Hi Cuyama,
Now that you say this, I learned a very wise lesson. Always think twice, and more then that about wording your posts and especally the title as best you can, and to keep it as simple worded as can be. But I learned my lesson. Thanks.
In addition to the book, going to the archive and reading the original articles can be a helpful education. In many of those early articles, there is more than one plan, often variations on a theme, and John goes in to great detail in the article text explaining why one track arrangment and not another, or how the design worked. Many of the concepts later compiled into Track Planning for Realistic Operation had their birth in these articles, and the explanation is often more detail in the article. And with a plan or plans illustrating the concept he is describing, you have a visual reference for the concepts.
There are some newer “how to design” books, but with the exception of Andy Sperandeo’s yard design book, I don’t think any of them come close to Armstrong in depth.
I do wish Creative Layout Deisgn was still in print. I picked up a copy a few years back, but it turns out it is missing a few pages.
–Randy
I suppose it may depend on who you ask if John was a Godfather of layout designs. For his era I would agree he was among the best of the best but,as time shows the layout designs has improved since his time.
Innovators like Tony Koester, Allen McCelland, Bill Darnaby, David Barrow and other like modelers revolutionized layout designs toward more prototypical operation based on prototype operation reserch.
I’ve seen switching layouts go from mindless switching puzzles to state of the art layouts like Lance Mindheim "Downtown Spur. There are many examples of well design switching layouts on you tube.
David Barrow minimalist approach showed less can produce a enjoyable layout.
I like skepticism. Keeps the rest of us honest…or at least involved. [tup]
Okay, so our earnest OP has been duly spanked. Now, let’s address the nut of his question.
A ‘dean’ is the head of a department. I think many with any time in the hobby, regardless of taste, scale, or preference in era of modeling, and who have bothered to flip through John’s book, will come to appreciate that he took a methodical approach, and generated a taxonomy that could be applied by all people with an interest in building a working and satisfying layout.
Sorry, that was a long sentence. What I mean is that he conceptualized and attempted to build a standard formula for building a layout that would last and be interesting to both builders and operators alike. He used his knowledge, experience, and a disciplinary approach, to help the generalist to craft a fun and operationally busy-enough track plan. He used the concept of squares and curves, and formally introduced easements. He explained what railroads did/do, why, and how they solved the engineering and logistics of operations by designing and building effective trackwork.
Was he the best? Nope. Was he the oldest? Nope. Was he the first? Nope. Did he build the most fun layouts? Nope. Nope, nope, nope… What he did was to tell us how to make fewer mistakes, how to take stock of what we wanted and needed our railroads to do, and then how to go about crafting those track systems. Engineering. The Dean of Track Planning.
QED.
Randon_Idea_Poster_6263,
I’m sorry but I’m having trouble warming up to your rather ethereal questions. Perhaps if you were to tell us (or ask us) about your actual modelling activities and plans I might be more willing to respond.
Dave
If you have alot of space John could show you how to use it prototypicaly but if you have a smaller space alot of his work loses its impact. I personaly did not find his works of much use.
I think the answer is in the poster´s name, Dave. He posts random, strange ideas and probably gets a kick out of how the more serious members mess about trying to answer. I, for myself, have decided to ignore this chap from now on!
Was he the dean? - Yes he was.
IMHO: His book should be required reading before anyone posts a “please review my trackplan” thread to the forum…[:)][:D][:-^]
Some of his design tools in his book are very handy in terms of the idea of using precise estimations to improve your track plan… ]
The squares concept is a game changer. It forces a careful and realistic appraisal of your layout space and is pretty easy do in your design process early on to weed out the garbage.
Of course, opinions vary,
Guy
Hi rrebell,
I did learn a lot from his track planning book with regard to how to make a layout operational and how to design a functional yard.
When I first got into the hobby I used 3rd PlanIt to design my future layout. I thought it was the greatest layout ever, that was until I read Armstrong’s book! It showed me that my wonderful design was a largely disfunctional piece of junk! That layout never got built, but I did make very good use of Armstrong’s principles when I designed my old club’s new layout in 2017. That layout works quite well (IMHO), so I think that there is still a lot of value in what he wrote.
Dave
while Armstrong’s book on track planning is well known, i also like re-reading The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does
Did Armstrong actually work for a Railroad? was he one of the first persons to write books about model railroads that actually worked for a Railroad?
More often than not, a statement that comes off sounding rude is often followed by “I’m not trying to be rude”. What that tells me is the person realizes they are sounding rude or disrespectful, but is going to say it anyway and throw out a “disclaimer”. Maybe it’s easier on the internet but if in person, getting clobbered enough may cure someone of such a habit.
This may be an extreme analogy but it’s a bit like a high school kid asking of Einstein is the dean of theoretical physics and is skeptical because he is from long before they were born. I suppose that is part of being naive. Time to be schooled. [tup]
To be fair, it’s how the OP framed the question amongst a group of mostly older and long time model railroaders that “poked the bear”. I can imagine, to used a modern abreviation, the reaction among most was, wtf!
Moving along …
As Rob has implied, John Armstrong was a product of his times. Overall layout designed reflected some things like lack of space and a different philosophy on how to use that space.
To be fair, since John’s hayday, more hobbyists have more space than back then and some standards have become a bit more generous. Here is an example of one thing that has changed a bit: curve radius conventions. In his book there is a table that labels Broad Curves in HO as 30"R, Conventional Curves as 24"R and Sharp Curves as 18"R. People may argue semantics but anymore, Conventional Curves are more like 30"R and B
He worked for Simmons-Boardman, industry publisher, not directly for a railroad. He was a contributing editor for Railway Age for a while as well. His engineering background was used with the US Navy as a career.
What John Armstrong had in addition to a great wealth of knowledge was an ability to communicate that knowledge to the rest of us. And even with the engineering degree, he still had a great sense of art - the article on how he incorporated Edward Hopper’s Nighthawks painting as a structure on his layout is still one of my favorites.
–Randy
Well said!!!
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Hi Dave,
As someone whos interest in model trains was rejuvinated, as a beginner I am working on narrowing down my interests and plans, so I should post be posting them in due time for you and others to see, along with updating my forum biography. Prehaps if we PM’d you could help critique my biography?
I am not ready to start building yet, so collecting what interests me, and what I know I will use & run, along with making plans is what I can do for now. Hope to hear you reply on my future posts.
Age has dulled the memory, but I was able to see Mr. Armstrong give a clinic on Layout Design in Dallas; I cannot remember the event. It was very informative and Mr. Armstrong clearly enjoyed himself as he made his presentation.
Hi Greg,
Now that you mention that book “The Railroad, What It Is, What It Does,” I will have to find myself a copy.
The first time I heard of that book, was on the N scale model railroading youtube channel Ron’s Trains N Things, in which Ron Marsh the host talked abnout his favoruite related books that those should read, and said book you mentioned. Great N scale layout and youtube channel he has.
Actually a lot of strange questions is good if the discussion is open minded.
Here’s why.
I been saying for 60 years that less track is a good thing and recently been saying spaghetti bowl layout designs is a relic of the past in light of how layout planing has evolved over the years. Model Railroader’s Planning Your Model Railroad by Tony Koester is another good book on modern layout designing…
Today there is much more information available on prototype operation including on line copies of GCOR and Time Tables. Freight car guides ensure modelers what industry uses what type of freight car.
Bing or Google maps can aid a modeler in designing a layout.
Hi Randy, now that you say that, I understand better his infuance on the hobby, and how his experiance and the books he wrote will help me in my endeavours. Thanks.
I was not saying he didn’t have a lot of info and very valuable to a person with space but lets face it, the smaller the space (for a full railroad) the less protoypical it can be. Now my favorite small space layout builder is Malcolm Furlow being he can make a small space seem large but he is totaly lost on functionallity.
I have a very hard time communicating my tone in things I type on this forum. I once responded to a question about figure painting, and got about a half dozen “why are you so angry” responses.
Very true. When I tell some people I am using 24 inch as the minimum radius for hidden and branchline track, I get the “that is pretty darned sharp curve” response.
Our perception of tight curves has certainly changed.
-Kevin