jjryan wrote: 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.
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.
*Snicker* Tell her that SUVs are made for off road, aka, get dirty and the like. So parking the SUV in a garage is heresay! ;)
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!"
claymore1977 wrote: 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.
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.
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?
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.
Ha ha, Well I have you pinned personality wise. You're the type that is rarely wrong huh?
Anyways, the strings were an example. Snapping a string easily damages the pickups. Also, if you seriously think that the quality of the guitar/baseball glove/bicycle/etc determines the level entertainment... then i do feel sorry for you as you have missed out on much. I know a girl that can make even the crappiest guitar sound better than a Fender or Les Paul. I know several guys to can play baseball better barehanded than others can with the best glove money can buy. Etc Etc.
So we should agree to disagree. You feel design determines the longevity of entertainment from a layout and I feel that its the person who determines the longevity of entertainment. Both opinions, neither wrong, neither right.
'Nuff said. Moving on....
claymore1977 wrote: 'Nuff said. Moving on....
Amen, Brother Claymore, amen!
Bear "It's all about having fun."
claymore1977 wrote: Ha ha, Well I have you pinned personality wise. You're the type that is rarely wrong huh?
Midnight Railroader wrote: claymore1977 wrote: Ha ha, Well I have you pinned personality wise. You're the type that is rarely wrong huh?Rarely?
The internet is a very poor medium for making personality assumptions.
I dont know anything about guitars and dont really care unless there is some good picking going on in the hills.
Your space is what is availible to you. If you want to banish your spouse's SUV to the driveway do so; but be prepared to barter and parley and do alot of extra honey-do work LOL.
Some of those vehicles are sufficently large to be able to BUILD a 4x8 INSIDE them.
FYI my SUV tonight is parked in the garage. For some reason she parked outside :) I'm not complaining. My garage is a mess because we're cleaning but here's the aftermath from last night.
I bought this construction adhesive for the caulk gun at lowes that they said works on plywood and foam. spread it all over last night on both. just checked and the adhesive hardened but isn't sticking at all to the foam. in fact it's still in the beads like it was last night. what do i use to glue the foam like this to each other and also to the plywood?
What product did you use on the foam?
I cannot remember at the moment but there are certain items that works really well.
It may be too late to ask now but did you weight down the foam after gluing?
SpaceMouse wrote: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.
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.
JJ-Liquid nails makes an adhesive designed for foam board. It says "for foam" on the label. I've had good luck with it.(other stuff can eat the foam) Make sure you put weight evenly on it till it dries so you don't end up with bowed spots.
A $1000 Les Paul (if taken care of) will resell for $1000 if the person loses interest. A crappy sounding, stiff finger board piece of crap is a sure way to make someone lose interest. I thought my playing was horrible on my $100 Strat copy. Then I played a friends $700 Ibenez and WOW! I didn't sound half bad after all! It made me go out and buy a nice Peavey instead of giving up.
Gandy Dancer wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: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. Hardly. We are saying that there is not ONE way of doing things that fits everyone. In fact, I believe you made a rather large post to this effect in the general forum a couple months ago. Nobody is contending 101 track plans are wonderful. No one really expects to build them as presented. They are ideas only. watching a wall-mounted plasma screen with surround sound. Sure watching Hopalong was fun, but... But what - watching the goddy over saturated colors and unnaturally high contrast on a plasma is what better? That is like watching a whole model train of bright and shiny freight cars roll by. And if you are making fun of staging, well let me say this. Hardly, I was designing layouts with "staging" before most touting its wonders were even model railroaders. Back in the 70s we might have called them hidden yards or layover tracks but they served the same function. All I am saying is that there are certain trends in the hobby. One thing will become "the thing" for a few years and then someone will come up with another idea and it will be "the thing" for a while. Each thing will appeal to a certain segment of the hobby. Some elements of each "thing" will become a perminant part of the common knowledge of the hobby. There will always be a certain element that if one doesn't have that "thing" they don't really have a model railroad. Hog wash. At one time brass track was the current trendy thing everyone who was serious about the hobby had to have. Where does that trend stand today?
GD,
Please look at the post you are replying to here. You'll see I wasn't addressing you. B-man and I have already worked through this.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Safety Valve wrote:The internet is a very poor medium for making personality assumptions.
The internet is a very poor medium for conveying sarcasm also!
JJ: looking good!
jjryan wrote: FYI my SUV tonight is parked in the garage. For some reason she parked outside :) I'm not complaining. My garage is a mess because we're cleaning but here's the aftermath from last night.I bought this construction adhesive for the caulk gun at lowes that they said works on plywood and foam. spread it all over last night on both. just checked and the adhesive hardened but isn't sticking at all to the foam. in fact it's still in the beads like it was last night. what do i use to glue the foam like this to each other and also to the plywood?
Any Liquid Nails adhesive will do. I've tried them all; plain, for projects, etc., and they all work well. Comes in caulk gun tubes.
JJRyan,
Started a 4x8 two years ago, had a blast almost every minute so far, the kids enjoy it, don't expect to tear it apart anytime in the next five years, maybe not ever.
Stay with the idea of using castors. They let you push the layout to one side or the other, access other things, and get to the layout from all sides.Think about adding a six-way outlet strip, so that only one cable runs from the layout to the all, makes it easier to move around. We've got 2.5 inch 125 pound castors, the cheapest Lowes sells, they work fine, even on carpet. A big plus for a 4x8, or any island layout, is full access to the walls and shelves around the room. Castors improve on this even more.
Good idea to include a "track to nowhere" in your plan. Maybe more than one. Then later if you expand, all your work to date doesn't have to be thrown away.
I strongly recommend Atlas free software for planning layouts. I am a computer guy, ran the simple ten minute tutorial and was up and running with different plans the first day I installed it. MUCH quicker than using sectional track on a piece of plywood, you can add and delete whole sections in seconds, instead of maybe one plan per day.
In a perfect world, you'd figure out how and where you will expand the layout later on, IF you ever do, and plan the WHOLE layout now, so that your 4x8 fits into the ultimate plan. Easily removable legs are the key to getting a 4x8 finished layout through doors when it's time to move.
You might want to look into a "folded dogbone" plan, it lessens the "round and round" aspect of simple ovals. It is a two level layout, with a grade and in some cases return loops which require different wiring techniques, but has been satisfying for us here.
This was where we started:
It took about two months to get the track laid and wired. Here we are using scraps to guesstimate the heigths of future mountain peaks:
Here we widened the table to a full 48", daddy screwed up and built it 45" to begin, and added two "tracks to no-where" along the new section, which proved to be critical for later expansion:
This is a photo from the area we are modelling, what we were shooting for in terms of scenery:
Here's the plastercloth and spackling compound about ready to paint:
This was how it looked after paint. We used modular techniques for the mountains, to allow access to track and trains if problems develop:
Here's where wewere a couple months ago:
With the exception of ballast and two sections of river water, the original 4x8 is at a "basic done" stage of scenery. About half is ballasted, and all buildings are just sitting in place or unbuilt, but the terrain is in, painted, and in many areas, detailed, because...
...it's time to expand:
Yes, you might hate your 4x8 and throw it away. You probably won't be able to run full size modern passenger cars. If you're careful Atheran RTRs or Blue Box passenger cars are possible. Some six axle diesels, and many larger steam engines will bind or derail on smaller radius curves.
Then again, you might have a ball doing it, finish it and end up on the cover of Model Railroading. A lot of that depends on you. We only have one rule on the layout here.
"If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong."
Proceed.
Learn.
Enjoy.
:-)
jeffers_mz wrote:JJRyan,[lots of good stuff and photos snipped]"If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong."Proceed. Learn.Enjoy.:-)
Thank you jeffers, that was an excellent post about what the hobby's all about, and inspirational for this newcomer. (Gorgeous mountains, by the way)
jjryan wrote: I bought this construction adhesive for the caulk gun at lowes that they said works on plywood and foam. spread it all over last night on both. just checked and the adhesive hardened but isn't sticking at all to the foam. in fact it's still in the beads like it was last night. what do i use to glue the foam like this to each other and also to the plywood?
Did you peel off the thin plastic layer on the sides you caulked?
Hyun wrote: jeffers_mz wrote: JJRyan,[lots of good stuff and photos snipped]"If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong."Proceed. Learn.Enjoy.:-)Thank you jeffers, that was an excellent post about what the hobby's all about, and inspirational for this newcomer. (Gorgeous mountains, by the way)
jeffers_mz wrote: JJRyan,[lots of good stuff and photos snipped]"If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong."Proceed. Learn.Enjoy.:-)
What he said. Nice, nice job, approach, and philosophy jeffers !
aggiewonder wrote: jjryan wrote: I bought this construction adhesive for the caulk gun at lowes that they said works on plywood and foam. spread it all over last night on both. just checked and the adhesive hardened but isn't sticking at all to the foam. in fact it's still in the beads like it was last night. what do i use to glue the foam like this to each other and also to the plywood? Did you peel off the thin plastic layer on the sides you caulked?
Oh boy!
Are we supposed to?
JJ: That's the same foam I plan to use.....did they come in 4x8' sheets? And to echo the others....did you take the plastic off?
I don't have much to add, but I happen to be building a 4x8' layout right now, and designing the trackplan for realistic operation is......interesting. Especially if you plan on modeling the 1960's to now. That's why I'm keeping everything under the length of a GP diesel.
Dave
Hyun, Mailman, thanks.
I'm not saying every minute is a barrel of monkeys. Some days I start a project and right off the bat, a tool falls onto some delicate detail, (or my toe), a new freight car jumps off the tracks it ran fine on a couple days ago, or small parts start disobeying the laws of physics, leaping more than 20 feet through some interdimensional spacetime vortex, never to be seen again, and it's like, "well okay, today's just not a railroad day".
Next day, or a couple hours later, everything flows so smooth you'd think it all was a bad dream. Overall though, you have to enjoy what you're doing or else you're throwing time and money away, probably for the wrong reasons.
I don't see model railroading as an investment I expect a cash return on, there's no time clock or boss to answer to, this is something we choose to get involved in. Right there, you define the hobby as being something that has to please YOU.
Every time you come to a decision point, there's going to be tradeoffs. Many of them will affect what you can and can't do with your layout. Some will affect how others will perceive your work. But if you're just in this to please others, I think you're going to find out it's not enough to motivate you, and even if you work through that, all the the praise in the world isn't going to make you happy with a layout that you personally don't like.
I started with a 4x8 layout way back about 1972. It later expanded to an L shape with the addition of a 4x4 module. At least that early, the industry vendors were pushing larger layouts, and at least some modelers were buying into what was, at least partially, just a marketing ploy.
Coming back to the hobby a couple years ago, I fully expected some flack over the choice to build another 4x8. There are powerful forces at work here, larger layouts make more revenue for the companies that support them. Sure, on our side of the equation, a bigger layout would let us run more trains, and build more scenery, there's a lot to be said for acres and acres to put into your creation, but when we started we didn't have room for any of that. We didn't have room for a 4x8 layout, or even a 2x8 layout.
We had to steal room just to get a 4x8 inside the house, and even now, two years later, I'm still working on projects to alleviate the overcrowding it cost us. That said, I'm convinced we made the right decision, and I'd do it again in a minute.
For every reason not to build a certain style or size of layout, there's just as many reasons to go ahead with it. The idea that it's impossible to enjoy one kind of layout, or complete it, and to get satisfaction from it, is simply ludicrous.
I do, however, think it's important to recognize any future limitations your decisions will incur though. Otherwise, you're buying a pig in a poke and may very well end up dissatisfied. Unpleasant surprises are, well...unpleasant.
But if you know going in what to expect, both the good and the bad, and you decide to proceed, to accept the negatives in return for the positives, I remain convinced that you're going to look back on the time and expense you put in, in a very positive light. That holds true for every project you can think of, from an 18 inch square diorama, all the way up to and including a 1:1 scale 21,000 square foot mansion costing $10 million dollars just for the shell.
Open discussion of the limitations of various layout options is a good thing. Blanket condemnation of certain solution sets is misleading disinformation. Figure out what you can get away with, realize what that's going to cost you in terms of time, money, and result, and then choose to proceed or not proceed.
When it comes to hobbies and entertainment, there's only one person you have to satisfy. In fact, that's pretty much the entire point, at the most fundamental level. I can point you to a whole forum full of guys who get tremendous satisfaction from layouts and dioramas as small as 2 feet by 2 feet and some of them don't even have room to spare for that. They build single buildings, or locomotives or work cars, take a few pictures, share them with friends, put them in a box on a shelf, and are entirely happy with their hobby.
There is a wide spectrum of ways to approach model railroading, and none of them are wrong or right. It it makes you happy, keep at it.
If you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.
fwright wrote: I have successfully used 1920s era and earlier small steam on a 4x8 following the TH&B track plan published in Dec 1967 Model Railroader. But because of the reversing loop-to-reversing loop design, I would only use this plan in conjunction with DCC.Fred W
I have successfully used 1920s era and earlier small steam on a 4x8 following the TH&B track plan published in Dec 1967 Model Railroader. But because of the reversing loop-to-reversing loop design, I would only use this plan in conjunction with DCC.
Fred W
Could someone post a copy or sketch of this plan? I have a hard time imagining a loop-to-loop in a 4x8. Since I amd very limited spacewise, I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.
- Harry
HarryHotspur wrote: fwright wrote: I have successfully used 1920s era and earlier small steam on a 4x8 following the TH&B track plan published in Dec 1967 Model Railroader. But because of the reversing loop-to-reversing loop design, I would only use this plan in conjunction with DCC.Fred WCould someone post a copy or sketch of this plan? I have a hard time imagining a loop-to-loop in a 4x8. Since I amd very limited spacewise, I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.
Best bet would be to order a copy of the article from Model Railroader, our forum hosts. The article had suggestions on how to build the layout in phases, and even some suggestions for structures and an extension yard.
The track plan had an inner oval with a reversing loop, and several spurs off the reversing section. 180 degree turn from the reversing loop, the oval had a branch to the outside which went outside around the reversing loop while descending. Opposite the branch from the oval started the other reversing loop, which went under the oval section. Probably doesn't make much sense to describe it in words.
I built the oval (handlaid track in 1976), and was starting the upper reversing loop when I realized that operationally the thing was going to be a nightmare of block and reversing toggle flipping in the days before DCC. A move intervened, and the new house had only room for a 4x6. Luckily, reversing loops on a 4x6 in HO are a practical impossibility. I would consider the track plan again, but only if I were using DCC.
yours in small layouts
HarryHotspur wrote: fwright wrote:I have successfully used 1920s era and earlier small steam on a 4x8 following the TH&B track plan published in Dec 1967 Model Railroader. But because of the reversing loop-to-reversing loop design, I would only use this plan in conjunction with DCC.Could someone post a copy or sketch of this plan? I have a hard time imagining a loop-to-loop in a 4x8. Since I amd very limited spacewise, I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks.
fwright wrote:I have successfully used 1920s era and earlier small steam on a 4x8 following the TH&B track plan published in Dec 1967 Model Railroader. But because of the reversing loop-to-reversing loop design, I would only use this plan in conjunction with DCC.
bearman wrote:In other words jeffers_mz, you built a 4 X 8 and you are having fun. Sounds like you have a hobby as opposed to a life in model railroading. Love your post.
Strictly speaking, it's not a 4X8 anymore ... he's expanded well beyond. That may be why he's having so much fun.