I have to agree there, thre’s simply too much to digest on a single read. I have the second edition and third edition - I bought the new one because I wore out the first one reading it so many times. I haven’t done any planning work on my layout design since I last posted an update on my web site, but if I was going to start again, the first thing I’d pull out is TPFOR and read again at least the relevent sections - ie if I was going to work on my yard design I’d read the section on yards.
While ‘Track Planning For Realistic Operation’ is very useful for many reasons, I personally think that two other books, ‘John Armstrong on Creative Layout Design’ and ‘The Classic Layout Designs of John Armstrong,’ are better sources of specific ideas.
The difference is that TPRO is about the thought processes and mechanics of generic planning. The other two are filled with complete track plans of model railroads, including John’s Canandaigua Southern. That last is proof that John practiced what he preached.
Regardless of the philosophy on design, there are certain facts of physics and limitations in any design that affect the operation of trains. The information is there in the book for you to interpret and understand. Perhaps some parts are like trying to understand Alan Greenspan on economics. But with experience you catch on. You can know what the N.M.R.A. Recommend Practices are for track spacing, easement, curvature and grade, but do you know why or how they came up with that number. Armstrong explains why they are recommended and how to do the calculations in order for you to know what will work or not work in your design.
It’s been pointed out already in other words, no one book is everything to everybody. Beginners should start out reading a book for beginners so they can learn the terminology and basics techniques to develop good model building habits. Then they can move on to better, if not also bigger, layouts.
One of the biggest expenses in my model railroad collection is books and other reference materials. I’d be lost without them.
I pulled out my copy of TPRO and looked it over. The book was first published in 1963! I read the first edition as a teenager, from cover to cover, and it is still my favorite book about model railroading. Armstrong said a lot in that book about the way real railroads work. Granted, some of his track planning concepts are starting to show their age (the linear, once through design movement comes to mind as a development that Armstrong does not really cover) but the framework of copying what a railroad does is quite evident in this book and still essential to good design. Others have recommended Armstrong’s “The RR, what it is…” and I agree that it is a good book about railroads. However if you want to read a couple other fine books about Model RR design, I suggest McClelland’s The V&O Story published by Carstens, and The Model Railway Design Manual by CJ Freezer. The latter is a British publication, and Freezer’s commentary about balance and focus are most interesting. The V&O book has contributions from various authors, and is a description of McClelland’s ground breaking model railroad. Iain Rice’s book about small smart and practical layouts is also more British in its approach, and well thought out.
The Armstrong book is just about Kalmbach’s best selling model RR title (check the Amazon rankings), and its stellar reputation is well deserved. However, a lot more thought has gone into the theory of model railroad design since he wrote the book. Two other sources that you might enjoy are the David Barrow series on “the domino theory” which was in MR back in about 1996, and the Layout Design Special Interest Group Primer, which can be found off of www.ldsig.org.
Design is a hobby in itself, but you still have to get your feet wet by building a model railroad and running it. I advocate design as a means to create a layout that can be operated sucessfully, and that is fun to look at and build. That takes a lot of research, but then research is fun. Build it and you will learn.
The hobby usually breaks down into two camps - modelers and operators. It’s possible to cross the fuzzy line and have some of both, but it is rare. First question you need to ask yourself - am I interested in operating my model railroad like the real guys do or am I just interested in having moving models. The Armstrong philosophy is aimed more at operations in pretty much everything he does. The biggest failing of many model railroads is after they are built they get boring. You see this with people tearing down and redoing layouts all the time. Main reason - once built then what? If you approach layout design from the start with a vision of what it will be once built and where you want it to go, then you tend to build a more satisfying layout. Many people think there is too much to operations and don’t want to feel overwhelmed, but it really is not a difficult thing. And it is a real blast to have a friend or two over to run the trains with a real purpose. Armstrong has some great insight and advice on how to go about designing for operations and if that is your goal, I highly recommend TPRO as a must have book. Also an excellent book is McClelland’s V&O Story.
I’m not enamoured with the multi-deck approach either, says he who operates on a club layout that has no (intended) grades whatsoever , but wishes there were some. However there numerous prototypical examples of trains passing left to right and back again in front of the observer that can be used to rationalize a multideck, if a rational must be had .
A classic example is at the CPR’s Spiral Tunnels just east of Field BC. An observer down by the Kicking Horse River looking eastwards will see an eastbound train pass from right to left (actually northbound) as it works its way up to the lower spiral tunnel. A few minutes later he will see it pass from left to right (southbound) after leaving that tunnel and heading for the upper tunnel. Another few minutes later the train will cross from right to left as it emerges from the upper tunnel and now heads eastwards -but really more northwards at this point. This all occurs within an amazingly small area - but still requiring a lot of space, even in HO or N.
As someone has already stated, this thread has produced a lot of informative advice. When I posted the original comment I certainly wasn’t criticizing John’s book – quite the contrary I was belittling my ability to understand several facets of what John is saying.
I’m comforted by the fact that my quandary is not unique and that there is a process by which I will better understand the hows and whys of this hobby.
My interest in this hobby took me by surprise, so I had no real vision other than what era and region I wanted to model. That said, I find in the short time I’ve been involved, I am developing a vision, and that vision is influenced by the experts, both here and in other publications. I’ve tried to absorb so much in a short time that I sometimes can’t envision making it all work. That’s when I go down to the basement and do something – funny how that brings you back and makes things alright.
The one thing I see is that there are some passionate hobbyists here with some very good albeit varying opinions and expertise - and that can only help a novice like me get better. I appreciate everyone’s contribution to my education!
Took me many reads, too, til I ‘got it’. Keep at it, the more you read and look around at things, you’ll start having those ‘eureka’ moments when things suddenly start to make sense.
Off-topic, but the company I work for has done work for yours - I work for Worldnet.
I just ordered an received mine a few weeks ago (some light reading while deployed!). I agree that it is not just a “pick it up, read, and you will know all” book. I’ve went thru it twice now and I am still learning some stuff. I believe that when I sit down and actually plan my next layout, it will be even more useful.
As all of you know, I’m still green around the gills. I’ve read Track Planning three times and I’m sure I can get more from it.
But I think what I got the most from it is what no one seems to be mentioning. It is that model railroads take PLANNING.
It’s more than seeing how much you can cram into a 4x8. Every section of track has to have a reason. It must fit your vision. Not just “I’ve got a grist mill and I need a place to put it.”
The vision comes from your “givens and druthers” followed by research, more research, and even more research.
Then you build a schematic.
Then a you finally draw it out, you mke compromises based upon what is important to you from you givens and druthers and research.
IF you don’t, it’s likely you will be disatisfied with your layout before you get around to the buildings and trees.
Took me many reads plus actually meeting the man to completly understand what the BOOK was all about.
John woke up many modelers to the possability of what a layout could be. When the book (I’m not typing it either) was written, if you wanted wide radius curves, you basically had to handlay (flextrack was fiber tie then) and most layouts followed the Lionel style, that being a bowl of Spagetti!
Realistic operatioin may not be for everyone. I personally prefer continous running, but, I also have some semblance of operation in mind for future expansion. I, like John, model in O scale (2 rail for me, as opposed to outside third rail for the CS) and can appreciate the genius of someone who practices what they preach.
BTW, SpaceMouse, looks like we amy be close enuf to be neighbors. I’m from Somerset county. Any good train shops up there in Indiana County?
Yeah, it is a lot to assimilate. It doesn’t provide all the answers, but it does give some food for thought.
It does a good job of talking about the kinds of trackwork you’ll see and why you need some things (like a runaround track) when you have certain kinds of spurs to switch.
It can get a bit confusing when you get into the squares and stuff, and the forumlae for easements, and all that. But absorb the intent and find other ways to do such things.
For example, defining standards for minimum radius and frogs is a good idea. FIguring out how long your trains will be is a good idea, as it helps you define the lengths of your passing sidings and such.
But as for layout design, look to some other books.
What makes Armstrong’s works so valuable to me is that ever time I read one of his books I learn something knew and understand a little bit more about what he was writing. Thus, as I gain experience the book keeps up with me. Or should I say as I gain experience I’m catching up to it? In any event, I think that a newbie gets something out of the book, the intermediate guy something else and the experience pro something else entirely. To me, that’s a successful writer!!
Not really here. There’s Adam and Eve’s in Latrobe. But if you ever make it up here, and have an engine in your hand, you can air it out at the Central Indiana Model Railraod Club.
Whats wrong with a train passing through a scene more than once? When I helpe with grain harvest near the GN min line I swear I saw the same stack rain about twenty times a day. Its a really busy route and only single track too. As for planning . its good stuff but sooner or later you’ll have to start building. I don’t glue roadbed or solder track til its been awhile and all the kinks and operation foibles have been worked out. After all one of the greatest play values of the BRIO sets is the ability to change track plans.
My copy is from the late 60’s and the binding is broken, and there are lots of hand written ‘notes’ on the margins. That and reading the John Armstrong track plan articles in MR are a very interesting ‘history’ of layout planning. The main points I got out of his work are the following:
o - SQUARES - Great way to get a good idea what is possible in your layout space.
o - STAGING - Frank Ellison had the idea, but never really implemented it and thought yards that were hidden did not show off the ‘glamour’ of railroading!
o - ‘GIVENS & DRUTHERS’ - This started appearing in his 70’s track plans - Great idea to see what is customers really wanted(and even for personal use).
Like others have mentioned, there are 2 camps of model railroaders back then:
o- Model Builders - they build models(many times lots of them).
o - Layout Builders - they tend to build great scenery.
In the late 60’s we started seeing the guys who really tried to put it all together. The advent of good plastic cars meant large rosters of correct equipment could be assembled. The ‘V & O’ was one of the first to show what could be done with a ‘total concept’ approach. John Armstrong was the ‘visionary’ whose articles prodded us on. And yes Tim, I have found new information each time I have re-read that old soft-cover book!
I don’t knock John Armstrong’s stuff in any way, he was a great modeler and certainly a great representative of our hobby. I have seen his books, and they are nothing I would personally tackle. I think a layout is something people should do to their own taste and ability to how much they can do.
One thing that disappoints me in the third edition vs my copy of the second edition is that they really trimmed back on the complete case study as well as the section with that reverse Z shaped plan - I guess to make room for the chapter on modern railroading. By cutting out some of the text and a lot of the pictures you loose the feel of workignt hrought he steps talked about previously inthe book - the older editions have more intermediate drawings showing the eveolution of the plan from the room plot to the ‘squares’ sketch to roughing in other elements to final design. It might make more sense if you can find an older copy and look at those sections.