BATMAN Facebook articles get buried so fast I have a hard time finding them again if I want to reference them
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Brent,
I am doing my part to preserve that history and information.....I have good old fashioned print copies of MR and RMC, nearly complete, from now, back into the late 1930's.
I deal with keeping old technology alive every day in my work. Many aspects of old houses must be repaired and cannot effectively be "converted" to current building methods.
Knowing how and when to blend old with new is at the heart of my job.
I see this hobby the same way.
Sheldon
Thanks for the responses all, it has read like an article with many authors.
I wonder how today's guru's of the hobby will stand the test of time, their expertise is now on Facebook and to a lessening degree their own websites. I have more recently dipped my toe into Facebook where I am finding groups that cover very specific to wide-ranging parts of our hobby. It has exposed me to incredible work in all aspects of the hobby. Some of the Facebook groups have a handful of members that standout with their knowledge and accomplishments and their work makes you just go "oh wow".
I can't see this incredible wealth of knowledge and accomplishment and photos of a particular individual being referred back to as we go down the electronic road. Facebook articles get buried so fast I have a hard time finding them again if I want to reference them. Everything will be current as the "how to" and "what was" lessons will just get passed on from person to person, seasoned veteran to newbie, not in ink and paper, but in electrons that might be found (if preserved) on page 158 of a Google search only to be found by accident. We have come full circle as our early ancestors passed history on through song and stories before things started to be written down. How much model railroading history will be preserved as we go forward.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
When I was a young buck in high school I had the honor of knowing Four old men
The first Herman Melheim Herman was a dear old man that lived back in the woods in the Lake Kabetogama National Forest Herman was a world-famous Wood Carver I was fortunate to know him He kept to himself We would visit him on our dirt bikes in the summer and our snowmobiles in the winter
Cliff Matisse Cliff was a woodcrafter and a friend of Herman Melheim He was my shop teacher in high school Cliff fabricated furniture out of quarter cut logs
Leo Neeser Leo was my dearest friend of all Leo was like a dad I never had Throughout my life Leo always stepped in when everybody else stepped out. To make a long story short Leo had a resort on Mille Lacs Lake when I was very young Leo stayed on the grounds in his fifth wheel at our Resort after that
Harry Everts Harry was the dearest old man you would ever want to know Harry was like Doctor Dolittle When Harry came out of his cabin in the morning all the birds and all the animals would come to Harry
I know that's hard to believe but I got in on that and it was a great time of my life.
Almost everything I know I learned from these guys
This is a very good thread all I got to say is the only thing I do different is I apply the new school to the old school Same principle different products Same old guys New ideas
Wow look at that time I got to hit the rack
I would say that John Armstrong is still very relevant. His goal (as his book title says) was realistic operation. His own layout reflects that, not much room for scenery, but maximizing the operations. And it was walk around using some sort of push button/relays/stepper motors/who knows what to make it work.
Sure a lot of his plans back then were otherwise, but that's a reflection of the techology limits and the small size of the typical layouts. But all of them were about operations - other people wrote about scenery.
Some major changes have happened since the 50's/60's/70's. We now have high quality RTR locomotives/rolling stock/buildings/track. Much better scenery supplies and control systems. Also the average house is much larger. All of this enables larger layouts that can be more easily built to a greater degree of completion with a walk around control like Armstrong had for his layout - but much easier with DCC.
Having recently completed a move, I will be building a new layout that is heavily influenced by John Armstrong's book and his layout. Like Armstrong's layout there won't be much scenery, but there will be a lot of operation. Although mine will be a shortline instead of a class 1 mainline.
Paul
I am too new to the hobby to be able to give an enlightened approach to the questions. I have no background or history with, nor reverence for, Armstrong, Mallery, Allen, Wescott, and the other 'great gurus' on whose words the unwashed hung and dreamed, or acted. It's not that I don't recognize their contributions, or marvel at their capabilities, hard-won as they were, or that I don't appreciate what they left us and how they passed on what they learned for our sakes. I think it's that I have undertaken much of the same kind of learning and have attempted to pass on what I have learned, and that it is what adults do in all fields. They swam their part of the river, and I am swimming mine at the moment.
I will say that, if they said that an educated approach to building one's dream was the key, they'd have been right. If they had said that you need to know what you have, and how to use it, they'd have been right. If they had said you should create an accurate plan, even a scale diagramme, to show how your dream will appear when it is laid out on the benchwork and complete, they'd have been right.
If they had said that when things go wrong, stop, correct the fault, or start over, recovering and retaining what is right, they'd have been right. If they said to break the construction into morsels, or packets, or chunks, and then to prove or to verifty the works by running trains before going on, they'd have been right.
If they said that one should compromise and be realistic, even to the extent of modifying a plan out of apparent necessity, they'd have been right. If they said that working hard to make the dream a reality, especially with the 'givens and druthers', was exceedingly important in order to give the layout both life and longevity, they'd have been right.
If they said that one can always continue to improve, or even to complete, a layout, they'd have been right.
As to what, if anything, is new, it might be photography. Now that we have digital imagery and all the gee-whiz post-production software, there's almost nothing the learned photographer can't do. I say learned because it can be every bit as daunting and demanding of skill and know-how as it was during the film era. It's just not quite as onerous or expensive because we can literally fill up an SD card with different angles, exposures, compositions, backdrops, etc. My hat is well raised to those who had to learn the craft in an entirely different way in order to keep their costs and wasted opportunities to an absolute minimum; it could not have been easy.
Bayfield Transfer RailwayAlso, the damned "switching puzzle" has all but disappeared , and good riddance.
A couple of the members of our club are working on copies of the time saver, with plans to have them at our Whitby show in late November.
What's old is new.
Dave
I'll apply an arguement for an old school idea if I may. Not in "the books" necessarily. I've been trying for longer than I want to admit to make Bachmann 44 and 70 tonners run well, acceptably quiet and reliable. I want smooth. Using the Bachmann drives is out, I've beat that dead horse long enough.
I want a big flat can motor in a small shell driving 2 trucks. I'm working at adapting ideas from the late 50s to the eraly 70s; A gear tower mounted on ONE of the trucks, using spur gears to bring rotation down to the worms over the axles, then a drive shaft between the trucks down below- Hobbytown of Boston, or Westside Brass style. That would leave space in the body for a longer motor/ flywheel setup. I'll let ya know if it works. (I'm using Kato components)
I'll add though that Keystone Locomotive Works 44 tonners can be made to run superbly using their relatively more modern Delrin twin gear towers. Theres an arguement for modern. They just need a little tweaking. But that's beside the point. I've challenged myself to develope a repeatable custom drive anyway for my Bachmanns, and I'm hard at it, and at this point experimenting with an old school technique.
I hope this is within the scope of the topic. Dan
Having turned into a "serious" model railroader from being a toy train operator (to which I am back for reasons of health) in the late 1960s, I find that very little has changed in the way layouts are being built since then. The only technique that positively seems to have disappeared is zip texturing. Modern scenic materials like static grass or ground foam have been very well adopted over the decades. Other changes still struggle. Quite a few of us in this parish still see DCC as an unnecessary evil and sound quite often is regarded as an insult to the ears rather than an additional dimension of fun. The use of extruded polystyrol foam in layout construction (benchwork and scenery) yet has to get off the ground, as the majority still builds either open grid or L-girder benchwork - not to forget the 4 by 8 "table". The dreaded spaghetti bowl layout still hasn´t gone the way of the dinosaur
Model railroaders seem to be quite a conservative bunch of folks to whom change doesn´t come easy.
There is nothing wrong with that - as long as the fun of model railroading doesn´t fall short!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Well,
I have never been one to assume that newer is automaticly better.......sometimes newer is just different......
I still use DC, with my own Advanced Cab Control based on the 1960's work of Bruce Chubb, Ed Ravenscroft and Paul Mallery.
So is my control system "old" because of what it is based on, or "new" becuase I developed my version of it just 15 years ago?
The clicky clack of my relays fits right into 1954......
But I use hand held radio throttles those guys would have loved to have. Yet my radio throttles from the 1990's are now considered obsolete by most people in the hobby.......
Scenery - well I'm stuck in the past. Not so much about ground foam, but about foam insulation board - no thank you. I still prefer plaster on wire screen. And original ZIP texturing too.....
Operations - I model 1954, so 1954 thoughts on operations are likely still pretty valid. I have little interest in modern/current railroading. For me model trains is an exercise in historic modeling and proto freelancing.
Another thought on operation - in 1967 my father built me a layout - it had hidden thru staging tracks for complete trains.......was he ahead of his time?
Benchwork - I built one layout with L girder, at age 15. Now, being a professional construction designer and carpenter, I have my own ideas about benchwork, which are more like building furniture.....
Track - I learned to hand lay track and turnouts at an early age - but today I glue down commercial track with adheasive caulk - not with "regular" caulk......
Commercial track is better detailed and has better electrical features - I'm all in.
I think most of what Paul Mallery said about trackwork engineering still applies, and I think much of what John Amstrong did or suggested was questionable even then. Armstrong was an O scale modeler, and most of his track plans reflect that need to squeeze big trains in a small space, even when he designed for HO.
Mallery on the other hand saw HO as a little train that could take advantage of a big space to get more of the feel of the prototype - yes he was a space/radius snob - he suggested that 48" radius was the most desireable minimum for HO.
While progessive in their approach, most Armstrong plans still seem to croud too much in, and require complex construction or have access issues.
Because of the individual nature of this hobby for many, change is not really a requirement......
I still build 1950's and 60's kits............and I buy current RTR, high end and mid priced.
Evolution - I like the better running locos of today, my wireless throttles, good RTR, slow motion switch machines, good commercial track.
I don't need DCC, foam board, onboard sound, computers.........
I think if you look past the details of earlier methods and look at their goals, there is still a lot to learn from most of the old masters......
I have my own set of goals and standards for my modeling, and I have found a mix of old and new methods that serve those goals and standards well. I'm not one to fix things that are not broken.....
L-girder, if you actually read what Wescott wrote, was specifically designed to be easy to change when you modified your track plan. People don't do that as much nowadays.
Also, the damned "switching puzzle" has all but disappeared , and good riddance.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
BATMANTwo points for discussion (philosophizing) are " how and what has changed in our hobby in the last 60 to 70 years that makes what that 1950s expert had to say back then irrelevant? (what still applies?)
Like msot anyoone, Armstrong was somewhat prejudiced towards his own experiences. Even looking at tome of the plans he did as a commercial planner for people - he didn;t wlawyas follow his own advice as given in various editins of Track Planning for Realistic Operatioon. It's all a compromise - he had a LOT of compromises in his own home layout, by all appearances I don't think I would have been able to get into some of the operating areas, John was a fairly thin guy, I am...not. So the very narrow aisles as a compromise for more operation worked for him - they wouldn't work for me. Then agian - very listtle is said about aisle size in TPfRO. Duckunders, operating pits - those were all the style of the day in the 50's, and that sort of thing has gone out of fashion, however, if you look t the sample plans John put int he book, they are of a much more modern style than the date of the original editioon of the book would lead you to believe.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
BATMAN rrinker Trying to build a mnemonic memory circuit? I was wondering who would be the first to pick up on that.
rrinker Trying to build a mnemonic memory circuit?
I was wondering who would be the first to pick up on that.
Though Spock actually says STONE knives and bearskins
Life-long Trekker, and City on the Edge of Forever is the single best episode of the original series. Doesn't hurt that it was written by one of my favorite authors, Harlan Ellison.
Being a Star Trek fan from the 1960s the quote was "stone knives and bear skins" from Mr Spock in "The City on the Edge if Forever. C'mom Brent!
A lot of people worship the ground John Allen walked on but he never really excited me except maybe in a Disney sort of way.
As for benchwork, I've always thought L-girder seemed more complicated to build than plain old open girder, which seems easier to me. But I only have cave man carpentry skills.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
But there ARE things that were done right in an old article and have not been done better since. Are we to deprive ourselves of the best information just so we avoid using old information? Is there really nothing to learn from Doug Smith's car forwarding ideas because they're so old?
Just a few examples which quickly come to mind. The logging camp structures of Lyle Spears in the July 1966 Model Railroader. The construction articles of Jock Oliphant or Jack Work - just about any of them. Paul Larson's Swift Reefer in the October 1953 MR. Whit Tower's plan for Alturas Yard on his Alturas and Lone Pine. Dean Freytag's steel mill. Alan Armitage's styrene techniques. Art Curren's kitbashing ideas and methods. Bill Rau's Sierra Pintada MR project railroad. Eric Stevens's coaling tower.
Go ahead - look this stuff up and decide for yourself.
There is plenty of outdated stuff in John Armstrong's books and his entire track plan style (and that of Bill Schopp) can seem out of date, but who has stepped up since him to author such a comprehensive single source on thoughtful trackplanning? Tony Koester has nibbled at the topic but not done it as thoroughly.
Dave Nelson
"Find new things, but keep the old. One is silver, and the other, gold!
Ok... so much for adages.
For me, I look for new techniques, but am also comfortable in what has worked for me in the past. For base scenery, I'll still dip paper towels in tinted plaster for hard shell (c. early '60's), but now I'll do it over cardboard webbing (more recent) rather than wadded newspaper.
In the past, I only used open grid benchwork, but have found that L-girder is much easier when the facia-side is curved or free-form, so now I combine the two techniques.
This old dog can learn new tricks!
Jim
Well, no one recommends using asbestos in scenery anymore.
BATMANThe racks today are full of high-quality detail parts for those that build from scratch
Using parts is now considered scratchbuilding
BATMANTry telling someone that a container train called the "Hot Shot" runs from Prince Rupert, British Columbia through to Chicago or down to Florida without stopping along the way to be broken up and sorted gets you funny looks sometimes from a guy that still references 70-year-old book on RR operations.
Well that book is still relevant for those of us modeling the 50's. But yes, what is current on the railroads has changed - the caboose is gone for one.
Trying to build a mnemonic memory circuit?
I've tried and embraced many newer construction methods as simply better than the old days - I mean, after ground foam, who wants to go back to dyed sawdust for ground cover? Some things are hard to improve upon, others have been ripe for advancement. There have been many one-offs and fads in the hobby press over the years - that you basically see one article and never again is the subject mentioned generally means it never caught on. Maybe the originator is still using their idea with success, maybe after some extended time they've realized it's not so great and went back to another more traditional method.
Model Railroaders in general seem to be fairly conservative when it comes to construction methods. No one wants to be the first with a new idea, and even after some fairly well-known modelers have embraced the new ideas, it still is hard to convince some to even give it a try.
The true master of presentation and artistry, John Allen, comes to mind.
.
Everything he wrote about composing a scene, photography, and even detialing and weathering still holds true today. Some techniques and materials have changed, but his eye was that of a master.
What he wrote about construction, scenery building, wiring, layout design, and operation, can all be taken as outdated.
Unfortunately, his fun way of enjoying the hobby is also gone. Those of us that are having lots of fun with our electric trains are becoming an outsider group. The trend is recreating a job. Proto-Freelancing has replaced Fun-Freelancing.
Everything changes. My train room will be a model of 1954 using 1984 techniques, technology, and fun levels.
In that way it will be a time machine back to my High School days, even though it is set 30 years in the "past" from then.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I am always amazed at how often an "expert" from the past in our hobby is referred to or quoted. Some guy much revered in his time writes a book 60 or 70 years ago and people still treat his decades-old expertise as gospel and are quick to quote the expert on how things should be done without any thought as to how much things have changed.
Obviously, electronics have changed as have scenery techniques and benchwork construction as well as a slew of other things. The list of products (in our dying hobby) is immense. The detail on our models is so good that it makes you wonder how relevant a 60-year-old article on detailing is today as far as how we do it. The racks today are full of high-quality detail parts for those that build from scratch or are just upgrading a model they own.
What about operations? We have container trains, grain, potash, oil, coal trains that are immense in length and operate on a portal to portal basis where the trucking or marine industry takes over. How well do transition era logistics apply to modern day logistics, yet I hear the arguments from those that have their tattered book under their arm for quick referencing.
Try telling someone that a container train called the "Hot Shot" runs from Prince Rupert, British Columbia through to Chicago or down to Florida without stopping along the way to be broken up and sorted gets you funny looks sometimes from a guy that still references 70-year-old book on RR operations.
Is L-Girder really the only way to build benchwork?
Two points for discussion (philosophizing) are " how and what has changed in our hobby in the last 60 to 70 years that makes what that 1950s expert had to say back then irrelevant? (what still applies?)
Why for some does the clock stop when it comes to the way some things are done in the hobby. I am not looking for the "track nails vs caulk argument", rather "caulk is a new product that has come in to favour that was not available or used 70 years ago", as has foam board.
Let's talk evolution.