Track plan from 1938

[Autobus Prime]

Folks:

Found in the March 1938 issue of THE MODEL CRAFTSMAN:

http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b191/autobus_prime/rr/layout2_mc_3-38.jpg

Surprisingly modern for something designed just over 60 years ago, no?

[wjstix]

That's a fairly standard layout for that period, 'around the walls' to allow for 5-ft radius curves with a yard and TT/RH. Putting it the RH/TT on a peninsula is nice...kind of a variation of the "riatta" scheme which was common then, a once or twice-around mainline with the yards, TT/RH sticking into the room (or out from the layout down a hallway) and connected by a wye, so trains could pull out from the yard, run around the layout, and then come back nose-first to the yard to be broken up etc.

"...only sixteen by twenty-four feet of space is needed" !! 

[Autobus Prime]

only sixteen by twenty-four feet of space is needed" !! 

wj:



Well, to be fair, it /is/ O gauge, 60" R curves. In HO it would fit in one of those "8 x 12 two bit rooms".

But this does seem to have been a common design scheme then, and I find it interesting that it's not what is usually brought up in discussions about "the olden days". Lots of shelves, not many "spaghetti bowls", except perhaps for tinplate layouts.

[cuyama]

Folks:

Surprisingly modern for something designed just over 60 years ago, no?

Ummm ... no.

True, it's not a spaghetti bowl, but like many layouts of the time it's basically a place to store trains and show off engines in between laps. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what one likes. But based on the designs being posted here for comment and published in the commercial press, many folks seem to want more from a layout than that today.

Not much real space or thought given to industries, no staging, etc. These are things a lot of people seem interested in today. Because so much had to be scratchbuilt then, expectations for what the layout could provide in terms of long term interest were low -- folks were just happy to craft enough locos and rolling stock to run some trains. And that was a major accomplishment in 1938.

Byron
Model RR Blog

[tomikawaTT]

The basic design is dated (It should be.  It's almost as old as I am!) but the engine terminal could be lifted off intact and used as-is on more than a few present-day layouts.  Of course, the designer probably had the advantage of being able to go down to the tracks and look at the prototype.

While it has very little operational capability as-drawn, it definitely has a lot of expandability.

Chuck (modleing Central Japan in September, 1964)

[Autobus Prime]

...like many layouts of the time it's basically a place to store trains and show off engines in between laps. Not that there's anything wrong with that, if that's what one likes...

Not much real space or thought given to industries, no staging, etc. These are things a lot of people seem interested in today. Because so much had to be scratchbuilt then, expectations for what the layout could provide in terms of long term interest were low -- folks were just happy to craft enough locos and rolling stock to run some trains. And that was a major accomplishment in 1938.

Byron
Model RR Blog

c:

It really /was/ a major accomplishment, which makes this article all the more amazing to read. The author basically takes the equipment as "done" and goes from there. I didn't post any text, which was remiss, because there is a lot said. The author, by the way, is "W.R. White", and the article is pp 37-39. I apologize for posting the text and leaving out the sermon due to haste.

First, the article starts off "If the running of trains on your model railroad becomes tiresome, it may be that your layout was designed more for looks than operation." These operations are described in good detail for this plan. A note is also made at the beginning that the success of a railroad as it expands depends heavily on the success of the original plan - so you see these are not intended to be absolutely final products. There's room to grow.

Here are some more quotes:

{Describing another of the 3 plans given} The arrangement...of the several sidings and local industry spurs at each station is purely optional. They are quite necessary, however...A visit to several small towns near you will suggest possible arrangements of the spurs and the plants and industries they serve. All sorts of local freight switching can be done...any daily train schedule should include a local freight train

On the plan posted, the three spurs at the top are all industrial spurs. Two trailing point, one facing point. "The plants or industries served...are painted or reproduced on the walls". The small spur at bottom is either another industry or a switcher pocket; the author doesn't say. The long spur by the station is for passenger car storage. The yard track second from the bottom, with the wide spacing between itself and the house track, is actually intended to be a team track.

The author describes operations based on bringing one freight into the yard, sorting out the cars for the freight house and team track, and assembling outgoing through freights and local jobs to switch the industries. Detailed descriptions on how this small yard was to be used for that are given, and the need to break the train in half to classify it is pointed out. (Plan B, in this article, had a much larger yard). He also mentions the making up of passenger trains.

Besides all this, there is the usual steam-era need to change and service engines. The plan definitely leans toward that as it stands, with the nice service area. This disproportion has never really left us, but then the steam loco is a fascinating machine.

The one big thing this railroad does not have is staging. What you have on track is what you get. Of course, it would be kind o' tough to build all that equipment and then leave it to sit. :D But apart from the lack of staging (which could easily be added) this layout, and in particular the author's expectations for it, hardly seem outdated at all. That's why I thought it was so neat I had to post it.

[wjstix]

I assume the tracks leading off the main and right up against the backdrop are going to flats, which is a nice touch for an old design. If that's the case, and the layout is properly scenicked, I'm sure it would be OK for operations. As noted, staging was still a few decades away. Railroads like this would be operated by taking an engine from the roundhouse, coaling and watering it, and using it to make up a train in the yard. Then a road engine would come from the RH and be coaled/watered and would take the train around the layout a few times - perhaps doing some switching, perhaps not - and then return to dump it's ashes and return to the roundhouse while the switcher broke down the train.

KIM these cars are wood craftsman's kits or scratch/parts built, hand painted (and hand lettered very often!) that would take perhaps a week to build - and by today's standard would be relatively expensive if a kit. The engines could be converted Lionel 4-6-4 or 0-6-0, or other three rail engine, or could be kit-built engines requiring some machine-shop skills to complete and might take a month or two. All track hand-laid (don't forget about that outside-third rail!), scenery would be wood and chicken wire forms with plaster followed by paint and dyed sawdust.

Compared to today, it would all be more expensive / more difficult / more time consuming back then. In that situation, just getting even a relatively simple layout to run well would be a major accomplishment, things like switching and scale speed would have to wait for a later generation in large part. The fact that some very nice layouts were built during that time is a really a testament to the skills and determination of model railroading's "Founding Fathers"!!

[Ole Timer]

 I like it !

[Milepost 266.2]

The biggest problem I see is that you have to back your train into the yard, or the engine is stuck in the hole until a yard switcher pulls the cars away. 

[Texas Zepher]

Autobus Prime

Surprisingly modern for something designed just over 60 years ago, no?

No.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The concepts that people are calling "modern" aren't really new but have only recently been able to be implemented by the mass markets.  A 1800 square foot house with 3 bedrooms and 1 1/2 baths used to be a monster, but by todays standards that is pretty small. 

I was designing "modern" layouts in my 1968 drafting class.  At the time they were considered things that only very rich people would ever be able to own and build.   Now I have serveral friends with much better ones.....      

It also has many things that aren't very modern about it too.

[Autobus Prime]

MP266.2: Right, although you could run around the train first. This thing you mention is why I think that spur at lower right is a switcher pocket.

Surprisingly modern for something designed just over 60 years ago, no?

No.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The concepts that people are calling "modern" aren't really new but have only recently been able to be implemented by the mass markets.  A 1800 square foot house with 3 bedrooms and 1 1/2 baths used to be a monster, but by todays standards that is pretty small. 

I was designing "modern" layouts in my 1968 drafting class.  At the time they were considered things that only very rich people would ever be able to own and build.   Now I have serveral friends with much better ones.....      

It also has many things that aren't very modern about it too.

TZ:

Layouts? Weren't you supposed to be doing projected views or section-lining or something?

But you've got it...stuff keeps getting discovered and rediscovered, over and over. That was one thing I had hoped to demonstrate here, and I'm glad it worked.

I think there is a tendency to forget our history. For instance, I see people under the impression that "operation" is a concept invented less than 20 years ago, but it just doesn't hold water once you actually go back and read a little. Their methods may have been different, but nearly always I find that the aims were the same. So I figured I would dig out this old relic and stick it in a case where people could see it, to try and bring a little bit of history to the people who might never have seen a copy of The Model Craftsman. I also thought Mr. White was quite a forward-thinking individual (as you were in '68 there) and deserved a little belated spotlight time. I only hope that now I have encouraged a few people to go back and mine that old yellowed paper for what it contains. They might strike gold.

(And then there are things like an article describing, in brief, a tour of the Baldwin Locomotive Works in 1938. Being a steam fan, and just thinking about that tour...)

[Texas Zepher]

I was designing "modern" layouts in my 1968 drafting class.

Layouts? Weren't you supposed to be doing projected views or section-lining or something?

Hehehe, I had completed all the planned class work, and then all the extra stuff the teacher was able to come up for me.  The rest of the class was so far behind that he just let me do house plans and model railroads.  At that time I was on the career path to be an architect.

[Autobus Prime]

I was designing "modern" layouts in my 1968 drafting class.

Layouts? Weren't you supposed to be doing projected views or section-lining or something?

Hehehe, I had completed all the planned class work, and then all the extra stuff the teacher was able to come up for me.  The rest of the class was so far behind that he just let me do house plans and model railroads.  At that time I was on the career path to be an architect.

TZ:

...but the field was too structured for you?

Out of curiosity: did you ever end up building one of your creations? Houses or layouts?
Regarding 1800 sf 3 BR houses, today and yesterday - Yup. And that, boys and girls, is why we have that "market conditions" thread in GD. Time to bring back those Cape Cods.

[Texas Zepher]

At that time I was on the career path to be an architect.

...but the field was too structured for you?

No, actually I switched high schools and the new one did not have advanced drafting classes.  Then I discovered computers.

Out of curiosity: did you ever end up building one of your creations? Houses or layouts?

Nope, as you can imagine my grade school level research (also way pre-internet) was inadequate.  So my crowing achievement of a basement sized N-scale Raton Pass was had major prototypical flaws and was too specialized for a specific basements dimensions.   Also by the time I got old enough to buy/build houses both the world and my concept of what made a good house changed.  Of course even way back then all of my houses had a study or a library, and a lounge off the master bedroom.  Those are things that started appearing in "normal" subdivision type cookie-cutter houses until about 15 years ago.