The Standard

One more thing, The Standard could also be a former layout of someone who is no longer with us. A couple of them immediately come to mind.

I'm in awe of many layouts, but the one that has me most mesmerized just so happens to model "The Standard.  Norm Charbonneau's layout is incredible.  On more than one occasion my wife has looked over my shoulder and asked if the trains in the video are real or models.

Johns trains. Best postwar layout.

Perhaps "best" and "standard" are two different terms?

When you get to the stratosphere, personal preference more than likely influences your rankings.  John Shankland's Chicago area layout was top of the line.  Bob Bartizek's is right up there.  As mentioned, Norm Charbonneau's is in the stratosphere.  I cannot recall the couple's name but about thirty years ago they did a Santa Fe layout in the living room of their Arizona home which rivaled any two rail layout and may have started the hi-rail scale trend.  They wrote a book about their railroad, I am sure one of our members will furnish their name.  No list would be complete without the past Santa Fe two rail layout in Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry.

Of course none of these layouts belong in Three Rail Traditional forum.

How do you consider professionally built layouts and owner built layouts in the same arena?

John

I would nominate Phil Klopp's layout at his home in Easton, PA, and the NJ HiRailers club layout, for the distinction of being regarded as The Standard.

One reason I chose them is because I have seen them in person, and they are outstanding, IMO, for different reasons:  NJ HiRailers layout for its enormous size and having so much that is done so well; Phil Klopp's layout for it's beauty, modeling craftsmanship, whim and whimsy, great size, and for another unique reason I will share later.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a merciless teaser. LOL.

Arnold

Great idea for a thread Arnold!

Some great current layouts have already been mentioned.  Being a Pennsy fan myself, I agree with the term “standard” for both the prototype and the layouts mentioned.  That said, my nomination goes to the late great John Armstrong’s Canandaigua Southern.  He was an innovator in so many ways.  I particularly liked his unique steam locomotives and his layout name resonated with me as I grew up in nearby Rochester NY.

As a runner up, I think the South Shasta Lines was magnificent.  I drooled over that layout in the pages of MR as a kid, but I do not remember the builder.   Can someone help with that?  Any idea what happened to that layout?

Don Smith of Industrial Models has the best layout that I have seen. I haven't seen much else that comes close.

I think Tinplate Art is right, standard and best are two different things. Which makes me rethink my answer. Are these beautiful scale layouts really the standard? Or are they just the best? So is a “standard” layout something where most of can and do run? If that is the case then it is a layout with tubular or fast rack with anywhere from 27” to 48” diameter layouts. But are able to incorporate great scenery and operating capabilities, not just plywood painted green. I’ll still go with John’s Trains but I think Arnold’s is a candidate also.

While I have been privileged to see many extraordinary layouts, including home, club & museum, my all time favorite will always be:

"ROADSIDE AMERICA".

The nostalgia it provided as well as one man's craftsmanship has not been equaled in my book.

Laurence T. Gieringer paid tribute to his local area as well as God & Country with his creation.

Both he & his layout will be missed by many.

Ken

This picture is especially for you Arnold ( Baseball Game ).

To many layouts to choose just one for Standard. The NJ club layout looks awesome.  Never seen it in person just on here and videos.  So when it comes to massive well done layouts it's what I have in mind.  Out in Alliance Ne. their is a On30 that I would say takes a spot at the top of the charts. I will have to get some photos of it next time.

How about all those Amish farmers pounding nails into the barn roof at the Choo Choo Barn?

Why not pit everyone against each other. I find things in every layout. There is no standard just a lot of great layouts.

Roadside America is in a class all by itself, and is an incredible example of what a model railroad can aspire to be!

Tony Lash's layout was great, my choice would be the San Diego 3 Railers layout, followed by the GPD Toy Train Operating Museum in Tucson Az.

Nobody mentioned the original PAL four seasons layout mentioned in several of those Lionel sponsored Bantam paperbacks in the fifties.

One road modeled and based on operation. Bob Bartizeks, Penn Western

Stan Roy’s automated layout always blew me away.  30+ trains running at once on converging lines, and this was in pre-TMCC days.  

I appreciate everyone's nomination for what they regard as a Standard or great layout. Let's have an inclusive approach and feel free to share whatever layout the Forum member regards as a great layout for any reason.

That way, we can, hopefully, visit some of these great layouts in the future.

I agree with John H that the Choo Barn layout is superb. About 25 years ago I visited the Choo Choo Barn with my wife and then young children when we went to York. The layout at the Choo Choo Barn was spectacular in every way. It was, by far, the best layout at a hobby store that I have ever seen. I know the owner of the Choo Choo Barn, who built the layout, passed away during the past year or two. If the layout is still at the Choo Choo Barn, I plan to visit it when I go to York in October.

Arnold

The standard says so many things to many people. I’ll just be in awe of the many layouts I have seen, and just be content with the one I’m trying to build thus far.

Hi Everyone,

This is a very interesting topic and obviously shows the diversity of interests in all who post their thoughts. Does standard mean that what the modeler did on his or her layout was done with fidelity? I certainly do not want to rain on your parade Arnold but I believe the topic is a bit generic. When you say "standard" I can't help but think in what way. There are just so many choices. Just in the initial responses that have been given some people are saying standard because of the realism of a layout, some are saying standard because of the size, some are saying standard because of nostalgic reasons. If those  are the type of responses you are looking for then disregard this posting. I do tend to overthink sometimes. However, maybe categories would be more valid. I don't believe you can say someone's well done tinplate layout is the standard over someone's Christmas wonderland layout during the holidays. Ones taste in modeling will, in most cases, dictate that response. They are simply two different ideas and styles of modeling and both could be very well done. I have some ideas of what layouts I would nominate but I would be basing that on one style of modeling I am doing and clearly what type of modeling inspires me the most. I love to come to this forum because I see so many different types of layouts that are done well for that type of layout. I, like some of us, can recognize the beauty and artistry in a layout even if it's not the same type of modeling I am doing on my own. Some however will not go outside of what type of modeling they enjoy which to me, is not necessarily "the standard". Again, I do apologize if I went off on a tangent.

Lastly Arnold, I'm curious as to why you would not claim your own layout as "the standard"?

Dave

So all of you forgot Norm C's layout?

I also would nominate both the independent high railers layout along with the Raritain Valley high railers layout and North Penn high railers layouts. All modular designs!

Dave, my main reason for starting this topic was simply to encourage Forum members to share what they regard as a great layout, and why.

I find your reply very interesting. We could take a different approach and first explore why the real Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR) was called The Standard.

I don't know the answer, could Google it but haven't yet, but I guess that some of the reasons might include the following: the PRR's enormous size; that unlike many falling flags,  the PRR was financially successful for much of its existence; that it was a well run railroad; and that it was worthy of being emulated or duplicated by other railroads.

I would be interested in hearing from others why they think the PRR was called The Standard.

Once we get some input on that question, then we can apply the same criteria in determining what model railroad(s) we each propose be The Standard, and give our reasons why.

Arnold

Dave, in replying to your last question about my layout, I don't think it is analogous in the little world of model railroads to the PRR in the big World of real railroads.

In applying some of the criteria I shared in my last post about what I think might be the criteria for the PRR being The Standard, my model railroad (which I love) does not have enormous size, and is not that well run. I still have occasional derailments. Also,  I would not recommend that others emulate or duplicate the wiring on my layout that needs to be upgraded. In addition. I think mine is  an off-beat and unusual layout. An example of this is my "George Washing Machine Bridge" upon which my trains run between train tables behind the washer and dryer in my laundry room. Being off-beat and unusual  can be a good thing, and fits my personality, but I don't think that such a layout like mine is one that other model railroaders are likely to reproduce.

Maybe some of the large, impressive and popular Lionel Showroom layouts of the late 1940s and the 1950s are good candidates for being The Standard. Many hobbyists have already reproduced those layout over the decades. Arnold

"And the beat goes on..."

I believe the reference in Rattler21’s post above is to Jo Ann and Joe Lessers’ JL/ATSF Railway layout in their west Los Angeles living room. Joe did indeed promote the high (3) rail approach. Their layout was dismantled more than a decade ago, and c. ten buildings/artifacts continue on  my humble SoCal tubular layout.

The book they wrote was:

Josef K. Lesser passed away on February 28, 2020.

Arnold,

Thank you much for your reply. Again, I'm sure you have great intentions with the thread and I certainly don't want to be a "party pooper". As far as my question about your layout , it certainly wasn't meant for you to belittle your work on something that you love. BTW, the idea with the tables behind the washer and dryer is  both creative and practical IMO. In addition to all of the things you mentioned it would've been nice to hear what you like about your railroad. After all it was just showcased in a magazine. How many of us can say we accomplished that? I'm sure most of us can say the things about our layouts that we would change or do over but we still love what we have. I'm certainly one. When you come to forums like this it's very easy to get ideas and wishful thoughts. I don't think there is a day I log on and don't say to myself, I should've, might try, or wonder if. My point in asking you about your layout is because based on your response, I thought we could get some criteria for what we personally call " the standard". I think your idea about getting input on what made the PRR the standard in the prototype is a good start. When people give their response if they explain why they believe their choice to be "the standard" would be adequate, as you mentioned. This along with some criteria appropriate to model railroading and some of the things you mentioned about your own layout could be a start. Just my two cents...

Dave

@prrhorseshoecurve posted:

So all of you forgot Norm C's layout?

I also would nominate both the independent high railers layout along with the Raritain Valley high railers layout and North Penn high railers layouts. All modular designs!

Norm C. was mentioned in a response prior to yours.

I am stumped......there are so many magnificent layouts to choose from......I'm having a hard time....great topic, Arnold. I am being reminded of so many great model pikes!

Peter

@OddIsHeRU posted:

I believe the reference in Rattler21’s post above is to Jo Ann and Joe Lessers’ JL/ATSF Railway layout in their west Los Angeles living room. Joe did indeed promote the high (3) rail approach. Their layout was dismantled more than a decade ago, and c. ten buildings/artifacts continue on  my humble SoCal tubular layout.

The book they wrote was:

Josef K. Lesser passed away on February 28, 2020.

Thanks for pointing this out - I don't recall ever seeing this book.  Found a used copy via Amazon - getting it for under $12 including shipping.  Looking forward to learning about that layout.

@Arnold D. Cribari posted:

...I would be interested in hearing from others why they think the PRR was called The Standard.

Once we get some input on that question, then we can apply the same criteria in determining what model railroad(s) we each propose be The Standard, and give our reasons why...

Based on my visit to the museum in Altoona, I think that the main reason that the PRR was called "the standard" is that they analyzed and documented every aspect of the railroad to the Nth degree. And maybe there was just a bit of hubris involved, too.

There are countless different (and conflicting) criteria for choosing a "standard", and so many of those are personal preference, so selecting any single layout is impossible.  While I enjoy seeing a professionally-built layout, I'll throw in my 2 cents that a person who built their own (or with help from friends) deserves extra credit, and that such a layout displays more of their own personality.

I'll add one more to the mix.  John DeSantis in Pittsburgh has the most complete collection of pre-war trains, they are displayed well, and he has multiple layouts on which he runs the original trains in the manner in which they were intended to run.  It's obviously not scale or realistic, but it is at the top of that genre.

No one has mentioned the Lionel Showroom layouts. I wonder how many of us were inspired by photos of them when we were kids?

My favorite layouts are Norm C (incredible weathering) and Bill Bramlage (City Scenes) - George Sellios is the King of Ho scenery.

I agree with the above comment that Tony Lash's was a standard of comparison. I especially liked the way Tony modeled his entire neighborhood that he grew up in Roanoke VA. To see it in person was a worthy O M G ! response. I just wonder what is left of it after Tony sold his business.

For a city theme I nominate the Tower City Layout Forgive me but I don’t remember the name of  the owner of this wonderful layout

Please define standard, not necessary the dictionary version, but how you define it pertaining to this trend.

No one seems to have, yet, nominated the Miniature Railroad and Village at the Carnegie Science Center.

But then on the other hand, I think that the "standard" would be one of the popular but basic Lionel Factory Dealer layouts. Oval of track with 2 switches to access passing siding with one or more UCS tracks, plus a straight track for a bump-n-go motorized unit.

Many beautiful layouts are mentioned in the posts above; however, to choose a "standard", as defined by the layout that is/was the most definitve and influenced every layout geared towards realism that followed regardless of scale, then John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid is it. Yes, it was HO, but then HO has the realism of 2-rail track with a scale track gauge, which clinches its being "the Standard".

More than a few young lads and advanced modelers alike were first greatly gobsmacked by those Varney catalogs with images of John Allen's artistry. Remember?

Now, that's the Standard!

Bob

OTOH, A standard is somewhat like a corner stone or datum.  It is a point of reference  for all subsequent construction.  That says to me a look back to the layout which set the benchmark for those maybe even yet unborn.

There are numerous very well done examples of fine model RRs in all scales, however the true cornerstone, the first, the original,  IMO must be John Allen's G&D.  Every subsequent effort anywhere is something that is almost as good the G&D, very similar to... or even better than...

In any event there can only be one standard, IMO.