Just to recap, the Book Club each week focuses on one past issue of Model Railroder, using either the new All Access Pass digital archive, the DVD of past issues that Kalmbach sold a few years ago, or if you happen to have it, the hard copy of the magazine. Then over the course of the week we post comments about the issue as a discussion, just as we would in a book club. The comments can be about any aspect of the magazine.
Just to have some sense of continuity, during February we look at prior February issues; when March comes we'll look at older March issues, and so on. No reason for that - just my whim.
Last week we looked at February 2005 and more than one person commented that they really preferred to use the Book Club to discover, or revisit, older issues. So this week we are going way back to February 1936. At that point MR was just starting its third year, and HO and OO scales were starting to show some genuine popularity -- indeed in the newsy and informal Along the Division column there are a couple of announcements of switches over to HO by those in larger scales.
When you get back to issues this long ago one can legitimately ask "what can such an old issue really do for me as a model railroader today, apart from nostalgia?" Well as it happens quite a bit it seems. We may have no need for the article which attempts to introduce modelers to the then-new notion of two rail wiring and construction. And Al Kalmbach's editorial which tries to weight the relative merits of basement versus attic as a location for the layout probably won't help many today.
But consider the article on basic freight car (house car) construction. The author weighs the merits of wood, cast metal, sheet metal -- the wood construction discussion is still very relevant to anyone considering scratchbuilding a wood car using wood. Just how long ago this was is illustrated by the remark that the arch bar truck, the only kind that a modeler can readily built up out of hobby materials, "is fast going out of existence." The article is illustrated by a superb drawing of an AAR wood double sheathed boxcar with all parts numbered and named -- note that the brake system is a Westinghouse KC type so what is called the triple valve really is the triple valve. That drawing is worth the price of admission to the period modeler.
The scale drawings of a USRA heavy 2-8-2 are not detailed enough to be genuinely helpful to a modeler, but they do provide basic dimensions. A tiny article with photo and drawing showing the engine terminal at Oyster Bay on the old Long Island RR is likely to be of interest to some.
Linn Westcott, then a very young man, has a track plan that initially looks like a spaghetti bowl until you follow along and realize it is actually a very clever point to loop layout with an astoundingly long mainline run. I suggest the careful study of this track plan. If "unfolded" a bit it would have potential even today for a layout.
For news in the back, note that the show of the Chicago Model Builder's Guild attracted 28,000 visitors. And in the aforementioned Along The Division, Frank Taylor of Milwaukee reports in on his HO Central Valley Lines - Frank was to become MR's editor in a few years. There are also a few news items by George Krambles of Champaigne IL -- then studying railway engineering he was to become an authority on public transportation, headed up Chicago's CTA, founded the Central Electrical Railfan's Association which published many important books on electric traction, maintained a famous collection of railroad and transit photographs, and at the time of his death funded a scholarship for those interested in transportation and railroading as a career.
I hope you find the issue to be interesting. As always the ads are a hoot!
Dave Nelson
The Model Railroad Shop (ad on page 53) is still in business. Same location.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
I got curious and looked up the address in the first ad. It would seem Mi-Loco is now occupied by a Harley dealer in a working class neighborhood.
You know, as a tech editor by trade, it strikes me how much our language usage has changed over such a relatively short time. I can't help but edit this stuff in my head as I read it. I do government work and there's a huge push to "plain language." Almost every sentence in some of these articles would bring out my red pen, under the plain language standards!
There's always something of interest. I liked the layout as well as the pg 40 short article and photo about a simple engine terminal.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Notice in the editorial, Al also mentioned "enough already of the K4's and Hudsons, we need FREIGHT locomotives", Of course right after the MI-LOCO add offering a Hudson and - hey, slightly different, a K5! LOL. At the bottom it mentions the prices for different kit forms, but in the text it mentions the price of the RTR K5 - $69.95. In 1936! Today that would be nearly $1200. OK, it IS O scale, so it's big, and an Overland brass model would go for that much these days, but still...
Also trending in the editorial - raise the trains up for a more realistic view.
--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 got a kick out of the MI-LOCO ad on page 2. The loco was capable of "300 SMPH"! I guess back then that was a real selling feature. It would certainly have been heavy enough to stay on the tracks most of the time, but if it ever came off at speed it would likely go half way across the room.
Some of my observations have already been mentioned like the shortage of freight locomotives. We seem to have solved that particular problem.
I noted the length and size of the Chicago show. It ran a total of 13 days and had 28,000 visitors. That was when the population was a fraction of what it is now. Too bad we can't generate that sort of interest today. The write up also noted that HO and OO were shown for the first time at the show.
As has been mentioned, the finely detailed freight car diagram was very interesting.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thought I'd have nothing to add, since this is before my paper collection starts, until I git down to here....
dknelsonThere are also a few news items by George Krambles of Champaigne IL -- then studying railway engineering he was to become an authority on public transportation, headed up Chicago's CTA, founded the Central Electrical Railfan's Association which published many important books on electric traction, maintained a famous collection of railroad and transit photographs, and at the time of his death funded a scholarship for those interested in transportation and railroading as a career.
In the Things That Haven't Changed category, the University of Illinois has one of the largest and best regarded railroad engineering programs. They probably had more competition back in the 30s. Now it's Michigan Tech and here. Are there others currently?
George may have been a member of the Illini Railroad Club. I've tried to dig up more history, but so far without luck as far as how far back it goes. In the 50s and 60s, the had at least one private car, which made several trips to Colorado to ride the narrowgauge, etc. The IRRC is still around and I think still has a layout in the basement of one of the residence halls. It's been a few years since I've visited.
For anyone interested in getting a good education in a well-regarded RR engineering program, here's their website: http://railtec.illinois.edu/index.php#
A colleauge of my wife's - they work as programmers on campus -- is an instructor in the signal course, as well as an accomplished railfan photographer, Jon Roma. He's had pics published in Trains and other mags.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Sure was a different era. The editorial was kind of funny- "and if not, why not". The editoral also discouraged attic layouts. Based on the photo on page 47, I can see why. Wow, bare attic walls, just studs and sheathing.
No phone numbers, just addresses and PO boxes. Todays textie texters would be lost.
I see why outside 3rd rail was popular, coverting steam equipment to 2 rail DC was quite a task.
Jim
My previous layout was in an attic, and I can see why they discouraged it - and my attic was completely finished off into two bedrooms. Hot in the summer, even with AC, kinda cool in the winter, even with heat and insulation. I can only imagine the unfinished version - well, I've been in some actually. This is if you are lucky to have a walkup attic where at least in the middle you can stand upright. In my house, the slope of the roof goes right to the walls, there are no knee walls or anything, and access is via a pull down staircase. And there is no floor, just a few stray sheets of plywood thrown down. I haven't even been fully in it, because the pulldown stair isn;t rated to hold my weight. ANd at the house I gew up in - talk about hot in the summer, being uninsulated and directly under the roof. Access was via a square hatch door in the upper part of one of the walls of the top bedroom - need a stepladder to get to it, and somehow I am able to still fit through the small square hole. It gets so hot in the summer that as soon as you open that door, it feels like opening an oven door. Amazing any of the stuff from my childhood survived storage up there - including the trains.
In that era, attic vs basement was a conundrum. Typically, neither was finished and both had their drawbacks. Attached garages were still rare in single family homes. And the square footage of houses, total and per-occupant, was substantially smaller than in our time. There was very little "spare" space in the average home. If anything people were packed in rather tightly.
Thus, despite their negatives, basement or attic were the two obvious spots in the home where there was extra square footage, even if it was simply because no one else wanted or needed it.
I don't think they tracked average SF that far back, though. Earliest I could find was 1973, when the US average was 1660 SF. That has grown to 2,392 SF in 2010 (all for new homes.) I'd bet it's substantially smaller in the 1930s though. Lots less room for that dream layout, presuming the Depression left you with a home or anything much to spend on a hobby.
hon30critterI noted the length and size of the Chicago show. It ran a total of 13 days and had 28,000 visitors. That was when the population was a fraction of what it is now. Too bad we can't generate that sort of interest today.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Later on, they would come to present all plans in prototype dimensions - as we move up in time we will see this, and STILL it didn't quiet the moaners.
A couple of pages telling you how to build a freight car using any of 3 mediums. Clearly the modeler was expected to know things, and to be able to know what was being explained, vs today where everything has to be spelled out step by step with a picture or two for every step.
The New York Society of Model Engineers is still around - though they moved many times, especially in the early years. I wouldn't want to bet against one of those locos or those cars shown in the photo still being run on the O scale portion of their layout today. I haven't visited them since the mid-90's but the O scale portion was a veritable rolling museum of model railroading. The indoor O scale layout of the Reading Society of Model Engineers is like that as well, there are locos and cars and structures built in the 30's, on up to the latest and greatest of today.
The drawing for the Mikado was not very detailed, just the basic stuff with a few of the steam appliances.
The important stuff was there. The finer details - well, you could walk to the nearest railroad track and catch those, in those days.
This is back to far for me. The box car article was interesting; however. I had pretty hard time relating.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Oh yes, note that crossover on the OO layout pictured on page 36. Looks pretty clearly built in place, and arranged so that there is no S curve coming off the curve. Well designed.
The Cushing station layout is pretty neat, too. good track arrangment, plus the streetcar/interurban line to the station as well as the street layout.
The Westcott track plan - another thing about that is that it is designed to be a sectional setup for easy transportation to and from shows.
From another thread - ad on page 49 for George Stock and his HO equipment.
Note that at this time Al Kalmbach was also publishing The Modelmaker magazine - notice how many ads are actually from them, or The Model Railroader (the definite article was in use at this time), advertising back issue or other books of interest. Even a classified ad looking ot buy some equipment - wonder if that was from Al himself or one of his helpers or associates.
Putting it in perspective, when this issue was printed, my Mom was not yet 3 years old. Notice the reference to "the World War" in the text accompanying the USRA Heavy Mike drawings.
Randy,
Your comments on the various trackplans reminded me of something I wanted to note in general about older issues, no matter how old, that I find of most benefit just looking through them -- trackplans.
Trackplans and layout arrangements as a whole tend to reflect the era and its favored ideals. But at the level of individual stations and industries, a lot of that can fall away, reduced to very basic "get 'er done" qualities that are really pretty timeless in terms of what can be learned about efficient and flexible track arrangements.
John Armstrong vast body of work didn't just happen in a vacuum. It was, at least in part, an alternative to the entirely too predictable roundy-rounds and simply confused routing that we all know as the stereotype of bad track planning. John was undoubtedly influenced by waht he saw around him, familiar to many, and learned from it. His innovation was in breaking down and analyzing what was good, as well as bad, with various plans. After reading "Track Planning for..." as a teenager, I started looking at those old plans with new wonder, because I was able to see for myself what worked and what to avoid. Since I ended up at a fairly decent "lifetime" layout with my third one, and a little luck in life, I must've learned sumtim, although day by day I'm beginning to feel I've forgotten as much as I know at this point.
I wonder, Dave, with so much information, visual and written, at our finger tips, is that a reason why there isn’t the interest to get out to support the local show? Cheers, the Bear.
You are definately correct on the fact that the information age has had a decidedly negative impact on many of our public events. I have to confess that I have been guilty of not attending the local train shows on occassion. I hadn't been to the Barrie, Ontario show for a couple of years but decided to give it a try last weekend. I'm glad I did because I was able to score a bunch of stuff for great prices. The show is in a large garden centre and the hosts were smart enough to include a discount coupon for the garden centre with the train show admission. That gave my wife a reason to go with me.
Sorry,
mlehman Randy, Your comments on the various trackplans reminded me of something I wanted to note in general about older issues, no matter how old, that I find of most benefit just looking through them -- trackplans.
Am I the only one that's curious why they don't show the edge of the table on the trackplans?
I found a plan from 1936 that is the earliest plan that I'd consider buildable under current tastes. I'm starting to get curious about trying to find the first published 4x8!
NittanyLionAm I the only one that's curious why they don't show the edge of the table on the trackplans?
I don't know about curious, but it's an interesting feature. Maybe the published plan was supposed to represent the minimum size it could be built in. The lack of table edge might somehow be meant to be inspirational??
Did these trackplans lack dimensional measurements, to?
mlehmanDid these trackplans lack dimensional measurements, to?
In those days, the page count started at the beginning of the year and ran all year. So the firs page in the Jan 1936 issue was page 1, and the last page was page 28. Feb 1936 starts with page 29, and so forth.
I guess it made sense to someone - well, they did offer bound volumes of each year a few months into the following year at the time, more like a book. But otherwise - "Oh yes, the article on page 82 in 1936 is interesting" So what month is that?
I just signed up for the archive.I'd been planning to do so for a while,and this thread(nice idea) gave me the little push I needed. 'Haven't read cover-to-cover yet,but a quick look left these impressions:
I think the drawing of the box car - particularly the under body brake rigging - would still be a big help to someone(me) unfamiliar with brake lines,etc., building their first "serious" kit.
After the ad on page 2,the issue jumps right into articles - no wading through pages of ads up front,as with today's mag. This is not a meant as a complaint,just a difference.
Though many years before any MR I'd seen(early 60's issues that my uncle would bring over),this brought back a bit of that sense of wonder I'd get from looking through those issues.
I'll get back to a more thorough look at this edition now,and am looking forward to next week's "assignment".
Mike
middlemanI think the drawing of the box car - particularly the under body brake rigging - would still be a big help to someone(me) unfamiliar with brake lines,etc., building their first "serious" kit.
Check out page 46 in April 1949
NittanyLion:
Thanks for the tip!
I’m sure that what I’ve said above will start a flurry of people saying “Oh, Whoa for NP2626, he doesn’t get his way, with his obsolete thinking!” And I think; “Oh, Whoa for these modern folks, they just don’t see the value in building models!”
This has been a very good discussion, guys -- just what a book club should be all about. Tomorrow I will post the next issue of MR for the book club. We won't be going as far back as the 1930s.
This is not to say the thread is closed.