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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!"
gregc while Armstrong's book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does
while Armstrong's book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does
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.
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
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?
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.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
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
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
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.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
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
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
BATMANYou certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd.
Random_Idea_Poster_6263being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical.
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
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
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."
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".