I understand that John Armstrong was well known in the hobby of model railroading, and said magazine named after the hobby, was known for his infuance on the hobby with his expeertise on track planning layout design.
He was also known for his freelanced model railray in O scale, being the Canamdaigua Southern Railroad with a Anericans aboriginals spearhead as its logo/symbol. I remember in one of my first issues of MRR I saw an artiucle dediatee to his memory and his layout, athough I was disapointed there was no trackplan included. This was when I started reading MRR as a young kid in the early 2000s, dropped reading it for a while and became later interested in 2018.
However, was he really the dean of layout design and track planning? I am not trying to be rude, being being that i didnt grew up seeing his work before his death I am skeptical.
In the October 2018 issue, I saw a facinating layout called the HO scale Clinchfield RR in which the author whos layout is in australia, asked for Johns help in considering improving it. The one on the top is the original plan and the one on the bottom is Johns revised plan as the layout appears today built. This is a link to the trackplan by clicking on the picture.
I like the one on the left better as it feels bigger and that the trains run longer distances on it, but after thinking about it I understand why the Author went with the improvised version. I now see John also helped design and improve others trackplans before building, but was he really such a dean?
Armstrong’s articles starting in the mid-Fifties changed the way the hobby conceived of layout design. He introduced or popularized walk-around design, multi-deck layouts, and much more. He was active in design for 40+ years. While some of his track plans haven’t stood the test of time, the principles are still foundational today.
I don´t want to be rude, but what a silly question! John Armstrong´s book Track Planning For Realistic Operation is certainly the “bible” for every model railroader thriving to build a realistic layout. It was published 41 years ago and is now in its third edition. Buy the book and read it!
I see, as I beginner was was just wondering at first, I was not trolling or saying his work of the past would be irrelivent to my own future in the hobby. I will most definatly buy his book on this subject and others to look into them.
By the way, you have it backwards – and it’s the November 2018 issue. Armstrong designed the layout first, added some modifications at the client’s request, and then the client made additional modifications in construction.
Definition: An “Internet troll” or “Forum Troll” is a person who posts messages to bait people to answer. Trolls often delight in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion.
Well let’s give the OP a little credit for intellectual curiosity, and not just trolling. Armstrong is an icon (and those who differ with icons are iconoclasts) and deservedly so for many reasons. He spent a lot of time THINKING about so many elements of layout design and was flexible enough to do so while still meeting the “givens and 'druthers” of paying customers for his plans. His only rival in the 1950s and 60s was Bill Schopp the “Layout Doctor” in Railroad Model Craftsman, and Schopp’s track plans are rarely as thoughtful or interesting as Armstrong’s. Of course there are other names. Ed Vondrak comes to mind. Linn Westcott of course. But Armstrong had qualities as a writer and analyst of his own track plans that indeed did make him the Dean.
I mean what more can you say about a guy who was creating track plans for walk-around operation before walk around operation was even practical! He created the need and then expected the technical types to start inventing how to do it and they did.
But that is not the same as saying that he is the last word. I think there has been some rethinking about how much to follow Armstrong’s preference for cramming in a lot of track and a lot of operation in many of his plans often at the expense of scenic realism. And even many of his paying customers who write about how wonderful it was to work with him admit that they did not build the layout exactly as his plan dictated. I would also say that the entire notion of staging yards which is so important to modern track planning was something Armstrong himself only partly seemed to have sympathy for.
One could even say that DCC has made available some track planning ideas and opportunities that Armstrong could not take advantage of - he was still basically designing assuming DC block control.
I cannot recall if it is in Track Planning for Realistic Operation (which should NEVER
Having visited and operated a couple of John Armstrong designs, and followed construction of others in the magazines, there are common issues that show up when they’e actually translated into layouts. Staging and visible yards tend to be inadequate for the desired operation. Aisles are frequently too narrow for operators to pass comfortably.
The problems seem related to the same root cause - wanting to get the most railroad into the room. Enlarging staging or classification/division point/other yards might reduce what can be done with the rest of the layout space. Bigger aisles would do the same. John’s writing seemed to indicate he appreciated that such compromises could become a dowside of the finished product.
Yes he was and still remains so. I had built several variations of my UK British Railway OO scale model, but when I switched to USA Railroads, I could not quite grasp the Theory and Thinking of USA Railroad Modellers. Then Henry (Big Daddy) directed me towards ‘Track Planning for Realistic Operation’, by John Armstrong. Everything I needed to know and learn about converting prototype USA Railroad practices into a model, is contained therein. Lazers.
There is no such thing as a stupid question, just a silly one. As far as questioning the “bible” of anything, well there is always someone who will share their wrath.
You certainly walked into the lions den Random, tough crowd.
I like critical thinkers as they tend to do well in life, however you would do well to read the book and pick it apart piece by piece and let these good people defend their pundit(s)
To know where we are going in this hobby, it helps to know where we have been. John Armstrong is considered a pioneer and a leader and there are those that never question their leader.
Oh and by the way, the Earth is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth, so our leaders once told us.
His book Track Planning For Realistic Operation was the first book I read on Model Railroad design some 50 years ago. It was then and continues to be the best design manual for me.
You were not trolling but asked an honest question. IMHO John was incredible. Just remember, he didn’t have the assortment of tools to work with that we do today.
In fairness, if the Original Poster had said, “I don’t know anything about John Armstrong, but people call him the Dean of layout design. Why is that?”, this would have been a different thread.
Instead, he said:
Since the Original Poster appears to be totally unfamiliar with the bulk of Armstrong’s work, if he had approached the subject with a little humility it might have led others to offer to educate rather than respond to his “skepticism.”
Agreed, Rob. Armstrong’s designs aren’t perfect, and that’s why I said:
… in my original reply.
Personally, I have always wondered if some of these issues with his published plans stem from the fact that he was, himself, an O-scaler. Especially at the time, O scalers tended not to have the quantity of equipment that HO and smaller scale modelers might easily accumulate or run. And he was a very thin man, so 2-foot aisles were not an issue in his experience. Finally, before email and CAD track planning tools, the process of reviews and revisions was vastly different – John took his multi-layer hand-drawn plans to a blueprint shop for reproductions which he then mailed to clients.
Going a little deeper based on my own experience with designing custom track plans for a couple of hundred folks: Giving folks a plan based on what they say they want is different from designing a plan that is fully based on current best practices. I often try to encourage folks to include adequate staging and broad-enough aisles, for example, but they may want something else.
Most of Armstrong’s published plans were originally custom plans, so they are based on what clients thought that they wanted rather than, perhaps, what Armstrong thought would be best. Having said that, I have
This is an important point to remember. When judging people from the past you must consider the times they lived in and the tools available to them.
Personally I love John Armstrong’s books about how railroads operate. Not so sure about his actual designs as I have never had the privilege of seeing any in operation.
I’m hearing a lot of “he tried to cram in too much track.” Considering part of his layout design process was asking his client for “givens and druthers,” including “operation vs scenic realism,” whose fault is it?
Also, compared to other layout designs at the time, his often had LESS track than most. Go back into the MR archive of the mid to late 50s.
