Trying to get a grasp on Armstrong

[FJ and G]

Currently reading The Classic Layout Designs of John Armstrong, and have several comments to make.

Was he the original pioneer of mushrooms and other convoluted track plans?

They look rather interesting, but it's hard visualizing the 2-D diagrams he gives. Photos of actual layouts or 3-D diagrams would sure help me to visualize all that trackage--hidden as well as exposed.

It seems interesting that HO and N scale modelers have overwhelmingly adopted John's trackplans, or variants thereof, whilst the majority of 3-railers continue to hew to Lionel showroom type layouts that are much simpler and don't use much flex track.

[Bob Keller]

I thought we'd evolved beyond the need for Armstrong ... [:D]

[Dr. John]

I own most of Armstrong's track-planning books. I enjoyed his writing and his humor, especially regarding his own Canadaigua Southern railroad.

Personally, I found his plans over complicated for my tastes. I like simpler plans for toy trains. Even when I was a "scale" HO railroader, I tended to go simpler than John Armstrong advocated.

[laz 57]

I agree with DR JOHN, keep it simple, sometimes you just outwit yourself with a complicated layout. But of course it is your layout and whatever blows your dress up.
laz57

[FJ and G]

Dr. John,

I agree that oftentimes, less track is better. A few of his plans are like that but the majority have too much track at the expense of scenery and industries, IMO.

I'm reading the book for ideas and to try to get a measure of his greatness and why people say he was great.

[wrmcclellan]

Dave,

I think John Armstrong was considered great as he followed in the footsteps of Frank Ellison, where realistic operation was key. Thus the track plan provides for a lot of "railroading" in the given area. Scenery was not a priority. If you notice, a lot of scale modelers are going in a simpler direction, where they try to model a specific segment of a railroad and its operating scenario (i.e. single track line). A good example of this is Tony Koester's new layout direction that he is documenting in MR magazine.

Regards,
Roy

[Anonymous]

Was Armstrong the first to advocate model railroading with a purpose? An example would be having a train containing one product go somewhere on the layout for use. Then the products from those industries would go elsewhere and so on seemingly with a purpose other than just running in circles.

Was he the first to design a walk in layout where the engineer walks along with the trains instead of the need to be stationary at any point along the railroad?

His designs are difficult to grasp on paper, and appear very crowded and complex, but I have seen a few of his designs that were built and they really make more sense then. If we don't understand his drawings, that might say more about our inabilities than his abilities.[;)]

[FJ and G]

Roy, Bill,

Agree. Have trouble understanding Tony Koester too. Armstrong is some heavy reading if you want to understand the true meanings behind his work and try to figure out his track plans, which all are purposeful.

I've tried 3 or 4 times reading War and Peace but couldn't grasp that either, mainly because I have a poor memory for names. Supposedly it is the greatest novel ever written. Moby *** or Tom Sawyer I can understand. I'm not at the Tolstoy level...yet.

[IRONROOSTER]

I think John Armstrong's focus was on the railroading - trains on tracks. An early book of his was "Track Planning for Realistic Operation". I think the title says it all. He was always about the operation. I remember at least once reading his articles and he would say something like - "and the scenery possibilities aren't bad either". To me the theme of his trackplans was maximum railroading in the available space. Whether he was the first or not, he was the champion of concepts such loads in/empties out, the reverted loop, loop to loop with division point yard (the schematic for his own CS was loop to reverted loop), walk in layouts, etc. I enjoy rereading his books and layout articles - I'm just sorry there won't be any new ones.
Enjoy
Paul

[Dr. John]

While I can't say for certain that Armstrong "invented" these ideas, he was an early advocate of:
-Loads in / empties out operations
-spiral easements on curves
-scenic view blocks
-staging areas
-free-form benchwork
-scenic curves
To me, his best track plan was his own Canadaigua Southern. It was an O Scale railroad using outside third rail power. It made efficient use of his basement space and had some innovative features including a rock outcropping that projected into aisle space that flexed when people bumped into it. Articles on the CS ran in MR back in 1960, I believe. They also did a more recent article on the CS in the past few years.

Dave, I am like you when it comes to reading his philosophy of track-planning. After a while my eyes cross and I have to go back to something simpler - like calculus. His articles about his layout were (IMHO) much more readable and quite humorous.

[FJ and G]

Just finished reading JA's description of the Harper's Ferry layout. He describes it as a "tinplate" special, meaning that the layout is very simple (figure 8) unlike his spaghetti layouts.

About 1/3 of the track is hidden and he uses the actors on a stage comparison, echoing shades of Ellison. Also see the John Allen influence in his work. Hey, don't we all rely on mentors!

Anyway, the Harpers Ferry layout is a work of art in simplicity.

Plenty of double tracking and subtle way of reverse looping woven into the plan, with some spurs for switching action.

Almost tempted to...

But in O, it's a whopping 12X20. Man the access holes!

In N, I'd estimate it to be about 4X8, but don't have enough lifetimes to get into other scales at this point in my life.

Anyway, he sure knows how to get the creative juices flowing and I'm only on his first layout idea!

The staging for his Harpers Ferry layout, btw, could be expanded somewhat.

The Harper's Ferry Layout has several points of interest incl a quarry, Potomac River scenes with old RR pilings abandoned and a highway with tracks, all going across a bridge.

A very picturesque undertaking for B&O fans out there!

[pbjwilson]

7 staight Tour de France wins. Can it be done?

[Anonymous]

John Armstrong spent most of his adult life studying how real railroads operate (something few of us in the hobby do these days) and then applying those operational considerations to scaled-down concepts for the model railroader. His emphasis always was on operation--as realistic as could be achieved given the limitations inherent in the model world--but that does not imply that he had no regard for scenery and the operational setting. He simply had a high level of expertise in one specialized area that was of primary interest to him, and which he continually honed and fine-tuned, and he left scenery and other aspects to others who had similar expertise in those areas.

John was the acknowledged dean of track planners--there have been none like him before or since--and the comprehensive knowledge he left us will long be a part of the model railroading scene.

[Anonymous]

Armstrong was great for tailoring his tracks for operation. He could come up with good plans for scenery but then the track was simpler. If you want to consider a track planner who makes truly complex track plans may I suggest Bob Schleicher, editor of Railmodel Journal? Some of his scenes requre more hidden loops of track than exposed track. When I design tracks my first question is : Just whom am I trying to impress? The obvious answer is ME, of course. So how long will I be entertained by something real complicated before I simply get tired of it? 99.9999% of the time it will only be me watching my trains. I have very few friends who would see my trains more than once, and they wouldn't understand enough of what they see to be impressed. Therefore I keep it simple since I am the only viewer and I can pretend my tracks are whatever I want them to be. Remember, model railroading is just a story you tell yourself. KISS, keep it simple, Simon. Odd-d

[FJ and G]

I'm now studying his White Pass and Yukon layout. It too, like the Harpers Ferry, is not that complicated, primarily because WP&Y RR had nearly no online industries between White Pass and Skagway.

Naturally, it would be a bit hard to do in 3-rail unless you did some kitbashing or scratchbuilding of some trains, but the scenery would be really gorgeous. The one scene that stands out in my mind--and reminds me of Switzerland--is the train emerging from a tunnel and crossing a trestle. Other beautiful scenes are snowy peaks, glaciers, the ocean harbor and the Alpine lake.

BTW, WP&Y has been running intermodals for decades and was very busy during WWII.

Another prime advantage of modeling WP&Y would be that it was an isolated RR and thru the magic of selective compression, one could get a pretty good representation of the whole line in O scale, given a good-sized room.

[palallin]

We will have evolved beyond the need for Armstrong when we have evolved beyond the need for track.

And don't worry about War and Peace, Dave: it's highly over-rated.

[cnw1995]

I loved reading about Canadaigua Southern - wonder what's happened to it since he passed away? Did you see the out-side third rail layout featured in the May CTT? That was also impressive. I've read Kalmbach's Armstrong layout books - while impressive in their breath and scope, they were a bit too complex for me - one started looking like the other as I went along. I did like his approach to layout planning that asked one to consider your 'givens and druthers' when thinking about what you wanted out of a layout. Of course, I didn't do any of this. Started with an oval, then lengthed it, then stretched it out even more and curved it around - looks like I was flapping out an oval rug. - Now I'm going to experiment with adding an elevated oval.... but then now that I think of it, my givens and druthers are to be able to store all the trains on the track and run more than one at a time.

[FJ and G]

pallalin,

Glad I'm not missing anything. [:D]

-------

One of John A's ideas is the easement into curves. In 3-rail, this could be accomplished by going, say from 083 to 072, or better yet, by using flex track. There are formulas for doing this but I'd suggest experimenting a running some long locomotives thru to see how much lurch you can reduce without over-easement and running out of space.

BTW, he remarks that in his O gauge club, there's a curve of track that runs 12 feet in diameter, which really makes O scale trains look more prototypical than the narrower radius track. However, 12 feet still only compares with the PRR Horseshoe Curve, and most curves are much more lenient in 1:1.

Swinging pilots obviously were not on his list of ways to negotiate tight turning radii.

One particularly interesting point he makes--and this applies esp. to O scale trains like ours--is that you cannot realistically replicate a long train on your layout.

But he has a real nifty trick up his sleeve. He creates view blocks such as buildings, trees, hills, etc, to break up the mainline so that the entire train cannot be seen at one time. This gives the illusion that a longer train is there.

Pretty nifty, I'd say!


------------------
Well, I'm sorry but I can't seem to put John's book down and I'm continually discovering new things that I want to share with you that I think are worthy for discussion, so expect more updates as I fumble through and get to some of his spaghetti designs.

[cnw1995]

Has anyone ever read the MR articles by Bill (sp) Henderson - who developed the Coal Belt RR (in HO) and wrote some neat fiction to go along with it. He presented a whole mess of similar neat visual tricks - like using view blocks to break up his layout and featuring different seasons in each block, using mirrors to trick the eye into expanding the background, creating 2D 'hills' or painting each side of a car differently to 'increase' his fleet.

[Big_Boy_4005]

It seems to me that for the most part this group is perfectly content to run their trains in a manner consistant with how they ran them when they were children. That's fine, to each his own.

After reading Track Planning For Realistic Operation, I was ready to move on. Now with command control, we can do everything the HO and N scale guys can do. The big advantage is, we can see it. Don't let that third rail get in your way. If used correctly, it gives you a big advantage over those two rail systems.

Are you a toy train operator or a model railroader? It doesn't matter what kind of trains you run, the distinction is in how you run them. Discovering John Armstrong is the first step. It doesn't have to be complicated.

[FJ and G]

Here's Harper's Ferry, sometime around the middle of the last century (hey' that's when I was born!).

To the left side are old RR pilings from even longer ago. The center bridge contains both a highway and a RR! Flagmen were needed at both ends when trains passed. To the right is the B&O mainline bridge over the Potomac (I think?). (Would be curious if those bridges are there today).




This is how JA selectively compressed that scene into a 12X20 O scale layout (yikes! My arms can't reach that far to fix the derailment!!!).

Notice that nearly half the trackage is out of sight! Also, believe it or not there are 2 turnaround loops. Hard to find but there, nonetheless. Nice mainline running (4 trains max) and nice switching as well. A work of art indeed!

Incidentally, all that hidden trackage gives one plenty of room for scenery. The whole thing would fit on a 4X8 in N if you're interested.

-----------



Included this JA sketch to show how terrible a large engine pulling a short train looks. But, put a viewblock (in this case a mountain) in the way and it splits the train up into segments and you can't see it all at once and it is much more realistic. A nifty O scale trick.

(Spankybird's layout has lots of trees and buildings and turns that do this)