Reading through the MR 75 Year DVD, I’m up to 1946, and the results of a planning contest I just read. Noteworthy perhaps is the first (I think) appearance by John Armstrong - he was SECOND place.
But even more interesting, of the three top prizes plus handful of honorable mentions they printed, the one that was the most prototypical, point to point without being a spaghetti bowl of track looping back on itself a dozen times, was only an honorable mention.
–Randy
Believe it or not, there are still people that actually like and plan for the spaghetti bowl. I know of 2 large layouts in my area that are currently being built. The one owner said that he built the railroad for the public and wants them to be confused and surprised by the randomness of when and where they will see a train next. Not my cup of tea but that’s their thing.
I’ve got a copy of 101 Trackplans, and I read it mostly for laughs. What was state of the art when Lynn Westcott was king of the designers and I was in diapers would be shunned today as both unrealistic and impossible to maintain. No staging, spaghetti bowls, impossibly long reaches, duckunders from hell, etc.
Well, in a general way, layout design has improved. Many layouts are exceptional improvements of earlier designs. Mostly thanks to improved train-control designs so one can physically follow their train.
Mark hit a key point. Those old layouts were usually operated from a single central point. Line of sight was everything. Linn Westcott’s, `If I Had a Million,’ dream scheme had several peninsulas end on to a main, raised, control station in one corner of a large, roughly rectangular room. It wasn’t designed for walk-along control.
Then, too, how many people in the transition era had ever heard the word ergonomics? Designing for the operator as well as the trains is a relatively recent development.
Finally, there is more inclination toward following a specific prototype. Jack Burgess and others have broken trail in a direction that more and more people now follow.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
That is, a move away from the John Allen — Gory and Defeated freelance modeling.
And yet the If I had a Million lends it self very nicely to walk around. It even includes staging at the end loop under the mountain at the left end.
The 101 Track Plans book also covers many of the possibilities for small and very small layouts. The Port Ogden & Northern RR along with Switchman’s Nightmare are excellent examples of switching layouts. Many of the others are in alignment with today’s designs for walk around layouts, including plan number 83 - a point to point layout for the Yosemite Valley railroad.
And while there are some spaghetti bowls, many of them accomplish their purpose of a very long mainline run for the size of the layout.
So don’t let the black and white plans fool you, there is a lot of value in the book for today. Which is probably why the book remains so popular to day along with another oldie from 1963, Track Planning for Realistic Operation.
Enjoy
Paul
Another interesting bit is that in that era, a few were already discussing the possibilities of radio control. In one exchange in the Layout and Signaling clinic department, Westcott expanded on the idea that since what peopel were talking about was sending the control signals throught he rails and not really radio, it should have a different name and put forth a few
I just find history very interesting, and history of my favorite hobby even more so. Some things commonly bandied about as ‘facts’ are in fact not even close based on reading the actual articles from the era. The war years are particularly fascinating witht he ads from model makers turned defense contractors and the articles showing alternate methods of construction to avoid using restricted materials. Towards the end of 1944 there seems to be a renewed optimism that production would begin again soon, this would be after D Day when we were rolling across France but prior to the last gasp of the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.
And if you think there are arguments on this forum, you shoudl see some of the letters to the editor back then.
The somewhat funny one was that as the manufacturers like Varney and Mantua were taking out full page ads proclaimign the return of production at the end of 1945/beginnign of 1946, Walthers was taking out full page ads saying how tough it was and materials were still scarece and their production is lagging. Go figure.
–Randy
hi gentlemen,
when I started model railroading in the late 50’s I had access to German and US publications.
Some of the issues that were covered in the German press are rather familiar even to day.
Stay away from to much selective compression; a barn size structure will never ever have the honour of a spur dedicated to it. Long passenger coaches do need larger radii, the very short two axle (35 to 40 ft) European pre-war coaches were considered being appropriate on a 15" radius. And a last example; mountain tops will never be found on a model railroad, they loom in the background.
On the narrow trace of real estate railroads are build on, often more scenery is below the tracks then above; so stay away from flat-tops.
Along railroads industries and housing were often in line with the decade in which the railroads are build, look out for appropriate architecture.
From the “good old” USA came different information. In one of the first issues of MR I bought, John Allen’s G&D was covered, so was John Armstrong’s CS. The latter hit home hard, after reading notes from Frank Ellison as well, it gradually became clear in my mind. Being a model railroader is fun, but some model railroaders want to model a railroad. A railroad that can be operated like the real thing.
John Armstrong could be optimistically telling others what was possible, as Tomikawa stated in this forum. The late John Armstrong however started building his layout without being sure if he was able to design and build the electronics to walk along his layout. We all know where it was leading to: DCC.
In the last decade the work of Tony Koester and Lance Mindheim are remarkable. The emphasis on proper operation is what sets them out.
I am not in the operational field, anyone should build his dream pike. What is worrying me is a certain lack of knowledge. A new generation, lots of them never read a book, just going for
Yes, why did you start this with “believe it or not”. I would go so far to say that most people are still in that camp. It is a point of view I totally understand. They are just not the type that frequents this forum, or have been chased away from forums such as this because the comments they get. Just look at the reviews of places like NORLANDZ. It gets rave reviews even though it is Mindless loops of track, where one can get a lot of trains all moving simultaniously. To many people that is model railroading. More power to them. The spaghetti bowl concept is simply trying to achive that same effect in a small space. Contrast that with our modular switching layout at the Great Train Expo. The little swichers are busy doing their jobs, people come up, look for 10 or 12 seconds and wander off, even if there is a barker telling them what is going on.
Of course my opinion is that DCC has added more to getting multiple trains moving in a small space than an extra loop of track ever did.
Personally, I don’ t know that a spaghetti bowl is any worse than a layout where every square inch is crammed with a yard or industrial spurs.
When I read through those back issue, what I noticed was not the number of “spaghetti bowls” but how many were trying to emulate what we would term “realistic operations” within the constraints of their time. Consider that many track plans were not that large (most people didn’t have huge spare rooms to devote to trains) so the only way to get any length of run was to wrap it around several times. Controls were limited to basic electrical (lugging that selenium rectifier, 50ohm reostat, and 50 watt transformer made for bulky walkaround control [:)]).
Building cars and locomotives took time, even when built from kits, so people didn’t have 50 of the latest generation locomotives and hundreds of cars available. Building that alone could take years.
And when it comes to space, yes, today we criticize the factory smaller than the boxcar, but also consider that given the limited space fitting in any kind of building as an accomplishment. Also since most of those people were in a time where more freight moved by rail than truck, having even small establishments with rail service was more common. When I was growing up, there were good number of “industries” with weekly rail service of small size that today would be weekly trucks. Even in the town where I now live there were two small businesses that fit the “boxcar is bigger than the building” category that were still rail served within the last 8 years.
The reason I bring this up is we are often too quick to jump and ridicule any idea that isn’t “current” or “fashionable” forgetting that 50 years from now, someone will be ridiculing our way of thinking as well.
The history of command control and walkaround control is really interesting.
The 1st command control system was Lionel’s Electronic Train Control in 1949. It used discrete frequencies for different functions, each actuated by a separate button on the “transformer”. Command uncoupling of the engine was one of the functions - in 1949. The expense of the set and the difficulty in keeping it tuned prevented it from being a commercial success.
The 2nd commercial effort was General Electric’s Astrac system in 1963. Discrete components enclosed in a clear cube made up the “decoder”. One of the examples of the capability was the independent control of helpers on grades, just like today’s DCC. One enterprising modeler removed the Astrac electronics from their control box, and put them into a walkaround control.
Walkaround control was an old concept, too. The '62 project layout, PH&C, featured an article on how to build a walkaround controller - using a Marnostat for the throttle rheostat. A little bulky for my taste, but it worked.
In 1966, a group in Seattle with Herb Chaudiere as the lead engineer built and exhibited a layout featuring realistic steam sound in the locomotive. Filters and traps were used in the locomotive to separate sound and DC power signals. From this start eventually grew the reknown PFM sound system.
Until World War II, the cou
Just to stir the pot a bit, I am in favor of a walk around no stoop railroad plan with the train only going through once with very few exceptions, but have to wonder if the old control pit guys did not have something in their favor. They were able to sit in one place and run their entire railroad. They were able to see all of it at one time not have their view blocked and constantly be on the move plugging and unplugging or wondering why the batteries in the remote just died. So I guess to each his own favorite cheese just build what you want and remember it is for you to enjoy.
Very interesting thread. I don’t have DCC but all my better engines are DCC ready. I have a set of radio controls from a club that upgraded to newer radio controls. Not quite the control of DCC but no rewiring of engines. I have a walk-around layout, hey if nothing else it is good exercise!!! My layout is made of domino’s (just in case of a move). I personally like the spaghetti look if well done but to make that module would be near impossible. I feel that modular is the way most will go in the future. No one mentioned foam, foam is becoming more and more popular today, but I don’t remember it being mentioned way back when. In fact when most people mention covering the foam, no one mentions thin cast rock moldings as a cover which is what I do, all the detail of cast rocks and very little weight.
Just to throw another slightly [#offtopic] shrimp on the barbie…
I HAVE a walkaround, no-stoop railroad that only runs through each scene once (two of them on the same layout, in fact) AND the advantage of being able to sit in one place and operate the whole works. Granted I need a swivel stool, but I can see everything from the two CTC, “M,” panels. Or I can stroll along, operating from the, “Z,” panels (which can reach back to the preceding Z panel to bring a train along the intervening track to where I am.) Since my hand-held is a plug-in, I don’t have to worry about batteries.
The MZL system dates from the '60s, but has never been widely used. It doesn’t have some of the bells and whistles (and other noises,) but it can do things that DCC needs computer assistance to accomplish.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - analog DC, MZL system)
One of the vast layout design improvements was in the industrial switching layouts (ISL) which shuns the gloried Time Wasters uh,ahem, Savers and follows a more prototypical track design and IMHO this advancement was long overdue…
In the end it all comes down to one thing; what do you want in a layout to make it enjoyable for YOU!
I’ve talked with a lot of people that have gotten “help” to design their new layouts, and in the process been more or less forced to make it to the “new” standards i.e. more prototypical. And in many cases they have more or less let the build/finish of the layout come to a halt as it wasn’t what they would have wanted if they had decided to make it as really desired!
A major missed point is house size. On the late 40s 1000 sq ft was a huge house.
hi Graffen,
I find this very childish. Nobody can ever force you, it is probably way more about not knowing what you really fancy. Finding out and starting again is part of the journey. Always was and will always be.
IMHO you could be more specific then just stating “more prototypical”. Doing it prototypical a full 100% is no guarantee for a nice model railroad, finding your balance is the art. This might take more then one railroad and many many years.
Operating a layout is often beyond the scope of many starting modelrailroaders. I’ve heard and read many times that only after the build real attention is paid to operating issues. The Franklin & South Manchester by George Sellious is a prime example. He also started to modify his empire. Sometimes you dicide to start all over, such is life.
Never blame the helpers
Paul
A major missed point is house size. On the late 40s 1000 sq ft was a huge house.