Turtle Creek MRR layout

[tstage]

Lance,

Any reason why you chose to pull this thread out of the archive?

Tom

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

James,A beginner can learn a lot by reading MR and other magazines..I urge you to take another look at those books and you will see what I am saying..One does not need to work on the railroad to gain knowledge on how to plan a layout..All he/she needs to do is observe the real thing to see how they go about doing track work and going about their daily business..

A layout is NOT that hard to design..It does take some thinking..It is my opinion that a lot of modelers stumble over designing a layout due to the simple fact they have read to much on layout designs and try to cram to way to much on their "dream" layout....The best thing is to keep a layout simple in track design and scenery...What rule says you need to cram a lot of track on a layout? In layout designs some times less is better..

Yes,it is past time that modelers start to think outside of the box in layout designs and take the next step forward in better layout designs..You can see this in looking at layouts by the great thinkers of layout designs such as Tony Koester,Bill Daraby(sp?),Rick Rideout,Lance Mindheim and others..

We have the best detailed engines and cars ever made by just opening the box.. .We have a wealth of information just by a click of a mouse..We have great looking buildings,cars,trucks and etc.. Now don't you think we should design layouts that will compliment our models?

One more item..Track is a model to and should (perhaps must) be modeled accordingly...That is another topic whithin its self..

[Anonymous]

Breezley raises a worthwhile point -- computers are changing many aspects of our lives, but MR isn't at the leading edge here (and indeed, this web site sort of reinforces that). MR has had some features on computer graphics and decals, and some not well thought out pieces on Microsoft Train Simulator (which I would suggest is not really part of this hobby) -- but it's said next to nothing on computer based operation packages (such as ShipIt!, ProTrak, Minirail, or RailOp), an area where unbiased product evaluations and other leadership are sorely lacking. In fact, I e-mailed Terry Thompson some time ago asking if he was interested in a piece on this (the type of "query" we're apparently supposed to make), and never got a reply. So in this area, it's not as if MR hasn't had the chance to cover the field -- I think it's more that MR, like bigger media, is stuck in a risk-averse rut. Interesting writers and humorists aren't breaking into the big papers, because the big papers are full-up with the plagiarizing insiders who publi***he same old stuff, recycled. Same with MR, Tony Koester was new and interesting sometime around 1978.

This goes back to the Turtle Creek layout. There's really little reason to have a 4 x 8 layout, other than that's one size of plywood. Yet year after year we mostly have 4 x 8 project layouts, without serious thought to any kind of innovation. Bib media loses circulation because it produces a bland, predictable product. Nobody at MR seems to have connected any dots here.

[Anonymous]

Brakie, The issue for beginners is THE LAYOUT...I agree with you the Turtle Creek is nice; however, for the beginner wanting to run Modern (TODAY's) Locomotives it's not practical, but it gives the beginner some great ideas...What I'd like to see some of you old timers do is share some layout ideas...Layout's for 4x8, 6x12, etc...Sure you can find them in books...But there is more to the layout and construction than seeing a layout in 2D form...M2C'sW...

[Anonymous]

BRAKIE, as usual has hit on some of the fine points. Design it to operate in some prototypical manner, IE if it's set in the fifties use coresponding structures, cars, trucks, etc. How should it operate? Much thought should go into this area. But let's say we did all of our homework and built that neat little layout.,( some call this building phase the best part !!!) You want to watch the Choo choo's run this is supposed to be the enjoyment phase. (Some folk's never get here, primarily because as BRAKIE says it, "It's too simple, not well thought out, doesn't do much"). All of which translates into another Model Railroader that probably won't hang in there with this hobby for a lifetime of enjoyment. I echo these thoughts - READ, READ READ, Measure twice, cut once. , but by all means build somthing that will sustain your interest for years not just til it's built. THEN WHATshould I do? What other hobby is out there? I've been in this hobby for over 50 years and I still learn new methods find or build a better mousetrap, don't be afraid to rip out something when your skills improve. Don't fall in love with somthing you've done, it can always be redone & improved later.The stuff I did 10 years ago is not what I'm capable of today so there is always a metamorphisis that is ongoing on my layout. Some of my scenes have been tweaked 3 or 4 times.
Above all -- ENJOY IT, IT IS

[Anonymous]

Wow,
Here's my first post over here in a long time. While I don't always agree with Brakie on his tactics, (Hey Brakie, its Lee from over in Atlas Land), I have to agree with his comments on the 4x8 mentality that is predominantly offered to MR's novice readers. These layouts are consistently dull, generally un-realistic, and once built, terribly inconvenient to live with.

The criticism being out of the way, let me give a few pointers to our young friend...

You mentioned that you are using N scale. God bless you. You are one of US. Next, take your 4x8 sheet of whatever it is, plywood, foam or what have you, and cut it in half down the middle, so you have two pieces 2' x 8'. Place these in the corner of the room, in the shape of an L. You now have a layout area of 10' x 8'. You can safely use 11" radius track for your return loops.

You also have the length of run necessary for A) a decent passing siding, B) A reasonably long yard area of 4 or 5 tracks, C) opportunities for some switching in at least one area, D) some scenic variety, and most importantly E) a linear design that gives your trains more of a feel for going somewhere.

Some other tips I've learned over the years...
Never run your main line track parallel to the edge of the train table. Visually, it is TOO perfect. Real railroads are built in the real world. The follow crooked streams, or climb along a hillside. Aside from those midwestern grain haulers, tangent track is usually the exception, not the rule. Even if you intend to only run loopty loops, this will give you a much more appealing railroad to watch.

Second, don't be in a big hurry to lay your track. Take your time, do it right. I used to tell my construction crews, if you don't think you have time to do it right, what makes you think you have time to do it over? You'll find that reliable track work is the key to satisfaction in this hobby.

Next, look at the published track plans for ideas, then throw them away. If you have a favorite locale for railfanning, or there's a railroad from the mists of the past that interests you, go visit the physical plant. Find a location that is compact enough that you can adequately represent it in model form, draw out the track plan for that area, then design the rest of your layout around it. Again, no need for prototype operations here, if that's not your bag. But you'll have an interesting challenge ahead of you to represent that prototype scene as accurately as possible.

Finally, do what makes you happy. If the 4x8 scene appeals to you, go for it. Just whatever you do, don't let your wife know how much you're spending. Let's face it, there's some things she's better off not knowing!

Have fun.
Lee

[breezley]

This thread caught my eye because some 30 years ago, while living at home with the folks, I created my first railroad - the Turtle Creek and Niagara. I have been away from the hobby for almost 25 years and am considering getting back into it in a few months. I recently subscribed to MR and then tonight peeked at the forums as first steps towards this goal.

One of my other hobbies (and my professional trade) is computers, and I was excited about what I *might* find in railroading now that computers are much different from what they were in the 1970s. Other than some articles on DCC, I have been sorely disappointed! One would think we would have the ability to use the PC as a CAD/CAM resource to help build models (download the plans from trains.com or have a CD ROM in the magazine) or lots of discussion around how one can interface one's PC network into their layout, much like musicians do with the MIDI standard. But it seems that the hobby has pretty much ignored the tech revolution...although one might argue that is a good thing! [:)] I guess I am more surprised than anything.

I have to agree with the recent sentiment about MR - while it is terribly impressive to see layouts that fill houses, it is hardly representative of what *I* can possibly do, and I do admit to being scared off because I couldn't be the next John Allen. (I'm assuming John Allen is still in the model railroading pantheon...? It has been a long time!) The article on the Southern Ry was exactly what I hate seeing - this guy has a three car garage that he converted 100% to his layout, AND he owns his own caboose(!) which he is restoring. If we take his income, or even his $$ invested in the trains, I'm sure it ranks into the top 0.1% of the nation - hardly representative of the 'common man.' This is hardly what the hobby needs to regain its popularity.

My biggest disappointment has to be that MR hasn't tried to focus on the type of layouts that I could afford or fit into my apartment. I think I come closer to representing the 'common man' than any one of the layouts I see featured in MR. I recognize that these layouts sell magazines, but I would like to see one track plan a month (or even a quarter) that tells me how I can fit an HO layout into a 10x10 room that I use as an office (with four networked PCs and a TV in here). Or in my dining or living room, with some mechanism so I can hide it when company comes over for dinner parties. Or a decent track plan for a shelf layout...perhaps a modular design that can be added onto larger layouts as I get larger spaces.

Every hobbyist I know who had a layout at one time has felt the money/time/space constraint, and yet I keep seeing epic designs that look like they took decades of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Surely there is an audience for the clever designs that will allow train-loving husbands to share room space with wives, or for those of us who have only a few hours a month to invest, with incomes much less than six figures? Or has the hobby changed that much?

[Anonymous]

"(the Southern Railway layout in the current issue, which I browsed but didn't buy, is a good example -- not only do we get a photo of the owner, but now we see a photo of his HOUSE, apparently in a "good" neighborhood)."

Worse than that--I think it was his GARAGE, which holds the layout.


While I was a little taken aback by how much Brakie disliked the Turtle Creek layout, I've read him on this and other forums and ALWAYS found him helpful and knowledgeable. He will bend over backwards to help beginners out (me included). Maybe you don't agree with him, but if he says something I pay attention.

That said, I thought the mountain was awful, but my wife likes mountains and tunnels and keeps pestering me for one on my layout (set in Kansas, no less!) I think the 4x8 layouts are useful for beginners, but the project layout I really liked was the Wildcat Central--an around the walls shelf layout. That was a good railfan layout, too, but easy to modify if one wished. I've liked some of the recent N layouts, too, like the Arkansas and Missouri a few years back.

The recent small layout designs have been good, too, and I think it shows an effort to be more realistic for average readers.

Gary

[BRAKIE]

Guys,Please don't misinterpret my words..All I am doing is urging the new and in some cases older modelers to look outside of the box for a much better 4'x8' track plans then most of MR's beginners project layouts...If I am wrong in doing this then I plea guilty as charged..I been in the hobby 52 years and seen many new modelers come into the hobby get disillusion with the hobby by a poorly design layout that has no operational/running potential but was great to run endless loops with.Where did these newbies get their layout plan? From books being sold by Kalmbach and Atlas..Also like jwb stated the mega layouts found in MR didn't help either..

I also tell the newbie that there is no need to take a second or third mortgage out on the house in order to have a nice layout and to enjoy the hobby..I tell them one doesn't need DCC or a $150.00 engine to enjoy this hobby..

BTW jwb,I also would love to see more of the common modelers layouts in MR and as far as that goes all other magazines as well...I suspect there is far more 4'x8' layouts out there then basement size empires...Due to a recent move my layout space is only 2'x11'..It will be a well thought out industrial switching layout design that will give me many years of enjoyment..No switching puzzles for me.

Guys I am not a elitist but do want to see the newbie get started on the right foot and not build a layout he/she may/will get bored with and leave the hobby thinking that is all there is to the hobby.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting that this discussion seems to be continuing after 6 months or more. The issues with the Turtle Creek layout are among the most recent MR's I've purchased -- I buy it at the hobby shop less than half the time now. The Turtle Creek is one of the reasons I buy it less -- here is why, though it's probably not for the reasons most posters have given here.

First, MR is increasingly dominated by a small clique of insiders, former staff, and other regular contributors. I would agree that the layout as executed is mediocre, and I suspect that it got into MR because the author has connections -- decisions appear not to be made on merit. I don't like seeing this in MR any more than I like it in the New York Times.

Second, I'm bothered by the post from the guy who's trying to build the layout and finds that the track plan doesn't work as published. I simply don't know -- and don' want to take the time to investigate -- if this is a misreading of the track plan or layout instructions, but a 90 degree crossing is a standard component, and it seems like this would be a hard thing to screw up. If it's been screwed up at the magazine end, then there's that much less reason for MR to continue to be the hobby's flag-bearer.

Third, the perennial MR "beginner's project" continues to carry on the strange MR editorial voice: on one hand, talk down to your readers as though they're all beginners. On the other, dazzle them simultaneously with ostentatiously big layouts that in many cases stress the owner's economic status as much as his interest in the hobby (the Southern Railway layout in the current issue, which I browsed but didn't buy, is a good example -- not only do we get a photo of the owner, but now we see a photo of his HOUSE, apparently in a "good" neighborhood).

What's increasingly missing is what's in the middle -- layouts built by ordinary people of ordinary size, as well as challenging modeling projects that appeal to a wide audience. I suspect, for instance, (based on the ones that have been published from my area) that a fair number of layouts portrayed in MR and GMR have had extensive paid help with construction -- sometimes this is acknowledged, sometimes not.

This contributes to an elitist approach to the hobby -- the impression is semi-deliberately put out that it's a rich person's activity; the ordinary joes should be happy with the Turtle Creek Central. I've been voting with my pocketbook.

[Anonymous]

Amen CN

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

James,The biggest problem I have with those project layouts is the leave the new modeler with the impression that is all there is to building or running a layout..There is much more a beginner can do to improve a layout that will keep his/her interest up in the hobby...I fully agree these layouts show the modeler how to but leaves any real operation (if you will) out..We both know watching a train run loops with very little or no other things to do will quickly become boring even to the newest of modelers.Here in my opinion is where the danger lays in the newbie giving up on the hobby especially if he/she doesn't have the room for a bigger layout..Why not design it right in the first place with a easy to build and interesting layout operational wise?( operation meaning having cars to switch at industries and perhaps a small yard.)

Brakie, while I think your views certainly do have some validity, and that your efforts to help newbies is to be applauded, several contrary points of view need raising.

Linn Westcott (or perhaps it was John Page) cited decades ago that there are several subgroups within the hobby with totally differing goals when it comes to layout building, be it a 4x8 or one of any other dimensions. I think 5 subgroups were originally cited by the author and among them was one called "The Railfan". These individuals desire only to see the trains run on their layouts. Even long-term they have no interest whatever in switching or "operations". Over the years MR has published a number of tours of such layouts, which lacked any switching potential at all. Some of the modelers in this group had been in the hobby for many years and were perfectly happy with this method of running their layouts. This same "Railfan" faction is well represented in the hobby currently, as an MR poll recently demonstrated (less than 50% of hobbyists responding do any sort of "operation" on their layouts). In that survey's responses, many hobbyists indicated they considered operations too much like work; something they took up this hobby to get away from! Operations is definitely not for everybody and need not be included in every layout design without question.

We must recognize that the goals of various hobbyists differ and that small, so-called Lionel-mentality, layouts are just as valid and may be just as pleasing to many hobbyists as are potentially larger, operations-oriented, switching layouts. These, and anything sort in between, are equally valid as long as they meet the train-running desires of the builder.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Geez, I dont have the biggest room in the world for my layout, and if I had to settle on a 4x8 I would. It is after all a HOBBY something to do in your spare time??? am I right. I can watch trains go around in a circle and get enjoyment out of it, especially after a long days work. And if you build it , and dont like it, you can always rip it out and do it different. Sometimes these 4x8 articles give me an idea I can use on my own layout, so I say keep em coming

[BRAKIE]

Jeff, That wasn't nice..If one wants to help the newbie build a better and more interesting layout they should not have to worry about guys like you..I am for the betterment of the beginner layout so the newbie will stay interested in the hobby and not leave the hobby when those project layouts become boring..

What's wrong with that besides it properly disagrees with your modeling tastes?

[BRAKIE]

James,The biggest problem I have with those project layouts is the leave the new modeler with the impression that is all there is to building or running a layout..There is much more a beginner can do to improve a layout that will keep his/her interest up in the hobby...I fully agree these layouts show the modeler how to but leaves any real operation (if you will) out..We both know watching a train run loops with very little or no other things to do will quickly become boring even to the newest of modelers.Here in my opinion is where the danger lays in the newbie giving up on the hobby especially if he/she doesn't have the room for a bigger layout..Why not design it right in the first place with a easy to build and interesting layout operational wise?( operation meaning having cars to switch at industries and perhaps a small yard.)

[Anonymous]

There is a rule about the internet.Learn fast who to listen to and who to ignore.I guess we need to ignore Larry.
Do your layout the way you want newbies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Old timers to!!!!!)

[Anonymous]

BRAKIE - My comment about Proto87 was with humorous intent ... however, I do see what you mean, but I don't think an article about a beginners layout is necessarily the right place to say it, although in this instance Jim Kelly did make the point about branch lines not having huge ballast shoulders like a mainline in one of the follow up articles.

I still think you are missing my point about layouts like the Turtle Creek being a transition between a trainset and a model railroad. The only real purpose in life for these layouts are training grounds for future hobbyists, they must get the basic skills and get something built, trying to impose higher standards is not the way to encorage people into the hobby. Like you don't learn algebra before you've been taught the basic of math.

Whether or not someone actually builds the published track plan is kind of irrelavent as long as they have read the article on how to go about putting a basic layout together.

Many British mags make this mistake and try and make their "how to start" articles over complicated, which puts beginners off - the hobby in th UK is suffering from a lack of new kids which I attribute in part to this mistake. Paying attention to the track for a main, branch, or siding comes when the beginner replaces their first layout because they have outgrown its limitations, in the mean time they have learnt that the main part of the hobby is that its FUN to build things.

[Anonymous]

I think I will use the Turtle Creek Central plan slightly modified and without the mountain or river for my new 4x8 Oklahoma Belt RR.

[BRAKIE]

James,No,I am not into proto 87 nor do I hand lay track....I do however promote better layout designs...I also promote better track modeling as to the type of layout we build..In short a main line should look like a main line and a branch line should look like a branch line and not a well maintain main line..A industrial branch layout track should look like a industrial branch line and not a regular branch line..One needs to pay attention to the yard tracks and engine service area as well.See what I am talking about? A little more paying attention to track details can lead to a great looking layout....

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE
One more item..Track is a model to and should (perhaps must) be modeled accordingly...That is another topic whithin its self..

Leme guess you're into hand laid Proto87 trackwork?[}:)] Yeh your right thats another thread all by itself ....

[BRAKIE]

James,A beginner can learn a lot by reading MR and other magazines..I urge you to take another look at those books and you will see what I am saying..One does not need to work on the railroad to gain knowledge on how to plan a layout..All he/she needs to do is observe the real thing to see how they go about doing track work and going about their daily business..

A layout is NOT that hard to design..It does take some thinking..It is my opinion that a lot of modelers stumble over designing a layout due to the simple fact they have read to much on layout designs and try to cram to way to much on their "dream" layout....The best thing is to keep a layout simple in track design and scenery...What rule says you need to cram a lot of track on a layout? In layout designs some times less is better..

Yes,it is past time that modelers start to think outside of the box in layout designs and take the next step forward in better layout designs..You can see this in looking at layouts by the great thinkers of layout designs such as Tony Koester,Bill Daraby(sp?),Rick Rideout,Lance Mindheim and others..

We have the best detailed engines and cars ever made by just opening the box.. .We have a wealth of information just by a click of a mouse..We have great looking buildings,cars,trucks and etc.. Now don't you think we should design layouts that will compliment our models?

One more item..Track is a model to and should (perhaps must) be modeled accordingly...That is another topic whithin its self..

[Anonymous]

Several people have valuable points here -

A tradtional 4 x 8 oval can be pretty boring to operate, but on the other hand it can be a good starting point. I'm thinking here of dad helping his kids build a layout scenario, thats a worthwhile learning experience for all concerned. Hey - thats how I got into this hobby - sure I've moved on but don't knock it as a starting point.

On the other hand a 4x8 is not a good use of space, it needs something like 10x12 to operate it properly, there are much better uses of 10x12 than a simple oval with a couple of sidings. But you only learn that once you move away from the "Lionel mentality" of the trainset, these kinds of layout are the transition between the two and therefore have a role to play whether we who have been in the hobby a lot longer like it or not.

I really disagree with BRAKIE over his last post -reading is just what the beginer needs if he or she is ever to progress to anything else. I would say buy every book and mag you can afford, it will stretch your immagination as to what you could achieve in the future, or even if you choose add to this layout! Not everyone has had the chance to work in the rail industry and some have a lot of learning to do before they realise there are other ways of operating than the tail chaser.

Whilst the Turtle Creek layout certainly has its short comings as a track plan I think the series of articles that this (and just about every other MR beginer layout I've seen) generates is a really wothwhile thing. The basic skills of laying track and forming scenery is the foundation of the hobby whatever scale or era you choose model in.

Published track plans have a role to play - not everyone has the flair to design their own plan - if you're limited for space then there are only so many possibilities. Sure if you've been modelling for a while you'll want to put your own stamp on it - change the era or add key elements from your favourite road.

As a final thought there's no right and wrong in model railroading - one man's meat is another's poison - right?

[BRAKIE]

[To: BRAKIE

If you still access this forum, just which supperior layouts do you refer to that are suitable for a beginner to tackle. Please identify Month and Year if your choice appeared in MRR.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe,This I can not do as I have not seen that many 4' x 8' layouts in MR that would be worth building..

The BEST layout is the layout one designs for his/her self..You see by doing this they will get what they WANT from there layout then what some layout designer thinks some one else would want in a layout..

Also keep in mind a lot of these" beginner" layouts is a rouse to have a new hobbyist buy books or what have you they may not really need..Look,one can use the Atlas controller and selectors and wire them by the instructions printed on the back of the package they come in.These work well and no book is needed...Then of course they tell the beginner how to wire that layout for DCC that they don't really need till they get the feel of the hobby to see if they like the hobby or not...Then of course they always mention the high dollar locomotives that just might send a new modeler screaming from his LHS from the high prices. never to return thinking this is a rich man's hobby.[:0] ..

[BRAKIE]

1) What is "Lionel Mentality"?
Lionel mentality is a catch word use by some of the advanced layout planers meaning the layout has no real design or has any real thought been put into it..In others words the track was thrown in place like a kid would with a lionel train set with 2 or 3 switches..

2) Is any model railroad anything other than a glorified train set? What reason for being should any model railroad have other than to give us something fun to do in our spare time?

Well first you have the glorified train set layout then you have a layout that looks like a TRANSPORTATION system hauling goods..You see a layout that is a miniature transportation system compliments our locomotives and cars far more then the glorified train set type of layout that has no real meaning except to run train in endless loops.

3) I'm not sure why this layout shouldn't be built on a 4x8. I thought it looked pretty interesting when I looked at it. I've been reading MRR for a year and I haven't seen anything else they've suggested that I wouldn't have to take out a 2nd mortgage to build.

Well, you being fairly new to the hobby (?)let me enlighten you..Watching train run endless loops with very little switching...I don't count most of those industries on that layout due to the fact there is no rails by their docks..So that tells me those industries are being served by trucks and not rail.

I'm sure your objections are based on your experience, but it would be more instructive to the rest of us if you could elaborate on good vs. bad layouts.

My objections come from two things..I worked on the PRR then PC after the merger and later the C&O under the Chessie banner then later under the CSX banner this gave me more experience then any books or magazines would have in a life time..

Secondly I had those types of layouts and found them to be boring after the newness of the layout wore off and I have seen new modelers turn off to the hobby by these types of layout..

Listen,I am not saying the loop de loop layouts are wrong..The point I am trying to make is plan a 4' x8' layout well where it will be a joy and interesting to operate in the years to come..What rule is there that says you must have a space eating mountain,river or toy like 3-4% ( or better)grades on a 4' x 8' layout? Fore-go these unneeded items and use the space you have wisely...

I challenge everybody to think outside of the box when it comes to layout planing and use the space you have wisely..[:D]

[Anonymous]

CNJ831:

I was primarily referring to 4x8's, which don't provide very intersting 'laps', I can well imagine that just running trains on a larger layout could be quite fun (And in fact have enjoyed doing such), but with the small size and simple track plans of your average 4x8, 'just running laps' is going to pale faily quickly unless you have something else to interest you (not that you're going to stop running the occasional set of laps). Be it operations, model-building, detailing scenes, whatever, you need something to keep up your interest, and operation is probably the most viable long-term interest-keeper for a 4x8 (Eventually you're going to run out of scenes to detail). And even simple operations can be a lot of fun (I don't mean even waybills, but just 'even's east' car number based operations).

[CNJ831]

It always makes me smile a little to hear posters express how a layout, regardless of size, "must" be built around operations to be of any real enjoyment and that round-n-round/doing laps layouts, with little switching potential, are somehow inherently wrong and will not maintain the builder's interested in the hobby.

While MR has pushed the idea of operations for at least five decades this concept is not now, nor ever has been, the ultimate goal of most layout-building hobbyists. By example, an MR on-line readers' poll less than a year ago indicated that significantly less than half of all who responded do any seriously "operating" on their layouts. In fact, I seem to recall the figure was not more than one-third. This has also been somewhat grudgingly pointed out in the pages of MR from time to time over the years.

Many of us indeed enjoy operations (including the undersigned!) but we must all recognize that just "running trains" is still the leading purpose of the great majority of layouts out there.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

While I don't entirely agree with Brakie on this one (It's not the most gratuitous example of Lionel-type thinking I've seen in MR, but that mountain is horrendous), he does have a point. I'm not as opposed to the traditional 4x8 as some, but unless a lot of attention is paid to design, it's not a format that's conducive to staying in the hobby, as all that you can do with most 4x8 plans is run laps and a wee bit of switching, and that gets boring quick. A railroad needs to 'DO' something. It needs a reason for being, a reason for its traffic. Lionel thinking is the run-laps design.

If you want a nice example of a 4x8 design that's got more life, check out the Midland,Ill plan in Tony Koester's Realistic Operations book, it breaks the 4x8 down into 1 scene and staging, so you can use the back half like a fiddle yard, and run realistic timetable operations on the other half. It's also a great Layout Design Element that could be incorporated into a larger layout by chopping off the back half and re-laying a bit of track. There's some good stuff in the latest MR Planning, and if you really want a basic 4x8 loop, look at the Berkshire Division, in the December 92 MR, it's head-and-shoulders above this years project, or even the Pittsburg Plate Glass 4x8 switching layout in the Jan 03 MR.

[Anonymous]

To: BRAKIE

If you still access this forum, just which supperior layouts do you refer to that are suitable for a biginner to tackle. Please identify Month and Year if your choice appeared in MRR.

Thank you.
[e-mail]

[CNJ831]

Ending up gluing-fast ballast to critical moving parts of a turnout can indeed be a problem. Two easy solutions I've seen used are 1) simply don't ballast the areas immediately surrounding the moving parts of the turnout, or 2) attach a strip of tape sticky-side-up to the bottom of the full length of the turnout, then sprinkle your ballast on. You probably won't end up with ballast quite as deep as on the surrounding track but this latter method keeps the turnout completely glue free and allows excess ballast removal with just a toothpick or fine tweezers.

John