A question of copyright

[DCB]

The accusations that CJ F crammed more into his plans than was achievable and that 18" should be added is just totally laughable.  It is the track that has changed, peco points are longer than they used to be, easily proved by comparing a 1960s small radius point with a 2014 version. However this is nothing that a razor saw cannot fix.  It is the toe of the point which has grown primarily and cutting ten millimeters or so off here and there soon gets things to fit. We also have 3rd and 4th radius curves available which CJ didn't have in the 60s and I suspect his later plans failed to take account of the changes, 

"Cramming in too much track", is what makes layouts look authentic especially urban ones where the set track track spacing looks frankly bizarre, slimmed down streamline points will almost get an extra road between the spacing of two set track sidings.

Where CJ F layouts fall down today is lack of loco provision and excessive gradients which were no barrier to a Gaiety Pannier or K's kit or H/D loco but far too steep for todays Bachmann and Hornby offerings.

As regards "Trent"  the top right hand corner can't work, the diamond is too obtuse but with the factory platform below the siding it should be fine, maybe the inner curve is a 3rd radius 19" not 600 mm and the 2nd to 3rd oval crossover at bottom left should be a left and a right hander, where probably SCARM uses a pair of rights and adds 10 inches to the length.

Computer design programs are a waste of space.  You can trim points and you do not need clearance where there are no conflicting moves, I bend points, SCARM can't, I tweak track to fit around buildings and I trim my platforms to match the space available., Including Ratio platforms.

CJ once did an article and listed the Peco point sizes and geometry, i dont know which RM it was in but I memorised the dimensions, 2ft radius = 16mm when scaled at 1" =1'  3ft =19mm  5ft = 21mm  Diamond = 22mm etc

[Oldddudders]

Computer design programs are a waste of space.  

I'm not sure this thread is getting a lot of air-time, but am quite certain that bald statement would attract a lot of disagreement from a multitude of layout-builders and others on here if they saw it. What may not seem necessary to you has clearly helped some very fine track-laying by others.

[shortliner]

DavidCBroad, on 17 May 2014 - 04:11, said:

Computer design programs are a waste of space.  You can trim points and you do not need clearance where there are no conflicting moves, I bend points, SCARM can't, I tweak track to fit around buildings and I trim my platforms to match the space available.,

 

I suggest that before you make such sweepingly "BROAD" statements, David, you take a look at XTrkCad - still, after all this time one of the best trackplanning programs available - It has a "turnout designer" which is specifically desined to let you make up custom versions of turnouts, and will let you produce the older PECO points , Self curved points. or any other that suit your requirements - I've been using it since it was a "Paid for" program, long before it became shareware, and never had any problem

[Dzine]

I came back to this thread as I wanted to know if maybe I might have been a "test bed" for designing a layout as featured in June's Model Rail had I taken up Paul's offer. I notice now that I never thanked Paul for his kind assistance. I would also like to take the time to tell Paul that I love his layout in this issue and I may have to steal it!

Hi there,  Thanks for your kind comments.  Receiving positive feedback for any article is one of the great highlights of what I do.  Please be reassured there was no 'test bed', I loved doing the article for Phil in Model Rail but we've been at it, on and off, for nearly a year!  So ready to do something a bit different now.  the DVD with Activity Media is nearly finished, hope you saw Windermere in BRM with it's slight format change; more track plans and more prototype photo's and there is possibly a few other new bits, yet to be agreed.  Kindest regards Paul

[Pacific231G]

The accusations that CJ F crammed more into his plans than was achievable and that 18" should be added is just totally laughable.  It is the track that has changed, peco points are longer than they used to be, easily proved by comparing a 1960s small radius point with a 2014 version. However this is nothing that a razor saw cannot fix.  It is the toe of the point which has grown primarily and cutting ten millimeters or so off here and there soon gets things to fit. We also have 3rd and 4th radius curves available which CJ didn't have in the 60s and I suspect his later plans failed to take account of the changes, 

Computer design programs are a waste of space.  You can trim points and you do not need clearance where there are no conflicting moves, I bend points, SCARM can't, I tweak track to fit around buildings and I trim my platforms to match the space available., Including Ratio platforms.

 

It's  a bit dismissive to declare computer design programs a waste of space. I and many others find them extremely useful and my computer's drafting skills are a lot better than mine. You do have to be prepared to make changes when turning a plan into reality but that's just as true if you draw a paper plan. As Shortliner says, if you use XtrkCad rather than SCARM or Anyrail you can design your own turnouts and editing the parameters of a Peco point to give it a shorter throat or curve it shouldn't be too difficult. There must in any case come a point (pun intended) in modifying commercial products where you might as well build your own. For handbuilt  trackwork there is of course Templot and I don't think any sane person would describe Martin's software as a waste of space.

 

You are right about changes in commercial pointwork over the years. I had a go recently at drawing up  W. Awdry's 6ft x4ft  Ffarquhar layout using modern products. With small radius Streamline it was almost impossible to get it to fit and tight even with Setrack . Awdry had used Wrenn trackwork and the radius of their points can't have been more than 18 inches.

 

I'm pretty sure that Cyril Freezer did base his plans on the commercial trackwork in common use at the time though once it became available, and as long as he worked for Pritchard,  did base them on Peco trackwork but Streamline rather than Setrack.  I think he assumed flexible track rather than fixed radius 2nd 3rd and 4th radius curves. Some of his later plans after he left Peco did include some more bespoke pointwork.

CJF was a trained draughtsman so I don't think any of his plans were the impossible rough sketches that many have accused him of. He said himself that the earlier ones were rather tight and when TT-3 arrived suggested that anyone using that scale would do well to use the same overall size.  Looking at Minories the original 80 x 9inch 00 version fits in with Peco 2ft radius points (though it was designed as a five foot long TT-3 layout)  For later versions he increased the  length to seven and then eight feet and based it on a three foot minimum radius.