I understand that John Armstrong was well known in the hobby of model railroading, and said magazine named after the hobby, was known for his infuance on the hobby with his expeertise on track planning layout design.
He was also known for his freelanced model railray in O scale, being the Canamdaigua Southern Railroad with a Anericans aboriginals spearhead as its logo/symbol. I remember in one of my first issues of MRR I saw an artiucle dediatee to his memory and his layout, athough I was disapointed there was no trackplan included. This was when I started reading MRR as a young kid in the early 2000s, dropped reading it for a while and became later interested in 2018.
However, 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.In the October 2018 issue, I saw a facinating layout called the HO scale Clinchfield RR in which the author whos layout is in australia, asked for Johns help in considering improving it. The one on the top is the original plan and the one on the bottom is Johns revised plan as the layout appears today built. This is a link to the trackplan by clicking on the picture.I like the one on the left better as it feels bigger and that the trains run longer distances on it, but after thinking about it I understand why the Author went with the improvised version. I now see John also helped design and improve others trackplans before building, but was he really such a dean?
Yes he was/is the godfather of layout design.
Everyone that I respect when it comes to track planning constantly references John Armstrong's ideas.
He literally wrote the book on the subject.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
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.
Are you just trolling, bruh? Or are you saying that anything that happened before you were paying attention doesn't have value?
Do some research and come back to us. Have you read Track Planning for Realistic Operation? What’s your analysis of it?
Armstrong’s articles starting in the mid-Fifties changed the way the hobby conceived of layout design. He introduced or popularized walk-around design, multi-deck layouts, and much more. He was active in design for 40+ years. While some of his track plans haven’t stood the test of time, the principles are still foundational today.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I don´t want to be rude, but what a silly question! John Armstrong´s book Track Planning For Realistic Operation is certainly the "bible" for every model railroader thriving to build a realistic layout. It was published 41 years ago and is now in its third edition. Buy the book and read it!
Edit: Byron, you are spot on!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
cuyama Are you just trolling, bruh? Byron
Are you just trolling, bruh?
Yep! You got that right Byron!!!!Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
RR_MelI'm not trolling, wether you believe me or not, I am just asking a question about this well known Model Railroader and his work. cuyama Are you just trolling, bruh? Byron Yep! You got that right Byron!!!!Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
SeeYou190 Yes he was/is the godfather of layout design. Everyone that I respect when it comes to track planning constantly references John Armstrong's ideas. He literally wrote the book on the subject. -Kevin
Random_Idea_Poster_6263n the October 2018 issue, I saw a facinating layout called the HO scale Clinchfield RR in which the author whos layout is in australia, asked for Johns help in considering improving it. The one on the top is the original plan and the one on the bottom is Johns revised plan as the layout appears today built. This is a link to the trackplan by clicking on the picture.
By the way, you have it backwards – and it’s the November 2018 issue. Armstrong designed the layout first, added some modifications at the client's request, and then the client made additional modifications in construction.
Subscribers may view the track plans from that article here:https://mrr.trains.com/how-to/track-plan-database/2018/09/track-plan-ho-scale-clinchfield-rr
Random_Idea_Poster_6263 RR_Mel I'm not trolling, wether you believe me or not, I am just asking a question about this well known Model Railroader and his work.
RR_Mel I'm not trolling, wether you believe me or not, I am just asking a question about this well known Model Railroader and his work.
Definition: An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts messages to bait people to answer. Trolls often delight in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Well let's give the OP a little credit for intellectual curiosity, and not just trolling. Armstrong is an icon (and those who differ with icons are iconoclasts) and deservedly so for many reasons. He spent a lot of time THINKING about so many elements of layout design and was flexible enough to do so while still meeting the "givens and 'druthers" of paying customers for his plans. His only rival in the 1950s and 60s was Bill Schopp the "Layout Doctor" in Railroad Model Craftsman, and Schopp's track plans are rarely as thoughtful or interesting as Armstrong's. Of course there are other names. Ed Vondrak comes to mind. Linn Westcott of course. But Armstrong had qualities as a writer and analyst of his own track plans that indeed did make him the Dean.
I mean what more can you say about a guy who was creating track plans for walk-around operation before walk around operation was even practical! He created the need and then expected the technical types to start inventing how to do it and they did.
But that is not the same as saying that he is the last word. I think there has been some rethinking about how much to follow Armstrong's preference for cramming in a lot of track and a lot of operation in many of his plans often at the expense of scenic realism. And even many of his paying customers who write about how wonderful it was to work with him admit that they did not build the layout exactly as his plan dictated. I would also say that the entire notion of staging yards which is so important to modern track planning was something Armstrong himself only partly seemed to have sympathy for.
One could even say that DCC has made available some track planning ideas and opportunities that Armstrong could not take advantage of - he was still basically designing assuming DC block control.
I cannot recall if it is in Track Planning for Realistic Operation (which should NEVER be allowed to go out of print) and his other interesting book, Creative Layout Design (which has been allowed to go out of print but is still seen at swap meets) but he makes the point that ideally guys would not design layouts with the main goal of holding their excessively large and ever-growing collection of rolling stock somewhere in a yard. He says they should design to a workable amount of rolling stock given the trains they want to run, and stop building kits that add to the collection. But he then says something like "this calls for so much strength of will that it is out of the question." He understood.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonI think there has been some rethinking about how much to follow Armstrong's preference for cramming in a lot of track and a lot of operation in many of his plans often at the expense of scenic realism. ...I would also say that the entire notion of staging yards which is so important to modern track planning was something Armstrong himself only partly seemed to have sympathy for.
Having visited and operated a couple of John Armstrong designs, and followed construction of others in the magazines, there are common issues that show up when they'e actually translated into layouts. Staging and visible yards tend to be inadequate for the desired operation. Aisles are frequently too narrow for operators to pass comfortably.
The problems seem related to the same root cause - wanting to get the most railroad into the room. Enlarging staging or classification/division point/other yards might reduce what can be done with the rest of the layout space. Bigger aisles would do the same. John's writing seemed to indicate he appreciated that such compromises could become a dowside of the finished product.
Rob Spangler
Yes he was and still remains so. I had built several variations of my UK British Railway OO scale model, but when I switched to USA Railroads, I could not quite grasp the Theory and Thinking of USA Railroad Modellers. Then Henry (Big Daddy) directed me towards 'Track Planning for Realistic Operation', by John Armstrong. Everything I needed to know and learn about converting prototype USA Railroad practices into a model, is contained therein. Lazers.
"It's the South Shore Line, Jim - but not as we know it".
Tinplate Toddler what a silly question! John Armstrong´s book Track Planning For Realistic Operation is certainly the "bible"
what a silly question!
John Armstrong´s book Track Planning For Realistic Operation is certainly the "bible"
There is no such thing as a stupid question, just a silly one. As far as questioning the "bible" of anything, well there is always someone who will share their wrath.
You certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd.
I like critical thinkers as they tend to do well in life, however you would do well to read the book and pick it apart piece by piece and let these good people defend their pundit(s)
To know where we are going in this hobby, it helps to know where we have been. John Armstrong is considered a pioneer and a leader and there are those that never question their leader.
Oh and by the way, the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth, so our leaders once told us.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
His book Track Planning For Realistic Operation was the first book I read on Model Railroad design some 50 years ago. It was then and continues to be the best design manual for me.
Paul
IRONROOSTER His book Track Planning For Realistic Operation was the first book I read on Model Railroad design some 50 years ago. It was then and continues to be the best design manual for me. Paul
You were not trolling but asked an honest question. IMHO John was incredible. Just remember, he didn't have the assortment of tools to work with that we do today.
BATMANYou certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd.
In fairness, if the Original Poster had said, "I don't know anything about John Armstrong, but people call him the Dean of layout design. Why is that?", this would have been a different thread.
Instead, he said:
Random_Idea_Poster_6263being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical.
Since the Original Poster appears to be totally unfamiliar with the bulk of Armstrong's work, if he had approached the subject with a little humility it might have led others to offer to educate rather than respond to his "skepticism."
wp8thsubhe problems seem related to the same root cause - wanting to get the most railroad into the room. Enlarging staging or classification/division point/other yards might reduce what can be done with the rest of the layout space. Bigger aisles would do the same. John's writing seemed to indicate he appreciated that such compromises could become a dowside of the finished product.
Agreed, Rob. Armstrong's designs aren’t perfect, and that’s why I said:
cuyamaWhile some of his track plans haven’t stood the test of time, the principles are still foundational today.
... in my original reply.
Personally, I have always wondered if some of these issues with his published plans stem from the fact that he was, himself, an O-scaler. Especially at the time, O scalers tended not to have the quantity of equipment that HO and smaller scale modelers might easily accumulate or run. And he was a very thin man, so 2-foot aisles were not an issue in his experience. Finally, before email and CAD track planning tools, the process of reviews and revisions was vastly different – John took his multi-layer hand-drawn plans to a blueprint shop for reproductions which he then mailed to clients.
Going a little deeper based on my own experience with designing custom track plans for a couple of hundred folks: Giving folks a plan based on what they say they want is different from designing a plan that is fully based on current best practices. I often try to encourage folks to include adequate staging and broad-enough aisles, for example, but they may want something else.
Most of Armstrong’s published plans were originally custom plans, so they are based on what clients thought that they wanted rather than, perhaps, what Armstrong thought would be best. Having said that, I have done a few re-designs for Armstrong clients who discovered that their interests or perspectives had changed since they commissioned plans from John.
Bottom line, every Armstrong plan is not perfect. But we can learn something from nearly every one. And the basic principles laid out in Track Planning for Realistic Operation should at least have been read before dismissing Armstrong, IMHO.
Williekat You were not trolling but asked an honest question. IMHO John was incredible. Just remember, he didn't have the assortment of tools to work with that we do today.
This is an important point to remember. When judging people from the past you must consider the times they lived in and the tools available to them.
Personally I love John Armstrong's books about how railroads operate. Not so sure about his actual designs as I have never had the privilege of seeing any in operation.
I'm hearing a lot of "he tried to cram in too much track." Considering part of his layout design process was asking his client for "givens and druthers," including "operation vs scenic realism," whose fault is it?Also, compared to other layout designs at the time, his often had LESS track than most. Go back into the MR archive of the mid to late 50s.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
cuyama BATMAN You certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd. In fairness, if the Original Poster had said, "I don't know anything about John Armstrong, but people call him the Dean of layout design. Why is that?", this would have been a different thread. Instead, he said: Random_Idea_Poster_6263 being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical. Since the Original Poster appears to be totally unfamiliar with the bulk of Armstrong's work, if he had approached the subject with a little humility it might have led others to offer to educate rather than respond to his "skepticism."
BATMAN You certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd.
Random_Idea_Poster_6263 being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical.
In addition to the book, going to the archive and reading the original articles can be a helpful education. In many of those early articles, there is more than one plan, often variations on a theme, and John goes in to great detail in the article text explaining why one track arrangment and not another, or how the design worked. Many of the concepts later compiled into Track Planning for Realistic Operation had their birth in these articles, and the explanation is often more detail in the article. And with a plan or plans illustrating the concept he is describing, you have a visual reference for the concepts.
There are some newer "how to design" books, but with the exception of Andy Sperandeo's yard design book, I don't think any of them come close to Armstrong in depth.
I do wish Creative Layout Deisgn was still in print. I picked up a copy a few years back, but it turns out it is missing a few pages.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I suppose it may depend on who you ask if John was a Godfather of layout designs. For his era I would agree he was among the best of the best but,as time shows the layout designs has improved since his time.
Innovators like Tony Koester, Allen McCelland, Bill Darnaby, David Barrow and other like modelers revolutionized layout designs toward more prototypical operation based on prototype operation reserch.
I've seen switching layouts go from mindless switching puzzles to state of the art layouts like Lance Mindheim "Downtown Spur. There are many examples of well design switching layouts on you tube.
David Barrow minimalist approach showed less can produce a enjoyable layout.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
I like skepticism. Keeps the rest of us honest...or at least involved.
Okay, so our earnest OP has been duly spanked. Now, let's address the nut of his question.
A 'dean' is the head of a department. I think many with any time in the hobby, regardless of taste, scale, or preference in era of modeling, and who have bothered to flip through John's book, will come to appreciate that he took a methodical approach, and generated a taxonomy that could be applied by all people with an interest in building a working and satisfying layout.
Sorry, that was a long sentence. What I mean is that he conceptualized and attempted to build a standard formula for building a layout that would last and be interesting to both builders and operators alike. He used his knowledge, experience, and a disciplinary approach, to help the generalist to craft a fun and operationally busy-enough track plan. He used the concept of squares and curves, and formally introduced easements. He explained what railroads did/do, why, and how they solved the engineering and logistics of operations by designing and building effective trackwork.
Was he the best? Nope. Was he the oldest? Nope. Was he the first? Nope. Did he build the most fun layouts? Nope. Nope, nope, nope... What he did was to tell us how to make fewer mistakes, how to take stock of what we wanted and needed our railroads to do, and then how to go about crafting those track systems. Engineering. The Dean of Track Planning.
QED.
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
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
If you have alot of space John could show you how to use it prototypicaly but if you have a smaller space alot of his work loses its impact. I personaly did not find his works of much use.
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
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!
Was he the dean? - Yes he was.
IMHO: His book should be required reading before anyone posts a "please review my trackplan" thread to the forum....
Some of his design tools in his book are very handy in terms of the idea of using precise estimations to improve your track plan... ]
The squares concept is a game changer. It forces a careful and realistic appraisal of your layout space and is pretty easy do in your design process early on to weed out the garbage.
Of course, opinions vary,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
rrebellIf you have alot of space John could show you how to use it prototypicaly but if you have a smaller space alot of his work loses its impact. I personaly did not find his works of much use.
Hi rrebell,
I did learn a lot from his track planning book with regard to how to make a layout operational and how to design a functional yard.
When I first got into the hobby I used 3rd PlanIt to design my future layout. I thought it was the greatest layout ever, that was until I read Armstrong's book! It showed me that my wonderful design was a largely disfunctional piece of junk! That layout never got built, but I did make very good use of Armstrong's principles when I designed my old club's new layout in 2017. That layout works quite well (IMHO), so I think that there is still a lot of value in what he wrote.
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?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading