Trefoil knot as trackplan?

Since writing about Bill Schopp's investigation into trefoil layout boards I've been looking online now-and-then for information about trefoils.

One interesting page I found was this one on trefoil knots. It got me thinking that trefoil layout boards are all well and good, but the important thing is having an interesting track plan running on them. I started wondering if any of those knots could be the basis of a trackplan. Clearly they  would need to be adjusted to account for the physical realities of track. They also might have a bit of the 'rabbit warren' about them, but for something like a Mt. Lowe inspired layout, that might be a good feature to have. 

Anyway, I parked those thoughts until last week when Voie Libre #115 dropped in my mailbox. Inside there's a gorgeous HO-9 circular layout - size unspecified, but it might have the same diameter as an extra-large pizza - by Frédéric Blandel whose trackplan seemed to me like a variation on one of those trefoil knots. Here's a side-by-side comparison of the layout's trackplan against one example knot:

Left: One possible trefoil knot | Right: M. Blandel's trackplan

M. Blandel's trackplan is not a pure trefoil knot, but it certainly appears to be in the spirit of one. It's ingenious and allows for both continuous scenic running as well as a little switching fun for when the mood strikes. And there doesn't appear to be a need for overly complex wiring as there are no reversing loops. This layout might be thought of as a trefoil knot trackplan on a circular board. It might be interesting to see what a trefoil knot based trackplan on a trefoil board would look like.

Bill Schopp, Trefoil Micro-Layouts, and Me in 2023*

Trefoil planform (according to Bill Schopp) shown in blue outline

There’s a brief note by Bill Schopp in the Trouble Shooting column of the May ’68 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman about a new idea for a layout table’s planform: the trefoil**. The idea was brought to Mr. Schopp’s attention by an enthusiastic reader identified only as ‘R.W.D.’. It seems Mr. Schopp was both intrigued and dismissive about the practically of the idea even though the reader said he was well into construction of a trefoil shaped layout. On the one hand Mr. Schopp notes his conflicting views:

“This idea held me enthralled for 3 days now trying to draw interesting layouts for it in N, HOn3, and HO traction with little success. I discarded at once the idea of ‘scenery first, track afterwards,’ as suitable for prototype but not model railroads: it’s the kind of idea an armchair expert could convince himself was the ‘only way’. I’ve drawn and redrawn the trefoil design with variations and have come to the conclusion that as a site for a layout, the trefoil table has little or no merit. But, I am constantly gnawed by the suspicion that I may be putting down one of the greatest ideas to hit model railroading since…well, since 2-rail.”

But then he firmly concludes that the trefoil planform probably is “not a good model railroad table” and goes on to list 3 issues he has with it:

1. “…it would restrict the design of a pike either to just following the curves, or making a 3-lobed version of a figure-8.”

2. “…takes up a terrible lot of space.”

3. Requires advanced carpentry skills to build.

In the Sept. ’68 issue a R. W. Bide of Lethbridge, Alberta wrote in to comment on Bill Schopp’s assessment,

“Thanks for not squashing the Trefoil. It’s the first sensible island design I’ve seen and I’m an around the walls layout fan. Two very good treatments for a start. Very high center of the lobe for scenery and a central valley full of action or very high ridges along the center lines giving three lovely scenes. Treatment could be a gorge or canyon, Lake Superior Shore or other Canadian Shield stuff. Or even a horseshoe curve. Walk around control with complete success. One lobe might be enlarged to the width of the others. The biggest problem I can see is radii but horrible curves can be hidden.”

When I read that letter I wondered if R. W. Bide was actually the mysterious ‘R. W. D.’ who alerted Bill Schopp to the trefoil planform. RMC didn’t have the most stringent copy editing in those days, so I wouldn’t be surprised if R. W. B. of Lethbridge was ‘R. W. D.’. I’ve looked in later issues for any mention of Bide’s trefoil layout, but I haven’t found any, so I don’t know how his worked out. If I find a story I’ll post an update.

Then in the Oct. ’68 issue a David Zavadi of State College, Pennsylvania wrote in to say that he derived the area of the trefoil plan and gave this equation***:

A = R² (6 √3 + π)

A is the area of the trefoil, and R is the radius of the circle upon which it is based.

Given the aforementioned copy editing issues I decided to see if I could still manage some high school level math and tried to derive that equation for myself. It was tough getting the brain going on these sorts of problems again after decades of neglect. I felt faint at times and had to lie down :-) but in the end I was able to confirm the equation is correct.

After getting this far I wondered what would R have to be for A = 4 sq.ft., which is the largest allowable area for a micro layout? The area equation needs to be re-arranged for R,

R = √ ( A / ( 6 √3 + π ) )

Plugging in A = 4 sq. ft. and evaluating the equation it turns out R = 6.5 inches. Ok, I should clarify the actual answer is 0.543699 ft, but I converted it to inches and rounded down a tad to get the more conservative and easily usable value of 6-1/2”.

4 sq. ft. trefoil compared to 2' x 2' foam square

I wanted to see how a 4 sq. ft. trefoil compared to a 2 ft. x 2 ft. foam square like the one I used to build the Loonar Module. So, I got out some paper, masking tape, scissors, compass, ruler, and protractor and went to work to make a paper trefoil. That's the result over on the left.

It looks like a very large fidget spinner.

4 sq. ft. trefoil overlaid on 2' x 2' foam square

Overlaying the two planforms gives a slightly better size comparison. 

Could this be the basis of a micro-layout, or do Bill Schopp's concerns squelch layouts in this category too?

I don't have a definitive answer. I think many of the points raised by Schopp and Bide still apply; however, I'll note that unlike back then we can build layouts from foam slabs, have wireless DCC control, have lots of specialized track and power trucks available, and it's not unusual for micro-layouts to be just simple track loops where scenes and scenery are the main points of interest. There need not be a concern with trying to simulate a fully operational, real railroad, or even a piece of one. So, maybe Mr. Schopp's concern with only being able to build a 3-lobed figure-8 track, or some such variation, might actually make for an interesting micro-layout. I look at the trefoil planform and think that it might be the way for me to build the Mt. Lowe layout I've wanted to do for years now. I can imagine each lobe providing a separate scene: circular bridge, granite gate, and the look out all visually separated by some suitable central rocky outcropping. 

4 sq. ft. 3-circle trefoil compared to 2'x2' foam square

If you look at this post's opening drawing with all the packed circles you can see that it's possible to slice out a three-lobed planform from the matrix based on just 3 circles instead of 4. This gives a less spindly and more compact planform.

The area for this shape is:

A = R² (4 √3 + π)

and the radius of the circle upon which it is based is:

R = √ ( A / (4 √3  +  π) )

If A = 4 sq. ft., it turns out R = 7.5" (again, I slightly rounded down R to yield a conservative and easy to use value).

4 sq. ft. 3-circle trefoil overlaid on 2' x 2' foam square

The overall shape is a bit blobbier than the 4-circle version, but it still has three distinct lobes. 

I've got to admit an advantage of the 2' x 2' x 1" pre-cut foam square is its convenience. I bought mine at Home Depot, but I should point out they are expensive for what they are: around $7 or $8 per square, which is crazy on a per sq. ft. basis compared to a 4'x8' sheet, however the pre-cut convenience can't be beat. If you're going to build either of these trefoils some cutting and gluing of foam slabs will be necessary. Or, maybe a base could be built up from corrugated plastic sheets. All this is just to say that some base construction will likely be needed, but likely no expert carpentry will be required as Mr. Schopp noted for his 1968 readers.

I haven't done a comprehensive scan of the internet, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot has been done with trefoil planforms and their variants, so please excuse the naiveté on my part if this is obsolete news and it's just new and interesting to me.   

Digressions:

*What does this have to do with 1977? Well, nothing in the actual 1977, but in the alternate, phoney, time travelled to world of 1977 where I found this June 1977 issue of Rail Model Experimenter, a lot. Apparently that issue contained a lost article by Bill Schopp called, Advanced Trefoil Trackplans. In retrospect, I should have consulted that piece before even considering this post. If you have the issue, please let me know what's inside :-)

**The trefoil entry in Wikipedia shows shapes somewhat different than the ones in Bill Schopp's Trouble Shooting note. In this post I'm going to go with the nomenclature used in the old May '68 RMC story and leave investigating strict definitions for another time.

***The letter and the editor's associated comment mentions integration, polar coordinates, high symmetry, analytic expressions, "equasions", "plain" geometry, and so forth being deployed to find the area. For the trefoils shown in this post finding a closed form equation for the shapes' areas is not too hard, but what if you wanted to figure out if an irregular trefoil you were planning to use was less than 4 sq. ft. so it would still qualify as a micro-layout? It could be a tough go to calculate the area by developing equations for an arbitrary shape. It might be far more practical, and just as accurate, to use this method described in The Scientific American Book of Projects for the Amateur Scientist.

From Scalextric to E. L. Moore

The E. L. Moore eBook is in the final stages of development - ok, well, the manuscript is almost done, and I'm revising it like crazy.

Early on in the book I talk about how I 'discovered' E. L. Moore by way of a youthful slot car obsession. A friend and I played with Eldon cars and Scalextric track in the summer of '73, and I went all out making buildings for our layout. In my search for building models I stumbled across the work of E. L. Moore, and the rest is history :-) 

A couple of weeks ago I started to wonder if a small Scalextric course for 1/32 scale cars could be built these days. By "small" I had in mind something around 2m x 1m that could be built on a thick foam base.  

PaperClip 7 using Scalextric Classic track

I looked around for a planning tool and came across RailModeller Express for the Mac. It has templates for Scalextic track, and only cost 99¢ at Apple's App Store for a version that can handle up to 50 pieces of track, which seemed like plenty for the little layout I had in mind.

I'd been doodling a paperclip shaped layout so that's what I tried to build. 

It turns out there are two types of Scalextric track: Classic and Sport.

Classic was discontinued years ago, but I remember it from childhood, so I tried something with it first. I was able to fit a layout in 2m x 1m without too much effort.

PaperClip7 using Scalextric Sport track

Sport is the current offering, and can be used for digital or analog layouts, whereas Classic was apparently only good for analog. Any layout I'd build would be analog.

A problem I found is Sport doesn’t offer a crossover on a straight section of track, only on an R2 curve! For reasons of geometry this forces all curves in the paperclip to be R2 and makes for a bulkier layout. Lengthwise the course just squeezes into 2m, but widthwise it's a good 20cm or so too wide.

I used 4 crossovers in the Sport version instead of just 2 to try and make the race as fair and equal as possible, but I wonder if it is too difficult. Clearly I need to keep experimenting with this tool.

Yes, RailModeller Express does allow you to design railroad track plans too as its name suggests! The full version of RailModeller doesn't have the 50 piece limit, so you can dream up a huge empire. It's a great tool if the Scalextric part is anything to go by and I'm looking forward to trying model railroad track planning with it.

Omnitangle

Omnitangle: A streetcar track plan arranged in a ladder-like configuration.

Usage: The planning commission thought the grid of streets in the downtown core lent themselves well to an omnitangle track configuration.

Source: Omnitangle is a crude, misinformed portmanteau of omnivagant and rectangle. Arguments could be made for the more Latinly, but anatomically sounding, 'omnirectus', or its relative, the mathematically inclined 'omnirectangulum', but the odd slice of 'tangle' in omnitangle captures the essence of layouts based on these plans usually being on the verge of becoming a tangled mass of spaghetti.  

Omnitangle is a specific form of omnivagancy where the track plan geometry is restricted to a narrow set of ladder-like rectangular forms.

from the electronic files for the 2029 4th edition of The Dictionary of Non-Existent Model Railroad Terms.

Pyramid power

It took a bit of doing, but the decorative pyramid roof is done.

There are 9 little pyramids, and each was cut from a piece of acid-free 3x5 card.

I drew a template for a pyramid side using what I could remember of high school geometry, and used it to lay out a pyramid such that, when cut out, it could be folded and glued into the final shape. As well, holes were punched into two sides to accept a pair of those thin verticals from the window wall. Turns out I screwed up punching those holes on the first batch and had to make a second set with correctly placed holes. Yes, I can hear some of you saying, an automated paper cutter would have done this job in a flash. Indeed.

But, after all that, here's the roof before installation. The pyramids are held on to the substrate with combination of transfer tape and Weld Bond.

It took a couple of attempts, but eventually, with enough careful prodding and persuading, as well as a little hole adjustment, all those verticals fit into the corresponding roof holes. Glue was applied to the tops of the white posts to hold them to the roof substrate. Once everything was in place, I put my ancient steel level on top to hold the whole thing together while the glued dried. 

Up next: signs, plants, and some little details.

How to layout the Grizzly Flats dormer

Soon after posting the Grizzly Flats build a few months ago, a reader asked if I could post about the math for laying out the dormer roof. In his article, E. L. Moore gave a template for the dormer in HO-scale. Unfortunately, I made my N-scale bay window a little bigger than the plan, so I couldn't just shrink Mr. Moore's template down to N-scale and expect it to fit. I had to dust off a little of my high school geometry and draw a new one. It 's a bit boring, so I didn't post it then, but it can be useful for future scratchbuilt projects.

[Geometry of the basic roof shape.]

The thing to focus on is the basic shape of the roof and worry about the fancy cut-out later. Also, I haven't been in school for a long time, so my approach to the problem and its notation is probably old fashioned, so please bear with me. The key is to recognize where the right-angled triangles are, and then apply the Pythagorean theorem (that is, the square of the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides).

I should note that L (the width of the roof at the eaves) and h (the height to the peak from the eaves) can be measured from your building plans. W (the width of the dormer at the eaves) is something you prescribe. As I noted, because I didn't use the value of W that E. L. Moore noted in his plan, I had to recalculate x, y, and z.

That shaded triangle in the drawing is the one whose sides need to be calculated. It's a right-angled triangle, and so are the two triangles that make up the front face of the dormer. 

Once you've calculated the side lengths, x, y, and z, draw them on the material you're using to build the dormer and remember that x and y are perpendicular to each other. That'll give you a basic shape for the dormer roof panels. To accommodate the sloped, triangular cut-out in the dormer roof like the Grizzly Flats station has, just measure back along x and y from the 90-degree angle while you've got the panels on your drawing board. 

E. L. Moore's Legacy in the 21st Century: The Elizabeth Valley Railroad

[My guess at a track plan for E. L. Moore's Elizabeth Valley Railroad]

While I have had well over a hundred letters requesting track plans of my 4 x 6-foot railroad as the result of photographs published in MODEL TRAINS, nary a one has queried about anything electrical, but dozens have commented on the fact that scenery was their big bugaboo. [E. L. Moore outlining the reason behind writing his article Let’s build a mountain, in the January 1962 issue of Model Trains]

[This seems to be the best overall photo of the EVRR published. It's from the 2nd edition of HO Primer by Linn Westcott, published in 1964 by Kalmbach. The 1st edition appeared in 1962. This book seems to be staple of resale tables at model train shows, but even though a lot of its content is dated, it's still an interesting compilation of some MODEL TRAINS material. I've added the letters to this picture, and a few others in this post, to identify various buildings and articles they appeared in. The list mapping letters to articles is presented in [1]. ]

[9 October 2016 update: A photo of the EVRR was found that shows a clearer view of the trackplan and will cause some updates to the layout drawing shown in this post.]

[12 March 2017 update: A photo of one of E. L. Moore's postcards with the EVRR trackplan drawing on one side has been found.]

Even though E. L. Moore received all those requests for a track plan to his Elizabeth Valley Railroad, it doesn’t appear that one was ever published. However, there were enough photos released over the years to allow for a little archeological work to suss out what it might have been. That’s my attempt in the opening sketch. 

[This is another shot of the lakeside area, but here the main station is clearly visible and you can get a little better idea of the track along the front edge of the layout. This photo was included in the first appearance of the EVRR in the photo-spread called the Elizabeth Valley RR in the March 1955 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.]

First, some caveats. My track plan is based on pictures of Mr. Moore’s layout that were published between 1955 and 1962. Even in those photos the layout appears to have developed over the years, and it likely underwent more development after ’62. For example, in his article, 3 in 1 Engine House, in the February 1963 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman, Mr. Moore states that, “I have long wanted an engine house but on my little 4’ x 6’ pike, the Elizabeth Valley Railroad, there simply wasn’t room for one. Recently I managed to acquire some additional acreage so, ...”, which hints that the EVRR underwent an expansion in ’62, or maybe ’61. 

[This appears to be the only published picture of the mountainous region of the EVRR. It was a part of E. L. Moore's Let's build a mountain article in the January 1962 issue of MODEL TRAINS.]

As well, I don’t think the published pictures form a complete record of the layout, so some parts I’ve inferred from the evidence available. For example, I wouldn’t be surprised if the stuff along the ‘front’ edge is inaccurate because that’s where I did the most guess-work. If you see places where I’m way off-base, please leave a comment so I can make the necessary corrections.

[The content of Let's build a mountain is dated, but the article does have this inside view of the mountains that shows what the track plan looks like.]

Over his long career Mr. Moore wrote many articles about how to build various types of industries for model railroads, but his own layout seems to have been purely a tourist and passenger line set in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s - it might have had some logging operations in the mountain region, but they weren’t extensive. It first appeared in print in a 2-page photo-spread called the Elizabeth Valley RR in the March 1955 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman. There also were likely some photos in Model Trains from that period as Mr. Moore suggests in the opening quote, but I haven't yet found them

The track plan is loop-based and small – the layout is only 4 feet wide by 6 feet long - which is somewhat out-of-fashion today. Some might dismiss it as a beginner’s layout of ‘spaghetti-bowl’ design [2]; however, I’d suggest it’s more sophisticated in its execution than a cursory viewing might suggest.

[This overall shot of the lake area is the 'day' scene from The light fantastic in the Fall 1959 issue of MODEL TRAINS. In it Mr. Moore shows how to build a low cost light fixture that provides both day and night light (via a blue bulb). It also has a clear view of the 'Red Eye Saloon']

In fact, its loop structure strikes me as rather ingenious as it allows many different routes, as well as long continuous runs, through the terrain and helps establish several scenes: a railroad town, a cabin and swimming hole down by a lake, a remote depot, a mountain cabin with a trail up to it, as well as numerous bridges.

[This very grainy scan is the night scene from The light fantastic. The white box I've added at the bottom is one of best shots I've come across of the spur behind the main station. The blue night light prevents the scene from being too dark. Also you can see that as well as the buildings being illuminated, so are the passenger cars on the train at the back that is just starting across the bridge.] 

To get a better understanding of the track plan’s structure I made a couple of sketches where I backed the plan down to its spine. In this first one, shown below, I took the upper most level - which is basically a reversing loop - unfurled it, and stretched it out using some tracing paper over the plan.

[That lobe on the far left is the uppermost level unraveled and extended.]

I then removed a couple of pieces and discovered the basis of the track plan to be a strip of track with reversing loops at either end. The pieces taken out were a short-cut to the reversing loop, a passing track, and a siding.

[In this tracing the passing siding, spur and reversing loop shortcut have been removed to show the basic underlying tack plan.]

With these two tracings it’s a little easier to see how the track plan might have been developed: it started with a length of track with reversing loops at either end; a siding, passing track, and reversing loop shortcut were added; it was finished by twisting and elevating sections to conform with the mountain and valley.

By today’s standards, the EVRR would be considered dated. It’s elements are almost stereotypical of what might be thought of as a small beginner’s layout: a mountain in a corner, a lake in the centre, quaint stations, lots of grades [3]. The difference between the EVRR and the stereotypes is in the level of integration between these elements which turns the entire layout into a coherent whole instead of a collection of unrelated areas: a stream starts in the mountains, crosses a plain, and empties into a lake; a mountain trail leads from the lake, passes a cabin, and climbs up the mountain via a number of switchbacks to a remote cabin; there’s a fancy central station, with a hotel / saloon across the way, for tourists planning to enjoy the lake for a day or two; the lake has boats, fishermen, swimmers, and a lake-side cabin; there’s a remote station up on the far plateau for those venturing into the mountains; there’s a full backdrop, carefully blended in style to the layout, giving the impression of even more distant mountains; there’s trees and vegetation in the lower lands where water collects and little to none in the mountains; and there’s a lighting system to simulate both day and night situations - with illuminated buildings and passenger cars too! And in classic E. L. Moore fashion there’s plenty of people and animals around doing appropriate things. That’s a lot of careful consideration of coherence packed into 24 square feet.

Of course, the scenery construction methods are more-or-less completely obsolete. Mr. Moore wrote an article called Let's build a mountain in the January 1962 issue of Model Trains describing how he made the mountains, but newer methods produce more credible results. Although, that article gives an excellent view into the track plan through the mountains and was a cornerstone in trying to figure out the EVRR track plan. The point is not to get too hung-up on superficial appearances.

One other thing I noticed while perusing the photos with a magnifying glass is that all the buildings have associated outhouses - 'backhouses' in some parts of the world. I’m surprised some magazine didn’t commission a one-pager on those one-holers*** :-)

I think what may have made the layout popular in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s was that it embodied a relatively high degree of completion and overall integration, all within a layout that was achievable for a wide range of readers. The call-out in the ’55 RMC article is the key to its popularity: “E. L. Moore has packed plenty of action and interest into his compact and well executed HO Elizabeth Valley Railroad”.  Lots of action and interest. Today, for a layout to land in the mainstream press, the call-out would need to say something like, “...plenty of operational possibilities and switching problems...”. On the EVRR, the focus wasn’t on the simulation of actual railroad operations, but on interesting scenes, train movement, lighting, and some rudimentary operations. That’s where the ‘action’ was, not in the simulation of railroad operations.

The obvious care that was lavished on this layout makes it clear it’s the embodiment of something Mr. Moore held dear; a nostalgic view of a personal utopia perhaps. Many model railroads are to some extent an expression of a personal utopia. They embody something their builders love. They want to create their dream, play with it [4], share it and communicate with it. That’s what can - can, but doesn’t have to - push these things into the zone of art. It’s a kind of outsider or folk art mainly [5]. That’s not meant to be a derogatory statement. It’s meant to convey that it’s an art undertaken outside the normal institutions and markets that constitute mainstream art. There is some insider art, but that's a relatively small branch in comparison to where the main action is taking place.

I’m ok with proposing that E. L. Moore’s work - layout, buildings and rolling stock - were a form of folk art. I’m basing this on how much was scratchbuilt, organized, photographed, repurposed, presented and storied in accordance with his personal vision. Now, this doesn't mean I'm pigeon-holing him and his work. No. Any individual can embody many things at the same time. Mr. Moore was certainly a type of folk artist, but he was also a straightforward hobbyist, a teller of tall-tales, an accomplished how-to writer, draftsman, photographer, and a master of a model railroading genre, among other things.

Unfortunately, these utopias - whether or not they are some sort of ‘art’ - rarely outlive their builders. Most are eventually destroyed. No doubt the Elizabeth Valley RR was. Preservation of any personal model railroad is unusual. Maybe it’s fitting. Nothing to get upset about. They’re personal. Why should they persist intact when the individuals or groups who were most interested in them no longer exist. On the other hand, the spirit in which they were created, their ideas, their concepts, can live a bit longer in publications, or the online universe.

One final note, I’ve noticed that there are a lot of E. L. Moore articles where he mentions another model railroad of his called the Eagleroost & Koontree. It was apparently an HOn3 layout. I looked and looked and couldn’t find pictures of it - although there were many photos of scenes allegedly shot along the E & K’s right-of-way. I’m not sure if it was a complete layout, a short-line on his EVRR, a dual-gauge portion of the EVRR, a diorama for photo shoots, or just something totally fictional. If any reader has thoughts on this, please leave a comment.

[Update, 21 May 2014: I learn something new every day, especially since I haven’t yet read everything for this series. It turns out that the E&K was indeed a dual tracked portion of the EVRR. Gordon Odegard states it was in his interview with E. L. Moore that appeared under the title, A visit with E. L. Moore, in the Bull Session column of the September ’75 issue of Model Railroader. The missing bit is that it’s still not clear exactly which portions were dual tracked with HOn3. There are clues in the old magazines in which the E&K is mentioned. For example, I recently obtained the September ’61 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman that contains Mr. Moore’s article Slim Gauge Carriage. The introductory photo is quite charming, and also full of clues. It shows the dual track on the main trestle that divides the lake region from the mountains, and later in the article Mr. Moore speculates, “Right now I’m wondering what’s going to happen when that HO engine pushes its little caravan to the end of the double tracked portion of the trestle. The lead carriage is HOn3, the second one HO, the flatcar with canoe and equipment is HOn3 and the engine is HO. Some scramble”. Well, the hunt continues. I’m not sure if there are enough scattered clues to reconstruct the entire E&K route, but I’ll post updates if I find more.]

This is the 9th instalment in the E. L. Moore’s Legacy in the 21th Century series. An index to the series can be found here.

Digressions

[1] I’ve made an attempt to identify some of the E. L. Moore articles that correspond to the buildings and rolling stock shown in a few of the layout photos. This is what I’ve found so far.

A,  Branch Line Station, Railroad Model Craftsman, April 1964.

B, Easy to Build Cottage or Cabin, Railroad Model Craftsman, December 1963. (This building appears to be the cottage, or a building very similar to the cottage)

C, Down by the depot, Model Railroader, December 1964.

D, Old-Time Log Buggies, Model Trains, March 1960 (I’m not sure if these are the same log buggies, but they look close).

E. The little red caboose, Model Trains, December 1961.

F. This building is very close to the log cabin in Easy to Build Cottage or Cabin in Railroad Model Craftsman, December 1963.

G. ‘The Red Eye Saloon’ presented in the article Civic center for Boomtown in the March 1963 issue of Model Railroader.

H. A close-up of the water tower is in the opening photo of Union Pacific windmill in the September 1962 issue of Model Railroader.

[2] Maybe from the point-of-view of a model railroad that is meant to be viewed instead of accurately simulating railroad business, a loop-based track plan where views are partially obscured is more realistic than one meant for operation where the entire setup is clearly visible. This type of unobscured view is rarely possible in ‘real-life’ other than from some high vantage point. 

The loop, and its variants, is a much maligned form. Maybe one reason is that it cuts too close to the humble roots of model railroading: the child’s train set and the guilty pleasure of simply watching those little trains run. I can’t imagine Gomez Addams having nearly as much fun with a non-loop layout :-)

Or it could be that many people like to see the trains run though complex patterns. Whatever the reason, there is some fundamental fascination with just watching trains run, and sometimes that fascination is taken to extremes with the loopiest of layouts: ‘spaghetti’ track plan.

It looks like the spaghetti track plan has been the butt of jokes for quite a long time. While reading some old Model Trains magazines I came across this example in the July 1956 issue.

[The classic spaghetti track plan joke via the July 1956 issue of MODEL TRAINS. The cartoonist is R.O. Gilbert]

The March 2013 issue of Model Railroader had an updated take on the joke, but in that example the cartoon track plan struck me as an almost viable candidate for an omnivagant streetcar layout. I guess that version of the joke was more elbow macaroni than spaghetti :-) The track follows a large number of densely packed paths, but looks like it was laid out with pieces of elbow macaroni rather than strands of spaghetti. 

[This is a track plan of the Toronto Transit Commission's streetcar network circa 1973. It's far more rectilinear than its cartoon spaghetti counterparts, but it's just as convoluted with its myriad of possible paths. This illustration is sourced from the excellent Toronto Transit].

For an urban North American streetcar setup, this is only natural because the tracks are in the streets of a city, and those streets are usually laid out in a grid. But, in this situation the derided path density of the macaronified spaghetti layout makes a bit of sense. The trick is preventing the track plan from jumping into the ‘Way-out Layout’ zone.

[This excellent slot-car layout - designed by Mr. David Vollrath - is the 1st place winner of the 3rd Wayout Layout contest presented in the November '72 issue of Car Model magazine.]

Back in 1972, Car Model magazine ran a contest whereby its readers were challenged to create ‘Way-out Layouts’ – layouts suitable for ultra exciting slot-car races  - from a collection of pieces of HO Tycopro slot-car track. Looking over some of the winners from the point-of-view of avoiding streetcar macaroni syndrome is quite interesting. All the twists and turns, relieved in places by high speed straight-aways, might make for thrilling racing, but urban streetcar operations are likely more sedate with long straight sections terminated with tight, street conforming turns with little stomach-churning twistiness along the route for the sake of the paying passengers.

[These are but 2 of the many examples of Peano curve generators (on the left) and generated iterations (on the right) shown in Benoit Mandelbrot's The Fractal Geometry of Nature.]

Those elbow macaroni streetcar lines and Way-out Layouts remind me of the mathematical oddity called the Peano Curve that I stumbled across a long time ago in Benoit Mandelbrot’s book The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Dr. Mandelbrot shows all sorts of Peano curve generating algorithms – whose math takes me awhile to work through, but at least there are lots of diagrams to illustrate the processes - for producing what seem like special forms of Way-out Layouts.  I suspect those Peano Curve generators could be enhanced with some sort of ‘streetcar line rules’, in addition to some randomization, to create streetcar track plans that could possibly enter the uncanny valley of actual systems, and might also incorporate some surprising variations. But, on the other hand, the end result might be in the same vein as those bland crossword puzzles that are cranked out by computer algorithms.

So, I think a streetcar layout would be somewhat more spaghetti or macaroni like than a realistically designed train-based layout, but it needs to avoid the Way-out Layout zone if it’s going for some sort of urban realism. On the other hand, if extreme streetcar operations is your thing, maybe the Way-out Layout is just the ticket :-)

[3] These 2 pre-fab layouts from Fleischmann are interesting illustrations of beginner layouts of about the same size as the EVRR.

[The ad for this 3 x 5 ft pre-fab HO scale layout appeared on the back of the January 1962 issue of MODEL TRAINS. That was the same issue that E. L. Moore's Let's build a mountain and Central Pacific snowplow appeared. The looping is simple and doesn't appear to present its owner will anything more difficult wiring-wise than attaching the output leads from a power-pack. No headache inducing reverse-loops.]

[This one is even simpler and appeared on the back cover of the Fall 1961 issue of MODEL TRAINS. E. L. Moore's Open-air excursion coach appeared in that issue. This layout is merely all elevated ridge surrounding a valley - very evocative of part of the EVRR.]

I only present them as illustrations of what was marketed as ready-to-run beginner style layouts of the era. Although E. L. Moore's EVRR has many similar features, its track-plan and structure was far more sophisticated even though it had only a slightly larger footprint.

[4] I’m not using the word ‘play’ as in the common put-down of “playing with trains”, as a regression to juvenile activity, but in its broader free-ranging and restorative sense as in Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art by Stephan Nachmanovich. An activity outside the normal imperatives of day-to-day survival and practical activity. I’m using ‘play’ in the sense of freely and fully engaging in an activity of one’s own interest without regard to rules or social strictures. Not the things promoted by the mainstream popular media. The other side. The deep exploration side. Pursuing the trail of one’s interests without a blessing from a tv show or what-not to guide the way. It’s a positive activity that, in bland prosaic terms, furthers the development of an individual in deep ways that are meaningful to them. 

[5] Is it great folk art? I can’t say for certain. I recall reading somewhere that there is no great art without great invention. Great invention in model railroading is whole other subject.

*** [6 May 2014 update] I stand corrected! I finally got a copy of the November 1975 issue of the NMRA Bulletin which contains E. L. Moore's A Mighty Relaxin' Job. It's a complete thesis on how to build a wide variety of outhouses :-)