Turtle Creek MRR layout

[Anonymous]

I'm in N, but really like the HO plan/layout in the recent issue, just seeing some of the buildings is inspiring, and I like the creek, bridges, tunnel. Much better than last years Rock Ridge. I could not fit a 8x4 in a room due to short arms, lack of access. But the "feel" of that layout suits me well. I can see my layout taking shape with foam board, 5/8" plywood on 1x3 framing with foam board, rivers cut from foam.

I liked the door N scale layout with the staging tracks, removeable, I'm liking that idea too, I have more trains than will fit my layout, have been fighting with how to do staging, even giving up part of my run along the 3rd wall in the future just to have parking space for a few trains.

Can other modelers see inspiration and how to from the Turtle Creek layout? What do you like?
I like the 60 degree crossover siding.

[Anonymous]

the turtle creek is nice if you are starting out it would make a good layout for the begining modeler it's helpful to those that's building a layout and need tips on this & that(track laying,roadbed,scenery)I don't have the Jan.Issue so I would have to check it out.

[Anonymous]

I like the way the spurs are arranged on the Turtle Creek Central. It takes advantage of the space better than the typical plan where every spur is parallel to the layout edge. I've noticed that this layout and the contest layout from earlier this year use a 4X8 layout as basically a single scene, rather than placing a scenic divider down the center of the layout to make two different scenes as many of MR's previous project layouts have done.

I also model in N scale and am considering a similar approach (single scene and similar arrangement of spurs) for my next layout. We do have an advantage in N-scale in that we only need a 24-30" wide table to make a complete loop. As you pointed out, 4 feet is pretty tought to reach across!

[BRAKIE]

All I have to say about that layout it is a lionel mentality poorly designed layout and lacks any true meaning other then a fancy train set..That gosh awfull looking mountain,should not be even be on such a small layout..

[Anonymous]

Guess it depends on where you live and what railroad tracks run there.... not what I would see in the west, but I've learned a lot about railroading in the midwest, along rivers and creeks. I didn't understand before, but along the Illinois rivers, I do! From LA, Tucson, etc. I never saw stuff like that, but now I do.

Tom

Angel in a cornfield... SP, ATSF and UP

[Anonymous]

Larry; don't hold back like that...tell us how you REALLY feel !
(Just kidding..)I have to agree with you on that " mountain ", it kind of reminds me of a large Chia Pet growing in the corner, with a gaping mouth, (tunnel portal).
However, Jim Kelly has a user-friendly writing style, and no doubt there are beginners who can be helped by the Turtle Creek project, and the methods outlined in it.I think the layout would be much better with no mountain, just maybe a textured removable section of backdrop along 1 or 2 edges.
Best regards for 2003 / Mike

[Anonymous]

I think it does a fine job of what it is supposed to do. Help beginners get into the hobby. It is not a how to on building museum quality layout. When figure it takes approx. 60 ft, in HO to equal a mile, I wonder how realistic many model train layouts really are.

[BRAKIE]

coggins,I don't think you would like to know how realistic our layouts really are.Can you say a very short line railroad? We would not need any more then 1-3 engines at the most,no passenger trains-well ok,maybe we could run a mixed train by using a combine...

That project layout would not need anything more then a 44 or 70 tonner for motive power.Infact it would be abandon years ago or be like some short lines that haul 70-100 cars a year and operates on a as needed bases.That coal dealer would have no need for rail service as it could be trucked in from the mines since there is a extention that reads to the mines...

More industries on this layout would make it a believable railroad and keep the interest of the new modeler up.

[Anonymous]

Larry, I think maybe you should try chilling out a little. Possibly you are taking this a little more seriously than someone just entering the hobby. I'm sorry,but, I certainly thought that the Turtle Creek did a fine job of getting someone started. As for the Mountain, I'm sure that a real railroad would not tunnel through it,but, likewise it probably wouldn't include a loop to allow trains to go round and round. I think with a layout like this, one would probably need to use a little imagination. And that is not a bad thing.
Jeff Coggins
Valparaiso Indiana

[dwaneet]

Here, here, regardless of how detailed a layout can became it still needs a little imagination to be believabe. From the plywood central to the master modeler's masterpiece.

[dknelson]

Sometimes railroads do choose to tunnel through a "mountain" that hardly seems worthwhile. Tunnel City in Wisconsin is a good example. The hill seems to come out of nowhere and the railroads decided to tunnel rather than circle around it -
Any oval layout where you can take in the entire track plan at a glance is going to look a little Lionel-like. The point is, I suspect, to get the beginner to actually start and complete a layout and then move on. It isn't like we are being told this is the end result we should all be aspiring too!
One thing about the track plan -- I have always liked sidings that involve crossings.
Dave Nelson

[BRAKIE]

Jeff,I am a very chilled out modeler over all.

All I see in that layout is 3 things..
1. The Lionel mentality running amuck from a 1950s layout design...

2. Has no reason for being other then a glorified train set.

3.It should teach a beginer the type of layout not to build on a 4'x8'..

I have seen 4'x8' layouts that would blow that layout away easy to build and fun to operate.

Sorry no kudos to MR on this one.Two thumbs down and a loud boo!

You should hear my comments on 99% of the layouts in the layout books. Naw,it's best not to!

[Anonymous]

Larry,

If you could expand on your points a bit, it might be instructive to those of us new to the hobby... I'm in the process of building this layout and it seems that it is teaching me a lot of things I will need to know somewhere down the road.

1) What is "Lionel Mentality"?
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?
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 anthing else they've suggested that I wouldn't have to take out a 2nd mortgage to build.

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.

[Anonymous]

So is anyone out there actually building this? I have the roadbed down and am starting to lay track but had to make a few modifications. The 90deg. crossing closest to the center of the layout doesn't appear to be an actual 90 either on the published track plan (when I check it with a compass) or after I laid it out on the table. To get it to match up with the curve heading toward the loop, I had to move it (and the other crossing as well toward the right about 4 inches, which of course changed a lot of the other turnouts. In addition, getting it to match with the other 90-deg crossing created a somewhat awkward curve, but since it is near the edge of the layout, it doesn't appear to be a problem. I've fit everything in, but I basically had to wing it on fitting in the five turnouts on the near side of the layout.

Also, does anyone have any good advice on keeping the ballast from damaging the turnouts? The information in the article seems a bit sketchy and I'm a bit concerned about the chance of damaging a $14 turnout (or more than 1!).

[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

[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]

[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.

[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]

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).

[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]

[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] ..

[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]

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]

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,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]

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.

[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]

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!!!!!)

[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]

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?