Bear "It's all about having fun."
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm
Here ya go.
If you can add a 1'x8' or 2'x8' onto your 4x8 you can add something called a Timesaver. These are neat little switching yard layouts that are fun to work. Tie one into your 4x8 main and you can have two trains going roundy round and still have some actual operations.
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/Timesaver/timesaver-layouts.html
Here's some examples.
bearman wrote:Modern layout design has advanced beyond the caveman concepts and into the 21 Century. Be careful those of you who just want to have fun. The wrath of the modernists will be wrecked upon you.
jjryan wrote:The reason I did that was to just lay the track on something and see it take up the space so i can try to brainstorm what i want out of the layout.
Gandy Dancer wrote: bearman wrote:Modern layout design has advanced beyond the caveman concepts and into the 21 Century. Be careful those of you who just want to have fun. The wrath of the modernists will be wrecked upon you. Or the trendy people who will be making fun of the caveman concepts used in layouts designed in the first part of the 21st Century.
I say collect every single Stradivarius violin and junk them all in favor of modern violins. I bet those trendy people will each have a 4 X 8 layout.
bearman wrote: Gandy Dancer wrote: bearman wrote:Modern layout design has advanced beyond the caveman concepts and into the 21 Century. Be careful those of you who just want to have fun. The wrath of the modernists will be wrecked upon you. Or the trendy people who will be making fun of the caveman concepts used in layouts designed in the first part of the 21st Century.I say collect every single Stradivarius violin and junk them all in favor of modern violins. I bet those trendy people will each have a 4 X 8 layout.
The Stradivari are acknowledged to be the best violins ever produced, an example of great craftsmanship. They're not valuable just because they are old, they are valuable because they're well-made.
Layout design of the 1950s and 60s is not the same thing. The thinking of the time was far from realistic, with little room for scenery, tracks that looped around and around and up and over, with a good deal of wasted space (not to mention tough access for maintenance). There's nothing "trendy" about more realistic track plans.
By your reasoning, 1950s and 60s Athearn, Globe, and Varney models are better than today's P2K, Stewart, and BLIs simply because they're older.
Sure, who wants to buy those "trendy" current models? While you're at it, I think you can still get one of those grass mats mde with green-dyed sawdust for your scenery.
I think you truly believe the old ways are best, however, I should point out that the plans in 101 are often not buildable. They are taken from artists drawings and when you finally lay them out, they don't actually fit.
Since those days we have some pretty significant advances. Your analogy of the violas is not accurate. Now instead of just running track for tracks sake, designers actually take the time to make every piece of track have significance. Layouts aren't designed to create places for the trains to go. The places to go, create the reason for the layout.
A more accurate analogy would be watching a black and white TV the size of a stuffed chair and watching a wall-mounted plasma screen with surround sound. Sure watching Hopalong was fun, but...
And if you are making fun of staging, well let me say this. The smaller the layout, the more significant having staging becomes. If you don't see this, you'll have difficulty with the rest of the concepts as well.
Here's an article I wrote that might help. What is staging and why do I need it?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
First of all, I am most certainly not making fun of staging. As a matter of fact, I realized some time ago how important staging can be which is one reason I junked my original layout and started from scratch on a bigger one that provides for staging.
My main point in all of this, however, is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a 4 X 8. some of the posts in this and any number of other threads and other forums seem to treat a 4 X 8 with disdain at best and horror at worst. Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people out there who have lost sight of the fact that this is a hobby for the vast majority and should be fun. If someone can have fun with a 4 X 8, and it suits their needs, then great, more power to them.
I also golf and play to a handicap betweeen 18 and 20, which is pretty good, not great but pretty good, and I never make fun of anyone who is hacking around in desperation grimly trying to break 100, because golf is supposed to be fun as well. I only get on a hacker's case if he/she is not practising the etiquette of golf. So it should be with any pastime, do what you want, how you want, without worrying about being judged by others with more ability, experience etc. Just be polite.
To set the record straight, although I already mentioned this, I have no problems with 4 x 8's. In fact, I posted a what I thought was a great 4 x 8 layout. However, most people who are building a layout for the first time think 4 x 8, and that in itself is not bad either--although as many have pointed out, there are other and often better options for the same space.
What I do have a problem with is the loop mentality that accompanies the 4 x 8. Because a person can get contiguous running on the 4 x 8, that is what they think of. They think of the loop first and add track to make it "more interesting." This way of thinking will trap a person into a layout that has little potential for growth.
However, if a person came at the layout form the perspective of modeling the way a railroad works and then found a way to make it happen, then what they have is something that has room for growth--even if they end up with a loop and some sidings.
The point is there is a lot you can do with a 4 x 8. The approach to it's design, however, is everything.
I feel strongly both ways.
First, I came into model railroading due to an interest in the models (and toys) themselves, not because of a burning interest in the prototype. My interest in the prototype is still secondary to my interest in the models, although I have come to enjoy some prototype research. I suspect this background (modeling other model railroads rather than a prototype) is more common than you might think.
So my first stabs at vision and layout design were based on the pictures I saw in Model Railroader, not Trains. What could be finer than a 4x8 patterned after the projects I saw in MR? Especially for a person moving every few years at the direction of Uncle Sam.
Around-the-walls layouts require significant rework every move because no 2 space situations are every exactly the same. A self-contained island layout transfers from house to house with less rework (note I do not claim no rework!). The issue with moving 4x8s is that they often do not fit well into spare bedrooms, and they sometimes have problems going through hallways and staircases. A 4x6 is actually much better suited to typical military moves.
In HO, as I opined earlier in the thread, the island layout does not work well for modeling modern railroading or 80ft passenger cars. The necessary curve radii are too small and the length of passing sidings and other tracks are too short for bigger and especially longer modern rolling stock. But a 4x8 can work quite nicely for earlier eras with shorter rolling stock and trains, as numerous MR projects and features of well done 4x8s can attest.
Simple, well-designed around-the-walls plans such as the HOG are a good alternative to an HO 4x8 in many ways. They offer a much better solution to the curve radius and train length problems of the 4x8 without excessive (IMHO) increased construction complexity. But you have to be willing to tolerate the duck under/lift out/hinged section to access the inner operating space.
Prototype operations are definitely an acquired taste. Almost all of us - whether we are prototype or model fan boys - start from the rail fan mode of watching a moving train. Later some grow into switching or timetable operations or other simulations of prototype operations. But many never get to experience any of these types of operations beyond "running trains", and have no idea as to whether they would enjoy them. They are simply told their track plans must have switching opportunities, properly designed yards, and lots of staging without ever learning whether the associated operations are something they would like to do.
How many beginners (and not just beginners!) get their track, control system, and especially their couplers functional enough to actually try switching spurs and industries? How many beginners are shown enough to utilize their staging as more than just a back stage waiting spot for the parade of trains? How many have any idea about how a real classification yard works? And how to translate that prototype practice to their 3 track yard?
In small layout design, I see two divergent trends. One school of thought promotes switching puzzles and deliberate obstacles to relieve what would otherwise be boring operations. The other school promotes adaptation of prototype designs (LDEs), and operating the way the prototype normally does. In this school, switching puzzles and non-typical obstacles are frowned upon. Which is right for me? To be honest, I can't tell you because I'm one of those who has never gotten a layout far enough to conduct enough switching operations to know whether I need more spice than typical prototype operations. I'm sure there are many others in the same state as me.
just some rambling thoughts stirred up by this thread
Fred W
http://www.rixproducts.com/
http://www.dpmkits.com/
http://www.woodlandscenics.com/
Here's some links to some building kits that won't break the bank. Woodland Scenics sells complete layout kits. They also sell kits to build an entire 15 building city scene with accessories for around $200.(that is if the other folks arguing here haven't scared you away from the hobby yet.) You can make trees, rocks and other scenery stuff yourself to keep costs down. There are a lot of tips here on this forum.
SpaceMouse wrote: To set the record straight, although I already mentioned this, I have no problems with 4 x 8's. In fact, I posted a what I thought was a great 4 x 8 layout. However, most people who are building a layout for the first time think 4 x 8, and that in itself is not bad either--although as many have pointed out, there are other and often better options for the same space. What I do have a problem with is the loop mentality that accompanies the 4 x 8. Because a person can get contiguous running on the 4 x 8, that is what they think of. They think of the loop first and add track to make it "more interesting." This way of thinking will trap a person into a layout that has little potential for growth. However, if a person came at the layout form the perspective of modeling the way a railroad works and then found a way to make it happen, then what they have is something that has room for growth--even if they end up with a loop and some sidings. The point is there is a lot you can do with a 4 x 8. The approach to it's design, however, is everything.
Ok, I'll buy that. Planning is everything.
loathar wrote: http://www.rixproducts.com/http://www.dpmkits.com/http://www.woodlandscenics.com/Here's some links to some building kits that won't break the bank. Woodland Scenics sells complete layout kits. They also sell kits to build an entire 15 building city scene with accessories for around $200.(that is if the other folks arguing here haven't scared you away from the hobby yet.) You can make trees, rocks and other scenery stuff yourself to keep costs down. There are a lot of tips here on this forum.
No body is scaring anybody away if I have something to say about it.
Those complete building kits are attractive to me, Just have not gotten around to getting one yet.
I prefer to plant trees as familys in small groups over a long time for quality instead of painting a furnace filter green and hoping for the best.
Safety Valve wrote: loathar wrote: http://www.rixproducts.com/http://www.dpmkits.com/http://www.woodlandscenics.com/Here's some links to some building kits that won't break the bank. Woodland Scenics sells complete layout kits. They also sell kits to build an entire 15 building city scene with accessories for around $200.(that is if the other folks arguing here haven't scared you away from the hobby yet.) You can make trees, rocks and other scenery stuff yourself to keep costs down. There are a lot of tips here on this forum.No body is scaring anybody away if I have something to say about it.Those complete building kits are attractive to me, Just have not gotten around to getting one yet.I prefer to plant trees as familys in small groups over a long time for quality instead of painting a furnace filter green and hoping for the best.
I've seen that River Pass city kit as low as $160. I wish I knew somebody that had one to find out what the "over 200 details" includes.
I'm not scared and understand where everyone is coming from in their opinions. Due to my space issues and the fact I really want a couple loops taking up the least amount of room the 4x8 is a better option for me. Last night believe it or not I built the benchwork for it and it's the first time ever i've built something with wood. Much easier building that than trying to do a lot of measuring to make a kind like the georgia above.
I enjoy more of the inside parts of the layout including scenery, landscape and buildings so a 4x8 gives me a ton of room to do this. While I may offend some people that are saying the cars will not look right taking a 22 radius curve until I get experienced enough I'm not going to get that picky about how realistic the cars look on the track. I'll just compensate by not making the train extremely long so it's in both corners at once.
I'll post some pictures of my benchwork tonight so you guys can see what I've done thus far.
bearman wrote:As a matter of fact, if I were publishing MR mag, I would have a column in every issue that deals with the trials and the joys of a 4 X 8. If nothing else, I suspect that a number of people would get the bug as a result and end up going further, not to mention spending more disposable dollars, on the hobby. I also suspect that any number of people would go no further and still have fun.
bearman wrote: Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people out there who have lost sight of the fact that this is a hobby for the vast majority and should be fun. If someone can have fun with a 4 X 8, and it suits their needs, then great, more power to them.
I'd also bet most people lost interest in them relatively quickly because of their limitations. If all you want to do is run trains in a circle, with the loco chasing its caboose, then, yes, 4x8 will do.
But building a layout with enough possibilities to keep it interesting in the long term is not difficult nor much more expensive. And since part of the fun of this hobby is in keeping oneself challenged, I can't see why that's a bad thing.
Why this impassioned defense of the 4x8? Do you sell sheet lumber?
The way I see it, starting on a 4x8 is the same as starting any hobby. If you want to play guitar, do you jump right into a Les Paul or get something more reasonable to learn with & make mistakes on? I spent my entire youth happy as a clam with a 4x8. 8+ years of fun. now that I am older and returning to the hobby, I would like to get something larger, more complex, but am probably going to start off with a 4x8 or 5x9 if I go HO or 3x5 if I go N. I hesistate to use the phrase "training wheels" but thats how I am seeing it. Something to get my feet wet (again) and have fun building. For those starting out fresh, a 4x8 could easily keep someone busy for years just building it!
Its obvious that some people like 4x8s and others don't. Since its all a matter of opinion and what we, as individuals, have fun with... why are we arguing? Seriously, advice is one thing, but telling someone that they won't have fun doing a particular thing is, well, its stupid!
Dave Loman
My site: The Rusty Spike
"It's a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your 2 cents in.... hey, someone's making a penny!"
The thing about a 4x8 layout is that it is a small layout. Cutting up the plywood into something like the 8x9 Heart of Georgia still gives you 32 sq ft of layout, nothing wrong with it; but it's still a small layout. If you want a larger layout you need to add more sq ft.
Years ago MR used to cover 5x10 or 5x12 layouts. A good 2 sheets of plywood layout is to have the lumberyard cut 2'8" off the end of each sheet of plywood. All the pieces can now be arranged into a 5'4" by 12' layout. This allows larger curves of course but also more towns, spurs, mountains, etc.
Ever notice how the N scalers don't seem to have this problem. They frequently use something the size of a door (or an actual door) - around 2 1/2 ft by 6 ft. This is roughly 5x12 in HO. Most of the folks who advocate an around the walls layout are also talking a larger layout. In an 8x10 room with an around the walls layout 2 ft deep you have 56 sq ft of layout (2 1/2 ft deep is 65 sq ft). This is about double the 4x8 layout. 64 sq ft makes a nice medium size HO layout, however you arrange it.
32 sq ft is a good size to begin with, but if you stay with the hobby you'll probably want more layout. But it doesn't mean having to give up the tabletop style if that fits your needs and space best.
Enjoy
Paul
Midnight Railroader wrote: bearman wrote:As a matter of fact, if I were publishing MR mag, I would have a column in every issue that deals with the trials and the joys of a 4 X 8. If nothing else, I suspect that a number of people would get the bug as a result and end up going further, not to mention spending more disposable dollars, on the hobby. I also suspect that any number of people would go no further and still have fun.Given that darned near every "project layout" in the last ten years has been a 4x8, I'd say they're there already.
The project layouts, yes, but I have yet, and I admit I have only been a subscriber for 18 months, to read anything that examines the 4 X 8 in the mag, although I serached the web and came up with the +'s and -'s in any number of other sites. Besides, some of those 4 X 8's are in fact pretty interesting in my opinion.
claymore1977 wrote: The way I see it, starting on a 4x8 is the same as starting any hobby. If you want to play guitar, do you jump right into a Les Paul or get something more reasonable to learn with & make mistakes on? I spent my entire youth happy as a clam with a 4x8. 8+ years of fun. now that I am older and returning to the hobby, I would like to get something larger, more complex, but am probably going to start off with a 4x8 or 5x9 if I go HO or 3x5 if I go N. I hesistate to use the phrase "training wheels" but thats how I am seeing it. Something to get my feet wet (again) and have fun building. For those starting out fresh, a 4x8 could easily keep someone busy for years just building it!Its obvious that some people like 4x8s and others don't. Since its all a matter of opinion and what we, as individuals, have fun with... why are we arguing? Seriously, advice is one thing, but telling someone that they won't have fun doing a particular thing is, well, its stupid!
Fred,
I really liked your post. Some good insight there.
Dave,
I think JJ has heard all the opinions and has made his choice. And the choice is a fair one.
JJ,
I respect that you are going into this with eyes open as an learning experience. And I'm willing to let it go at that. However, I caution against closing down any avenues of growth as far as the hobby is concerned. If you design your layout with the expectation of only learning scenery, then when it comes time to build your next layout based upon what you've learned, you will only have gained experience in scenery. You may wish that you had opened other doors when you had the chance.
Midnight Railroader wrote: bearman wrote: Quite frankly, I think there are a lot of people out there who have lost sight of the fact that this is a hobby for the vast majority and should be fun. If someone can have fun with a 4 X 8, and it suits their needs, then great, more power to them. I'd bet most of us have built 4x8 sized layout at some point. I'd also bet most people lost interest in them relatively quickly because of their limitations. If all you want to do is run trains in a circle, with the loco chasing its caboose, then, yes, 4x8 will do. But building a layout with enough possibilities to keep it interesting in the long term is not difficult nor much more expensive. And since part of the fun of this hobby is in keeping oneself challenged, I can't see why that's a bad thing.Why this impassioned defense of the 4x8? Do you sell sheet lumber?
I assure you I have no fiduciary interest in sheet lumber or any other kind of lumber for that matter. I am merely making the point, albeit not as eloquently as others, that there is nothing wrong with a 4 X 8 if it suits an individual's needs and if he/she can have fun at it. And, in the interests of full disclosure the layout I am building now is not 4 X 8.
4x8 is simply because a sheet of plywood served just as well and is easy for someone to get it to the house.
For me it no longer serves because I require bigger radius for the larger engines. However, some plans of that size are useful from a operations point of view where one can use it as a template for thier own road.
Denying yourself the oppertunity to build a round the walls railroad because of not wanting to "Measure" all the time is not a good excuse. I still maintain that the Georgia layout presented here is a powerful and compelling argument towards a new kind of layout.
Another reason the 4x8 was that everyone accepted 18" radius as a normal fact of life in HO scale. It's time we go to 26" or better, half the stuff coming out today espeically locomotives need that much more curve to run properly.
It's not that I don't want to measure it's more of an issue of space. I have a two car garage. My wife is using one side of it for her SUV. I need room to also fit the lawnmower on the other side of her car leaving about a car width for the layout.
I felt that this layout would allow me to get back into the hobby faster than taking a long time on benchwork I don't have the experience to construct.
claymore1977 wrote: The way I see it, starting on a 4x8 is the same as starting any hobby. If you want to play guitar, do you jump right into a Les Paul or get something more reasonable to learn with & make mistakes on?
The way I see it, starting on a 4x8 is the same as starting any hobby. If you want to play guitar, do you jump right into a Les Paul or get something more reasonable to learn with & make mistakes on?
Midnight Railroader wrote: claymore1977 wrote: The way I see it, starting on a 4x8 is the same as starting any hobby. If you want to play guitar, do you jump right into a Les Paul or get something more reasonable to learn with & make mistakes on? Since learning to play and making mistakes does not hurt the guitar one bit, I don't see why someone should get an inferior one.
A) Yes mistakes CAN hurt the guitar, strings for some instruments can be VERY priceyB) Many people don't know if they will like playing, thus not wanting to invest TOO much in itC) Many people realize that its not the quality of guitar that determines entertainment.D) etc.