Turtle Creek MRR layout

[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!).

[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.

[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!

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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]

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!

[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'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.