On page 20, a 4x8 layout is illustrated. I like the looks of it. Would it be possible to list the track components (Atlas Code 83 or Code 100 preferably) necessary for construction.
ACF1001On page 20, a 4x8 layout is illustrated. I like the looks of it. Would it be possible to list the track components (Atlas Code 83 or Code 100 preferably) necessary for construction.
As the sidebar says in the magazine, the original plan is the "Soo Red Wing Division" layout from 1994. This layout is also in one of the Kalmbach books, where you can find specifics regarding the plan. It's pretty straight forward--18" and 22" radius track, with #4 turnouts. It doesn't look to me like he recast the layouts with something longer.
There are some significant changes from the original plan, however. The original had 4 tracks in the yard on the right, with the outer two having an escape track. Also, the inner siding started below the bend (at the bend, actually, and there was another turnout branching off of that, leading to a switchback in the middle of the layout. There were two industries off the switchback lead, and two off the tail. Can't say which is the better of the two, but I suspect that the bulk from the MRP'09, and the yard on the right from the original.
Thank you, Jon. Now it's time for me to do so hunting.
Jon is correct, as I noted in the caption in MRP, the original HO 4X8 in my article came from the December 1994 Model Railroader.
In changing from the original published plan, I removed the unrealistic switchback industry siding and replaced it with longer, more useful straight spurs and revised the yard a bit. The new plan is based on flextrack, not sectional track, and uses Atlas Code 83 #4 turnouts and an Atlas 30º crossing. The crossover made from two #4s was a little tight in practice, but worked for the client with mostly 40' cars and small engines. If you are willing to trim turnouts a bit for length (which is not difficult), you might be able to make that crossover #6s ... that would increase reliability with longer equipment.
I had strongly urged the client not to build an HO 4X8 for his "refresher" layout, but he was adamant because he didn't want to cut the plywood. So I did the best I could for him with the layout adaptation shown in MRP 2009.
I hope you'll at least consider my advice to him and look at a slightly different footprint for your HO layout. It's easy to build a 5X8 by asking the lumber yard to make one cut of the 4X8 "sacred sheet" and adding a pre-cut 2X4 "Handy Panel" of plywood.
A 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 will fit almost anywhere a 4X8 will and offers much more flexibility in terms of HO radii and what will fit.
Good luck with your layout.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
I think they are in bags, because of the extra "Workshop tips" throw-in. It would be too easily lost, were the magazines not in a bag. As to whether it's worth it or not--IMNSHO, they are _always_ worth it! I order them months in advance each year, and regret the years I don't have. Some day, I would like to fill in my collection with all the early ones I don't have. :-) Just collect them all. ;-)
cuyamaI had strongly urged the client not to build an HO 4X8 for his "refresher" layout, but he was adamant because he didn't want to cut the plywood. So I did the best I could for him with the layout adaptation shown in MRP 2009. I hope you'll at least consider my advice to him and look at a slightly different footprint for your HO layout. It's easy to build a 5X8 by asking the lumber yard to make one cut of the 4X8 "sacred sheet" and adding a pre-cut 2X4 "Handy Panel" of plywood. A 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 will fit almost anywhere a 4X8 will and offers much more flexibility in terms of HO radii and what will fit.
OB
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot Visit my blog! http://becomingawarriorpoet.blogspot.com
OzarkBelt Just a thought? Wouldn't it make it better, access-wise, to just leave out the 4'x2' section? It seems to me that having a layout that wide on both sides would make it harder to work on the middle. just my
Just a thought? Wouldn't it make it better, access-wise, to just leave out the 4'x2' section? It seems to me that having a layout that wide on both sides would make it harder to work on the middle. just my
Actually, the 30" reach in from each side isn't so bad, assuming aisles on at least three sides. And for HO, the 5' width allows a broader radius, which is one of my main gripes with the HO 4X8. The best thing, of course, is to look at the space one has available in terms of how a layout can fit, not just in terms of rectangular "islands". There may be a better footprint for a given situation than any unadulterated rectangle.
OzarkBelt BTW, I liked your article in MRP- just read it today. What do you need to do to get published? I have had an idea for a article, but never figured out how to submit it, or "get published"
Thanks, glad you liked the article.
Well, there are two answers to your question. The process for submitting an article to Kalmbach is pretty straightforward, but of course, there's some competition for page space in these popular publications. Information on how to contribute to Model Railroader magazine is on page 6 of the current (March 2009) issue. There it's suggested that you e-mail MR's editorial department at mrmag@mrmag.com for the details on submitting an article. [There are also some good tips on-line in the CTT submission guidelines that would probably hold true for MR as well.]
MR has high standards for graphics and that can be a challenge for some of us. I was able to find some photographers who had taken great shots of the Visalia Electric and work with them to submit their photos to MRP. The other graphics, such as the trackplans and maps, I prepared in electronic format and the Kalmbach artists used that as a basis for their art. Photography and images "make or break" articles in MR and MRP.
But starting out with MR may not be the fastest path to having your first article published. There are other print publications, media-zines, local NMRA publications, Historical Societies, and Special Interest Group publications that are always looking for articles and have a smaller backlog of articles. In my case, I started as a model railroad author with the Layout Design Journal, published by the Layout Design SIG. These don't always pay, and certainly at lower rates than Kalmbach publications, but they are a good way to get your feet wet.
Now you will hear horror stories about how long MR sits on an article. One fellow repeatedly posts about how his one article was held for thirteen years. (Of course, he never mentions that his other articles and photos were published much more quickly -- guess that would spoil his high state of dudgeon. Nor does he mention that MR paid him upon acceptance -- so he didn't wait for publication to receive his money).
But it is true that it may take a while for your article to get published, depending on what they have run recently and what's already in the backlog. The editors have to appeal to a broad range of interests and too much published on one topic too close together is something they are concerned about. A while back one of my articles for MRP was bumped for a couple of years because they had another in the backlog with a somewhat similar theme. [And honestly, my worst experience in "sitting" on an article was with one of MR's print competitors. They sat on the article for a couple of years with no action, then gave it back. Hopefully, it will appear in a Kalmbach publication in the future.]
You'll also read repeatedly in this forum about how "only the insiders get published". That's certainly not true, and I'm living proof. But it does help to have some experience writing articles and once you have worked with an editor and delivered good work (on-time), they will naturally be more likely to consider your submittals in the future.
Good luck with your article idea!
cuyamaActually, the 30" reach in from each side isn't so bad, assuming aisles on at least three sides. And for HO, the 5' width allows a broader radius, which is one of my main gripes with the HO 4X8. The best thing, of course, is to look at the space one has available in terms of how a layout can fit, not just in terms of rectangular "islands". There may be a better footprint for a given situation than any unadulterated rectangle.
Okay... I guess I just have rectangular-phobia......But I can see why you would include that extra piece now...
cuyamaBut starting out with MR may not be the fastest path to having your first article published. There are other print publications, media-zines, local NMRA publications, Historical Societies, and Special Interest Group publications that are always looking for articles and have a smaller backlog of articles. In my case, I started as a model railroad author with the Layout Design Journal, published by the Layout Design SIG. These don't always pay, and certainly at lower rates than Kalmbach publications, but they are a good way to get your feet wet.
Thanks for your reply and advice... and your welcome. I will check this out... now I have an incentive ot get it done. What program would you reccomend to draw out track plans? I am pretty much stuck with paint, unless there is a free track plan design program somwhere... I'm really limited on funds.
Thanks again..
OzarkBelt Thanks for your reply and advice... and your welcome. I will check this out... now I have an incentive ot get it done. What program would you reccomend to draw out track plans? I am pretty much stuck with paint, unless there is a free track plan design program somwhere... I'm really limited on funds.
I just posted some ideas on track planning CAD in this other current thread. But CAD isn't absolutely necessary for getting a track plan article published in MR, since their artists redraw in Adobe Illustrator. Neat, to-scale drawings are important for Kalmbach, I would assume. For some other publications electronic formats may be more important, because they may not have staff artists. XTrkCAD is free.
Cool, Thanks! I'll check that out.
Actually, if you have room for a 5x9 with a MINIMAL 2' aisle on 3 sides, and I mean MINIMAL - I for one would not be comfortable in a 2' wide space, then you have room for either 7x13 or 9x11 if built along the walls shelf-style. You could still use the big curves, although viewing from the inside lessens the distracting appearance of tight radius curves, and you'd have a lot more room in the middle to walk along with your train.. There's a feeling that anythign other than an island is much more difficult to built. Why is that? Granted, a 4x8, if you use really thick plywood, can b as simple as a sheet of plywood with some legs nailed on, or even a couple of sawhorses. But compare say a 4x8 with a proper supporting framework and it's not all that different from a simple shelf.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Actually, if you have room for a 5x9 with a MINIMAL 2' aisle on 3 sides, and I mean MINIMAL - I for one would not be comfortable in a 2' wide space, then you have room for either 7x13 or 9x11 if built along the walls shelf-style.
Actually, if you have room for a 5x9 with a MINIMAL 2' aisle on 3 sides, and I mean MINIMAL - I for one would not be comfortable in a 2' wide space, then you have room for either 7x13 or 9x11 if built along the walls shelf-style.
Right, that's basically my fundamental point, which I have posted on the forum many times and in the link above. But some people insist on an island -- no matter how logical a different footprint would be for their space. And if it's got to be an HO island or nothing, 5 feet wide is better.
dear acf 1001,
I also am looking for the REDWING track plan. It is featured on the cover of the PRACTICAL GUIDE TO H O MODEL RAILROADING, but no track plan is contained in the mag. Please keep me informed on your search.
thank you tho69o9
tho69o9 I also am looking for the REDWING track plan.
I also am looking for the REDWING track plan.
Maybe you missed this, earlier in the thread:
cuyama ... as I noted in the caption in MRP, the original HO 4X8 in my article came from the December 1994 Model Railroader.
... as I noted in the caption in MRP, the original HO 4X8 in my article came from the December 1994 Model Railroader.
You can order a back issue of the original magazine or a copy of the article from Kalmbach.http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=bi&id=6
cuyamaBut some people insist on an island -- no matter how logical a different footprint would be for their space.
My opinion, for what little it's worth - besides the fact that tables are familiar to us, people often look at an island because it allows continuous running with very little effort, no bridges across the door, no duckunders, etc and it allows greater depth of view across a four foot island than a two foot shelf with the same amount of reach in. Once you start thinking about the railroad going somewhere, I think selfs grow in importance and islands shrink.
Of course there's also the fact that plywood comes in 4x8 sheets with no cutting. Heck, look at how many people use doors as the base, even for shelf layouts -- because they are ready made.
jmbjmbOf course there's also the fact that plywood comes in 4x8 sheets with no cutting. Heck, look at how many people use doors as the base, even for shelf layouts -- because they are ready made.
Yeah, but shelves come ready-made too. I bought mine at Ikea. ;-)
You can fault MR for "promoting" this, but they must work with what they must work with. I doubt this will ever change in the US, so long as people have garages and basements in which to put these things. Living in Europe, and reading European model railroading press, and web pages, I quickly learned that Ikea is a great resource for model railroading. When I first wanted to build something here, in my 60m2 flat (642 ft2--think 10x60 mobile home), I thought "island", but what with no garage and no basement, I only had a tiny piece of the wall above my TV. I discovered Carl Arendt's web site, and discovered micro layouts. ;-) I also discovered that shelves make a great base for a layout, in particular, Ikea shelves. They are pre-built, can be hung on the way, and some, the floor-standing bookshelf kind, can be interconnected! But imagine an American not having a roundy-rounder! Unheard of, for a "starter" layout. ;-) Oddly, since I cannot have such a thing, my little 4 yr old, who has a wooden train set, has started emulating my short, end-to-end layouts with her wooden trains. I'm starting her right. ;-)
In any case, I just don't see the 4x8 going away until and unless American lifestyles change. The compromises necessary for a 4x8 are just too easy--especially when all sectional track is _also_ designed to run on a 4x8.
(now, if I can just figure out how to attach a picture, I'll add a pic of my daughter with her very own Inglenook Sidings track set. She loves being the engineer, while I play the brakeman, doing the uncoupling and throwing the switches. This Inglenook fits on a 120x30cm Ikea shelf.)Inglenook tabletop
I think one reason people start with a 4x8 is that it's small and you can get some trains running without a large investment in wood, track, etc. Also a newcomer can get it up and running faster. It can be pretty discouraging to not have anything running after a month of buildiing your first layout.
My first layout was a 4x8 using a track plan from the 1st edition of Track Planning for Realistic Operation, I had it up and running trains fairly quickly in less than a month. My second layout was a 6x6 1/2 sectional with open center, open grid with mountain branch. Even after a year when I moved and had to dismantle it I didn't have all the track laid, plus I had messed up the grade up the mountain and was going to have to redo it. If that had been my first layout I might never have continued.
So I think starting with a table top is a good way to go. But I agree that 4x8 is too small. 5x10 would be much better, but the standard chain lumberyard doesn't carry it. But if you get 2 4x8 sheets and have the lumberyard cut them at the 5'4" mark you can arrange the pieces in a 5'4" x 12' configuration. By using just one of the small 4'x2''8" pieces you can arrange them in a 5'4" by 10'8" configuratin (you'll need a small cutoff from the unused piece). An advantage of the 5'4" by 10'8" layout is that it is exactly 1/3 bigger than a 4x8 in each direction which means you can use any 4x8 plan with 24" radius curves instead of 18" radius.
One of the traps in this hobby is building a layout that efficiently uses all of the space available. If you don't have the time and/or money a tabletop can be a good way to keep the monster under control.
Enjoy
Paul
JoninKrakowI only had a tiny piece of the wall above my TV. I discovered Carl Arendt's web site, and discovered micro layouts. ;-) I also discovered that shelves make a great base for a layout, in particular, Ikea shelves. They are pre-built, can be hung on the way, and some, the floor-standing bookshelf kind, can be interconnected! But imagine an American not having a roundy-rounder! Unheard of, for a "starter" layout. ;-) Oddly, since I cannot have such a thing, my little 4 yr old, who has a wooden train set, has started emulating my short, end-to-end layouts with her wooden trains. I'm starting her right. ;-)
You are right that shelves are a good way to start... They can be easy to start up, like your example, and they are less constricted to the demands of the space available.... that is, they can adapt to most areas, while a 4'x8' does not. I started with a 9'x11' layout as my first layout after realizing I could squeeze more railroad in the space available than a 4x8 would have give me. Do I miss continuous running? yes. Do I rgret my decision? no.
Ahh, I'll get off my soap box now....
I do agree with you on the shelves -- my own layout is mostly hanging off standard modular shelving. Funny you should mention your daughter. My son would spread his Thomas wooden track along the floor from room to room with spurs along the way. When I asked him way, he said "because real trains go someplace and not in a circle." He's also the kid who likes to get caught first in line at the railroad crossing. Even better, he prefers steam to diesel. :)
JoninKrakowActually, I think the real reason for the 4x8 is more deeply rooted culturally than we realize, and much less practical.
That's probably true, and unfortunate, too. No matter how much you show some people that they'd be better off (a better track plan, wider curves, etc.) with something other than that shape and size, they insist on using it.
Midnight RailroaderJoninKrakowActually, I think the real reason for the 4x8 is more deeply rooted culturally than we realize, and much less practical. That's probably true, and unfortunate, too. No matter how much you show some people that they'd be better off (a better track plan, wider curves, etc.) with something other than that shape and size, they insist on using it.
I would suggest that maybe the language is a bit strong--"better off" in what way? Priorities are different for everybody. Somebody who is looking at model trains more as something to play with--an informal hobby--will have different priorities than someone who is wanting to replicate the operations of a real railroad in miniature--and someone who wished to do that, even, may have different priorities--for instance, most British modelers look at replicating the actions in one particular station--including timetable operation (what trains ran on a particular day), and replicating every detail of the station, whereas some operators wish to replicate the entire operation of a branch, and others seek to scale a whole railroad, with copious amounts of selective compression. Every aspect of model railroading involves compromises, as we are dealing in miniature, and with various amounts of real estate. For myself, I would rather see someone get started on a 4x8, and catch the fever in a big way. This is better than being discouraged simply because of his choice of 4x8 for his first layout. Getting up and running is the first priority, I would think, especially if some one is, um.... carpentally-challenged. ;-) Americans start with a 4x8. That's the way it is. For myself, I would recommend simpler plans that downplay the idea of a roundy-rounder. For instance, scenic only one side, with the back side for staging. You would have two benefits from this. 1. Curves are less obvious and less of an issue, and 2. It starts the thinking along the lines of, "why not just run it around the wall anyway." It starts the mind thinking in different directions. Such plans would be excellent for this. I know that, for myself, the n-scale PRR Middle Division was quite an eye-opener (the name is a link to the web page). It was featured in MR a few years ago, and it changed my perspective of what I could do, from which I ended up moving to shelf layouts and micros even. it's still one of my favorite model railroads of all time, showing just what is possible with a simple oval. ;-)
Midnight Railroader JoninKrakowActually, I think the real reason for the 4x8 is more deeply rooted culturally than we realize, and much less practical. That's probably true, and unfortunate, too. No matter how much you show some people that they'd be better off (a better track plan, wider curves, etc.) with something other than that shape and size, they insist on using it.
It's like a mantra kind of thing. If I just want to have the train going around chasing its tail that will be the form I'll choose. Eeeergh
I like shelf based plans because I can do more with that type of design rather than roundie rounds.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
blownout cylinderI like shelf based plans because I can do more with that type of design rather than roundie rounds.
Again, "table" and shelf" are not the only two types of layout designs.
By limiting discusion to these two terms, people end up missing out on a lot of possibilities.
JoninKrakowI would suggest that maybe the language is a bit strong--"better off" in what way? Priorities are different for everybody.
Just about no one prefers smaller-radius curves, for starters.The 4x8 always limits curves to 22" or less (and most people will use 18" because they want the track away from the edge of the table).
By "better off," I mean a more serviceable shape for the layout than a 4x8 rectangle.
And "around the walls" is not the only alternative to the 4x8 table, and such thinking is what limits us in designing benchwork.
Americans do not necessarily need to start with a 4x8 sheet of plywood. There is no rule that states it is a requirement, and thinking a little more creatively usually results in a shape more suited to building a model railroad.
Midnight Railroader blownout cylinderI like shelf based plans because I can do more with that type of design rather than roundie rounds. Again, "table" and shelf" are not the only two types of layout designs. By limiting discusion to these two terms, people end up missing out on a lot of possibilities.
And that is quite true-I was thinking of one way to do it. As for me and my space I've opted for an around the corner type for now. I'm helping a couple with a disabled child build one that is almost--if one could picture it--a dragonfly shape with swept back wings. It is a combination of shelf,peninsula with attached blob, and tables at ends of wings for storage tracks at this point. The top of the layout joins the two ends in a wye which then draws the single main down one side of the peninsula, around the 'blob', and back near the top where it terminates. Mind, all plans are, or can be, provisional, depending on what one sees developing over time----
Thank you for the advice. I will be looking for an old ping-pong table which is 5x9 feet. You are right that it will allow me to spread things out more for not only the asethetics, but for operation as well. But, give yourself a high five and and pat on the back. You succeeded in meeting the customer's request despite the difficulties.