"Classic" Layout plans (i.e. compact)- what je ne sais quoi?

[Lacathedrale]

While musing over an old Railway Modeller on archive.org (link here: https://archive.org/download/RailwayModellerAugust1963/RailwayModeller1963Aug.pdf ) - railway of the month is Borchester. I've heard of it before but this is my first time seeing it in print. 

 

I cannot help but think there is a certain je ne sais quoi about the layout, and it certainly did get me thinking about classic layout designs and features. If we ignore for the moment the obvious spaghetti junctions on 5' x 9' boards, some of the layouts without benefit of what we now see as fairly mandatory in 'railway modelling' with any degree of fidelity (that is, scale lengths of infrastructure, curve radius (the author mentions adding in an eye-watering 15" radius curve hidden under the town section accessible only by a hatch underneath), and space for items to breathe), nevertheless these layouts exude a legitimacy and owczesny ('of the time'-ness).

 

Borchester does many things 'wrong' - there is no runaround loop at the station, it is a three-platform terminus with a three road goods yards and a turntable and engine shed, yet is at the end of a single line. You cannot access the branch from the station from which it purportedly sprung. There is no staging except a hidden reversing loop. Yet all of this is rendered moot by the photos in RM: a scant two feet of mainline with a gasworks behind abutting the town  (a few feet past which is the mainline station) looks very, very authentic.

 

How much of this is due to the quality of the photography? How many sins were hidden by black and white, high contrast film? Are we looking back at the Liverpool Lime Street and Copenhagen Fields of their era and holding ourselves to those standards? I'd be interested in any discussion thereof.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Lacathedrale

[Harlequin]

In the case of the Borchester article, I think a lot of the answer is in the selective photography, as you suggest.

 

IMHO the most convincing shots are quite tight and the least convincing is the "Aerial view" at the end.

 

Same with houses and gardens in magazines: everyone else's efforts look wonderful and make you feel inadequate. But the magazines only show the best photos of the best bits.

 

Having said that, of all the layouts I saw at Warley this year the one that engaged me most was Peter Denny's "Leighton Buzzard (Linslade)". So a true classic is probably a classic for reasons other than selective photography.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Harlequin

[sagaguy]

This was the layout that made me build a gasworks all those years ago,i remember buying lattice girder channels from Hamblings to build the gas holder.These layouts still hold a charm of their own,the buildings covered in Merco smokey brick paper certainly transports me back to an age that was far less complicated!.

 

                       Ray.

[DCB]

I was expecting a Frank Dyer "Borchester" rather than this Borcheser and Ambridge layout but think this layout is excellent in its representation of the nationalisation period.   Obviously it was modern image at the time much as post 2000 is regarded by many as contemporary modern image and so the use of Victorian and 1930s style housing really strikes a chord on a way very few modern layouts achieve.

 

The layout is of its period.  Few modellers could afford large numbers of locos so with 2 H/D Castles, a Farish (?) Prairie , Farish 94XX, Gaiety Pannier and motorised Kitmaster Std 4 in LMS livery the guy had a reasonable stud, all of which would have been happy on 15" radius and with Hornby Dublo couplings would have been closer coupled than modern Bachmann and the like.

 

The layout can be run end to end, the branch train turns hard left at the bottom of the gradient from the terminus and goes round the return loop before  heading for Ambridge,  It looks like it would be fun to operate, more interesting than a branch terminus with a traverser.

 

All the locos would have coped very easily with the length of trains possible even up the steep sharply curved gradient.

 

There is no need for extra storage if the owner did not have a lot of spare stock, and there should have been little need for spare stock as the old locos were (and remain) very reliable.

 

Above all it looks railway like because the builder could build what he could see.    I get a lot of inspiration from these old magazines,  Obviously we have moved on since 1963.  For instance my pre 1962 H/D castles now have glazing in the cab windows and etched name plates and my Gaiety Pannier has been pensioned off pending resurrection as a 2021 class but for railway atmosphere we have a lot to re learn from these old layouts.

Edited January 10, 2018 by DavidCBroad

[Andy Kirkham]

I somehow acquired this issue of RM as a teenager in the 1970s. For me this Borchester always stood out among other Railways of the Month for its true-to-life quality, and it still does. It is all the more remarkable that it achieves this while depending so heavily on kit buildings. In the picture with the Kitmaster mogul I love the gradual stepped ascent of those Airfix villas up the rising and curving road; that could only have come from a keen perception of the real world rather than a following of model railway conventions.

[Argos]

I do think that in our quest for authenticity we have thrown baby out with the bath water to some degree. 

 

Plans like this look great fun to build and operate.

 

I've often pondered Cyril Freezer's various plans and wondered what they might be like if tweaked, softer curves and easier gradients to give a less train set appearance.

That said I think there is some merit in producing them as is.

 

I think many would still produce credible, entertaining models.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Argos

[Anglian]

I agree, if today's trend is to design and create for a high fidelity resolution I wonder if enough thought is given to operation. For example, I imagine I could never get bored operating Buckingham but can't write the same of many layouts that have been heralded for their visual perfection.

[APOLLO]

This was the layout that made me build a gasworks all those years ago,i remember buying lattice girder channels from Hamblings to build the gas holder.These layouts still hold a charm of their own,the buildings covered in Merco smokey brick paper certainly transports me back to an age that was far less complicated!.

 

                       Ray.

 

Merco smokey brick paper - WONDERFUL STUFF !!. Nothing like that available anymore (or if it is where can I get it from ?).

 

That particular Borchester layout was a superb layout (as was Frank Dyers two layouts of the same name) - They had more "atmosphere" than most fine scale layouts today.

 

Brit15

[Salmotrutta]

While musing over an old Railway Modeller on archive.org (link here: https://archive.org/download/RailwayModellerAugust1963/RailwayModeller1963Aug.pdf ) - railway of the month is Borchester. I've heard of it before but this is my first time seeing it in print. 

 

I cannot help but think there is a certain je ne sais quoi about the layout, and it certainly did get me thinking about classic layout designs and features. If we ignore for the moment the obvious spaghetti junctions on 5' x 9' boards, some of the layouts without benefit of what we now see as fairly mandatory in 'railway modelling' with any degree of fidelity (that is, scale lengths of infrastructure, curve radius (the author mentions adding in an eye-watering 15" radius curve hidden under the town section accessible only by a hatch underneath), and space for items to breathe), nevertheless these layouts exude a legitimacy and owczesny ('of the time'-ness).

 

Borchester does many things 'wrong' - there is no runaround loop at the station, it is a three-platform terminus with a three road goods yards and a turntable and engine shed, yet is at the end of a single line. You cannot access the branch from the station from which it purportedly sprung. There is no staging except a hidden reversing loop. Yet all of this is rendered moot by the photos in RM: a scant two feet of mainline with a gasworks behind abutting the town  (a few feet past which is the mainline station) looks very, very authentic.

 

How much of this is due to the quality of the photography? How many sins were hidden by black and white, high contrast film? Are we looking back at the Liverpool Lime Street and Copenhagen Fields of their era and holding ourselves to those standards? I'd be interested in any discussion thereof.

Thanks for sharing the MR link - it was a joy reading it! Super 4 track - I remember it well.....

[Teabag]

I do think that in our quest for authenticity we have thrown baby out with the bath water to some degree. 

 

Plans like this look great fun to build and operate.

 

I've often pondered Cyril Freezer's various plans and wondered what they might be like if tweaked, softer curves and easier gradients to give a less train set appearance.

That said I think there is some merit in producing them as is.

 

I think many would still produce credible, entertaining models.

 

I completely agree with this.  While I marvel at some of the wonderfully realistic and accurate layouts on this site and in the magazines, I eventually came to the conclusion that I personally (everyone is different...of course) wanted to enjoy operating my layout.  To this end I have started building a larger (easier curves etc.) Bredon (post #36 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/79714-the-best-train-set-layout-you-ever-saw/page-2 and the Peco Settrack plans)set in the late 1980s with extra storage to allow a bigger variety of trains.  One day I will get round to posting some pictures...

[Anglian]

Merco smokey brick paper - WONDERFUL STUFF !!. Nothing like that available anymore (or if it is where can I get it from ?).

 

That particular Borchester layout was a superb layout (as was Frank Dyers two layouts of the same name) - They had more "atmosphere" than most fine scale layouts today.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

If you had a sheet of the original stuff you could have it scanned to repro quality and then have as many sheets as you like printed out. I suspect the hardest part would be to find an original sheet, that hadn't shifted colour, to scan in the first place.

[steve22]

David C. Broad writes, "Above all it looks railway like because the builder could build what he could see."  David, this was EXACTLY my thought when I first saw this layout back in the early 1980s when a friend gave me his copy to keep.  It's a thought that's never left me, and it still rings true all these years later when I delve yet again into the Aug '63 RM to view that particular layout.  Lacathedrale, thanks for your interesting musings and for bringing this model railway to a wider audience.  I have absolutely no connection except that I've always liked it.

 

Steve

[Neil]

A couple of things struck me about the layout, the first being the way that the town was laid out. Parts of it look to have been determined by the presence of the railway but parts of it look to be doing their own thing with the railway (the reverse loop bit) being threaded through what was already there. Though some of the component pieces are not as finescale as we would expect today their composition is pretty much spot on which says a good deal for the observation and thought put into the layout by its builder. Secondly by today's standards the layout is unusually deep which gives space for the townscape to build in a pleasing way.

[roythebus]

I too expected the Frank Dyer "Borchester"; as others have said Frank's layouts had an air of authenticity about them. I have personally built 2 of Frank Dyer's plans, one ended up as the MRC's "New Annington" exhibition layout, the other is still being built at home and is one of the plans rejected by the MRC.

 

This Borchester is of its time, there's an awful lot on there and it looks right, it captures the atmosphere of a 1960s layout. The fact there was so little RTR stock around, no fine scale track, no ready-made buildings. what some of those modellers achieved was miraculous, especially to me as a spotty 11 year old at the time! OK, no run round loop. Not all stations had them. Shunt and release the train engine made for more interesting operation. After all, if a tender engine brings the train in, it's pointless running round as it would need to be turned before it took the train back out. Happy days.

[JohnR]

Note that the following article is of Peter Denny, converting the Triang clerestories to GC stock. Wonderful stuff!

[Ravenser]

It's rather a good issue of the Modeller all round, actually.... The CJF plan is rather impressive - the only issue is what you'd do with the trains 

[t-b-g]

It is very interesting to see that some of these old layouts still float our collective boats! As the present custodian of Buckingham, I enjoy operating it more than any other layout I have got near the controls of. Visually it is still lovely and has an atmosphere that has rarely been matched. I think that comes down to a builder who was a good mix of modeller and artist. Peter Denny had a good eye for composition and knew when a certain type of building or scenic feature would look good in a particular place. He was never too worried if he didn't get something just right first time and he would tinker until a scene looked right.

 

Even if the layout was all Superquick card kits and RTR locos and stock on Peck code 100 track, it would still be superb to operate as you need to concentrate so much to get it right that you forget all the lovely model making that went into it.

 

I do have a small amount of the old Marco brick paper but having tried scanning and printing some, it just doesn't come out the same as the original. The colours and texture of modern paper are just not right and it isn't nearly as effective as the genuine article.

[sagaguy]

I seem to recall that Merco smokey brick paper was printed on darkish grey or brown paper.i suspect that why you can’t get a decent colour match is that today’s papers are coated to print through inkjet printers & as a consequence,are a bit stiff unlike the rag type paper in the 60s.

 

Ray.

[PatB]

It's rather a good issue of the Modeller all round, actually.... The CJF plan is rather impressive - the only issue is what you'd do with the trains 

 

You wouldn't have any as you'd have spent all your time and money on the layout. By the time you could accumulate some, you'd have realised what a horrible place a 1960s loft "conversion" actually was and abandoned the whole thing .

[Nick Holliday]

It's rather a good issue of the Modeller all round, actually.... The CJF plan is rather impressive - the only issue is what you'd do with the trains

 

As an eleven year old, this plan was my Holy Grail for a number of years, until reality kicked in!

[roythebus]

A school friend was lucky enough to build this plan when Peco curved points became available. He had nowhere for the trains to go to!

[Philou]

Crikey chums,

 

Just had a look at the old RM and there, there in Plan of the Month, was my first ever terminus station that I built. I was lucky in that I declared UDI on the attic in the old Victorian house in which we lived and had 27' 1" x 7' 6" within which to play. It was still in place until around 1990 when the attic space was recycled into living space. I still have a couple of keepsakes of it today .

 

Back OT, I agree that perhaps we seek perfection to match the detail of RTR stock available today, that we didn't have, nor dreamt of, in 1963. It served to show what could be done in limited spaces.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

Edited February 9, 2018 by Philou

[Crewlisle]

I do think that in our quest for authenticity we have thrown baby out with the bath water to some degree. 

 

Plans like this look great fun to build and operate.

 

I've often pondered Cyril Freezer's various plans and wondered what they might be like if tweaked, softer curves and easier gradients to give a less train set appearance.

That said I think there is some merit in producing them as is.

 

I think many would still produce credible, entertaining models.

 

With reference to the third paragraph, I was exhibiting my 00 gauge layout 'Crewlisle' at Bristol in 1997 when who should stop at my layout but CJF & his son Nick.  He paid me one of the best compliments I have had when he said, "You have a lot of track & stock in a small space but it does not look out of place."  We then went on to discuss for the next 15 minutes if I could fit a double slip at the entrance to the carriage sidings & goods yard to avoid a double shunt.  My layout is freelance but I gained inspiration from CJF's plans,

 

Peter

Edited February 9, 2018 by Crewlisle

[NCB]

Imagination is a wonderful thing. Looking at a layout we happily fail to register the sharp curves, short trains, compressed track formations, or whatever. What matters is the skill which presents a vision to the viewer. Quality modelling can still be done with all sorts of restrictions.