CJ Freezer and the Railway Modeller (October 1961) Plan

[CaptainCliveDudley]

With reference to the attached CJ Freezer and Railway Modeller (October 1961) plan, I am considering building a layout based on this plan and would very much like to make contact with anyone that has built this layout. Any information would be greatly appreciated. CCD

CJ Freezer Plan.pdf

[Campaman]

Personally before I went any further I would try to re-create the plan in one of the computer planning programs to see if it will actually fit within the space, a lot of the early plans don't.

 

Google for SCARM or AnyRail for some software.

 

SCARM is free and AnyRail lets you use a limited number of track pieces in the trial version.

[Steamport Southport]

Personally before I went any further I would try to re-create the plan in one of the computer planning programs to see if it will actually fit within the space, a lot of the early plans don't.

 

I noticed that.

 

I think the early ones must be based on much tighter curves than we would use nowadays. I'm thinking flangeless centre drivers and short coaches era.

 

 

Jason

[kevinlms]

I noticed that.

 

I think the early ones must be based on much tighter curves than we would use nowadays. I'm thinking flangeless centre drivers and short coaches era.

 

 

Jason

The description says it was widened from an original plan submitted by a reader.

 

However it certainly makes sense to redraw it, since there is little margin on this plan.

[Andy Hayter]

I think the inclines are likely to be a bit severe as well.

[Dave John]

I have always fancied a loop over loop roundy roundy, but I would need about 40' x 15' in EM. But just thinking, that is 10'x 5 ' in OO. If you took that size, kept the trackplan but actually made it N then it would work rather nicely. 6 instead of 3 coach trains, you halve the inclines and everything gets a bit more space round it and the curves make more sense. 

 

Just a thought. 

[KalKat]

That plan looks to have very sharp curves - something of the order of two feet or less

 

 

 

Emma

[DCB]

Should be Ok but allow a few inches extra around the edges as Streamilne points have grown larger over the years.  2nd radius curves (18") and 2ft Streamline points should be fine, and now we have 3rd and 4th radius set track unknown back in the 60s so no more kinky sub 2ft radius flexi curves.  The gradients need careful attention so no 1" framing under the tracks where levels cross.   

A fiddle siding somewhere to swap cassettes a la Crewlisle would be good.   There is a lack of loco storage, coach storage, wagon storage, but in 1961 if you had a K's 14XX a H/D Castle, a H/D 8F, a Farish Prairie tank a Gaiety pannier  9 coaches and 20 wagons you were doing well. 

The upper station is a bit odd in that the branch train can only reverse in the middle platform...    It took me a while to work that one out.

 

It looks like it will work very well and in a very railway like manner, keeping a couple of operators amused even if it wont satisfy the fine scale end of the hobby who would struggle to fit a parcels bay into the area this layout occupies 

Edited April 26, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[LBRJ]

I have always fancied a loop over loop roundy roundy, but I would need about 40' x 15' in EM. But just thinking, that is 10'x 5 ' in OO. If you took that size, kept the trackplan but actually made it N then it would work rather nicely. 6 instead of 3 coach trains, you halve the inclines and everything gets a bit more space round it and the curves make more sense. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

I agree - CJF's iconic plans for 4mm scale are better suited to modern N gauge.

 

I suppose you could use the 21inch squares as shown on the plan and originally meant for 7mm scale; in order to get a workable OO gauge plan though.

[The Johnster]

Cyril Freezer drew up some seminal plans, Minories is a masterpiece, but I would be cautious about using some of them in a modern modelling environment; I don't mean modern image by this, and his plans are, by virtue of their age, drawn out for traditional 'steam loco' type railways.  If you want to recreate this as an exercise, fine, but modelling has moved on a bit since 1961!  In those days, getting anything that ran was a bit of an achievement, short trains and very tight curves were the norm, a 3 coach train often representing an express behind a pacific, loco and coaches being drastically under length, and the aim was often to create an entire railway system in a 10'x 6' spare room,  Freezer's plans often. like this one, involved curves that would nowadays be regarded as trainset radius, very steep inclines which were less of an issue given the light loads although the vertical transition curves seem not to be allowed for, and extremely difficult to actually achieve baseboard work of the order that really ought to have been undertaken by skilled cabinet makers, not to mention inaccessible lower level areas beneath the high level station; derailments there are a big problem!!!

 

My instinct would be to build that plan to that size in N gauge!  I doubt many of Freezer's plan ever got built to the original dimensions, much less ever were made to work!  The nearest successful layout I can think of that was actually built to this sort of general philosophy is Borchester Market, designed and constructed by an exceptionally highly skilled modeller, artist, and woodworker whose abilities were and are considerably beyond most of us.  And bigger and less complex than this!  I do not mean to be critical of Cyril Freezer, whose plans were often extremely influential to modellers of my generation, and whose '60 plans for small railways' is still worth reading now, but the game back then was very much getting a quart into a pint pot, a reaction perhaps to the smaller homes the middle classes inhabited post war, and the idea of the Iain Rice/Ian Futers branch terminus, with a feeling of space and the railway being a part of the landscape rather than absolutely filling the boards, was still more than a decade away, never mind Copenhagen Fields.

 

All of which sounds a bit discouraging, Captain Clive.  I very much doubt if anyone ever built the layout to those dimensions, but of course I could be proved wrong!  But I would not feel comfortable thinking you were about to embark on a project which may well prove to be a bit more problematic than you might think without my saying my piece, FWIW; I would be delighted if you proceed to prove me wrong and built a successful working layout to this plan!  Please, though, do not be seduced by a drawn plan into thinking that the layout is a proven concept; sadly, it probably isn't, and may never have existed except on paper!

 

A point worth mentioning is that Freezer's plans were based around the (then new) idea of flexible track and a minimum 2' radius for curves and pointwork; Peco had very recently introduced the 'Streamline' products, and published Freezer's plan books including the seminal '60 plans for small railways', some of which were actually pretty complex.  It is extremely difficult to actually lay flexible track to a constant radius as tight as 2' without transition curves so that 2' is the true minimum radius, and such laid curves are often much tighter in the centre of the arc.  This can and often did/does lead to all sort of running, coupling, buffing, and clearance problems on what are often plans where clearances are already pretty tight to start with if you can build them exactly as drawn; there is no room on the plan for transition curves!

 

Good luck if you decide to proceed with the project.  As I say, I would be looking at N gauge or setrack...

Edited April 25, 2017 by The Johnster

[PatB]

I can think of at least a couple of CJF plans that featured, in built form, in RM at one time or another. One was Owlburn and Mousehill in what was, effectively, the May 1980 issue (but titled the Special Extra as a result of circumstances arising from an industrial dispute), the other being Huntshire c1970. Tellingly, both were expanded somewhat from their CJF origins. O & M was based on a 6x4 plan but stretched to (IIRC) 8x4, and Huntshire came from Plans for Larger Layouts and, although I can't remember original or final dimensions, I think had gained a foot or so all round and was still a bit squeezy.

 

That said, my personal view is that there is still a lot of merit in railway modelling in the CJF tradition. Those of us with no illusions about being 3D answers to John Constable can feel much more comfortable with a layout whose main scenery is retaining walls and railway buildings, and those whose interest lies in the production of complex timetables may be better served by creating a railway system, upon which they can devise and operate a traffic pattern rather than concentrating on modelling individual trains or vehicles. That is not to say that models on such a layout cannot or should not be more or less accurate representations of their prototypes, but such need not be the be all and end all.

 

In the end every modeller must compromise in some area. Even the most painstaking P4 creation requires some suspension of disbelief to cover the fact that the steam locos have a boilerful of electric motor and that the rest of the railway system consists of a traverser just beyond that overbridge. The only question is where the individual is prepared to draw the line where their imagination needs to take over. For those who want a roundy roundy main line with multiple stations but who don't have a spare ballroom to accommodate it, that line needs to be drawn so that it includes things like sub-2ft main line curves and 3-4 coach expresses.

 

There are many valid ways to enjoy railway modelling. Photorealistic fine scale is only one.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If operation is where the OPs main interest lies, it's a good plan. Overall of course, it's a bit toy-like, but that is part of its charm. And there can still be some excellent modelling of cameos within the whole which would make good locations for photography.

 

Like others, I do feel that it is a bit too cramped. It probably needs about 14' x 8' to do it properly in 00.

 

I also feel that the MPD might be worth omitting completely and that, because of that centre reversing road, it might be more suited to multiple-unit working than steam.

[PatB]

If operation is where the OPs main interest lies, it's a good plan. Overall of course, it's a bit toy-like, but that is part of its charm. And there can still be some excellent modelling of cameos within the whole which would make good locations for photography.

 

Like others, I do feel that it is a bit too cramped. It probably needs about 14' x 8' to do it properly in 00.

 

I also feel that the MPD might be worth omitting completely and that, because of that centre reversing road, it might be more suited to multiple-unit working than steam.

 

I think a lot of CJF's plans would be improved by updating (or omitting altogether) the freight and loco facilities, which are often severely truncated anyway, and using the space thus freed up to allow everything else to spread a bit more. CJF himself sometimes said as much when offering plans up for modern image articles over the years.

[Pete the Elaner]

Why model such a dreadful plan?

 

Why is it dreadful?

The gradients are not marked very well...because you would need to make them massively steep to fit in that space. If you are tempted to make the headroom on the lower level as low as possible to smooth out the gradients, you are very likely to find that 1 or more locos is taller than you thought & you will be unable to run it/them.

There are nearly 30 points on there. For an inexperienced modeller, that is a lot to get working & many chances to go wrong. You are likely to find that switching a point somewhere on the layout causes a short-circuit in a seemingly unrelated location.

You have a huge station twice on the same loop, once on the high level & again on the low. Ok if you like watching the same passenger train constantly alternating through the 2, but you have nowhere to park the one you don't want to see for a while; you have to lift it completely off the layout.

Woodwork for a high level line is not easy to build. Many of us have tried & avoided it with our next layout. It is either too flimsy & sags, or it is too robust & heavy, taking up too much space, so the gradients need to be steeper.

 

& personal opinion...it is a set of boards flooded with track, not because they all have a purpose as in the real railway but squeezed in simply because they will fit.

I would advise lisiting what you want to run & what you want to model, then planning something which meets these demands. You will have to drop some of your 'wants' but will end up with a more satisfying layout.

[DCB]

Why model such a dreadful plan?

 

Why is it dreadful?

The gradients are not marked very well...because you would need to make them massively steep to fit in that space.

 

I make the gradients 3" in 10 feet...   better than 1 in 36 or about the same as Newton Abbot to Plymouth. The upper track only has to clear the lower one  60mm for trains 5mm for track  10mm framing 75mm or 3"

 

Edit  A current generation bog standard Hornby King and 6 Airfix Centenaries sailed up a  curving 3rd radius 1 in 33 earlier this evening, a bit embarrassing for an 8P as our standard load for a 5MT is seven, but if you "only" have 10 X 6 it could be great fun.  Just cries out for DCC..... 2 trains on each main line plus the branch.

Edited April 28, 2017 by DavidCBroad

[Il Grifone]

I make the gradients 3" in 10 feet...   better than 1 in 36 or about the same as Newton Abbot to Plymouth. The upper track only has to clear the lower one  60mm for trains 5mm for track  10mm framing 75mm or 3"

 

The layout is obviously intended for 3 coach trains of short coaches- all that was available at the time. IIRC the Kitmaster coaches appeared about then and were really the first scale length coaches (there were the Trix ones, but these were underscale for 4mm scale). 1 in 36 would not have been a problem for most models with  such a short train (The Tri-ang inclined ramps are around 1 in 20.

 

The minimum radius is stated as 22", which was quite generous at the time. (It still is for the R-T-R market - it's a tad under Radius 4 - 22½".)

 

However it is quite a complex layout and would take a rather long time to construct. At least there would not be a lot of stock to buy/build....

[Izzy]

I think it has to be said that like so much else this plan is a reflection of it's time, meant to suit the rolling stock then available and the desires of those using them. Small locos and short coaches were the order of the day and imagination was used to bridge the reality gap, operation being uppermost in many minds at the time.

 

So the basics are there and I do think that bringing the timescale forward to the 1960's/1970's Diesel/DMU era - shorter stock than later/newer designs and so less issue with the tighter radius curves and limited track lengths - and making a few changes to suit, getting rid of the turntable/making a diesel depot, laying out the sidings for stock stabling - there is no fiddle area or storage sidings - would produce a usable plan even within the confines of the space envisaged. Certainly enough to give a decent amount of operating pleasure.

 

Izzy

[Flying Pig]

 

I also feel that the MPD might be worth omitting completely

In the days when people had rather little stock, they still tended to have more locos than could be used at once. This layout has no stabling for passenger trains, but conversely can be worked with a couple of short main line sets and a branch set, possibly no more than 7 or 8 carriages in total. Being able to supply a few extra locos from the shed, means that interest can be added by engine changes in the lower platforms, or even by terminating and reversing trains there. It's a different paradigm from the currently fashionable one of small scale trainspotting, but can still provide railway-like operations and interest for the operator.

[Andy Hayter]

I make the gradients 3" in 10 feet...   better than 1 in 36 or about the same as Newton Abbot to Plymouth. The upper track only has to clear the lower one  60mm for trains 5mm for track  10mm framing 75mm or 3"

 

Edit  A current generation bog standard Hornby King and 6 Airfix Centenaries sailed up a  curving 3rd radius 1 in 33 earlier this evening, a bit embarrassing for an 8P as our standard load for a 5MT is seven, but if you "only" have 10 X 6 it could be great fun.  Just cries out for DCC..... 2 trains on each main line plus the branch.

 

 

 

Actually it is probably worse than that.

 

Starting at the station, the lower track is 3inches below the upper level, at the opposite side of the board it has to be 3 inches above in order to cross over.  If the platform areas are level - which I think they really have to be, and especially if the intention is to switch locomotives - then the length for allowing the two tracks to do the up and over is significantly reduced and the inclines will be sharper.  The whole layout then becomes something of a roller-coaster design.

Incidentally I would only ever us 10mm framing for a very short area due to lack of stability.  The way this layout has tracks crossing other tracks almost the whole would need to be 10mm and that would not be sufficiently stable IMHO.

 

Whether this is a dreadful design or not depends on personal opinion and what you want to get out of your layout.  Prototypical it certainly is not - I doubt that the L in Chicago is as complex as that - but fun to run, watch the trains and entertain the (grand) kids - well I can see that, even if it is not what I want from a layout.

[RJS1977]

I make the gradients 3" in 10 feet...   better than 1 in 36 or about the same as Newton Abbot to Plymouth. The upper track only has to clear the lower one  60mm for trains 5mm for track  10mm framing 75mm or 3"

 

Edit  A current generation bog standard Hornby King and 6 Airfix Centenaries sailed up a  curving 3rd radius 1 in 33 earlier this evening, a bit embarrassing for an 8P as our standard load for a 5MT is seven, but if you "only" have 10 X 6 it could be great fun.  Just cries out for DCC..... 2 trains on each main line plus the branch.

I notice that the low level tracks don't actually run under the high level tracks at the station end, but under the platform. If the platform is made hollow, this saves about 1/2" clearance though of course if the low level line could be brought out from under the station entirely (either by lengthening the plan, or by moving the branch terminus up a bit and shortening/removing the freight sidings), there would be no clearance issues at that end at all.

 

The bridge at the other end is probably short enough not to need any framing underneath, but if it did need framing, this could be done on top disguised as the bridge girders.

 

I know from experience that a 1980s Hornby Battle of Britain, or a Triang Princess or a Lima Western (or even a Triang Jinty or Nellie) can easily manage 3 coaches up 8' of 1 in 20 gradient.

[Il Grifone]

Removal of the goods and loco services would make the layout lose a lot of its operational potential. It is intended for operation rather than an exact scale model (it depends what you want from your layout.). 9' 6" x 5' 6" is not a lot of space (though more than I have at present) and would allow a (cramped) branch line terminus as a 'scale' layout. A main line system such as this inevitably means compromises (in this case train length).

 

There is room for about 20 wagons, three 3 coach trains and 5 or 6 locomotives. This would have been a reasonable collection in 1961. Of course additional stock can be stored off the layout.

 

I would be inclined to remove the engine shed from the branch station (CJF was very fond of these) and use the short siding for a cattle dock (for example) or move the goods shed here and use its site for coal traffic. A scenic break would allow this to be used as a country terminus. There is only room for 2 coach trains here unless four wheel coaches are used (Annie and Clarabel*? The layout would be rather nice set on Sodor IMHO or this could be one of the sets of stock - the layout lends itself to varying period and location).

 

The lowest level is the branch station so this is the datum. From here there is about two feet of gradient, so the next level can be about an inch higher at most. (The road requires a steep climb of about 1 in 4 as drawn!) The main line is a figure of eight overlapped and requires 3" between levels. (only the platform is above the middle level tracks and so requires little support and could ideally lift off for access to these. The total height variation is thus about 4", so not too bad.

 

* These two were originally bogie coaches, but seem to have lost length over time.... 

[hayfield]

CCD

 

I have a friend who has a model railway designed to run trains, that is what he enjoys. Which is seeing his favourite locos pulling 3 coach trains, with the odd freight working

 

No scenery to speak of, totally un-prototypical, but what he wants

 

As for CJF's plans, quite often they are using very tight radii and you might struggle to fit turnouts and crossings where shown. I think in a previous post someone suggested increasing the plan by 25% which allows the track to fit more easier. I would also go for flexi track. One benefit of shorter length trains is they can climb steeper gradients.

 

I quite like some of his plans which are of his time and now seen as a bit retro

 

As for gradients, if the lower level  drops and the upper line rises and you have minimal headroom between levels then the gradient will not be so severe, plus use thing strong boards which are supported away from the tracks

 

Good luck 

[PatB]

Something else worth remembering is that a layout of this nature was not intended to be built in one go. CJF suggested a construction period of three years for at least one layout of similar scope. Not many people in 1961 had the disposable income to buy all the track at once, for example.

 

I'd see this layout being built with Stage 1 being maybe the branch terminus to the branch platform at the low level main line station, Stage 2 going anti-clockwise with the main line around to the high level station, Stage 3 being completion of the main line and Stage 4 being the addition of the goods yard and MPD. Each stage would allow at least some operation and as long as each is functionally complete and working before the next is started the wiring and pointwork shouldn't be a complete nightmare.

 

A layout like this strikes me as being an ideal candidate for L-girder construction, which should make the levels feasible, if not actually straightforward.

 

The use of a single main line station invites a mode of operation that I've seen described in 1940s/1950s literature but which I haven't seen mentioned in recent years. Basically the station does not represent a specific station but, instead, represents every station along the route of a particular train. For example, an up passenger starts from "Newcastle", runs non-stop  through "Durham", stops at "Darlington", runs non-stop to "York", changes locomotives at "Peterborough" and so on. Similarly the goods yard can be used to represent every yard along the line, with wagons being exchanged according to any one of the many wagon ordering systems that have been described over the years.

 

Overall, it would be possible to get a lot of movement and interest from a limited amount of stock. Which was the original intention of course.

[locomad]

I've looked at many of these old plans having access to all railway modeller mags since 1952, they were good for there day but times have moved on, as mentioned the average Modeller then had very few loco's and very few coaches and wagons. My father's layout at the time had a maximum of 4 coach trains and that was considered normal.

 

What I use them for is vintage 3 rail Hornby dublo, 15in curves, short trains, small siding, I've tried 2 level layouts any curve less then 3ft, on an incline greater than 1:50 is a nightmare, most loco's struggle just like the real things

[hayfield]

I've looked at many of these old plans having access to all railway modeller mags since 1952, they were good for there day but times have moved on, as mentioned the average Modeller then had very few loco's and very few coaches and wagons. My father's layout at the time had a maximum of 4 coach trains and that was considered normal.

 

What I use them for is vintage 3 rail Hornby dublo, 15in curves, short trains, small siding, I've tried 2 level layouts any curve less then 3ft, on an incline greater than 1:50 is a nightmare, most loco's struggle just like the real things

 

 

I am in agreement with you, I have a small collection of vintage stock (Jamieson/Eames locos, CCW & Ratio wooden stock etc) and track and once my work room is finished I will build a retro BLT with Airfix and Super quick buildings etc along with suitable code 100 track (Peco Indvidulay 2' radius points)