It is wonderful to have a new, and presumably “final” John Armstrong track plan in the new issue of MR, and an intriguing story of how it came into their hands. The only thing missing is the classic Armstrong prose to describe the layout.
But the name on the plan brought me up short: Potter Palmer. That is a famous 19th century name – the Palmer House in downtown Chicago, a founder of what became Marshall Field’s, and one of the first great real estate developers of Chicago. Even the address of Lake Forest is spot on. If you go to Graceland Cemetary in Lake Forest the Palmer mausoleum is magnificent. I assume this is a direct descendant and it would be interesting to hear his personal recollections of dealing with John Armstrong.
I wondered about that myself. Potter Palmer’s obit says he had 2 sons and a grandson named Potter Palmer III, so it is conceivable it is a descendant. He died in 1902, so somebody do the math if we are probably talking about a Potter IV, V or VI. Don’t know when the plan was drawn. Does the numbering “266-9IJ” mean anything? I hope MR published follow-up information.
Bad? Maybe just not optimal. John Armstrong carefully gathered the givens and 'druthers of his customers and if the guy was going to run the layout by himself, the aisles are fine. Also Armstrong had a history of designing cramped aisles. His own layout was evidently famous in that regard
Anything less than 30" width for isles is bad, you soon lose the pleasure of a walkaround design. That being said, at that time. a walk arround layout was not the norm!!!
John Armstrong was notorious for designing 24 inch (and less) aisleways - but then, his photos show a person with a build like a pencil[8D]. My own aisleways have some 24 and even 21 inch choke points (and I’m no pencil[:-^]) which I can handle when operating alone. When guests are present I drop anchor at the CTC panel, where the aisle clearance is more generous.[angel]
John was one of the originators of the walk around, once-through a scene concept.[bow]
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a lot of John Armstrong’s ideas)
Having been a professional space planner, even pencils need 30" to be comfortable if they don’t want to go though life sideways, which is in itself, uncomfortable, just try it for a few feet.
My current Santa Fe was started in 1983, main bench work in place and track being laid in 1984. It has one 26" (don’t ask) which gets activity but not a rush at the same time. The length is about 10 ft. The other aisles are 36" or more. This one aisle is necessary, but, only one person needs to be in it at a time in most cases. So it is not so much of an inconvience as it would be otherwise.
The interesting part is I weighed about 170 lbs when I started the layout, but now am a “comfortable” 200 lbs now. I can still move up and down that 26inch aisle but no one moves with me.
Not to anyone who has ever served at sea - especially in a submarine! The passenger spaces in a cruise liner may be spacious. The engineering spaces, well…
I am rather rotund, and I can travel my 24 inch wide access aisle face forward at full speed without any discomfort, mental or otherwise. The 21 incher does require a momentary `one hip forward,’ but it’s only a curve clearance choke point between two more generous spaces.
I enjoy reviewing track plans of all types in MR. Narrow isles for viewing are one thing. I can’t imagine trying to build some of these layouts without backing into the bench work for years to come… My layout has aisles of 36" to 48" to keep from butting into the layout, even if I sacrificed scenes on the layout.
I enjoy open houses of club layouts and privately owned layouts and with permission video tape the layouts for future viewing. I like to follow a train around the layout to get a sense of the overall run. With narrow isles it is near impossible to tape without a danger of bumping into the layout or fellow modelers.
There’s also designed aisle width versus actual aisle width. In my case, I probably should’ve started with wider aisles, but it was fine 20 years ago. [:D]
But then I started operating, hanging car card boxes all over, including on both sides of the main aisle.
Suddenly, last week I had an epiphany. Hang those #^%$ car card boxes UNDERNEATH the fascia. Wow, the aisle is 5" wider! Nice! And I’m sure my operators will appreciate that 2 hours of work, too.
Back to the track plan, what I noticed most was the relative lack of switching industries out on the main, the concentration of it in the yard areas, and the impact of this on run length. On one level, it would be hard to squeeze in more main, although more industry is feasible, if perhaps not really prototypical for the intent of this layout. Double-decked, this could have lots of main, more scenery, and plenty of wayfreight action – maybe even more aisle space! But this plan is from before that trend set in and provides an interesting contrast.
It seems to me that when walking along with a train there will be considerable sideways movement as one is focused on the train and would be facing it as opposed to walking a dog. I for one would also use wider isles than Armstrong designed into his layouts but find that something he stated in one of his books (I will paraphrase) was not to forgo a reduction in radius or isle space if it will allow one to achieve putting substantially more railroad into the space if that is your goal.
Some other comments about the lack of switching areas may be an indication of the lack of reliable couplers at the time the plan was drawn.
I consider the recently discovered plan a highlight of the issue and enjoyed it for its own merits, even though it was not ideally suited to my own interests.
Things I found note worthy were the loads in empties out operations. Staging tracks incorporated into the design. Continuous run connection as well as point to point design.
Should any more of his designs come to light it would be great to see them as well. It would be nice if anyone who has purchased plans from him would forward copies to model railroader so they can be published for the rest of us to enjoy as well.
The thing you have to remember is that it was designed for a client, who probably had a lot more Givens and Druthers than we saw in the article – we’ll probably never know all the additional correspondence or conversations that went back and forth. I’m sure the client had the final say on a lot of items that many of us would consider less than ideal.
For myself, it was a lot more layout than I would want, but it was a treat to see the great mind at work.
I am sure the couplers available were fine Devore couplers came about in the late 1940’s with Kadees first entry appearing in 1952. I like the early MDC design too, circa late 40’s. Basically bad design is bad design, no mater who did it. Sure there are those that sacrafice one item for another but I have found that bad space planning leads the pack as far as complaints about compleated layouts.
Interesting opinions that the design is bad because it doesn’t fit current design trends. Actually I found the design refreshing from the current long lengths of linear track parallel to benchwork wrapped N times around a huge room in layer after layer of sameness. Refreshing.
I have to agree. Both Armstrong and the client designed according to their needs at the time. It’s not quite right for me but it’s still a worthy design.
BTW, I also have no problems negotiating a 25" wide isle six feet long. The others are 36 inches though. It’s far hard to pass safely in a two footer.
It would be nice to know the history behind the choice of a design. for now I am just glad that it was found.