Random_Idea_Poster_6263However, was he really the dean of layout design and track planning? I am not trying to be rude, being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical.
More often than not, a statement that comes off sounding rude is often followed by "I'm not trying to be rude". What that tells me is the person realizes they are sounding rude or disrespectful, but is going to say it anyway and throw out a "disclaimer". Maybe it's easier on the internet but if in person, getting clobbered enough may cure someone of such a habit.
This may be an extreme analogy but it's a bit like a high school kid asking of Einstein is the dean of theoretical physics and is skeptical because he is from long before they were born. I suppose that is part of being naive. Time to be schooled.
To be fair, it's how the OP framed the question amongst a group of mostly older and long time model railroaders that "poked the bear". I can imagine, to used a modern abreviation, the reaction among most was, wtf!
Moving along ....
As Rob has implied, John Armstrong was a product of his times. Overall layout designed reflected some things like lack of space and a different philosophy on how to use that space.
To be fair, since John's hayday, more hobbyists have more space than back then and some standards have become a bit more generous. Here is an example of one thing that has changed a bit: curve radius conventions. In his book there is a table that labels Broad Curves in HO as 30"R, Conventional Curves as 24"R and Sharp Curves as 18"R. People may argue semantics but anymore, Conventional Curves are more like 30"R and Broad Curves probably 36" and above. To me, what JA calls sharp curves (18"R) I would call very sharp curves. Maybe I'd bump Sharp up to around 22 or 24".
Anyway, you get the idea. Track and layout planning has, to be sure, evolved over the last 25 years, and some of John Armstrongs broader track planning conventions may be considered dated.
However, as far as principles go, most of that is very useful still. There is one chapter which IMO is one of the most important and very useful: Operating Reliability through Standards. That chapter discusses curve minimums and effects of curves on rolling stock, especially longer rolling stock. Easements are discussed and S curves; turnouts, cross-overs, grades.
There is tons of useful information in the book. My edition came out in the 80's but I believe there are newer and updated editions. Here is my well-worn copy:
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
gregc while Armstrong's book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does Did Armstrong actually work for a Railroad? was he one of the first persons to write books about model railroads that actually worked for a Railroad?
while Armstrong's book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does
Did Armstrong actually work for a Railroad? was he one of the first persons to write books about model railroads that actually worked for a Railroad?
He worked for Simmons-Boardman, industry publisher, not directly for a railroad. He was a contributing editor for Railway Age for a while as well. His engineering background was used with the US Navy as a career.
What John Armstrong had in addition to a great wealth of knowledge was an ability to communicate that knowledge to the rest of us. And even with the engineering degree, he still had a great sense of art - the article on how he incorporated Edward Hopper's Nighthawks painting as a structure on his layout is still one of my favorites.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Tinplate Toddler I think the answer is in the poster´s name, Dave. He posts random, strange ideas and probably gets a kick out of how the more serious members mess about trying to answer. I, for myself, have decided to ignore this chap from now on!
I think the answer is in the poster´s name, Dave. He posts random, strange ideas and probably gets a kick out of how the more serious members mess about trying to answer. I, for myself, have decided to ignore this chap from now on!
Well said!!!Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
hon30critter Randon_Idea_Poster_6263, I'm sorry but I'm having trouble warming up to your rather ethereal questions. Perhaps if you were to tell us (or ask us) about your actual modelling activities and plans I might be more willing to respond. Dave
Randon_Idea_Poster_6263,
I'm sorry but I'm having trouble warming up to your rather ethereal questions. Perhaps if you were to tell us (or ask us) about your actual modelling activities and plans I might be more willing to respond.
Dave
Age has dulled the memory, but I was able to see Mr. Armstrong give a clinic on Layout Design in Dallas; I cannot remember the event. It was very informative and Mr. Armstrong clearly enjoyed himself as he made his presentation.
gregc while Armstrong's book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does
RR_Mel Tinplate Toddler I think the answer is in the poster´s name, Dave. He posts random, strange ideas and probably gets a kick out of how the more serious members mess about trying to answer. I, for myself, have decided to ignore this chap from now on! Well said!!!Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Actually a lot of strange questions is good if the discussion is open minded.
Here's why.
I been saying for 60 years that less track is a good thing and recently been saying spaghetti bowl layout designs is a relic of the past in light of how layout planing has evolved over the years. Model Railroader's Planning Your Model Railroad by Tony Koester is another good book on modern layout designing..
Today there is much more information available on prototype operation including on line copies of GCOR and Time Tables. Freight car guides ensure modelers what industry uses what type of freight car.
Bing or Google maps can aid a modeler in designing a layout.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
rrinker What John Armstrong had in addition to a great wealth of knowledge was an ability to communicate that knowledge to the rest of us. And even with the engineering degree, he still had a great sense of art - the article on how he incorporated Edward Hopper's Nighthawks painting as a structure on his layout is still one of my favorites. --Randy
I was not saying he didn't have a lot of info and very valuable to a person with space but lets face it, the smaller the space (for a full railroad) the less protoypical it can be. Now my favorite small space layout builder is Malcolm Furlow being he can make a small space seem large but he is totaly lost on functionallity.
riogrande5761More often than not, a statement that comes off sounding rude is often followed by "I'm not trying to be rude". What that tells me is the person realizes they are sounding rude or disrespectful, but is going to say it anyway
I have a very hard time communicating my tone in things I type on this forum. I once responded to a question about figure painting, and got about a half dozen "why are you so angry" responses.
riogrande5761 Conventional Curves are more like 30"R and Broad Curves probably 36" and above. To me, what JA calls sharp curves (18"R) I would call very sharp curves. Maybe I'd bump Sharp up to around 22 or 24".
Very true. When I tell some people I am using 24 inch as the minimum radius for hidden and branchline track, I get the "that is pretty darned sharp curve" response.
Our perception of tight curves has certainly changed.
-Kevin
Living the dream.