C J Freezer's own layout

[Nearholmer]

Definitely OT, but after my father retired from teaching, he wrote everything, except the news and letters, in his local paper. It was run by a friend of his, who did all the news reports, while dad was Daphne Rogers (cookery column), Old Will (country lore and notes), The Reverend Graham (religious notes), a Rook, which purported to fly round watching the town, and mercilessly mocked the pomposity of certain councillors, and several more.

 

He could adapt his writing style to go with the characters, and I was always in awe of his knowledge of scripture, given that he was very anti-religion, of all kinds.

 

Nobody ‘twigged’, and they used to get letters at the office for all these different characters.

 

Local papers aren’t like that any more!

[runs as required]

Hmm....

Like Father, like Son   Seems you fulfill precisely the same role on RMweb !

dh

[Andy Kirkham]

There was a long period too when it was "Proprietary Modeller".

 

"Proprietary" seems to have had a special meaning in Railway Modeller (and other magazines as well?). I can't find a dictionary definition that accounts for the convention that Triang and Hornby were proprietary whereas K's and GEM were not.

[kevinlms]

"Proprietary" seems to have had a special meaning in Railway Modeller (and other magazines as well?). I can't find a dictionary definition that accounts for the convention that Triang and Hornby were proprietary whereas K's and GEM were not.

I guess it means Ready-to-Run (R-T-R)? 

 

Edit to add.

 

Which presumably has no dictionary definition either?

[Pacific231G]

"Proprietary" seems to have had a special meaning in Railway Modeller (and other magazines as well?). I can't find a dictionary definition that accounts for the convention that Triang and Hornby were proprietary whereas K's and GEM were not.

I think proprietary modelling meant assembling a model railway from ready to run and ready to plonk items rather than building them yourself from scratch or kits. At its extreme it would imply buying everything from one manufacturer's catalogue. It was more polite than "developing the train set" and needless to say there was no well defined dividing line.

[C.A.T.Ford]

Now, here's an idea - how about a layout where all the locos are named after well-known modellers?

 

i.e. GCR Director named after Peter Denny, GWR Castle named after Guy Williams, narrow gauge loco named after PDH etc.... 

I was looking at Benfieldside at Expo EM and noticed one of the businesses had the name Peter Denny. A close inspection revealed Ahrons, Maskelyne, Hancock as well as others all on shops and works. A fitting tribute I thought.

 

CAT

[PatB]

I think proprietary modelling meant assembling a model railway from ready to run and ready to plonk items rather than building them yourself from scratch or kits. At its extreme it would imply buying everything from one manufacturer's catalogue. It was more polite than "developing the train set" and needless to say there was no well defined dividing line.

 

I'd tend to concur with that. It's supported by RM's mid-70s series "Proprietary to Scale", intended to encourage r-t-r modellers to move towards higher standards than those available from unmodified r-t-r items of the time.

 

On a similar note, I was, for many years, puzzled by the title of the "Shows You How" booklet Starting in Scale 00, which I always assumed to be something of a Yodaism for 00 Scale. As my railway modelling interest only really manifested from the mid-70s onwards I was completely unaware of the vast gulf that existed in the '50s and '60s between the products of Hornby and Triang and even the crudest lump of Romford wheeled whitemetal.

[PatB]

Bike Magazine was notorious for this at one time, being written and edited almost entirely by Martin Harrison..

 

I think quite a few special interest magazines work on this basis, at least initially. I can think of at least two other motorcycle magazines that were effectively one-man-bands for the first few issues, and most of the content of all the early '80s kit car mags seemed to be written by the same three guys taking turns as editor .

[RJS1977]

Never dropped, just a title change. For a while it was 'Right Away'!.

Later and currently Railway Modelling Explored.

 

However those are a different concept to Junior Modeller/Student Modeller. JM/SM was where young individuals or school model railway clubs could contribute articles to show off their achievements.

 

RA/RME is written by adults, and particularly in its current form is aimed more at adults starting out in the hobby (and even some who have been in it for years) rather than Juniors.

[PatB]

However those are a different concept to Junior Modeller/Student Modeller. JM/SM was where young individuals or school model railway clubs could contribute articles to show off their achievements.

 

RA/RME is written by adults, and particularly in its current form is aimed more at adults starting out in the hobby (and even some who have been in it for years) rather than Juniors.

 

That may be a recognition on the part of RM management of the perhaps uncomfortable reality that new recruits to modelling are now more likely to come from the ranks of the early/semi/fully retired looking for something to do than from the "train set for Xmas" youngsters.

[St Enodoc]

There was a long period too when it was "Proprietary Modeller".

I've now had a chance to check my records.

 

Junior Modeller ran from September 1956 to February 1962.

 

Proprietary Modeller ran from March 1962 to November 1964 and then, intermittently, until November 1973. From March 1962 to July 1962 it was billed as Proprietary Modeller incorporating Junior Modeller.

 

Junior Modeller returned in January 1965 and ran to December 1973.

 

Unfortunately My records are not comprehensive as far as Student Modeller is concerned. I would have to look at each magazine individually.

 

Railway Modelling Explored started in February 2014.

[kevinlms]

However those are a different concept to Junior Modeller/Student Modeller. JM/SM was where young individuals or school model railway clubs could contribute articles to show off their achievements.

 

RA/RME is written by adults, and particularly in its current form is aimed more at adults starting out in the hobby (and even some who have been in it for years) rather than Juniors.

Yes, quite correct, the JM/SM approach seems to have been forgotten in recent times.

 

The 'standard' of JM/SM varied considerably, not surprising really because there is a large gap between what an 8 year old can do compared to a late teenager (especially if the later is assisted by a parent or school group, who is genuinely interested themselves).

 

Personally, I've always looked at the JM/SM articles, because there is a possibility, you can learn something. Sure a large percentage you won't, but IMO there is a place for them.

[RJS1977]

And 30 years ago, I found the JM articles often more inspirational than the 'grown up' articles.

 

One of the problems with the hobby today is that when juniors are given a train set for Christmas (101/Caley Pug etc) they get bored of it once they've run a train round a few times, because there isn't the encouragement there (from parents or from inside the hobby) to move it on from the train going round in circles to something more like a proper scenic, operational layout. That's something all sorts of different elements of the hobby can contribute to in different ways.

[kevinlms]

Around 1993 IIRC. This only lasted a couple of years before the concept was dropped altogether.

It was 1993 January. This was also the issue that they changed the font and a few other things, including dropping the dreaded PECO. I posted about this earlier.

[C.A.T.Ford]

And 30 years ago, I found the JM articles often more inspirational than the 'grown up' articles.

 

One of the problems with the hobby today is that when juniors are given a train set for Christmas (101/Caley Pug etc) they get bored of it once they've run a train round a few times, because there isn't the encouragement there (from parents or from inside the hobby) to move it on from the train going round in circles to something more like a proper scenic, operational layout. That's something all sorts of different elements of the hobby can contribute to in different ways.

I seem to recall that soon after Christmas R.M would start to publish articles entitled "Onwards from the train set".

 

I often wonder that in this "compartmentalised" age many parents regard the train set  as a separate and totally different thing from a "model railway" which some how springs from the head of Zeus (CJF?) fully formed.

 

 

CAT

[Pacific231G]

And 30 years ago, I found the JM articles often more inspirational than the 'grown up' articles.

 

One of the problems with the hobby today is that when juniors are given a train set for Christmas (101/Caley Pug etc) they get bored of it once they've run a train round a few times, because there isn't the encouragement there (from parents or from inside the hobby) to move it on from the train going round in circles to something more like a proper scenic, operational layout. That's something all sorts of different elements of the hobby can contribute to in different ways.

To be fair, I think that was probably always the case. Even in "the golden age of the trainset", if there ever was one, an awful lot more kids had train sets than ever became any kind of railway modeller. I think I was lucky in that the "train set" I was given as a small child was a second hand HD three rail layout that my Mum bought from a colleague at her school. It was already mounted on a baseboard with its four points controlled by a small lever frame and everything always worked. It still had limited play value but did introduce me to the idea of the "layout". However, I got as much fun from playing with a friend's Hornby clockwork O gauge set with two or three points that we made up into different arrangements on the carpet.  When I was given a Meccano set that actually got far more of my attention.

[Pacific231G]

I've now had a chance to check my records.

 

Junior Modeller ran from September 1956 to February 1962.

 

Proprietary Modeller ran from March 1962 to November 1964 and then, intermittently, until November 1973. From March 1962 to July 1962 it was billed as Proprietary Modeller incorporating Junior Modeller.

 

Junior Modeller returned in January 1965 and ran to December 1973.

 

Unfortunately My records are not comprehensive as far as Student Modeller is concerned. I would have to look at each magazine individually.

 

Railway Modelling Explored started in February 2014.

I've just been looking at CJF's editorials introducing Junior Modeller in September 1956 and its change of title to Proprietary Modeller in March 1962. 

In 1956 he was clearly aiming it at the young newcomer with their first model railway and mentons that there will be an emphasis on "proprietary equipment (that) forms the major portion of their layouts" and "a layout plan using section track.... which enable him to change his system at will, and thus learn by experience the rules of track planning"  and concludes with "the future of the hobby lies in their hands...and we wish to give them all the help and encouragement within our power"

 

In 1962 he says "Junior Modeller has a far wider appeal than its title suggests  (so) the title has been changed to the more appropriate...'Proprietary Modeller', since here we cater for the person who builds his railway primarily with this equipment, whether he is junior or adult."  Until June 1962 the "incorporating Junior Modeller" strapline added "to help you get the most from basic/simple/standard equipment". Given that the Trix layout featured in June 1962's Proprietary Modeller was the work of a Royal Navy Captain who'd recently retired after ten years in Washington D.C. you can see the logic in moving from "Junior Modeller". In the end Proprietary Modeller seems to have become a strapline , like "Modern Image",  that  Freezer applied to articles wherever he thought it appropriate rather than a regular feature. In any case the dividing line between a "proprietary" layout and any other was vague to say the least.

[5050]

To be fair, I think that was probably always the case. Even in "the golden age of the trainset", if there ever was one, an awful lot more kids had train sets than ever became any kind of railway modeller. I think I was lucky in that the "train set" I was given as a small child was a second hand HD three rail layout that my Mum bought from a colleague at her school. It was already mounted on a baseboard with its four points controlled by a small lever frame and everything always worked. It still had limited play value but did introduce me to the idea of the "layout". However, I got as much fun from playing with a friend's Hornby clockwork O gauge set with two or three points that we made up into different arrangements on the carpet.  When I was given a Meccano set that actually got far more of my attention.

I think this is very true.  In the 50's at school most lads had a train set and there was rivalry between Hornby Dublo and Triang owners even then.  However, AFAIK, I seem to be the only one who has carried the hobby forward into adulthood from a Triang Transcontinental Pacific, Jinty and Grey track into modelling adulthood.  Mind you, there were several diversions along the way (some with 2 or 4 wheels/ internal combustion motors/alcoholic liquid content and physical attractiveness - but not necessarily all at the same time) but I've been at the 'serious' end of the hobby now for around 46 years.

 

Meccano got me very frustrated - but probably because I had a No.2 set with No. 10 set ambitions!

 

Edit - if there actually is anyone out there who goes back to Grove Park School Wrexham in the late 50's then please let me know!

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I remember we had a model railway club at the school I attended (Spondon Park Grammar), though I can't recall ever seeing the whole layout in operation.

[Pacific231G]

Proprietary

I've been looking at some early Railway Modellers and the first references I've found there to the term proprietary was in Feb 1952 in a "Peco Topics" piece by Sidney Pritchard "Concerning Standards". This was about the difference between Hornby Dublo, Trix and B.R.M.S.B. in terms of back-to-back and flangeway clearances. He uses the term as if it's already familiar to modellers and it refers to manufacturer's own standards, compatible within their own range but peculiar to them and incompatible with other manufacturer's standards and established long before the B.R.M.S.B.standards were published so incompatible with that. 

The term also appears earlier in The Peco Platelayer's Manual by "R. Watkins-Pitchford" (who I'm pretty sure from his style was Sydney Pritchard writing under a pseudonym) first published in 1949, with a forward by John Ahern, around two years before Peco bought The Railway Modeller from Ian Allan. I've yet to find out if others were also using this term any earlier or if it was indeed coined by Pritchard. .    

[Nick Holliday]

The word proprietary goes back a long way, and the OED gives an example of "a well-known proprietary tobacco" from 1900, although the word itself was used much earlier in the sense of ownership, but the later use, as the electronic version of the OD suggests, is more associated with a registered company name or trademark. So once the name Peco had been established, Sydney Pritchard could apply the term to his products, or to any of the other established firms such as Hornby and Trix.

[kevinlms]

I've just been looking at CJF's editorials introducing Junior Modeller in September 1956 and its change of title to Proprietary Modeller in March 1962. 

In 1956 he was clearly aiming it at the young newcomer with their first model railway and mentons that there will be an emphasis on "proprietary equipment (that) forms the major portion of their layouts" and "a layout plan using section track.... which enable him to change his system at will, and thus learn by experience the rules of track planning"  and concludes with "the future of the hobby lies in their hands...and we wish to give them all the help and encouragement within our power"

 

In 1962 he says "Junior Modeller has a far wider appeal than its title suggests  (so) the title has been changed to the more appropriate...'Proprietary Modeller', since here we cater for the person who builds his railway primarily with this equipment, whether he is junior or adult."  Until June 1962 the "incorporating Junior Modeller" strapline added "to help you get the most from basic/simple/standard equipment". Given that the Trix layout featured in June 1962's Proprietary Modeller was the work of a Royal Navy Captain who'd recently retired after ten years in Washington D.C. you can see the logic in moving from "Junior Modeller". In the end Proprietary Modeller seems to have become a strapline , like "Modern Image",  that  Freezer applied to articles wherever he thought it appropriate rather than a regular feature. In any case the dividing line between a "proprietary" layout and any other was vague to say the least.

There are some downloads available containing 'Proprietary Modeller' layouts.

 

https://archive.org/details/railwaymodeller

 

1963 January, June & August

1964 January to May & August

 

Definitely gone by 1965 April.

 

I also can't see the difference between these and other layouts of the era, so not surprising soon abandoned.

 

 

An an aside, wouldn't it be good to have similar scans available of more Railway Modellers?

[Colin_McLeod]

 

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...

We probably didn't know enough Shakespeare to notice the error

 

( speaking for myself of course, as an average railway modeller )

[Colin_McLeod]

Roy Plomley must have had his work cut out sailing the globe and depositing bibles and Shakespeares on every island.

I think he out-sourced that job to his friend Gideon.

[Pacific231G]

The word proprietary goes back a long way, and the OED gives an example of "a well-known proprietary tobacco" from 1900, although the word itself was used much earlier in the sense of ownership, but the later use, as the electronic version of the OD suggests, is more associated with a registered company name or trademark. So once the name Peco had been established, Sydney Pritchard could apply the term to his products, or to any of the other established firms such as Hornby and Trix.

Indeed. I really meant whether Sidney Pritchard coined its use in railway modelling to distinguish the systems and particularly standards (for flange depths, back to backs, flangeway clearances etc.)  "belonging" to specific manufacturers. This in contrast to the generally finer scale standards adopted by the BRMSB. Ownership didn't imply exclusivity so anyone could make say track to Hornby Dublo  or Trix standards and Peco did just that.