All Hail Tony Koester!

[SpaceMouse]

Mark,

ROFLAMO. Uh, that topic is dead. And has fallen to name calling. Sad.

Ed,

Nice pics. I believe you have to have a sense of humor in this hobby. If not, you have just a bunch of sour old men playing with trains and pretending it's serious.

Brakie,

I find it hard to believe that John Armstrong could not have helped you with your layout desigen. Just exactly what would you have argued with him that he would have refused to listen.

[Anonymous]

I can't see building with less then 2ft width. But I love big buildings with depth.to them and mup. tracks. Tony's and Darnaby's long long narrow shelf, stuff in has much mainline does not cut it for me. I liked Tony's old AM better with the wide areas of hills, and large mines. But having been around and listening to the so called PRO RAILERS they like em thin and long. I'll stick to my wide vista's and roundy round track plan.
I always wonder if John Allen was still alive how many levels would be on his layout and what about the floor to ceiling mountains, he would be a Pro rail outcast with a railroad like that wouldn't he Andy S.
Not to mention his trains ended pasting thur the same scene more then once and ended in the same yard it started from. ( my god the scandal that would cause, heaven forbit.)

[dknelson]

I have never met Tony Koester -- I'd like to have the chance -- but I have always sensed that he tends to be strongly influenced by those around him who he admires. So Allen McClelland influenced him into free lancing, Bill Darnaby into double deck, Dave Barrow into the virtues of tearing down a finished layout, and so on.
I remember one column where he wrote disdainfully that when he would overhear a model railroader say that now that the layout is finished it is time to tear it down and start over he could never understand that line of thinking -- that that person was a mere builder and not an operator and that the point was to fini***he layout and then operate it for the rest of your days. Then he joined the club. He even said it was an opportunity to build again with new materials and techniques.

As to the mushroom design, since Joe Fugate is a frequent poster on these forums perhaps he'd like to weigh in on the advantages but I can see that as someone who has operated on a "standard" double deck layout, at the end of the evening I feel like my back is killing me. Neither level is at a comfortable level especially the lower level (I am 6'8")
with the mushroom design you get the double deck efficincies of making the most use of your space AND the operator's access to the levels is comfortable because you build up the floor for the higher level (now these assumes you have extra courses in your basement -- I could never do it in my basement, I hit my head on duct work as it is).
Dave Nelson

[BRAKIE]

Chip,I would feel comfortable sitting down with Tony and some of the other great layout thinkers and designers of today however,I could never sit down with John Armstrong and Ian Rice because their layout designs and my type clash..There are very few on forums that I can get into serious advanced layout design discussions with because most have closed minds or fail to fully understand good solid advance layout designs that is a must in designing a great layout...
=============================================================
papabearsmith,
As far as retirement..I am medically retired at 57..So,I am a PAID full time modeler and railfan..
What is so wrong about that? After all for years I paid into the company's and union's retirement plan..Now,I make a very good living at being a full time modeler and railfan after all I help PAY for my retirement..

As far as Tony he retired after loosing his job to down sizing. Now after you reach 50 your chances of getting another job in your field of work will be next to none in most cases..

[Pruitt]

But is Tony's layout ART?

[:o)]

[edkowal]

Chip:

For easy to access photographs of John Armstrong's Canandaigua Southern, try the following sites: http://home.comcast.net/~j.sing/Eulogy_for_John_Armstrong.html and at http://home.comcast.net/~Potomac_NMRA/ after clicking on Recent Layout Tours on the left of the page, find and click on the link to the late John Armstrong Canandaigua Southern.

In addition to these and probably other web based sources, the best source is John Armstrong's articles about his layout and assorted modeling projects. Using the author search in the index of magazine articles at this site will turn up these articles. A trip to a well stocked public library, or using the services of a used magazine dealer, will get you access to his articles. I've never read an article written by the man that wasn't both entertaining and immensely informative. Without exception, his wit and infectious sense of humor show through his modeling and his writing.

As just one example, he determined that all of the miniature engineers in switchers are turned to face the wrong direction approximately half of the time. Whereupon, he designed and built a mechanism to have an O scale engineer who would turn to face the direction in which the RS-3 was moviing. And being John Armstrong, rather than use a motor to produce the turn, he instead used the E-unit reverser solonoid from an old Lionel engine. So, when the diesel changes direction, the engineer turns to face that direction with a head wrenching THWACK. Realize that he could have done a masterful job of producing a smooth mechanism. He had the skills. It was just more fun the way he did it. That article is in the November 1989 Model Railroader: Tale of a turning head - animate your locomotive engineer.


-Ed

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by papabearsmith

FOR WHAT, GETTING PAID TO PLAY AND GETTING FREE STUFF FROM ALL THE MANUFACTURES. WE MIGHT COULD DO AS GOOD IF ALL OF OUR SUPPLIES WERE FREE AND HAD UNLIMITED TIME

Live below your means (i.e. outgo < income), save your money, invest wisely, and accumulate a sizeable nestegg.

Then, when you're in your late 50's/early 60's, you too can retire.

Andre

[Anonymous]

FOR WHAT, GETTING PAID TO PLAY AND GETTING FREE STUFF FROM ALL THE MANUFACTURES. WE MIGHT COULD DO AS GOOD IF ALL OF OUR SUPPLIES WERE FREE AND HAD UNLIMITED TIME

[nbrodar]

I respect Tony, and he is an excellent modeler. I've read and reread his Coal Fork Extention series about a hundred times. The scenery techniques he used, provided a great deal of insperation for my current layout.

That said, I liked him better before he retired, and started model railroading full time. I don't appreciate his continued writings about how pro-prototype modeling is the only way to go, and how I'm somehow a lesser quality modeler, because I have a roundy-round, with no car forwarding, and am a little fuzzy with my modeling era.

John Armstrong's layout was featured in MR is the late 90s. I prefer John Armstong and Ian Rice's planning to Tony Koester's. I especially like Rice's free-form style, and the fact he's not afraid to use deep (over 24 inch) benchwork.

Nick

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse
And as long as we are talking about Armstrong, has anyone built a successful mushroom?

Joe Fugate.

[Anonymous]

Add me to the list of having a V&O Hopper and a AM boxcar, I also have a couple NKP cars, I guess thats sort of a tribute.

[BRAKIE]

Yuppers..I have a Ridgley & Midland County 50 boxcar as well as a AM boxcar..[:D] The R&MC was a short line that connected with the AM..[:D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

You know there's a lot of Tony Koester fans out there so I'm wondering if any has a tribute to Tony Koester on his layout. And since Tony is pro-prototype such a tribute would be nothing that wouldn't be found on the proto-type. So what don't you have on your layout as a tribute to Tony Koester.

(My dear sweet daddy once said that iffn ya get throwed from a horse ya gots ta git rat back on'im. )

I have met Tony Koester!!! It was cool to meet such a tramedous modeler and nice guy...

[bwftex]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DigitalGriffin

Personally I like Ian's Rices clever use of space and unique flowing layouts in MRR "Small, Smart, & Practical Track Plans" It's good variety and cleverly laid out without being over cluttered.

I like Rice’s layout designs a lot. They offer many ideas to use. I don't know that I would build one exactly to his plans. Too much switching on curves that would be impossible if using under the track magnets and could be a pain even to manually couple or uncouple. But stretching out one of his plans into a slightly larger space would not only yield a nice track plan but a very functional one as well. I think visually his designs could lend themselves to a very attractive layouts and track work. A modeler considering one of Ian's designs might test out some of the curves on a small temporary section of track to determine if he can couple and couple his cars in a fashion that will not become frustrating and determine if any scenery could further complicate matters. I'd say his designs are "Small" and very "Smart" but not necessarily practical. One should still think them trough or test certain track elements just to be sure. Bruce

[SpaceMouse]

In comparing Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation's and Koester's Realistic Model Railroad Design, at first I thought it like comparing apples and orangutans. But now that I think about it, they both head to the same place kinda-sorta, but by very different routes. Koester almost assumes you already have a railroad and he is going to help you fix it. He gets you started operating even before he talks about how you should have designed it. Armstrong teaches you why you are setting up a model railroad by explaining how the prototype does things, then he tells you how to make your railroad imitate it.

Koester, tells you how to operate a model railroad and then tells you how to set that up. It is starting to look like apes and oranges again.

[ereimer]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

And as long as we are talking about Armstrong, has anyone built a successful mushroom?

joe fugate's siskiyou line is a mushroom . i think most of us would agree it's successful . [:)]

[whitman500]

Chip:

I believe Classic Layout Designs by John Armstrong includes a track plan and article on his own layout. It was quite large though they weren't any photos of it in the book so you couldn't assess the quality of construction.

Since everyone has shyed away from starting a new argument, I will make an attempt. Personally, I vastly prefer John Armstrong over Tony Koester, having read several books by each. Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" is orders of magnitude better than Koester's "Realistic Model Railroad Design" and "Realistic Model Railroad Building Blocks." In particular, Armstrong takes you through, in great detail, how to build up a track plan from individual elements and includes numerous examples of how to layout a yard, a passenger station, a junction, and various industries. The book is full of charts and tables that provide very useful benchmarks on curve radii, turnout angle, S-curve avoidance, length of easements, etc. When designing my layout on CadRail, I was constantly referring to this book when making decisions. In comparison, Koester's two books on the subject read like a collection of his MR columns, i.e. one vague generality after another. While I suppose this is an attempt to discuss his "philosophy" of railroad design, the books are essentially useless in terms of practical layout planning (I will admit, however, that "Realistic Model Railroad Operation" has a good amount of useful, detailed information in it).

Secondly, I prefer Armstrong's attitude. In both "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" and "Classic Layout Designs," Armstrong adopts a relaxed attitude towards the use (or lack thereof) of prototypical standards. He suggests what he thinks is the right way to imitate the prototype but repeatedly emphasizes that people should not let a slavish devotion to the prototype interfere with their ability to have fun or pursue their interests. In contrast, Koester's "Realistic Model Railroad Design" comes off as preachy and repeatedly lectures the reader with lines like (I paraphrase): "If you want to be taken seriously as a model railroader, then you better not run a GP20 and a Challenger on the same layout." Nothing turns off a new modeler more than this type of elitist attitude.

Anyway, I don't mean to dump all over Koester. I'm sure he is a good modeler but in terms of the quality of his most recent books, I was not impressed.

[Anonymous]

Tony's layout or modeling style shows very little skill, its just a 6in. to Ft wide shelf. Has with almost all the new layouts with this shelf running I call them cookie cutter layouts. They said they our matching the prototype better, how many 2in deep buildings have you seen on the prototype? Its all about getting the magic 500ft of mainline to run time table operations best.

[tomikawaTT]

John Armstrong's personal railroad was the Canandaigua Southern (O scale outside third rail), and has appeared in a number of his published works, most recently in 'The Classic Layout Designs of John Armstrong (pages 46-55). As far as being serious and technical, anyone who can label a pike's main yard Desmaigne Yard obviously designed and operated with his tongue firmly in his cheek.

As for Tony, I owe him for a lot of good ideas, including a few that I've incorporated into my own modeling (after filing off the serial numbers and relettering them in Japanese.)

[trainfan1221]

myself and my friends find Tony to be a little too opinionated sometimes,like if it isn't his way it's wrong. He doesn't seem to be quite as much that way now,I do read his column and respect his long career as an editor in the hobby.

[palallin]

The mushrrom wasn't meant to maximize mainline length but to maximize access for the operators to a multi-level layout. Too many people neglect the ergonomics of layout design, and the mushroom was meant to provde the maximum access for a given two-level space by keeping the operators out of one anothers' hair.

There's a real art to that, ya know?

[:)]

[SpaceMouse]

You know, I've seen a lot of John Armstrong's Designs, but I don't recall his personal layout? Has this been published in any of the books?

And as long as we are talking about Armstrong, has anyone built a successful mushroom? Every time I've tried to apply the mushroom to a layout space, it always seemed that it was an inefficient use of space. I always ended up with a reduction in mainline.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by grayfox1119

I often wonder if MRR eliminated the "stars" for number of posts, if we would have so many posts? Anyone else feel the same?

A board I was moderator on eventually got rid of their rank system. It did not matter that much to me either way, but every once in a while I wished I knew how new the person was. Usually it was to gage how to tender a response or reprimand. It took a few extra steps to look up his "profile."

Certainly the grasp fro rank was more obvious than it is here, as it was openly talked about. Ultimately, getting rid of rand was a good thing.

[grayfox1119]

I often wonder if MRR eliminated the "stars" for number of posts, if we would have so many posts? Anyone else feel the same?

[ereimer]

for years i've read 'trains of thought' first when i get a new MR home . but i'm getting tired of hearing the 'prototype is best' theme over and over , maybe it's time to find a new subject , or maybe hand that space over to someone else

[Anonymous]

Interesting that Tony Koester is now percieved as a Prototypical modeller - considering for years and years he was a Freelance guy.

[dknelson]

John Armstrong had a great line in one of his earlier articles. I paraphrase but his point was that when you go to an operating session at someone else's layout and the explanation of how to run it takes too long, you get the same sinking feeling you get when someone spends 10 minutes setting up so they can show you "just a few" home movies.
By the way, Model Railroad Craftsman was a very interesting magazine back when Tony Koester was editor. They really started to investigate why a given layout was interesting to operate and not just pretty pictures.
That was back when Model Railroader would have a layout article with photos but no key to where the camera was that took the picture, like they do now.
Dave Nelson

[ARTHILL]

Heck, I gotta go to Arizona and miss all this.

[vsmith]

Tony who[?]


Is he the one with the dinosaur ? [;)]

[davekelly]

While Armstrong was indeed a very technical person - he did know how to be a jokester. Ever check out the names of the towns used in his various plans?