May 1980 edition but never released as such due to industrial action at the printers. Easily identifiable due to it's pale orange cover

 

It was actually released between the August/Sept 1980 issues-I was at school at the time and remember it well! 

[RJS1977]

There was also the garage-based layout (which I think was referred to in anothe thread a while back) where CJF said something along the lines of "If anyone thinks the permanent section is too wide, I've built this layout and can get a small-to-medium sized car in the garage without any trouble - just don't keep a lawnmower in there as well!"

 

Maybe CJF felt it would be inappropriate as Editor to feature his own layouts. But whatever his modelling skills and activities, his skills in layout design and in explaining technical subjects has left us a wonderful legacy of articles, plans and books, and of course the Modeller itself (I know he wasn't its first editor, but it was his work on it that brought it to prominence). OTOH had he devoted his energies to layout building instead, said layout(s) would almost certainly have been lost by now. 

[kevinlms]

This was called Tregunna and was originally designed to fit somehow in an under-stairs cupboard, hence a platform on a curve was necessary.

 

I have seen no evidence that he was a good modeller. When he was editor of MR he ran a series called "Confessions of a Lapsed Loco Builder" or something similar and the models he used to illustrate it were frankly poor. I have seen no other models by him and I have lots of mags from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

I'm sorry if that sounds mean-spirited but, being Yorkshire, I speak as I find.

 

He was, though, a brilliant writer and editor and although most of his plans are no longer to my taste (excessively simplified trackwork and sharp curves to fit tiny sites) I can see that they were very clever solutions for space-starved, cash-starved modellers, of which I was one until very recently. I built two layouts based on his plans, a U-format small branch terminus with fiddle sidings which fitted in a tiny box-room in our first flat (the first Clecklewyke), and a Minories-based terminus (the original Bradford North Western). Both, within the limits of my abilities and budget, were very satisfying, because they were fundamentally sound plans.

 

Ian

OK, I have found 2 articles on CJF's personal layout Tregunna.

 

May 1957 has an article entitled 'In all directions or what happened at Tregunna?', he mentions the cramped site of the existing layout (so perhaps it was a cupboard under the stairs?).

In this article (he refers to 'something over a year since I described the genesis of Tregunna, the railway in a cupboard' - so I guess would appear in an early 1956 issue? There are a number of dodgy photos, common in this period!

 

He goes on to say that they have just moved to a larger house with a loft space, so he describes some potential extensions to the layout, including a 3 platform version of Tregunna, a large through station, with straight platforms!

 

 

A follow up article appears in August 1957, where it appears that the layout is now in the loft and a continuous run has been incorporated. No track plan or photos though. A 2nd station Pype has been built and he speaks of the advantages of a loop to allow running. Also some rules, no changes to the track unless it can be done in a session, so trains can always run!

[Pacific231G]

OK, I have found 2 articles on CJF's personal layout Tregunna.

 

May 1957 has an article entitled 'In all directions or what happened at Tregunna?', he mentions the cramped site of the existing layout (so perhaps it was a cupboard under the stairs?).

In this article (he refers to 'something over a year since I described the genesis of Tregunna, the railway in a cupboard' - so I guess would appear in an early 1956 issue? There are a number of dodgy photos, common in this period!

 

He goes on to say that they have just moved to a larger house with a loft space, so he describes some potential extensions to the layout, including a 3 platform version of Tregunna, a large through station, with straight platforms!

 

 

A follow up article appears in August 1957, where it appears that the layout is now in the loft and a continuous run has been incorporated. No track plan or photos though. A 2nd station Pype has been built and he speaks of the advantages of a loop to allow running. Also some rules, no changes to the track unless it can be done in a session, so trains can always run!

I've got the 1956 and 1957 Railway Modellers as bound volumes so have all three articles. 

The first, in March 1956, was "Layouts for the Modeller no 86" (i.e. Plan of the Month) "The Railway in a Cupboard". It doesn't include any photos but does explain his site survey of the cupboard under the stairs and the development of the plan to its "tracks as laid - 5-1-56" followed by a couple of plans for a development including an enlarged extension to the layout as built and a straight version of Tregunna based on Ashburton.

 

He does say in the May 1957 article that the cramped cupboard made photography all but impossible but the three that are there seem to show a reasonable level of modelling and the buildings look pretty good. He may perhaps have been a bit reluctant to appear to be trying to compete with the modellers whose work he was bringing to the public.

 

It's interesting that, in London, Cyril Freezer had been one of several modellers, including Peter Denny, at the MRC who were working with EM. He certainly mentioned that he was building an EM gauge layout based on Ashburton. After he moved with RM down to Seaton  he did mention this layout but it never re-emerged and I do wonder if his move from EM to 00 was required by Sydney Pritchard to fit in with what Peco was offering. Despite that he certainly included a number of EM layouts in RM.

 

I think the clever thing about Peco's ownership of RM was that it didn't push Peco's own products but did encourage the idea of layout buidling rather more than did MRC and MRN who tended to give almost as much weight to locomotive and rolling stock modelling.  Since layouts require track it would be good business for Peco if as many modellers as possible built them even if only a percentage of them used their track.  CJF's track plans clearly contributed to that.

[RJS1977]

CJF also mentioned on at least one occasion what a boring/awkward track plan Ashburton is to operate, which may mean that layout didn't last very long!

 

 

I remember reading one time that it's difficult for a bowler to captain a cricket team as they either bowl themselves too much or too little (because they don't want to be seen to overbowl themseles). I wonder if the same applies to modelling magazine editors when it comes to featuring their own layouts - they don't like to do it very often in case they get accused of showboating.

[Pacific231G]

CJF also mentioned on at least one occasion what a boring/awkward track plan Ashburton is to operate, which may mean that layout didn't last very long!

 

 

I remember reading one time that it's difficult for a bowler to captain a cricket team as they either bowl themselves too much or too little (because they don't want to be seen to overbowl themseles). I wonder if the same applies to modelling magazine editors when it comes to featuring their own layouts - they don't like to do it very often in case they get accused of showboating.

He did but kept coming back to it. I suspect that like a lot of people he fell in love with Ashburton but saw its snags. Peco's 1965  "Starting in Scale 00", which he clearly wrote, includes detailed instructions for building Ashburton and, while clear about the limitations of a very simple branch terminus, sees it as a good, easily built first serious layout from which to move on from. Peter Denny based Buckingham Mk 2 on Ashburton after honeymooning near there but he made enough changes to overcome it's limitations.

 

I don't know if Cyril Freezer ever finished his Ashburton based EM layout which he started well before Tregunna but I rather doubt it. My guess (though Nick Freezer would know) is that he had a functioning layout in his loft that suited him but was never brought up to "Layout of the Month" standards. I don't know what modelling he did after he returned to London. 

 

I'm not sure whether the reluctance of editors to say too much about their own modelling is to avoid accusations of showboating so much as to avoid a situation where people judge their editorial skills on the basis of their modelling, the two skillsets are of course entirely separate. Letting your readers know that you are yourself a modeller is probably a useful thing, if only to show that you're not just a publisher's hack who could as happily edit caravanning monthly. Going much beyond that probably isn't useful as it risks appearing to be in competition with your own contributors.

[Nearholmer]

Some manage the two very well, though. I'm thinking of Roy C Link, who has always edited and designed a very good magazine, but occasionally included some of his own excellent work. An exception to prove a rule, maybe?

[St Enodoc]

Some manage the two very well, though. I'm thinking of Roy C Link, who has always edited and designed a very good magazine, but occasionally included some of his own excellent work. An exception to prove a rule, maybe?

dibber25 (Chris Leigh) of this parish too of course.

[PatB]

He did but kept coming back to it. I suspect that like a lot of people he fell in love with Ashburton but saw its snags. Peco's 1965  "Starting in Scale 00", which he clearly wrote, includes detailed instructions for building Ashburton and, while clear about the limitations of a very simple branch terminus, sees it as a good, easily built first serious layout from which to move on from. Peter Denny based Buckingham Mk 2 on Ashburton after honeymooning near there but he made enough changes to overcome it's limitations.

 

I don't know if Cyril Freezer ever finished his Ashburton based EM layout which he started well before Tregunna but I rather doubt it. My guess (though Nick Freezer would know) is that he had a functioning layout in his loft that suited him but was never brought up to "Layout of the Month" standards. I don't know what modelling he did after he returned to London. 

 

I'm not sure whether the reluctance of editors to say too much about their own modelling is to avoid accusations of showboating so much as to avoid a situation where people judge their editorial skills on the basis of their modelling, the two skillsets are of course entirely separate. Letting your readers know that you are yourself a modeller is probably a useful thing, if only to show that you're not just a publisher's hack who could as happily edit caravanning monthly. Going much beyond that probably isn't useful as it risks appearing to be in competition with your own contributors.

 

Back in 1965 working in "scale 00" was probably fairly closely analagous to going to P4 today, in terms of the work involved. Ashburton is not so very far removed from the sort of simple starter projects that are still recommended for P4 neophytes, where the object is not so much to create a long-term satisfying layout but to practice the necessary skills.

 

That said, I've seen several instances where CJF pointed out Ashburton's shortcomings as an operational layout rather than a modelling exercise.

[kevinlms]

He did but kept coming back to it. I suspect that like a lot of people he fell in love with Ashburton but saw its snags. Peco's 1965 "Starting in Scale 00", which he clearly wrote, includes detailed instructions for building Ashburton and, while clear about the limitations of a very simple branch terminus, sees it as a good, easily built first serious layout from which to move on from. Peter Denny based Buckingham Mk 2 on Ashburton after honeymooning near there but he made enough changes to overcome it's limitations.

 

I don't know if Cyril Freezer ever finished his Ashburton based EM layout which he started well before Tregunna but I rather doubt it. My guess (though Nick Freezer would know) is that he had a functioning layout in his loft that suited him but was never brought up to "Layout of the Month" standards. I don't know what modelling he did after he returned to London.

 

I'm not sure whether the reluctance of editors to say too much about their own modelling is to avoid accusations of showboating so much as to avoid a situation where people judge their editorial skills on the basis of their modelling, the two skillsets are of course entirely separate. Letting your readers know that you are yourself a modeller is probably a useful thing, if only to show that you're not just a publisher's hack who could as happily edit caravanning monthly. Going much beyond that probably isn't useful as it risks appearing to be in competition with your own contributors.

Perhaps CJF wrote less about his own layouts in later years, because he grew tired of doing so. In the mid 1950s RM is is clear that he wrote a significant portion of the articles himself (many have unnamed author's, but the drawings and text are in his style).

 

Most people get tired of doing a day job and then going home, to continue more of the same. Perhaps he started to limit himself to editing and drawing possible track plans?

 

1970s Railway Modeller had considerably more pages than 1950s editions, computers had yet to be the dominant method of publishing.

[BlackRat]

Not sure that PECO wasn't adverse to marketing PECO products including PECO trackpins, PECO track, PECO wonderful wagons and anything to do with PECO in the PECO owned RM, did anyone mention PECO at all?????

 

The only layout I recall is Dugdale Road, complete with screw in legs, built as NF wanted a layout whilst in halls, fairly basic as I recall with an overall roof (?) and based on Minories.

 

Think there was a HST in one of the pics.

[clecklewyke]

dibber25 (Chris Leigh) of this parish too of course.

 

Not forgetting Iain Rice. The magazines he edited were probably 90% his own work. Which is why I bought them.

 

Ian

[Jol Wilkinson]

Not forgetting Iain Rice. The magazines he edited were probably 90% his own work. Which is why I bought them.

 

Ian

 

Nor the various editors of MRJ. I think CJF was rather the exception than the rule.

[kevinlms]

Not sure that PECO wasn't adverse to marketing PECO products including PECO trackpins, PECO track, PECO wonderful wagons and anything to do with PECO in the PECO owned RM, did anyone mention PECO at all?????

 

The only layout O recall is Dugdale Road, comp,eye with screw in legs, built as NF wanted a layout whilst in halls, fairly basic as I recall with an overall roof (?) and based on Minories.

 

Think there was a HST in one of the pics.

It must be decades now since Peco referred to their products as PECO! So hardly fair.

 

Edit to add.

 

An update for you all. I just looked in some Railway Modellers and found the date when the term "PECO", was last used. Its December 1993, the January 1994 issue, uses a different font (maybe when they changed to a different form of DTP?) and the term is "Peco" from there onward.

 

How's that for a useless piece of research?

[Nearholmer]

The 'plugging' of Peco in earlier RM's was fairly open. Mr Pritchard himself contributed articles about track-building, using his own products, quite frequently.

 

But, compared with the Meccano Magazine, which was one of the benchmarks of the day, RM was a model of openness and balance.

[kevinlms]

I've got the 1956 and 1957 Railway Modellers as bound volumes so have all three articles. 

The first, in March 1956, was "Layouts for the Modeller no 86" (i.e. Plan of the Month) "The Railway in a Cupboard". It doesn't include any photos but does explain his site survey of the cupboard under the stairs and the development of the plan to its "tracks as laid - 5-1-56" followed by a couple of plans for a development including an enlarged extension to the layout as built and a straight version of Tregunna based on Ashburton.

 

He does say in the May 1957 article that the cramped cupboard made photography all but impossible but the three that are there seem to show a reasonable level of modelling and the buildings look pretty good. He may perhaps have been a bit reluctant to appear to be trying to compete with the modellers whose work he was bringing to the public.

 

It's interesting that, in London, Cyril Freezer had been one of several modellers, including Peter Denny, at the MRC who were working with EM. He certainly mentioned that he was building an EM gauge layout based on Ashburton. After he moved with RM down to Seaton  he did mention this layout but it never re-emerged and I do wonder if his move from EM to 00 was required by Sydney Pritchard to fit in with what Peco was offering. Despite that he certainly included a number of EM layouts in RM.

 

I think the clever thing about Peco's ownership of RM was that it didn't push Peco's own products but did encourage the idea of layout buidling rather more than did MRC and MRN who tended to give almost as much weight to locomotive and rolling stock modelling.  Since layouts require track it would be good business for Peco if as many modellers as possible built them even if only a percentage of them used their track.  CJF's track plans clearly contributed to that.

The odd thing about the Peco track plan books, is that they didn't appear to specify exactly how the layouts could be built to a particular plan. Most gave the minimum radius, commonly 15", 1'10", 2'6" etc. None of these dimensions matched the Peco Streamline point range. (the Set track range wasn't yet available).

Tri-ang had long since produced books, with detailed diagrams and a parts list, showing modellers exactly how to build them (mind you many would be purchasers, would have received bill shock!).

So the Peco track plan books, were intended as an idea only.

 

I've never been convinced of the anti-other scales, except what Peco produce arguments. I recall CJF stating somewhere, that Peco DID consider making an EM track, but it failed, because no one could give them a definitive answer as to what was wanted - so it never happened.

One would think that EM track sales, would at least match some of the other scale offerings.

[PatB]

The odd thing about the Peco track plan books, is that they didn't appear to specify exactly how the layouts could be built to a particular plan. Most gave the minimum radius, commonly 15", 1'10", 2'6" etc. None of these dimensions matched the Peco Streamline point range. (the Set track range wasn't yet available).

Tri-ang had long since produced books, with detailed diagrams and a parts list, showing modellers exactly how to build them (mind you many would be purchasers, would have received bill shock!).

So the Peco track plan books, were intended as an idea only.

 

I've never been convinced of the anti-other scales, except what Peco produce arguments. I recall CJF stating somewhere, that Peco DID consider making an EM track, but it failed, because no one could give them a definitive answer as to what was wanted - so it never happened.

One would think that EM track sales, would at least match some of the other scale offerings.

 

I've had a go at a few Peco and RM plans in things like SCARM and some of them seem to be unbuildable as drawn. Most of the main lines can be made to (sort of) work but I've found some goods yards that just won't seem to work with any combination of standard pointwork I can come up with.

[kevinlms]

I've had a go at a few Peco and RM plans in things like SCARM and some of them seem to be unbuildable as drawn. Most of the main lines can be made to (sort of) work but I've found some goods yards that just won't seem to work with any combination of standard pointwork I can come up with.

Yes there are many reports of such in RMweb and other places in the past. Very strange. Although I suppose they would be fine, in a larger location than drawn.

 

Edit to add.

 

You'd expect it to be a minimum requirement, to be able to build it using the then current Peco catalogue range.

[PatB]

Indeed, but I've been surprised to find the problems, on the plans I've tried, to be less with complex main line junctions but in fitting simple fans of sidings into the space allowed. Point ladders seem to take up more space in SCARM than they did on CJF's drawing board . Mind you, I've had the same problems with a couple of S C Jenkins' offerings too, so CJF wasn't alone in suffering a degree of spatial optimism.

 

Of course, one problem with replicating the very small plans of the era is that sectional track points are now R2 rather than the R1 of earlier eras.

[Nearholmer]

I think that the earlier CJF plans work with Hornby-Dublo track, which was the r-t-r standard of the day, and I think that is where the 15" radius points come from.

 

Do these modern software packages include an HD option?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

I've had a go at a few Peco and RM plans in things like SCARM and some of them seem to be unbuildable as drawn. Most of the main lines can be made to (sort of) work but I've found some goods yards that just won't seem to work with any combination of standard pointwork I can come up with.

 Most of the OO plans were 'pipe dreams' with funky features like a crossover between double track accomplished in 6". The most lamentable fault  - and I really don't recall a plan that deviated from this - was a total absence of trap point protection where sidings, yards, bay platform roads, etc. joined running lines, the only exception being the goods yard with a headshunt, the latter a very special feature that was regularly explained.

 

I suppose we might see that as evidence of no overwhelming pro-PECO! bias, since every trap point would constitute a sales opportunity...

[PatB]

 Most of the OO plans were 'pipe dreams' with funky features like a crossover between double track accomplished in 6". The most lamentable fault  - and I really don't recall a plan that deviated from this - was a total absence of trap point protection where sidings, yards, bay platform roads, etc. joined running lines, the only exception being the goods yard with a headshunt, the latter a very special feature that was regularly explained.

 

I suppose we might see that as evidence of no overwhelming pro-PECO! bias, since every trap point would constitute a sales opportunity...

 

True enough, but I don't recall many actual models, prior to the modern era, that included comprehensive (or, indeed, any) trapping, so I'd be reluctant to say whether CJF was creating or following the standards of the time. At the very least, he was far from being alone in missing such features. S C Jenkins and, IIRC, Roy Link were also offenders.

[talisman56]

I've had a go at a few Peco and RM plans in things like SCARM and some of them seem to be unbuildable as drawn. Most of the main lines can be made to (sort of) work but I've found some goods yards that just won't seem to work with any combination of standard pointwork I can come up with.

 

I have too, scaling them for 'N' - the result is that the 'N is half of OO' adage is completely incorrect when it comes to Layout Plans - I've never been able to fit a N plan in less than 2/3rds the area of the equivalent OO plan, the main reason being the point geometry and minimum radii of curves...

[ejstubbs]

Do these modern software packages include an HD option?

 

AnyRail does, as far as I recall.  (I use AnyRail, but not HD, so I'm going on a recollection of having seen HD in the list of track libraries you can load in to AnyRail; I can't remember ever actually using it.)

[PatB]

AnyRail does, as far as I recall.  (I use AnyRail, but not HD, so I'm going on a recollection of having seen HD in the list of track libraries you can load in to AnyRail; I can't remember ever actually using it.)

 

SCARM has Dublo in both 2 and 3-rail flavours, and Triang back to Series 3.