Tyler Mountain & Beaver Creek RR

[sedate64]

Just signed up and didn't find a search option so I'll just come right out and ask. Has anyone here ever built the layout mentioned above? It was described in the November 1982 MR. I had the basic track plan up and running but never got to the scenery. My wife and I moved and the layout was disassembled and never put back together. I was just wondering if I am the only one who stares at these track plans and wonders what the finished product would look like. It was designed for a 4x8  HO layout.

[williamfriggle]

I found your post after doing a Google search. I am thinking of doing this layout. I found it the book Practical Guide To HO Model Railroading. I would love to see pictures of this layout. I also struggle picturing the layout completed. I wish someone would post that has done it, to any level. 

 

Bill

[Track-o-holic]

I chose this layout as well and started a slightly modified version of it about two years ago.  I have only seen one or two other people online ever mention building it and I have yet to find any pictures.

Like all of us here, I seem to be taking my sweet time getting this done so at this point I am still in the pink foam stage.  When I left off last spring I had finally added all the elevations needed to take it from a flat 2D version of this to finally working in some 3D elevation.  I ended up going with woodland scenics inclines and went with 4% grade (please no lectures on how steep this is I've read all the posts and made my decision).

 

It is cool the hear of a few others looking at this plan.  I'd be glad to share my Atlas Right track plan or pictures if anyone is interested.  Maybe having others working on this will be the motivation I need to get back into my project now that it is getting cold again!

 

Chris

[trafficdesign]

I found your post and am very interested in this layout!

Any track plans, photos or comments are welcome... this will be my first 4x8 HO layout and while I love the look of the Tyler Mountain and Beaver Creek RR, I fear that it may be too complicated for a first-timer. Any thoughts????

Many thanks!

[cowman]

trafficdesign,

It doesn't appear that any of the folks that were involved in that original post and responses have had any activity on the forums since.  Doesn't mean they aren't still around, but ....

Since it is not listed in the Track Plan Database, at least not by that name, you may  have to find an old copy of MR or contact them for a copy of the article.

Maybe if this gets bumped back to the top again, someone familiar with the plan will see it.  If not,and you are a subscriber you can look through the data base,  The only other suggestion I would have is Google, something I seldom have done.

Good luck,

Richard

[Paulus Jas]

Hi gentlemen,

here is a drawing of that plan.

Though it might look great at first glance, IMHO the grades are impossible. The river bridges and turnouts do not allow enough space for easements, especially around the logging camp and Tyler. Without the spur to the logging camp you will be able to adjust your grades as much as you want. The next drawing might be helpful.

Having Tyler completely on the outer oval, and using the inner demi-circle at the left only for a switch-back to the logging camp might also be a workable idea.

Just like with the Buckley & Onarca I am not sure if this layout is ever build as it is drawn. These plans can be found in 101 MORE  TRACK  PLANS,  just like Jim Kelly's Arkansas Southern or Andy Sperandeo's Jefferson Memphis & Nothern. Which are both better suited as a starter layout.

BTW the database started in the 90's. So you won't find the plan in it.

And of course you need access to three sides; is this really the best option for your space?

Smile
Paul

[trafficdesign]

Thanks Paul. All valid concerns and I appreciate the thoughts. I am looking for a good starter 4x8 HO layout that is easy to build and inexpensive BUT has some interest and visual appeal. So many of the basic 4x8's are an oval!

What attracted me to the Beaver Creek & Tyler Mountain RR is the river and the bridges. I;d like a layout that has a lot of scenic area (not interested in an urban setting).

Googled the two layouts that you mentioned and can't seem to find info on them... do you have any recommendations for a novice????

[fwright]

trafficdesign

....I am looking for a good starter 4x8 HO layout that is easy to build and inexpensive BUT has some interest and visual appeal. So many of the basic 4x8's are an oval!

What attracted me to the Beaver Creek & Tyler Mountain RR is the river and the bridges. I;d like a layout that has a lot of scenic area (not interested in an urban setting).

....do you have any recommendations for a novice????

In a 4x8 space in HO, you are face with pretty severe restrictions on what can be accomplished.  Perhaps only 1 or 2 features are possible out of the many you want.  You have said the bridges and river appeal to you, which is a very good start.  So you need to prioritize what you want/expect from this layout, I have provided some questions:

• Do you really want a 4x8?  Access is needed from 3 sides (with 2ft+ aisles) to build and operate a 4x8 layout.  So at the very minimum, you need 8ft x 10ft clear space to put it in.  A donut configuration will fit in the same space, giving a much longer run for the train(s), bigger curve radius, and more scenic or switching opportunities.  The price of the donut is a duckunder or gate of some kind to get to the inner operator space.  Another configuration in a 8x10 space is a switching layout on 2 or 3 walls.  No duckunder, and the layout does not overwhelm the room, but you have no continuous run, either.  In other words, which features/drawbacks are the best trade-off for you?
• If you choose a 4x8 configuration, do you have room for an extension - similar to what Paul showed?  Extensions do a whole lot more than appears on paper to make a 4x8 look and operate better.  They generally provide a switching area, terminal, or branch line function which is more linear than can be fit into the interior of a 4x8.  In your case, the extension can be used for a port scene, a river landing scene, a log landing or saw mill scene, or something similar.  A great example of a buildable 4x8 with extensions is the 1962-1963 Model Railroader project layout Portage Hill and Communipaw.  The PH&C start out as an oval with a wye on one extension.  It later becomes a point-to-point with 2 small terminals on extensions.  The Jerome & Southwestern is another example of a 4x8 made great by the addition of an extension.  Unfortunately, the J&S used several 22"/18" radius curved turnouts to fit things in - turnouts which are no longer made.  It can probably be built with Walthers #6.5 curved turnouts, but would take some rearranging to fit.
• How important are operations to you?  What type of operations?  Are you interested in just watching a train crossing bridges and rivers?  Or do you prefer to make up and break up trains in a yard, and then head out on the loop for a couple of circuits?  Or do you prefer to spot and collect cars from various industries along the way?

Another way to build an otherwise impractical 4x8 layout plan is to do away with the trackage that is the most impossible.  In the particular plan you are interested in, if you do not extend the switchback across the curves at the left end, you could build the entire layout on one level.  Or you could put a modest amount of rise in different parts to keep things at different levels - without worrying about vertical clearances.

Some of my favorite all-time buildable 4x8 plans are:

• PH&C (already mentioned)
• Laurel Highlands (5x8 oval with mining branch at summit)
• Atlas HO-33 (figure 8 with 2 small terminals)
• Tidewater Central (4x6 better expanded to 4x8 and addition of a couple of spurs)

IIRC, the 2002 Model Railroad Planning issue featured 4x8s.  2003 was about small shelf layouts.  Lots of good ideas there.

Which brings up a point.  Very few layout plans are built exactly as drawn.  It's your layout - use plans as ideas, suggestions, and as a starting point for your plan.  Looking forward to seeing what you come up with for you.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

[trafficdesign]

Thanks Fred W - a lot to think about. While I am aware of the limitations of a 4x8, I have inherited benchwork and do not want to bite off more than I can chew for my first layout!

A 4x8 may not be perfect but it will probably get spousal approval and gets me in the game.

I do like the look of the Tidewater Central!

I am also thinking about the Falls Mill RR -- Shortline as an HO 4X8

I would like one industry (probably lumber related).

I guess my question is which of these makes the most sense for a beginner?

[fwright]

If you are not sure about what you want from a layout - very common for a 1st layout - then Byron's Falls Mill RR is a very good little-bit-of-everything that fits within a 4x8 footprint.  No extensions are needed to get a layout that can be operated.  It also supports 2 train operation (1 circulating on the outer loop, one either circulating or switching on the inner loop) much better than any of the 4x8 plans I suggested.

I would use progressive construction.  Build only one loop or the other, get it running, add some scenery, and have fun.  Then add some more track (may require removing some scenery, but that's OK), get it running, add some more scenery or buildings, etc.  In other words, don't try to build the whole thing all at once.  Enjoy the journey.  Byron's plan is much better suited to progressive construction than the Atlas figure 8.

Suggested order might be

1) inner loop and Falls Mill spurs

2) add outer loop with crossovers OR yard at Falls Mill Jct.  When outer loop is added, block for two train operation if using DC.  If using DCC, add 2nd throttle.

3) add which ever you didn't add in step 2.

Falls Mill will need flex track to make up some of the non-standard curve radii.  Otherwise, it looks like a very good 1st layout. 

Operating a layout like this will teach what kind of operations you prefer.  Then the next layout can be better targeted to your preferences.  Enjoy.

Fred W 

[CTValleyRR]

Trafficdesign-- this is, in fact, the very layout that I attempted to build when I first returned to the hobby 16 years ago. Like you, I was drawn to the operations potential in a small space, as well as the river and mountains concept of the scenery. So, I got a piece of plywood and laid out the track. I very quickly realized that it required grades that were far too steep, and had turnouts on what should have been grade easements. Furthermore, you can only get a loco and 1-2 cars into that center section. I suspect that this is a design that was never built. I will say, however, that some of the ideas did find their way on to my first layout.

[trafficdesign]

Many thanks! Great suggestions. Appreciate the ideas!

[trafficdesign]

Hmmmm.... CTValley are you referring to the original posted Tyler Mountain and Beaver Creek or my REVISED idea of Byron's Falls Mill RR?

If you would recommend against the TMBC layout - how do you feel about Falls Mill? Or do you have other beginning 4x8 layouts that you'd recommend?

Many thanks and your ideas are very much appreciated!

[CTValleyRR]

The original on, as printed in MR circa 1982.

[CTValleyRR]

Sorry -didn't mean to hit "post". Byron's layout looks like a great place to start. I have a lot of respect for his skills, even if we don't always agree on technique. I just wanted to make sure you weren't still considering the original. For myself, I took some ideas from several different plans and went ahead and designed my own. Thing is, I always knew that one was a throwaway. Admittedly, it lasted about 10 years, but its primary purpose was to allow me to experiment and learn.

[rk_dave]

I built the Tyler Creek - twice. Once in 1982/3 then again in 2006. Both times were in HOn3. I was with Lockheed before retiring, and got moved around a lot. Unfortunately, I didn't think to take any pictures of the layout. I've recently gotten back into the hobby; this time looking at N-Scale, and I'm thinking why not go with a track plan I enjoyed before.

HOn3 did help with the clearances on the switchback. Building all of those bridges did get tedious. I had to add extra weight to the locos for traction.