Ok, so I listened to all of you and bought “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” - just finished my first read-through…I think I may take up figure skating.
honestly, I diddn’t find it as informative as I thought it would be. I have an earlier edition, maybe it’s been updated?
Try “The Railroad: What it Is, What it Does.” About real-world railroads, but an excellent resource of everything you’d want to know about how the prototype operates.
I have an early edition (like 1969 or so) of “Track Planning for Realistic Operation.” I found it pretty informative, although it assumes one has a basic idea of how a railroad operates. Keep in mind that the book is about track planning, not operation.
What, specifically, were you seeking? There are a couple of other books on operations (Koester’s is good.)
Gee, and I just received my copy from Amazon today.[:D] I hope I can get more out of than you seem to have because figure skating is tough in GA![8D] Maybe it takes more than one reading.[?] that wouldn’t be unusual for me![:)]
I’m not looking for anything specifically – right now just trying to find out what I don’t know and how that will affect my layout plan. I think after a few times through the book, there will be less I don’t know. I don’t know…….
“Track Planning for Realistic Operation” is indeed one of those books that definitely benefits from repeated reading. As you learn more about track planning, new truths will appear…it’s kind of a Zen thing.
To get the most from the book make a list of what YOUR rarilroad is all about, freigth, pasenger etc. THEN find the operation in the book and see how it is done for real and compare to what you have. Something as simple as a saw-by needs to be planned in advance.
That book will change your outlook on your layout plan if you want a prototype operaton.
30 years ago I did not get it now I do.
To me, this book is the bible of track planning. If I could give just one book to a newbie, it would be that one. It gives invaluable insights not just into model railroading but real railroading as well. I’ve had mine over 25 years and I still go back to it now and then. The cover is falling off and the binding is coming undone but I wouldn’t be without it.
Second that on “The Railroad: What It Is, What It Does”
Excellent information.
I’m another one that thinks the Armstrong book, while good and useful, is generally overrated. It’s not the ultimate authority or uniformly 100% correct on everything.
One key point people miss is the title. The book is what the title says: track planning for realistic operation. It’s not "track planning for prettiest scenic effect,"or “track planning for most trackage in a given space,” or even “track planning for non-hardcore folks who want continuous running.” So there is a philosophical issue there. What is the point of model railroading. I do not subscribe to the idea that realistic (e.g. as near prototypical as possible) operation is the one-and-only philosophy of track planning/design and think that should be considered in one’s view of the book.
Personally, I have never much liked Armstrong’s track plans, I feel they sacrifice too much visually, which for me is a key element. What do I mean by emphasizing the visual? I don’t like plans that have trains passing through a scene more than once (and I define ‘scene’ pretty broadly – a 3" vertical separation doesn’t “count” as a different ‘scene’ in my book). I don’t like multi-deck track plans that, for me, destroy much of the ‘illusion’ I’m trying to create. I generally don’t like plans with too much density of track per square foot (and my threshhold on that is perhaps lower than many).
They also skew very much to freight operations whereas I am very much more focused on passenger operations.
For all these reasons “realistic operation” - particularly Armstrong’s vision of it - is not my primary interest in what makes a track plan right for me.
Having said all that, many people hate my track plans. They think I ‘waste space’, or ‘could fit a lot more.’ They’ll lament all the things I could do if I’d add another deck or two. They’ll often object to how much of my plan is given over to long unbroken stretches of continuous mainline running, question the ‘odd’ hidden reverse loops that enabl
While I agree with many of your points, I still think there is plenty of useful information in the book regardless of your approach to modeling. I too believe in trains passing through scenery just once in a linear fashion ala Allen McClelland’s magnificent V&O layout. And other than my yard, I don’t try to cram a lot of track in my space. I don’t need to because I am fortunate to have a large area to work with. I also am not a fan of multi-decked layouts. Having said that, I think the book is filled with wonderful advice. Just one example. He advocates the use of easements into curves like the prototypes do. Newbies who start off with sectional track where the straight pieces connect directly to the 18" radius curves likely would never give this a thought. I have put easements into all my corner curves and it has paid off with extremely reliable operation.
Good food for thought from everyone. I know there’s good advice in this book and others – I just need to determine what is useful to me.
I’m going to think over a pint or 12 of Guinness this weekend about what I really want to depict on my layout. May even take on the Ft. Washington train show on Sunday.
Besides, if I ever tried a triple Salkow I’d probably screw myself into the ice.
I think that both of John Armstrong’s books mentioned above are excellent as is his book “Creative Layout Design”. But all of these books are a beginning not an end. You still have to decide what’s important to you - John himself talked about that with his “Givens and Druthers”. The books help you have a layout that works well for you.
Enjoy
Paul
If your brain overloads and starts to hurt, take it out and let it rest.
I’ve read pretty much the entire Kalmbach library of how-to books and thought Armstrong’s was the best of the lot. It may be a little overwhelming for a true newbie since it does not really walk you through step by step how to plan a layout. Rather, it gives you the tools you need to put your vision of your layout down on paper. True beginners may want to start with something more basic and after they have gotten a feel for what they want on their railroad, then turn to Armstrong’s book. This, at least, was how I did it though not intentionally.
I enjoyed the work (a friend leant me his 1963 original) as much for its nostalgia and dated photography as I did for its direct and focused perspective. Nothing about wiring, engine repair, or making realistic trees in this modest, but seminal, pre-DCC work. As Casey stated, it is a limited, if highly useful, treatment for getting the most out of limited spaces while maintaining a robust and realistic operational focus so that the layout can be enjoyed, variously, for much longer. For example, I had never heard of an interchange, and would have looked askance at you if you had asked me where mine is. Now, I can see, since I have forced PRR and NYC onto the same trackage, that I might be able to use one.
Rememebr that in the first edition of TPFRO (I’m NOT typing all that out! [:D]), the idea of double-deckign was just a theory - a paragraph or too. The latest edition now even includes mushroom designs like Joe Fugate’s. Me, I don’t much like multi-deck either. I’m not big on an eastbound train passing the operator left to right on one deck, and then when it climbs to the next deck, it move right to left. Something’s wrong there. If you can fgo all the way around the room with a no-lix type design, it works, but otherwise it seems odd to me.
Is it the end all, be all? No, but there’s very little to disagree with in there. Even the ida of a train passing through a scene exactly once - John wasn;t against that at all, even in his early plans in the 50’s. Great care was taken to have view blocks and other devices so you wouldn’t have trains passing through more than once. And compared to the typical 50’s track plans (look at 100 Track Plans), John’s were incredibly revolutionary.
A lot of the good points were already hit, and there are TONS more - like the concept of easment, and how an 18" eased curve actually causes less ‘lurching’ than a 22" non-eased curve. And turnout equivalent and substitution radius - do you REALLY need #8’s everywhere? Let’s not forget the by the squares method which allows you to doodle layout plans anywhere without using a CAD program, and still produce something that you know will fit in the space allotted.
Everything is a trade off, none of us has unlimited space to build in. I think what John does best is help you get the most out of what space you do have by helping explain the trade offs that actually effect how well your railroad will run.
–Randy
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister
I’m another one that thinks the Armstrong book, while good and useful, is generally overrated. It’s not the ultimate authority or uniformly 100% correct on everything.
One key point people miss is the title. The book is what the title says: track planning for realistic operation. It’s not "track planning for prettiest scenic effect,"or “track planning for most trackage in a given space,” or even “track planning for non-hardcore folks who want continuous running.” So there is a philosophical issue there. What is the point of model railroading. I do not subscribe to the idea that realistic (e.g. as near prototypical as possible) operation is the one-and-only philosophy of track planning/design and think that should be considered in one’s view of the book.
Personally, I have never much liked Armstrong’s track plans, I feel they sacrifice too much visually, which for me is a key element. What do I mean by emphasizing the visual? I don’t like plans that have trains passing through a scene more than once (and I define ‘scene’ pretty broadly – a 3" vertical separation doesn’t “count” as a different ‘scene’ in my book). I don’t like multi-deck track plans that, for me, destroy much of the ‘illusion’ I’m trying to create. I generally don’t like plans with too much density of track per square foot (and my threshhold on that is perhaps lower than many).
They also skew very much to freight operations whereas I am very much more focused on passenger operations.
For all these reasons “realistic operation” - particularly Armstrong’s vision of it - is not my primary interest in what makes a track plan right for me.
Having said all that, many people hate my track plans. They think I ‘waste space’, or ‘could fit a lot more.’ They’ll lament all the things I could do if I’d add another deck or two. They’ll often object to how much of my plan is given over to long unbroken stretches of continuous ma
Any amount of information is useful, whether you are new or professional at this hobby, and John has given us so much for this hobby. I have seen so many layouts and plans, that just jamb trackage onto a board, with bookcase shelves sometimes added above, and to “me”, this looks rediculous and very unrealistic. Yes, some would say that it is a waste of space to not have maximum trackage per sq. foot, but it all depends on what you are trying to do. For me, I am not willing to sacrifice a realistic scene. I don’t want my layout to look like a huge rail yard.
i have yet to talk to or read about anyone who understood that book the first time through . there’s just too much to take in , several readings , perhaps spaced months apart are required .
and , as mentioned above , although we often call it the bible of trackplanning , you do not have to follow everything it says .