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
Paul
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.
-
The value of staging to getting a layout that’s more fun and more realistic to operate
-
Realization that it’s the larger industries that actually use railroads more
-
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.
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.
48 Top Notch track Plans is by far my favorite. I’m planning on modifying the Red Mountain Railway for use in my future model railroad.
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.
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).
Dave,
4+% grade and 15" radius turns–What engines handle that and still pull cars?
The one I made was 18" radius curves and about 3% grades and Athearns will pull a half dozen cars.
That I can buy. My small steamers would do that and better on 3.1%–but go to 3.7 and that dropped to 0-3 cars.
Track plans don’t get outdated the technology/methods you use to implement them can get outdated.
The track plan itself is just as good as it ever was.
An example it the Jan 09 MR has a “new” Beer Belt layout that they created. They new layout doesn’t invalidate the older versions of the same idea. Its just different and maybe you’d use different methods to implement it (foam and DCC for example). But the old trackplans are just as “good” and can be implemented using ‘modern’ techonolgy and methods.
Bob Sandusky
The track plan database on this website (open to current subscribers of MR magazine) covers the plans from MR 1998-2008 in one compact spot - except that the plans in the track plan database you can zoom in and show in a bigger format than in the book).
URL: http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=tp&id=93
I also got the booklet and scanned through it. The track plans were okay. But in my opinion, the main value of booklet, for modellers who have not read John Armstrong’s “Track Planning for realistic operations” and the Model Railway Planning annuals, lies less in the actual track plans than in the hint and tips articles on layout design and track planning between the track plans.
Like the ever repeated and oft ignored reminder that layout design should start not by deciding on a published track plan you want to make an exact copy of, but by looking at your room, measuring it and making a sketch of the room showing dimensions, areas that cannot be impinged on etc, and only then start looking at modifying published track plans to fit your space.
Or the reminder about curve radii, track centers and turnout geometry, using Armstrong squares to figure out how much will fit in a given space, how to draw out your plan schematic to think about operating your plan, how to draw curve radii and turnout angles right (instead of overoptimistically) on a paper plan, figuring grades and clearances, alotting enough room for structures, scenery and aisles, and a little bit on building layouts in sections and converting a plan from
Glad someone mentioned “48 Track Plans”…
That’s been my favorite over the years.
The track-plans along with the more extensive descriptions make that a winner in my opinion.
SM:
I bet my Mantua 0-4-0T could handle a few. I’ll have to try it this afternoon and report.