C J Freezer's own layout

[LBRJ]

Except that they knew they wanted something better than he offered and it has taken until recently for Peco to start producing much more realistic looking track.

 

Which gave SMP, and later K/C &L a space in the market. Of which (at least until lately) C&L have made a very good job of filling.

 

I still have a small box full of 9' riveted ply sleepers in case I ever have a few days spare to build a yard of track

[kevinlms]

When I were but a young lad, I always wondered why people would put catch points (as they were then generally referred to as) on a layout to deliberately derail stock.

I had enough derailments as it was.....

i always wanted a buffer stop with a coupling on it, so when I parked wagons in a siding, they didn't roll back out!

[Jol Wilkinson]

And yet that "much more realistic looking track" is still 16.5mm gauge.  It also has to be said that in the intervening 50-odd years since Mr Prichard made the alleged remark, he seems to have managed to stay in business despite apparently not offering what 'they' wanted.

 

He succeeded by offering what the majority were satisfied with, promoted through the model railway magazine with the biggest circulation. which was also what CJF's track plans provided. It was better than, but not far removed from the track work provided by Triang, Hornby, et. al. The Peco website makes a point of stressing the robustness of their code 100 track over the finer rail profiles. If your hobby is serial layout building then this ability to re-use track is a major selling point.

 

It was those that wanted to make more prototypical models that took a different track. If then, if Peco products were satisfactory for fifty odd years, why have they more recently felt the need to produce rather more prototypical track versions?

[Zomboid]

It was those that wanted to make more prototypical models that took a different track. If then, if Peco products were satisfactory for fifty odd years, why have they more recently felt the need to produce rather more prototypical track versions?

I'd suggest that's because the mainstream focus has shifted from operating/ playing trains to building as close to photorealistic representations as possible.

The same reason that CJFs plans can now appear a bit dated - most of us are no longer satisfied to model a "main line" where the longest train you can run has 4 coaches.

[Nearholmer]

I would suggest that is because the market shifted, to the point where enough people will buy it to make it profitable.

[Jol Wilkinson]

I'd suggest that's because the mainstream focus has shifted from operating/ playing trains to building as close to photorealistic representations as possible.

The same reason that CJFs plans can now appear a bit dated - most of us are no longer satisfied to model a "main line" where the longest train you can run has 4 coaches.

Possibly true for a number of modellers, but I would suggest the majority create their layouts using what is available, rather than deciding on a prototype scene to replicate as accurately as possible and then obtaining the materials and knowledge to make it. A visitor to the recent York MRS asked of one P4 layout owner  where he could get track like that. When told it had to be hand built, but all the parts were available from a trader at the show, his reaction was a picture.

 

I would suggest that is because the market shifted, to the point where enough people will buy it to make it profitable.

And the market shifted because those that wanted something better did something about it for themselves (going back fifty years or more) and then those that saw that and wanted something similar but couldn't/wouldn't do anything for themselves were seem as a market opportunity.

[Pacific231G]

He succeeded by offering what the majority were satisfied with, promoted through the model railway magazine with the biggest circulation. which was also what CJF's track plans provided. It was better than, but not far removed from the track work provided by Triang, Hornby, et. al. The Peco website makes a point of stressing the robustness of their code 100 track over the finer rail profiles. If your hobby is serial layout building then this ability to re-use track is a major selling point.

 

It was those that wanted to make more prototypical models that took a different track. If then, if Peco products were satisfactory for fifty odd years, why have they more recently felt the need to produce rather more prototypical track versions?

How exactly did Peco use Railway Modeller to promote its products? Apart from the Peco Topics column that Sidney Pritchard wrote in the early years of owning the title, originally because of production difficulties with "The Peco Platelayers Manual", I simply can't detect any particular editorial bias towards Peco products. Railways of the Month such as Charford typically used other makes of track and there have always been a goodish number of EM gauge railways, most notably the Buckingham Branch but others as well, long after Peco stopped offering that as an option for their hand laid track range. The Craig and Mertonford was of course 009 long before that name was invented and also hand laid. Products from other makers of track were properly reviewed , often very positively, and their adverts appeared with no less prominence than those for Peco. In terms of Cyril Freezer's own editorial writing this sentence is fairly typical in a 1956 article Make a Portable OO Layout "I do not propose to go into detail on the tracklaying for modern OO gauge track from reputable manufacturers is very simple to lay provided the maker's instructions are followed" If you were going to promote Peco an article like that would have been a very obvious place to do do so.

 

The reality of course is that publishing became a separate profit centre for Peco and if you're running a specialist magazine you don't put off your advertisers. I've always believed though that Pritchard used RM to benefit his manufacturing business in a far more clever way. RM always encouraged layout building, with far more emphasis on that than on individual models compared with MRN and MRC. If more people can be encouraged to build layouts then they'll need track and a healthy proportion of that business was likely to go to Peco. If it also benefitted Wrenn, Gem and Formoway all well and good as they were all major advertisers in RM.

[luckymucklebackit]

The early Railway Modeller editors were obviously bible readers as articles always had PECO in capitals, just like The Bible which always has GOD in capitals   Not I hasten to add that I am comparing PECO to GOD

[Jol Wilkinson]

How exactly did Peco use Railway Modeller to promote its products? Apart from the Peco Topics column that Sidney Pritchard wrote in the early years of owning the title, originally because of production difficulties with "The Peco Platelayers Manual", I simply can't detect any particular editorial bias towards Peco products. Railways of the Month such as Charford and Berrow typically used other makes of track and there have always been a goodish number of EM gauge railways, most notably the Buckingham Branch but others as well, long after Peco stopped offering that as an option for their hand laid track range. The Craig and Mertonford was of course 009 long before that name was invented and also hand laid. Products from other makers of track were properly reviewed , often very positively, and their adverts appeared with no less prominence than those for Peco. In terms of Cyril Freezer's own editorial writing this sentence is fairly typical in a 1956 article Make a Portable OO Layout "I do not propose to go into detail on the tracklaying for modern OO gauge track from reputable manufacturers is very simple to lay provided the maker's instructions are followed" If you were going to promote Peco an article like that would have been a very obvious place to do do so.

 

The reality of course is that publishing became a separate profit centre for Peco and if you're running a specialist magazine you don't put off your advertisers. I've always believed though that Pritchard used RM to benefit his manufacturing business in a far more clever way. RM always encouraged layout building, with far more emphasis on that than on individual models compared with MRN and MRC. If more people can be encouraged to build layouts then they'll need track and a healthy proportion of that business was likely to go to Peco. If it also benefitted Wrenn, Gem and Formoway all well and good as they were all major advertisers in RM.

 

While RM may not have overtly promoted the use of PECO products (as they were styled at the time) , the very fact that RM and Peco were effectively one and the same and that Peco were arguably the biggest player in the track business meant that every time the Peco brand was mentioned increased consumer awareness. I don't recall that the other track suppliers didn't have the same distribution through the trade, so weren't so readily available over the counter. I used some Formoway in my teens, but it had to be specially ordered in by my local model shop.

 

There is no doubt that Mr Pritchard built himself a formidable business and having RM as the in house magazine certainly wasn't a hindrance.

[kevinlms]

The early Railway Modeller editors were obviously bible readers as articles always had PECO in capitals, just like The Bible which always has GOD in capitals    Not I hasten to add that I am comparing PECO to GOD

Not sure when the PECO practice started, but it isn't in the earliest issues. I have actually found when this practice stopped, it was the 1994 January issue which dropped it, this coincided with a completely new typeface. So it is nearly 25 years since they stopped it.

 

That date also coincided with the advent of colour on all editorial pages, so presumably a new printing arrangement.

[kevinlms]

How exactly did Peco use Railway Modeller to promote its products? Apart from the Peco Topics column that Sidney Pritchard wrote in the early years of owning the title, originally because of production difficulties with "The Peco Platelayers Manual", I simply can't detect any particular editorial bias towards Peco products. Railways of the Month such as Charford and Berrow typically used other makes of track and there have always been a goodish number of EM gauge railways, most notably the Buckingham Branch but others as well, long after Peco stopped offering that as an option for their hand laid track range. The Craig and Mertonford was of course 009 long before that name was invented and also hand laid. Products from other makers of track were properly reviewed , often very positively, and their adverts appeared with no less prominence than those for Peco. In terms of Cyril Freezer's own editorial writing this sentence is fairly typical in a 1956 article Make a Portable OO Layout "I do not propose to go into detail on the tracklaying for modern OO gauge track from reputable manufacturers is very simple to lay provided the maker's instructions are followed" If you were going to promote Peco an article like that would have been a very obvious place to do do so.

 

The reality of course is that publishing became a separate profit centre for Peco and if you're running a specialist magazine you don't put off your advertisers. I've always believed though that Pritchard used RM to benefit his manufacturing business in a far more clever way. RM always encouraged layout building, with far more emphasis on that than on individual models compared with MRN and MRC. If more people can be encouraged to build layouts then they'll need track and a healthy proportion of that business was likely to go to Peco. If it also benefitted Wrenn, Gem and Formoway all well and good as they were all major advertisers in RM.

Agree totally, there is no shortage of layouts that did not feature standard Peco trackwork. Lots of layouts with Hornby-Dublo, Tri-ang, GEM etc in the early days and through the years, Ratio, SMP, C&L and DCC Concepts to mention a few.

 

Plenty of layouts/articles too, on models which were NOT built using Peco products at all. A fair few EM & P4 layouts. Not as many as OO ones, but a pro-rata proportion, I suspect.

 

The Railway Modeller COULD have taken a business decision. to not accept ads etc from rival organisations, but they never did to my knowledge. I believe some German companies promoted their business as a complete system. i.e. a Marklin model railway, rather than a model of a particular railway/country railway.

 

I would agree that Peco's approach was to promote model railways generally, knowing that customers would buy a product that was freely available in a retail shop - no mail order only retailers, was certainly a criteria.

 

 

OK a few hiccups, such as the refusal for a while to accept ads with web site addresses. Some advertisers got around it cleverly, by using gaps, or strange underlining etc in the address, so spell checkers didn't pick it up! The ban didn't last long, presumably they were fearful, it would affect advertising revenue. Doesn't appear to effect the likes of Hattons, Gaugemaster, Rails of Sheffield etc.

Plenty of layouts/articles too, on models which were NOT built using Peco products at all. A fair few EM & P4 layouts. Not as many as OO ones, but a pro-rata proportion.

[Nearholmer]

Interesting thread, rather like a couple of biographies of Shakespeare that I’ve read. The facts known about the subject with certainty are very few, and could be summarised in a paragraph, so they talk in detail about other, sometimes only slightly related, things instead.

 

Said in jest, not criticism.

[PatB]

Interesting thread, rather like a couple of biographies of Shakespeare that I’ve read. The facts known about the subject with certainty are very few, and could be summarised in a paragraph, so they talk in detail about other, sometimes only slightly related, things instead.

 

Said in jest, not criticism.

So can we expect a heated debate as to whether he actually did draw all those layout plans?

[Nearholmer]

Haven’t you heard?

 

Doubts centre around a plan based on Marlow, using entirely kits.

[kevinlms]

Interesting thread, rather like a couple of biographies of Shakespeare that I’ve read. The facts known about the subject with certainty are very few, and could be summarised in a paragraph, so they talk in detail about other, sometimes only slightly related, things instead.

 

Said in jest, not criticism.

Well as long as no one goes and takes 'a pound of flesh', I get squeamish around blood!

[Pacific231G]

The early Railway Modeller editors were obviously bible readers as articles always had PECO in capitals, just like The Bible which always has GOD in capitals    Not I hasten to add that I am comparing PECO to GOD

Note corrections

The practice started sometime in 1977 or 1978. between 1969 and 1974. I have the bound volume for 1969  1976 when it was Peco and for 1974 1979 when it had become PECO  presumably based on product branding. They seems to have gone to simply using PECO in in mid 1976 1980s.

When the practice started, Railway Modeller under Peco's ownership had only ever had one editor and he was Cyril Freezer. I don't know whether he was a bible reader but comparing Peco with the Almighty would certainly have been frowned upon by major contributors like the Rev. Peter Denny, a close friend of Freezer, and a number of other ecclesiastical writers for the magazine, 

 

The funny thing is that for a long time it wasn't at all obvious that RM was owned by Peco. Once Peco Topics finished in about 1957, the 3P monogram on the front cover and the address , Pecoway: Station Road: Seaton were about all that identified it with the manufacturing side of the business. The very occasional in-house project layout naturally used Peco products but these were actually very rare; I think Freezer preferred the how-tos along with most other articles to come from the main body of railway modellers. 

 

Possibly a little off-topic but anyone reading the French magazine Loco-Revue might imagine that it is they who are owned by Peco. A far higher proportion, well over half by my reckoning, of the featured layouts are built with Peco track than is the case for Railway Modeller.(including in O gauge where the scale is the same 1:43.5)   There have even been a number of articles on how to make Code 75 track, points in particular, "Hyperéaliste". For points, replacing the self latching mechanism with a "proper" tie-bar, the check rails with metal rail and appropriate weathering seems to be enough to achieve the desired effect. For plain track things get rather more drastic with individual sleepers "distressed" and their spacing changed for sidings and secondary lines. Streamline is of course H0 scale but the new avowedly OO bullhead track seems to also be going down well with French modellers (there was a lot of double champignon track in France) . 

[RJS1977]

I'd suggest that's because the mainstream focus has shifted from operating/ playing trains to building as close to photorealistic representations as possible.

The same reason that CJFs plans can now appear a bit dated - most of us are no longer satisfied to model a "main line" where the longest train you can run has 4 coaches.

 

Are you able to quantify either of those statements? Yes, the creme de la creme layouts now featured in the magazines and at the top-end shows have shifted to building photorealistic representations, but is that really representative?

 

Likewise, I'm sure there are many modellers - particularly in these days of rapidly-increasing property prices - who quite simply don't have the space for 8-12 coach express trains (and with the price of many mocel coaches these days, they might not be able to afford them anyway!). My father's layout can only really handle 4-coach trains (or 5-coach MU sets) despite being over 30' long, simply because it was an expansion of a smaller layout, designed in such a way that one of the existing stations remained as-is (and the other became the carriage sidings). But we don't notice the limitation when we're operating it/watching the trains go by. The long lengths of open track and the ability to install block signalling give much more interest than 'scale length trains'. 

 

The same question could be asked of those vociferously clamouring for 'super-detail this' or 'scale that'. Are they really representative of the 'average enthusiast' to quote CJF's famous tagline?

[Nearholmer]

Time for another non-representative RMWeb survey?

[St Enodoc]

Well as long as no one goes and takes 'a pound of flesh', I get squeamish around blood!

Brush up your Shakespeare, as someone once said! The whole point of the "pound of flesh" bond, as established by Portia, was that no drop of blood could be spilled in redeeming it - hence Antonio's victory in court over Shylock.

 

Edit: Got Shylock and Antonio the wrong way round! No wonder I failed Eng Lit O Level. And thanks to you all for being too polite to point out my error...

[kevinlms]

Are you able to quantify either of those statements? Yes, the creme de la creme layouts now featured in the magazines and at the top-end shows have shifted to building photorealistic representations, but is that really representative?

 

Likewise, I'm sure there are many modellers - particularly in these days of rapidly-increasing property prices - who quite simply don't have the space for 8-12 coach express trains (and with the price of many mocel coaches these days, they might not be able to afford them anyway!). My father's layout can only really handle 4-coach trains (or 5-coach MU sets) despite being over 30' long, simply because it was an expansion of a smaller layout, designed in such a way that one of the existing stations remained as-is (and the other became the carriage sidings). But we don't notice the limitation when we're operating it/watching the trains go by. The long lengths of open track and the ability to install block signalling give much more interest than 'scale length trains'. 

 

The same question could be asked of those vociferously clamouring for 'super-detail this' or 'scale that'. Are they really representative of the 'average enthusiast' to quote CJF's famous tagline?

It all comes down to 3 things. Time, money and space. The vast majority of people are limited by at least one, often all three.

 

A solution for many is to join a club, where the joint resources of the members can build something, they can't individually at home. Of course, other criteria comes into force, you need to make compromises with others, not just in modelling interests and standards, but personalities too!

[kevinlms]

The practice started sometime in 1977 or 1978. I have the bound volume for 1976 and they didn't and for 1979 when they did. Originally the capitalised PECO was in a different and slightly smaller typeface from the body text presumably based on product branding. That seems to have reverted to simply using the capitals of the body text by the mid 1980s. When the practice started Railway Modeller under Peco's ownership had only ever had one editor and he was Cyril Freezer. I don't know whether he was a bible reader but comparing Peco with the Almighty would certainly have been frowned upon by major contributors like the Rev. Peter Denny, a close friend of Freezer, and a number of other ecclesiastical writers for the magazine, 

 

I think your getting close. CJF edited his last RM in March 1978 (was it really that long ago?) and it does NOT appear as PECO in that issue. So its something started by John Brewer. Don't have time now, but I'll do some research later.

[PatB]

Are you able to quantify either of those statements? Yes, the creme de la creme layouts now featured in the magazines and at the top-end shows have shifted to building photorealistic representations, but is that really representative?

 

Likewise, I'm sure there are many modellers - particularly in these days of rapidly-increasing property prices - who quite simply don't have the space for 8-12 coach express trains (and with the price of many mocel coaches these days, they might not be able to afford them anyway!). My father's layout can only really handle 4-coach trains (or 5-coach MU sets) despite being over 30' long, simply because it was an expansion of a smaller layout, designed in such a way that one of the existing stations remained as-is (and the other became the carriage sidings). But we don't notice the limitation when we're operating it/watching the trains go by. The long lengths of open track and the ability to install block signalling give much more interest than 'scale length trains'. 

 

The same question could be asked of those vociferously clamouring for 'super-detail this' or 'scale that'. Are they really representative of the 'average enthusiast' to quote CJF's famous tagline?

 

Can't really quantify the point about photorealism, but my impression, gained from flicking through (or reading the covers in the increasing case of mags in bags) the current model railway press, is a high proportion of articles about scenic and/or weathering techniques, a slightly lesser number about adding detail to already highly detailed r-t-r offerings and a distinct dearth on the subjects of timetable development, realistic freight working, train formations, signalling as applied to model railways, and so on. The one field which might act as an analogue (sorry ) of operations interest is the topic of DCC, which does get a fair bit of coverage. Presumably the magazines make publishing decisions based on a combination of what articles they get offered, what they think will sell and what will tie in with their advertisers. So, presumably, they also perceive the majority interest to be these lines.

 

But, as I said, that's just a personal impression based on incomplete information. It's also open to question as to whether the print media is truly representative in these post -days. Also, to be fair, I've seen a few layouts featured that I would regard as far from photorealistic but without any indication in the accompanying article of any sophisticated operational emphasis to make up for their visual shortcomings and make them noteworthy, rather than overgrown train sets.  Not that there's anything wrong with overgrown train sets, as such, but I do feel that models brought to national attention should be showing us how we can do something better.

[Zomboid]

Are you able to quantify either of those statements? Yes, the creme de la creme layouts now featured in the magazines and at the top-end shows have shifted to building photorealistic representations, but is that really representative?

 

Likewise, I'm sure there are many modellers - particularly in these days of rapidly-increasing property prices - who quite simply don't have the space for 8-12 coach express trains (and with the price of many mocel coaches these days, they might not be able to afford them anyway!). My father's layout can only really handle 4-coach trains (or 5-coach MU sets) despite being over 30' long, simply because it was an expansion of a smaller layout, designed in such a way that one of the existing stations remained as-is (and the other became the carriage sidings). But we don't notice the limitation when we're operating it/watching the trains go by. The long lengths of open track and the ability to install block signalling give much more interest than 'scale length trains'.

 

The same question could be asked of those vociferously clamouring for 'super-detail this' or 'scale that'. Are they really representative of the 'average enthusiast' to quote CJF's famous tagline?

It's just the impression I get from reading on here and the very few shows I go to. There's a few Freezer-esque tail chasers on here (and I enjoy those threads a lot, as it happens), though most of them are built with children in mind. But I get the clear impression that the amount of compression required to get a "main line" into 8x4 is unacceptable to most people now.

 

It's not a criticism, just an observation. Personally I would be happy with the compromise of 4 coach representations of "expresses" on my own layout if it allowed more play value and more accurate operational procedures (though actually I find passenger ops are largely a bit dull). Personally I like freight (and mixed) operations and the Aesthetic of American trains, and for me running 4 freight cars in a train is just as much fun as 10+ cars.

 

I just feel like the "average enthusiast" is presently into realistic visuals in preference. Might be linked to forums such as this actually - when the only way to be seen in public was exhibitions and magazines, what went on in the privacy of ones shed was private, and only the owner would know about the wonky goods shed and huge step distances on the curved platforms. But now we can share it with the world there might be a subconscious need to produce good photos for sharing and the things we could previously turn a blind eye to ourselves become an embarrassment. And perhaps there are many CJF style layouts in non-internet connected sheds that I'll never know about.

 

And please nobody take offense at that, I'm not talking about individuals (who do what they like for their own reasons), just speculating generally on human psychology being impacted by ability to share ones life on the internet... So long as we all enjoy our hobby then it's all good

[RJS1977]

Being a member of several model railway groups on Facebook, I think I can safely say that there are a considerable number of what I would term 'average enthusiasts' out there - just that they're not necessarily on here! I'm aware that in some quarters RMWeb has (rightly or wrongly) a reputation for being somewhat elitist and perhaps people seeing the quality offerings on here don't feel their own offerings would be of interest.

 

Likewise there may well be people who - although Internet connected - prefer to spend as much of their free time as possible modelling, rather than in front of a computer!

 

Both exhibitions and magazines (quite naturally) tend to seek out the best layouts so assessing the hobby based on what is seen at shows and in print won't give the true picture. And of course many layouts never leave home and aren't seen at shows at all.

[hayfield]

I'd suggest that's because the mainstream focus has shifted from operating/ playing trains to building as close to photorealistic representations as possible.

The same reason that CJFs plans can now appear a bit dated - most of us are no longer satisfied to model a "main line" where the longest train you can run has 4 coaches.

 

My own take on CJF's plans were of an era where the country was coming out of an era of austerity of the 50's, money was short as was the choice of stock and very little room to permanently house a layout. It also used products readily available with points 2' radius or less and expensive. His plans for smaller layouts was a theme which most modellers could aspire to. The larger plans were just pipe dreams for all but the well off.

 

From the 70's we had an era of cheap stock, higher disposable income and availability of more space for out hobbies. In addition the quality and detail started to improve. Layout design also changed with the artistic style of design from modern modellers

 

Now everyone is far more discerning, happy to pay for quality with the older fraternity having the cash and time to realise their boyhood dreams. I am certain if CJF was around today his design style would have evolved as it did during his designing life span