Are These Planning Books Any Good?

[Crewlisle]

Creating curves with compasses is fine but don't forget the transition curves, that is the gradual tightening of the radius from the straight into the final curve.  I built my 00 gauge layout 'Crewlisle' 40 years ago by just planting the point templates then 'fairing' the curves between them.  In the shipbuilding industry if a curve looks right it is right!

 

Peter

[newbryford]

 

 

 

There is also a volume 2: https://www.world-of-railways.co.uk/brm/store/books/the-brm-guide-to-trackplans-and-layout-design-issue-2/

 

 

 

Martin.

 

Two of mine get a page or two in volume 2.......

 

Cheers,

Mick

[halsey]

I'll offer my contribution as a relative newcomer........

 

I agree with all the above and eBay is a good source (or even the library) of supply.

 

I would also highlight the value of lining (wall) paper and gaining knowledge from these various publications BUT put your ideas out there to RMW members as collectively and by committee they produce pretty damn good results - I'm a fan!

 

Enjoy................

[wagonman]

If you want a plausible model of a railway go for Rice or Norman. If all you want is to titivate your toy train go for Freezer.

[Nearholmer]

Various shades of grey are also available.

[Willie Whizz]

If you want a plausible model of a railway go for Rice or Norman. If all you want is to titivate your toy train go for Freezer.

 

Both of whom seem - at least sometimes - to underestimate the size of fiddle yard that would be needed to support their designs.

 

Whereas a good many of Freezer's designs tend barely to feature fiddle yards at all - probably as a result of them dating back to times when so little variety of R-T-R loco and coaching stock was available that most modellers had to do with making the same few represent an unfeasible number of workings, so they were kept in view all the time.  They do often feature two or three stations on one layout, though, which is something we see far more seldom these days.

[kevinlms]

Both of whom seem - at least sometimes - to underestimate the size of fiddle yard that would be needed to support their designs.

 

Whereas a good many of Freezer's designs tend barely to feature fiddle yards at all - probably as a result of them dating back to times when so little variety of R-T-R loco and coaching stock was available that most modellers had to do with making the same few represent an unfeasible number of workings, so they were kept in view all the time.  They do often feature two or three stations on one layout, though, which is something we see far more seldom these days.

Regarding the limited number of R-T-R stock available. In many of his plans, Freezer freely admitted that to be the case. Its why later plans (1970 or thereabouts), often had storage space for more locos, or a carriage siding.

[PatB]

Both of whom seem - at least sometimes - to underestimate the size of fiddle yard that would be needed to support their designs.

 

Whereas a good many of Freezer's designs tend barely to feature fiddle yards at all - probably as a result of them dating back to times when so little variety of R-T-R loco and coaching stock was available that most modellers had to do with making the same few represent an unfeasible number of workings, so they were kept in view all the time. They do often feature two or three stations on one layout, though, which is something we see far more seldom these days.

Many of CJF's designs assume the use of four, or even three (or two in some cases) coach trains to represent main line expresses. This allowed the inclusion of multiple stations in very modest areas. Such stations were often in sufficiently close proximity that they were shown sharing an approach road.

 

Such practices have come to be regarded as unworthy of the serious modeller, although such a view disregards the added scope for modelling the operation of a railway system as opposed to the photorealistic reproduction of a small part of it.

 

As I've no illusions about my abilities as a 3D John Constable, I quite like the Freezer approach.

Edited January 7, 2017 by PatB

[hayfield]

Having loaded some plans from both into Templot, (though one of the programs which supports RTR track might be better for CJF's plans) I have noticed the space required by CJF's design needs to be about 20% larger, where as Iain's plans generally have to be tweaked a bit owing to the angles of the turnouts used.

[phil_sutters]

Whereas a good many of Freezer's designs tend barely to feature fiddle yards at all - probably as a result of them dating back to times when so little variety of R-T-R loco and coaching stock was available that most modellers had to do with making the same few represent an unfeasible number of workings, so they were kept in view all the time. 

In 'those days' in the 1960s when CJF was designing many of his layouts, the vast majority of modellers had far less disposable income to acquire the endless supply of locos and stock we now see packing out huge fiddle yards. Most of my stock was received as Christmas or birthday presents. There was a brief period when I could afford to buy stuff myself, before I had to stop railway modelling as I had a mortgage to pay, a family to feed and no space to put a layout. The r-t-r options were very limited, but that didn't stop modellers modelling. The collector habit hadn't reached down to 00, it was still the big boys that mattered to collectors then.

[KTM]

Interesting thread. I've been entertained by layout planning ever since I discovered what it was (Freezer, RM in the 1970s).

 

It is true by measurement that many of his 1960s/70s plans were based on super-tight 1st radius (<15") curves AND 1st radius points ala Hornby Dublo. Even changing to the later Rovex/Hornby Railways 2nd radius 'entry level' points would preclude these plans ever fitting the space they were drawn to but still, I love the thought and design that went into the multi-station designs.

 

Back in my yoof, I devised a whole railway system and built it on the floor in the bay window area of my parent's 1920s semi. This included Waterloo station and the Hounslow loop,  with the triangle junction off to Feltham yard. Other stations modelled (generally by a single platform on a single line) were Barnes Bridge, Whitton and Hounslow. Perhaps the most enthusiastic example of 'selective compression' was Clapham junction represented by nothing more than a Hornby curved point! This was very much a temporary set-up but it provided endless hours of fun and a real prototypical service could be run with ridiculously short trains on my 1st radius curves.

 

Generally speaking, railway modelling has moved towards visual realism which is wonderful however I do think we are missing out on the fun of running a railway. Those  Hornby O gauge or Hornby Dublo 'retro' layouts you sometimes see at shows attract quite a crowd... 

 

Jon

[martin_wynne]

Generally speaking, railway modelling has moved towards visual realism which is wonderful however I do think we are missing out on the fun of running a railway.

 

I agree. Railways run from A to B, so the logic of building a model of one would be to have at least two stations.

 

Here's a thought-provoking read: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Martin.

[Nearholmer]

Aha, now we are talking my language!

 

What shall it profit Railway modelling, if it gain total photo-exactitude, yet loose the fun of playing trains?

 

K

[Memphis32]

I agree. Railways run from A to B, so the logic of building a model of one would be to have at least two stations.

 

Here's a thought-provoking read: http://templot.com/martweb/info_files/seagood.htm

 

Martin.

Very similar to the way the Americans have been modelling for decades, but generally with industries rather than stations.

[Nearholmer]

What I'm constantly surprised by, is that so very few MR clubs in the UK seek to build 'railway layouts', as opposed to 'station layouts with fiddle yards' ...... the 'exhibition culture' is very strong indeed, and it pervades the way individuals choose to work, in the rare cases where they have access to large spaces, too.

 

K

[rockershovel]

On 18/01/2017 at 21:30, Nearholmer said:

What I'm constantly surprised by, is that so very few MR clubs in the UK seek to build 'railway layouts', as opposed to 'station layouts with fiddle yards' ...... the 'exhibition culture' is very strong indeed, and it pervades the way individuals choose to work, in the rare cases where they have access to large spaces, too.

 

K

 

Quite so, although I wonder how popular such layouts actually are with the visitors. I couldn’t help noticing at Peterborough last year, that the big crowdpullers were (in no particular order) Shap, the Hornby O Gauge display, the 16mm live steam and the OO live steam display.  

[hayfield]

On 18/01/2017 at 21:30, Nearholmer said:

What I'm constantly surprised by, is that so very few MR clubs in the UK seek to build 'railway layouts', as opposed to 'station layouts with fiddle yards' ...... the 'exhibition culture' is very strong indeed, and it pervades the way individuals choose to work, in the rare cases where they have access to large spaces, too.

 

K

 

 

Kevin

 

I think its partially to please the general public who like seeing things move, secondly it gives the operators a break every now and then just letting things move round without any operator input.

[Zomboid]

That's totally "exhibition culture". I suppose the question is "why do club layouts have to be exhibited?".

 

I've no idea of the economics, but I was under the impression that taking a layout to an exhibition is not generally a profitable activity, so that doesn't raise funds for the club. I suppose it can raise the profile though.

 

In one of the clubs I have been a member of, a low level grumble was that we would never just set the layout up to run it. There were good reasons for that, but in the year or so that I went there most weeks, not a single wheel turned under power other than to test a single disconnected board. Which was one of the many reasons I stopped going (I've nothing against the club or is members, it just wasn't for me).

 

If the "we must exhibit our work" thinking was dispensed with, I suspect a lot of club layouts would look very different. And a lot of exhibitions would like very different too!

[DCB]

The problem with the older CJ Freezer layouts was they were designed for big hairy chested 1960s Tank locos like the H/D 0-6-2T which would happily haul 15 very heavy wagons up a 1 in 36 grade and now we get feeble excuses for steam locos which struggle to pull the same load on the level.  His two and three level plans don' t really work with current steam RTR. OK with diesels though.  He also drew a curved diamond crossing which may have been a Farish Formoway or liveway item but certainly not Peco, indeed it may have been a figment of his fertile imagination but it's not currently available and would be an absolute sod to scratch build. That said his designs have certainly stood the test of time even if you do have to add a few inches here and there or trim a few inches off the pointwork with a hacksaw.

Edited July 14, 2020 by DavidCBroad

[PatB]

29 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

That's totally "exhibition culture". I suppose the question is "why do club layouts have to be exhibited?".

 

I've no idea of the economics, but I was under the impression that taking a layout to an exhibition is not generally a profitable activity, so that doesn't raise funds for the club. I suppose it can raise the profile though.

 

In one of the clubs I have been a member of, a low level grumble was that we would never just set the layout up to run it. There were good reasons for that, but in the year or so that I went there most weeks, not a single wheel turned under power other than to test a single disconnected board. Which was one of the many reasons I stopped going (I've nothing against the club or is members, it just wasn't for me).

 

If the "we must exhibit our work" thinking was dispensed with, I suspect a lot of club layouts would look very different. And a lot of exhibitions would like very different too!

I guess it would depend on the nature of the club. The operating groups that built up around layouts like Sherwood and Crewchester certainly had some of the social characteristics of clubs, whilst not actually being clubs in the strictest sense of the word. There's no inherent reason why a club with reasonably stable premises could not build a layout geared, for example, to sophisticated operation in the same vein. Indeed, CJF designed a number of very large layouts with just such an idea in mind. However, does such a venture provide scope for involvement of more than a handful of members? Then again, does an exhibition focus, anyway? 

[Zomboid]

I'm aware of clubs existing with permanent layouts, though whether they're just permanent station & FY layouts or something different I wouldn't know. However there's no need for it to be permanently erected - the club I was involved with before lockdown has a traditional style roundy that they erect every meet, and which gets used to run trains. Though I didn't get involved with that part; I participated with the freemo module faction. However on both sides, the emphasis on club days was primarily running trains rather than worrying about exhibiting, which is why it's exactly the right club for me to be involved with.

 

Clubs obviously exist to serve their members, so if they want to exhibit then that drives it down a certain route. There does seem to be a lot of "in the box thinking" in this hobby though. Building an exhibition layout is what "everyone" expects, so it's what a lot of groups do. I wonder if they would all still do that if the idea of a non-exhibition layout, built for the joy of operating a railway had occurred to them.

[Nearholmer]

There is a lot of hard work, but a lot of fun to be had, in exhibiting and I’m not advocating ceasing to exhibit, merely that some (more) big exhibition layouts could be railways, rather than stations (or bits of plain track in the countryside) plus a huge FY.

 

I have in mind perhaps a Strong branch or a secondary main line, using 360 degrees of the exhibited area, with at least two or three modest stations, so that a bit of operation can take place (with fairly short trains).

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, DavidCBroad said:

The problem with the older CJ Freezer layouts was they were designed for big hairy chested 1960s Tank locos like the H/D 0-6-2T which would happily haul 15 very heavy wagons up a 1 in 36 grade and now we get feeble excuses for steam locos which struggle to pull the same load on the level.  His two and three level plans don' t really work with current steam RTR. OK with diesels though.  He also drew a curved diamond crossing which may have been a Farish Formoway or liveway item but certainly not Peco, indeed it may have been a figment of his fertile imagination but it's not currently available and would be an absolute sod to scratch build. That said his designs have certainly stood the test of time even if you do have to add a few inches here and there or trim a few inches off the pointwork with a hacksaw.

 

I have an old Hornby 2-6-4T of uncertain provenance, which is capable of pulling just about anything that can be put behind it on the club test track!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

When the OP was put up, I think the author was looking at resources to help them plan a layout (based also on their subsequent post further down page 1).  I think they were looking at some helpful books and I do hope they’re progressing with a layout now.

 

But I've also long enjoyed simply reading track plan books and books of layout ideas:  I have a number of American outline Kalmbach track plan books and the ones I enjoy reading for their own sake are those with well told backstories that explain the “why?” of the layout too.  It’s not just the pictures I look at (honest).

 

It’s been acknowledged that many CJF plans were drawn in another era, so can’t always be copied directly today, but the ideas and principles can still be worth looking at (witness the Theory of General Minories discussion).  He did know his stuff.

 

When I was younger I had a lovely book of European layout designs by Faller (I think).  I strongly suspected quite a few of them were simply unbuildable - ridiculously tight curves, cross-baseboard reaches that needed me to have a footbridge across the layout and so on. But I thought it was great - I’d read enough CJF plans to know where the boundaries of practicality might be, so I could enjoy looking at the concepts, and have fun redrawing them.

 

When it comes to layout planning, I’d suggest track plan books are only part of the story - like all tools they can do some jobs well, but not all jobs perfectly.  There are also considerations of competing demands for space, budget (time as much as money), skill, technical prowess (digital fluency as much as with a woodsaw these days it seems), as well as ambition or personal goals, other interests, etc, etc... 

 

In other words, whether I can actually make a design happen won't be in any plan book.

 

On top all this, now I'm finally getting more active in the hobby, I realise I still know nothing about signalling and interlocking (amongst other things), which is another essential aspect of real railway planning many track plan books don't pay much attention to.

 

Sorry - a bit of a blog post.  I guess I’m saying any plan book can be helpful - even Hornby Track Plan books can help with track and point geometry - but good advice and a fresh pair of eyes will always be hard to beat when it comes to unlocking our ideas.

 

Just a thought, Keith.

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
[Trying to add some coherence!]

[Sturminster_Newton]

Remember that CJF plans can adapt to other scales N, TT, O by dint of his grid resizing to 6, 9 and 21".

 

Indeed you can continue to 'up scale' by multiplying the base board dimensions to your chosen scale.

 

When I was setting out my garden line I multiplied a few of the 009 plans by a factor of 4 to get a handle on how much space I needed for a reasonable size station in the great out doors at 16mm/ft. Where a 4 x 2 layout becomes 16 x 8 patio line with the railway built up on dwarf walls etc.

 

Similarly some old plans designed for no longer standard radius track. Might be can rescaled by using the next radius up from your chosen setrack radius as the grid pitch... i.e scaling at 438mm (R2) will give adequate space for R1 (381mm).

 

Vintage grided plans can operate outside their design scale if you do a little pondering and thinking outside the constraining box.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Sturminster_Newton