At the local book store, the booklet, 102 Realistic Track Plans, is sealed in plastic with another special booket so I can't review it. Is it merely a rehash of the old, 101 Track Plans?
Ray
Its a collection of track plans from recent issues of MRR.
Chris
Chris is right, but it is really cool see them all arranged in order of size so you can compare them. If someone asked me for a good plan book, I'd say 102.
101 is so out-dated on so many levels, it shouldn't be considered--unless you are a historian.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
It'd be nice if they'd send me my copy of "102" as well as some of the other publications I ordered.
Nobody has responded to email inquiries either.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
SpaceMouse 101 is so out-dated on so many levels, it shouldn't be considered--unless you are a historian.
SM:
Well, who isn't a historian, if only just a little bit?
I do have to say that the best plans in 101TP are the small-to-medium ones, and only some of those. Heck, a lot of them were probably outdated at first printing, when they were already 10 years old or more, and some of Bill Wight's plans were behind the times when first designed.
I think a lot of Wight's plans were included as a memorial, since he died in the Speedrail accident at the age of 27, and the book is IIRC dedicated to his widow. It's still a fun book to read, though, which is probably why it keeps getting reprinted.
I'm going to have to pick up 102TP when I see it. Can't have too many track plans.
ChrisNH Its a collection of track plans from recent issues of MRR. Chris
Also the Great Model Railroads. It is fun to see them in order, and there's track planning tips in it as well.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
Autobus PrimeSM: Well, who isn't a historian, if only just a little bit?
Ya got me. I didn't exactly throw my 101 away.
SpaceMouse Chris is right, but it is really cool see them all arranged in order of size so you can compare them. If someone asked me for a good plan book, I'd say 102. 101 is so out-dated on so many levels, it shouldn't be considered--unless you are a historian.
I don't know how a track plan becomes outdated. If a plan fits a modeler's space and desires, what difference does it make if it is more than 50 years old. We have had a lot of great new ideas in the hobby in the past 50 years but that doesn't mean the old ways are bad. I am a proponent of linear design, but that is because I am fortunate to have a large space. Those who lack that kind of space might find linear design too confining. Those old planners knew how to pack a lot of railroading into relatively small spaces. A lot of those plans in 101 look like they would be a lot of fun to operate.
Thanks for the input. I bought 101 I guess some 20 years ago. I just wanted to make sure that if I bought 102 I wouldn't be duplicating what I already had.
jecorbettI don't know how a track plan becomes outdated. If a plan fits a modeler's space and desires, what difference does it make if it is more than 50 years old.
Well, one way is that track manufacturers can change the geometry of their turnouts. Another way is the way the plans were drawn by graphic artists to fit the publication and were not entirely accurate.
I drew one of the plans with layout software--it was supposed to be 12" x 8 ft. To make it work using modern turnouts available, it took 18" x 11 ft to fit it in.
Add to that with the Internet, there is a much better exchange of ideas and many layout plans have gone through revision process based upon comments made by multiple eyes--and that includes layouts drawn in 102. The Internet has also allowed a conversation among groups like the NMRA's Layout Design Special Interest Group, and if you don't think they haven't had an impact, watch this video.
Add to that the simplicity of wiring that DCC enables and you have more opportunities to design closer to the prototype.
50 years is a long time. Stuff happens.
jecorbettI don't know how a track plan becomes outdated.
Primarily, by advances in layout design and track planning that add realism.
For example, walkaround designs intended to take advantage of handheld cotnrollers instead of running everything from an operating pit.
Or track plans intended for realistic operation instead of watching trains run around and wondering where they'll pop up next.
jecorbett I don't know how a track plan becomes outdated. If a plan fits a modeler's space and desires, what difference does it make if it is more than 50 years old. We have had a lot of great new ideas in the hobby in the past 50 years but that doesn't mean the old ways are bad. I am a proponent of linear design, but that is because I am fortunate to have a large space. Those who lack that kind of space might find linear design too confining. Those old planners knew how to pack a lot of railroading into relatively small spaces. A lot of those plans in 101 look like they would be a lot of fun to operate.
j:
That's a good point. I think a plan can become outdated when the requirements it fills aren't held by a lot of people - but for people who still want what it offers, it wouldn't be outdated at all.
A lot of the bigger plans in 101TP feature elaborate terminal trackwork and complex interlockings that really would be a blast to run as a towerman. LHW actually talks about this in the text, but it's not a form of model-railroad operation that a lot of people go for nowadays, even though it's quite prototypical. I wonder how much of this is linked to the lack of interlocking towers on today's railroads.
At the same time, some of these plans don't have enough industrial sidings or stations for Ellison-style wayfreight operation, or the staging needed for current-style train-parade operation.
Midnight Railroader jecorbettI don't know how a track plan becomes outdated. Primarily, by advances in layout design and track planning that add realism. For example, walkaround designs intended to take advantage of handheld cotnrollers instead of running everything from an operating pit. Or track plans intended for realistic operation instead of watching trains run around and wondering where they'll pop up next.
Well, for all the talk about operations the past several decades, there are still a lot modelers who enjoy just watching trains run around and around. I have no hard data to back this up but I'd wager this is still a majority of modelers. I'm guessing that those that do realistic operations are still a small minority. Walk around designs are great for large layouts and that is the way mine is, but small to medium sized layouts can be operated from a control pit and still allow an operator to stay close to the trains. As for those spaghetti bowl layouts where you didn't know which tunnel the train would come out of next and had trains passing over each other on two or three different levels, no, they weren't realistic, but they were a lot of fun to watch.
Don't get me wrong, I love the innovations in layout design we have had since I got into the hobby back in the early 1960s, but model railroading was still a lot of fun before we had those innovations and I see nothing wrong with a modeler going back to those old style layouts if that is what appeals to him.
SpaceMouse jecorbettI don't know how a track plan becomes outdated. If a plan fits a modeler's space and desires, what difference does it make if it is more than 50 years old. Well, one way is that track manufacturers can change the geometry of their turnouts. Another way is the way the plans were drawn by graphic artists to fit the publication and were not entirely accurate. I drew one of the plans with layout software--it was supposed to be 12" x 8 ft. To make it work using modern turnouts available, it took 18" x 11 ft to fit it in. Add to that with the Internet, there is a much better exchange of ideas and many layout plans have gone through revision process based upon comments made by multiple eyes--and that includes layouts drawn in 102. The Internet has also allowed a conversation among groups like the NMRA's Layout Design Special Interest Group, and if you don't think they haven't had an impact, watch this video. Add to that the simplicity of wiring that DCC enables and you have more opportunities to design closer to the prototype. 50 years is a long time. Stuff happens.
To the best of my knowledge, Atlas has not changed the geometry of their sectional and snap track as long as I have been in the hobby. They made their curves in 22", 18", and 15" and #4 turnouts and those are still available should suffice for even the plans with what the 101 book describes as very sharp curves. In addition, today's flex track is far more flexible than it was when many of those plans were designed so if you can't make a plan work with the fixed radius track, you have that option as well. As a last resort, you could hand lay the rail to fit the plan which is what many modelers did back in that day and some still do today.
No plan is dependent on the electronics. You can run any layout on DC or DCC and that is as true of the old style layouts as well as the new ones.
Nobody is disputing that there have been advances in layout design in the past 50 years, but that doesn't make those old designs obsolete. They can still be the basis for a great layout. Technology has allowed moviemakers to do things they couldn't have dreamed of way back when, but Casablanca is still one of the best movies ever made.
jecorbett,
No one is disputing that you cannot learn from 101 Track Plans. On the other hand, I think that it is not a book for beginner's. This is a book for the person who has a fairly good idea of what they want and will pick and choose features.
That same person should also be aware that if the designer of the layout did not use Atlas turnouts that they should completely redraw the plan using computer software to see if the plan actually works in the spaces shown--too many of them don't.
See it's a personal thing with me. I like to help newbies out. Recently one picked an Atlas plan, bought all the track described in the book and spent several days trying to make the pieces fit. When he asked on the boards about it, the overwhelming response was that the plans never work quite right. We talked him into fixing it with flex.
The other thing that happens is that it feeds the myth that more track equals more fun, so that even if you design your own layout, you have the preconceived idea that spaghetti=good. I fell into that category as a newbie and if weren't for people here helping me and convincing me otherwise, I might have been bored silly and left the hobby.
Now it's all well and good if you take the book come here and ask questions, but what about the guy who wants to start in the hobby who buys a magazine and 101 track plans, picks #12 or #18 or whatever builds his benchwork and can't make the plan fit, because the guy at the store showed him how ME track looks better than Atlas.
There are too many pitfalls with the book--and that makes it antiquated. It does not stand on its own any more.
On the subject of DC vs DCC in design.
Let me draw an analogy. Most people don't hand-lay. So when they design layouts, they go out of their way to find a design to make the commercially available turnouts work. That is they made compromises.
On the other hand a person who can hand-lay may plan to use a # 7.4 turnout or a curved turnout to make the plan work.
The same thing goes for DC and DCC. In DCC, there are lots of things you don't have to think about. You just do them. For instance, I once worked a op session where traffic was so heavy that we needed three switchers in the same yard, often on the same section of track to keep up with traffic.
Sure most things you do with DCC can be done with DC, but how many things do you eliminate in planning because it's too complicated and you can compromise and work around.
jecorbett To the best of my knowledge, Atlas has not changed the geometry of their sectional and snap track as long as I have been in the hobby. They made their curves in 22", 18", and 15" and #4 turnouts and those are still available should suffice for even the plans with what the 101 book describes as very sharp curves.
To the best of my knowledge, Atlas has not changed the geometry of their sectional and snap track as long as I have been in the hobby. They made their curves in 22", 18", and 15" and #4 turnouts and those are still available should suffice for even the plans with what the 101 book describes as very sharp curves.
That's correct, I think, but there are a few things to remember. The plans use NMRA switch dimensions, but Atlas #4 switches have always been #4 1/2. Westcott does mention that plans may require altering for commercial track components, and probably had this in mind. A lot of those plans may pre-date Atlas ready-laid track, too, whenever it came out (the late 40s?)
Any of Bill Wight's plans would obviously be pre-1950, for example.
I don't know that 101TP was for beginners to pick a layout out and build it. Small Railroads You Can Build was the book from the 50's for that, later there was the HO Railroad That Grows. Similarly I wouldn't recommend a new person just pick a plan out of 102TP and build it. You could use one of the beginner books like Basic Model Railroad Track Plans.
101TP and 102TP are layouts selected by the editors from the many that appeared in MR and related pubs that they feel were worth having together in their own book. And BTW 101TP does have a walk around layout, just over look the idea of operating it from a balcony.
I think both books are good for ideas as are all the other layout plan books MR has done.
Personally, the only layout I ever built from a published plan was my first one - the 4x8 plan was in the back of Track Planning for Realistic Operation in the first edition (it's not in the third). After that, they have all been my own design, but I have always looked at all the track plan books for ideas.
Enjoy
Paul
SpaceMouse The other thing that happens is that it feeds the myth that more track equals more fun, so that even if you design your own layout, you have the preconceived idea that spaghetti=good. I fell into that category as a newbie and if weren't for people here helping me and convincing me otherwise, I might have been bored silly and left the hobby.
Only a small percentage of the plans in 101 are what I would call spaghetti designs. There are a wide variety of layout styles and sizes in the book and any newbie could easily find an appropriate layout in it, even if it requires a few minor modifications or changes in theme to get the railroad he desires. The book has some simple single and double track ovals, point-to-loop, loop-to-loop, and even a few modest sized single track point-to-point designs. Many of those plans have a great deal of operational interest while others are designed simply to run trains. To categorically dismiss them as outdated simply makes no sense. It was an excellent book when published and remains so today.
not a re-hash. I purchased it from the train store (they are always ahead of subscriptions)- M.B. Klein's in Cockeysville. Nice place.
I am considering adding the traction layout (2'3"x5'2" on the second page to my existing layout. It is small, could be done inexpensively and lets me get involved in traction with a low impact. A consideration is creating a lift-out module in the center of an unfinished portion of city that I am working on with the edles of the portion blended in.
The latest 102 layouts mag is good. Buy it.
Mike Habersack http://rail. habersack. com
Maryland - the land of pleasant living...
IRONROOSTERI don't know that 101TP was for beginners to pick a layout out and build it. Small Railroads You Can Build was the book from the 50's for that, later there was the HO Railroad That Grows.
I have all three. OBTW, "Small Railroads..." provides advice when building scenery to mix some asbestos shorts in with the plaster to make it stronger. Might want to scratch that sentence out.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanIRONROOSTERI don't know that 101TP was for beginners to pick a layout out and build it. Small Railroads You Can Build was the book from the 50's for that, later there was the HO Railroad That Grows. I have all three. OBTW, "Small Railroads..." provides advice when building scenery to mix some asbestos shorts in with the plaster to make it stronger. Might want to scratch that sentence out.
Agreed. I have the book, but had forgotten about that bit of advice.
Enjoy safely
On another forum, one newbie is bound and determined to build this.
I'm not saying that 101TP is without value. I'm just saying that I can't recommend it now that 102TP is available. It's just that much more modern.
I can think of several changes to "state of the art" track planning since 101 Track Plans was published.
1. The value of staging to getting a layout that's more fun and more realistic to operate
2. Realization that it's the larger industries that actually use railroads more
3. Better understanding of good yard design
Enough improvements in the art of track planning have occurred in these areas over the last couple of decades that I can immediately spot a "dated" track plan that doesn't take into account these more modern learnings.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
SpaceMouse I'm not saying that 101TP is without value. I'm just saying that I can't recommend it now that 102TP is available. It's just that much more modern.
Kalmbach also published 2 other collections of track plans (something like "52 track plans from MR" and "48 track plans from MR") that were superior to 101TP and in a lot of ways better than 102TP (bigger plans and more description). You rarely hear anybody mention those two books so they must have been slow sellers. They contain some of my favorite track plans.
I've seen the outside of 48TP, but never the inside. On your recommendation, I'll take a look.
Jason
Modeling the Fort Worth & Denver of the early 1970's in N scale
101TP first came out in what, 1959?? 48TP came out around 1990, so it more closely aligned with current hobby thinking.
It seems to me there's quite a few simple "beginner" layouts in 101TP - in fact several are smaller than a 4 x 8 in HO and only use a couple of turnouts. MR used a slightly modified version of one of the Westcott designs for the Turtle Creek Central project 30 years later so they can't be all that bad. It does seem in 101TP the smaller layouts hold up better - maybe there's just so much you can do in say 4 x 8 so there's less new ground to cover??
BTW if you haven't done it yet, check out TrainPlayer which has all the 101TP layouts. You can do a time-limited free download with some of the plans included and try running them.
102 RTP is not a rehash of 101. The small included booklet does contain information to be found elsewhere, but it's nice to have it all in one spot.
Once I put that in print, I realize that the track plans themselves can be found elsewhere, but it seems a bit more compact an assemblage than 8 dozen MRs.
I found 102 RTP very helpful for flipping back and forth to generate new ideas. Worth the price for me.
SpaceMouse On another forum, one newbie is bound and determined to build this.
That's basically the same layout I built my son for his first layout about 5-6 years ago. The difference being I had a yard on mine (and I had 25+ years of model railroding when I built it).