HarryHotspur wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote:Don't believe everything you read in model railroad magazines, and never use a center board except on a sail boat. Good advice. That's why I shoot photos from which to work. Very few show 'blue" water.
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote:Don't believe everything you read in model railroad magazines, and never use a center board except on a sail boat. Good advice. That's why I shoot photos from which to work. Very few show 'blue" water.
HarryHotspur wrote:Don't believe everything you read in model railroad magazines, and never use a center board except on a sail boat.
Don't believe everything you read in model railroad magazines, and never use a center board except on a sail boat.
SpaceMouse wrote: cahrn wrote: I'm going to build my layout as a variant of the 4x8 in MR's July 2003 Workin' on the Railroad column. Any input is appreciated. Note: I will be using mostly '50 cars, and a pair of switchers. I may invest in one or two new engines, choosing between various road switchers. I don't have that issue. What is the layout called so I can look it up in the plan archive?
cahrn wrote: I'm going to build my layout as a variant of the 4x8 in MR's July 2003 Workin' on the Railroad column. Any input is appreciated. Note: I will be using mostly '50 cars, and a pair of switchers. I may invest in one or two new engines, choosing between various road switchers.
I'm going to build my layout as a variant of the 4x8 in MR's July 2003 Workin' on the Railroad column. Any input is appreciated.
Note: I will be using mostly '50 cars, and a pair of switchers. I may invest in one or two new engines, choosing between various road switchers.
I don't have that issue. What is the layout called so I can look it up in the plan archive?
I believe the layout is called the Toronto Central (TCR). Try looking it up.
HarryHotspur wrote:Spacemouse, you're right. I should have read your post more carefully. My bad. - Harry
- Harry
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Mr_Ash wrote:As far as the taking up to much room thing if its in the garage it can be easily be mounted to a pulley system so when not in use it can be easily lifted above anything it might get in the way of Done it before and if I was building in the garage again I would do it again
As far as the taking up to much room thing if its in the garage it can be easily be mounted to a pulley system so when not in use it can be easily lifted above anything it might get in the way of
Done it before and if I was building in the garage again I would do it again
This is exactly what I have at my house.
Harry,
If you read the what I said, I said "IF" you use 22" turns. If you use geared steam or go HOn30 and use then you have more options. You just want to argue don't you?
Most people don't model geared steam--they tend to go a little larger.
I personally am planning a 4 x 6 HO layout. I'd love to see your plan.
HarryHotspur wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Well, since this has degenerated into a debate and our original poster has decided, I'll weigh in. I agree with Harry that 4 x 8 's can be great layouts. However, you'll not find those on the Atlas website or recent issues of MR. I agree with Stein that they are very limited. If you use 22" turns then half your entire layout is spend turning your train. That only leaves half your space for running spurs and runarounds and gives virtually no chance of a decent passing siding.Not necessarily. My forthcoming layout will be somewhere close to 4' x 8', probably a little smaller. Maximum radius will be 15 inches. Minimum will be 10 inches. That said, there are very few people who can pull it off. Those that do either use a divider--which turns it into two small shelves--or they use their scenery or some other device to make their layout seem like a here-to-there. 99% percent of those who build 4 x 8's end up with a toy train or spaghetti bowl or Disneyland ride with structures and roads, etc. as afterthoughts. Then after spending their money they then graduate. Then again there are those like Charlie Comstock's first Bear Creek & South Jackson.
SpaceMouse wrote: Well, since this has degenerated into a debate and our original poster has decided, I'll weigh in. I agree with Harry that 4 x 8 's can be great layouts. However, you'll not find those on the Atlas website or recent issues of MR. I agree with Stein that they are very limited. If you use 22" turns then half your entire layout is spend turning your train. That only leaves half your space for running spurs and runarounds and gives virtually no chance of a decent passing siding.Not necessarily. My forthcoming layout will be somewhere close to 4' x 8', probably a little smaller. Maximum radius will be 15 inches. Minimum will be 10 inches. That said, there are very few people who can pull it off. Those that do either use a divider--which turns it into two small shelves--or they use their scenery or some other device to make their layout seem like a here-to-there. 99% percent of those who build 4 x 8's end up with a toy train or spaghetti bowl or Disneyland ride with structures and roads, etc. as afterthoughts. Then after spending their money they then graduate. Then again there are those like Charlie Comstock's first Bear Creek & South Jackson.
Well, since this has degenerated into a debate and our original poster has decided, I'll weigh in.
I agree with Harry that 4 x 8 's can be great layouts. However, you'll not find those on the Atlas website or recent issues of MR.
I agree with Stein that they are very limited. If you use 22" turns then half your entire layout is spend turning your train. That only leaves half your space for running spurs and runarounds and gives virtually no chance of a decent passing siding.
Not necessarily. My forthcoming layout will be somewhere close to 4' x 8', probably a little smaller. Maximum radius will be 15 inches. Minimum will be 10 inches.
That said, there are very few people who can pull it off. Those that do either use a divider--which turns it into two small shelves--or they use their scenery or some other device to make their layout seem like a here-to-there.
99% percent of those who build 4 x 8's end up with a toy train or spaghetti bowl or Disneyland ride with structures and roads, etc. as afterthoughts. Then after spending their money they then graduate.
Then again there are those like Charlie Comstock's first Bear Creek & South Jackson.
SpaceMouse wrote:Well, since this has degenerated into a debate and our original poster has decided, I'll weigh in. I agree with Harry that 4 x 8 's can be great layouts. However, you'll not find those on the Atlas website or recent issues of MR. I agree with Stein that they are very limited. If you use 22" turns then half your entire layout is spend turning your train. That only leaves half your space for running spurs and runarounds and gives virtually no chance of a decent passing siding.Not necessarily. My forthcoming layout will be somewhere close to 4' x 8', probably a little smaller. Maximum radius will be 15 inches. Minimum will be 10 inches. That said, there are very few people who can pull it off. Those that do either use a divider--which turns it into two small shelves--or they use their scenery or some other device to make their layout seem like a here-to-there. 99% percent of those who build 4 x 8's end up with a toy train or spaghetti bowl or Disneyland ride with structures and roads, etc. as afterthoughts. Then after spending their money they then graduate. Then again there are those like Charlie Comstock's first Bear Creek & South Jackson.
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote:Another trend that's been "in vogue" for a while is green or black water. Blue water is considered very gauche, even though a lot of it exists in this world. Most of it in fact.Actually, water is clear. It only looks blue when it reflects the sky. So only large bodies of water, such as lakes or oceans, look blue. Most watercourses that we'd see on a layout appear to be brown, green or black. Or clear.Here's another brain-buster for you: tree bark is not brown. It is a shade of grey.
HarryHotspur wrote:Another trend that's been "in vogue" for a while is green or black water. Blue water is considered very gauche, even though a lot of it exists in this world. Most of it in fact.
Here's another brain-buster for you: tree bark is not brown. It is a shade of grey.
Everybody who's ever had a glass of water knows that. At least everybody who is not color blind.
The apparent color of water is determined by a number of factors, the sky being one of them. When the water is pure and the stream is not surrounded by green vegetation, the sky is usually the most influential factor. Thus, even small streams will appear blue from most angles, although they will look clear if you stand right beside them.
If you're not convinced, build a small diorama using clear acrylic to represent the water. It will look clear of course. Then put a sky blue background board behind the diorama. The water will then appear to be blue.
Green water is caused by a lot of vegetation surrounding the water, or a high algae content, or a high industrial pollution content. Brown water is caused by mud mixed with the water. I'm not sure about black water, although it would indicate the absense of a reflection of any light, I don't know what would cause that to occur.
steinjr wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: steinjr wrote: Mr_Ash wrote: There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts! The three main limitations of a 4x8 layout is: <badly formated reply deleted - see previous post for details> Interesting reply. Yes, if you do not want curve radii bigger than 22" and you have plenty of floor space and no wall space, then a 4x8 island layout makes a lot more sense than a shelf layout.As it probably does e.g. in the case of the original poster in this thread. However, I do suspect that there probably are more people who have a lack of floor space and a desire for wider curves, than there are people who have a lack of wall space and no desire for wider curves. Incidentally - there is no rule saying that a shelf layout has to be 12" deep. Most people who build one built it 18-24" deep (or more) where they do need the extra depth for a scene, and down to 6-8" deep where they don't need the extra depth. Even a large floor space probably could get turned into a more interesting layout by building a wall down the center of the floor and hanging several sets of shelves on both sides of that wall at two heights, or building a walk-in layout rather than building a single large e.g 4x30 feet island layout in the center of the floor. A 4x8 layout with a central divider down the long axis has two scenes, each 2 feet deep, and takes a cross section of 2 feet aisle + 4 feet layout + 2 feet aisle for a total of 8 feet. Two scenes 2 feet deep in a wall mounted layout would be 2 feet shelf + 2 feet aisle + 2 feet shelf. You could go to three feet aisles and still fit this stuff into a 7 feet wide space. For some reason quite a few apparently intelligent people seem to feel that having more options is better than having fewer options. But by all means - if you feel that shelf layouts under all possible circumstances always would be too flexible for you, then you should always pick the most restricted option - the one you are familiar with.Actually I feel like shelf layouts are too restrictive for me. So does Malcolm Furlow. Me, I'll pick one or the other, depending on circumstances, but I have a preference for shelf or walk-in layouts with scenic dividers over rectangular island style layouts, if I have a choice. Grin, Stein
HarryHotspur wrote: steinjr wrote: Mr_Ash wrote: There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts! The three main limitations of a 4x8 layout is: <badly formated reply deleted - see previous post for details>
steinjr wrote: Mr_Ash wrote: There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts! The three main limitations of a 4x8 layout is:
Mr_Ash wrote: There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts!
There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts!
The three main limitations of a 4x8 layout is:
<badly formated reply deleted - see previous post for details>
Interesting reply. Yes, if you do not want curve radii bigger than 22" and you have plenty of floor space and no wall space, then a 4x8 island layout makes a lot more sense than a shelf layout.As it probably does e.g. in the case of the original poster in this thread.
However, I do suspect that there probably are more people who have a lack of floor space and a desire for wider curves, than there are people who have a lack of wall space and no desire for wider curves.
Even a large floor space probably could get turned into a more interesting layout by building a wall down the center of the floor and hanging several sets of shelves on both sides of that wall at two heights, or building a walk-in layout rather than building a single large e.g 4x30 feet island layout in the center of the floor.
A 4x8 layout with a central divider down the long axis has two scenes, each 2 feet deep, and takes a cross section of 2 feet aisle + 4 feet layout + 2 feet aisle for a total of 8 feet.
Two scenes 2 feet deep in a wall mounted layout would be 2 feet shelf + 2 feet aisle + 2 feet shelf. You could go to three feet aisles and still fit this stuff into a 7 feet wide space.
For some reason quite a few apparently intelligent people seem to feel that having more options is better than having fewer options.
But by all means - if you feel that shelf layouts under all possible circumstances always would be too flexible for you, then you should always pick the most restricted option - the one you are familiar with.
Actually I feel like shelf layouts are too restrictive for me. So does Malcolm Furlow.
Me, I'll pick one or the other, depending on circumstances, but I have a preference for shelf or walk-in layouts with scenic dividers over rectangular island style layouts, if I have a choice.
Grin, Stein
Midnight Railroader wrote: I'm a little confused as to why people seem to believe the only two options in the layout-design world are (a) 4 x 8 table, or (b) a shelf layout.There are many other posibilities. Why are they being ignored?
I'm a little confused as to why people seem to believe the only two options in the layout-design world are (a) 4 x 8 table, or (b) a shelf layout.
There are many other posibilities. Why are they being ignored?
Well you can allways upscale and build a layout in the backyard or suspend it from the ceiling
Were on the subject of 4x8's because the OP wants to rebuild his
If someone wants to build a layout on a 4x8 let them, its there layout and they have there mind set on what they want build if you go and start throwing in other options it just starts to get confusing and in the long run takes longer for the layout builder to actually run some trains.
Besides I like to think of 4x8's as a big chunk of land like a county most of those are big ole squares..... Ofcorse some of you will argue that its not really a square thet the county laid out there land along the walls of the bordering counties
steinjr wrote: Mr_Ash wrote: There's nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts! The three main limitations of a 4x8 layout is: 1) It takes up a lot of space and has trouble co-existing with other uses of room it covers. This is a function of how we use rooms normally. That depends entirely on the room itself and the way people use it. A shelf layout would look ridiculous in my room. Contrast that with a 32 square feet on the wall shelf layout, where you can put the layout on shelves above other furniture, with more storage shelves above the layout.I have built in bookcases and cabinets almost to the ceiling. I don't want a shelf in front of them. 2) The 4x8 forces pretty sharp curves if you want continuous run. 4 feet is 48". You cannot easily do much more than 22-23" radius (44-46" diameter) curves without getting too far out near the edge. with a drop to the floor. I don't want or need any larger radii. 3) It is quite a bit harder to create an illusion of a realistic looking minature copy of a real railroad passing through a scene on a 4x8. It's actually much easier than creating realistic scenes with a depth of one foot. Given a significant amount of discipline (and a scenic divider) a 4x8 certainly can be made to look fairly realistic, say e.g. like Harold Minkwitz's 4x8 Pacific Coast line set in 1905, or Tony Koester's nice little "Wingate" 2x8 town layout with 2x8 staging behind a scenic divider in his book on starting operations.Or some of the 4x6, 4x7 and 4x8 project layouts of the St Louis gateway division of the NMRA. John Allen did a very nice job on his 4 x 6 without a scenic divider. In fact, when he expanded his size to a much larger layout, it was still basically a rectangle with no visible holes in the middle. What inherent advantages does the 4x8 format offer? Umm - easier carpentry? Anything else? No hole in the middle. Much more realistic scenic oportunities. No shelf around the room blocking access to all your stuff. Smile, Stein
1) It takes up a lot of space and has trouble co-existing with other uses of room it covers. This is a function of how we use rooms normally.
That depends entirely on the room itself and the way people use it. A shelf layout would look ridiculous in my room.
Contrast that with a 32 square feet on the wall shelf layout, where you can put the layout on shelves above other furniture, with more storage shelves above the layout.
I have built in bookcases and cabinets almost to the ceiling. I don't want a shelf in front of them.
2) The 4x8 forces pretty sharp curves if you want continuous run. 4 feet is 48". You cannot easily do much more than 22-23" radius (44-46" diameter) curves without getting too far out near the edge. with a drop to the floor.
I don't want or need any larger radii.
3) It is quite a bit harder to create an illusion of a realistic looking minature copy of a real railroad passing through a scene on a 4x8.
It's actually much easier than creating realistic scenes with a depth of one foot.
Given a significant amount of discipline (and a scenic divider) a 4x8 certainly can be made to look fairly realistic, say e.g. like Harold Minkwitz's 4x8 Pacific Coast line set in 1905, or Tony Koester's nice little "Wingate" 2x8 town layout with 2x8 staging behind a scenic divider in his book on starting operations.Or some of the 4x6, 4x7 and 4x8 project layouts of the St Louis gateway division of the NMRA.
What inherent advantages does the 4x8 format offer? Umm - easier carpentry? Anything else?
No hole in the middle. Much more realistic scenic oportunities. No shelf around the room blocking access to all your stuff.
Smile, Stein
Keep smiling,
cahrn wrote:@ Geared Steam: I have come up with a plan that I like quite a lot, and it is a bit more realistic in appearence.
@ Geared Steam:
I have come up with a plan that I like quite a lot, and it is a bit more realistic in appearence.
So, What did you come up with?? After all the about 4x8s, I'm curious.
There is obviously nothing illegal or immoral about building a 4x8 layout. But there is quite a few limitations inherent in the 4x8 island style layout that is alleviated to a large degree in a 32 square feet donut-shaped or around the wall style layout.
1) It takes up a lot of space and has trouble co-existing with other uses of room it covers. This is a function of how we use rooms normally. We normally pile most of our furniture out towards the walls of a room and use the center of the room for walking/access.
When you fill the center of a room with a 4x8 island layout, you cannot easily use an area of at least 6x10 feet, and more likely 8x10 feet - leaving 2 foot wide aisles along two or three layout sides for walking around the layout.
You can try stuff like putting the layout on permanent benchwork on wheels, so you can roll it into a corner (thus saving the 2 feet corridor on one side of the layout when the layout is not in use).
Or you can have a loose baseboard propped up temporaritily on something else - like a ping-ping table, pool table, sawhorses or a dining room table, where you occationally pick off all your rolling stock and everything else on the layout that is not glued down,and pick up the baseboard and store it upright somewhere else.
Just simply building a layout as a 32 square feet donut shape instead of a 4x8 shape, you can easily get far larger curve radii - 32-34" (or quite a bit more) without even breaking into a light sweat.
The right of way for a railroad is normally very long (miles and miles and miles), and yet fairly narrow. Most stuff railroaders really care about probably happen within maybe 100 scale feet of the edge of the tracks. The rest is just "background".
But it is very easy to fall into the stereotypical and not very prototypicak looking down on a full oval in plan view with a couple of random sidings crammed into the center or spaghetti bowl plan with tracks crossing over and under itself in some kind of figure 8 shape.
That is much easier to handle when you build a around-the-walls layout. The return path will be behind you - not across the table from you, beyond the tracks you are looking at now.
So yes - there are some inherent limitations to a 4x8 format in H0 : not so easy co-existence with other uses of the room, sharper curves and it is somewhat harder to create belivrable scenes.
Here is a shelf layout plan in a room that is 6 1/2 by 11 1/2 feet. Try to picture a 4x8 layout in this space:
Theres nothing wrong with 4x8 layouts! When I was a kid I used to visit a hobby shop that had a large G scale (LGB) 6x10 layout in there front window. I copied that layout in HO one time on a 4x8 and now 15 years later im working on doing it again in G scale on a 6x10
Pretty simple nothing fancy
That is a cool track plan, but to me it appears to be very toyish. I have come up with a plan that I like quite a lot, and it is a bit more realistic in appearence.
Also, that layout has quite the birds nest of wires underneath. I will be avoiding that by using the DCC system I bought.
No single method is the best solution for everyone - not around the walls, not 4' x 8', and not Heart of Georgia. Different strokes for different folks.
And the around the walls is not inherently better than a rectangle. In essense, it's just a large rectangle with the middle cut out of it. Every time I see one, it reminds me of kids who have a lot of track and run it down the hallway and in and out of every room.
But it's fine with me if that's what people want to do. It's just not for me.
Cahrn
IHMO Atlas "Plywood Summit Lines" is a great 4x8 if you want to do a 4x8.
This person is building it here.
http://www.icechat.net/trains/
With the scenery done carefully, it is a winner. Small engines, (switchers, Shays, Climax) would be the norm, small cars ( ore cars for the mine, boxcars etc) You can run a train, switch the wye at the higher elevation ( a mine, or log landing on each of the 2 legs is suggested) and a small yard to switch. It can go into a corner, and when access is needed, castors can be used to pull it away from the wall.
By the way, contrary to some posts stating that people with 4x8 are afraid to cut wood (lol) this 4 x 8 design is a cookie cutter, a miter saw is a nice option.
EDIT: Check your PM
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
You say that you like the idea of the scene divider, have you thought of doing a mountain in the middle instead of a two-dimensional scene divider? The fact that you're thinking about a scene divider I take to mean that your 4x8 isn't against the wall. In that case it might be possible to divide your table into two 2x8s joined at one end creating a U layout with a walkway down the middle instead of on one side. This will get you out of ovals, but you'll need to turn your trains around in a space of about 20" - 22".
Your other option is to go with a smaller scale. I love TT scale, but you have to get European imports these days, and there's no American prototypes to speak of. N scale is even smaller, and will give you lots more flexibility. Z scale is really taking off these days. In 4x8 you can build quite a Z empire... if you can afford it.
Best!
ChrisNH wrote:You don't have to defend yourself Cahrn. Run trains, have fun!
ChrisNH,
Im not really trying to defend myself, I just wanted to let people know who were squabbling over an around the walls type layout vs. a table that around the walls is not an option for me. I will be using my existing table on this layout project regardless. Certainly in the future I will construct an around the wall layout, that has more operation potential.
By starting this thread, I merely wanted to see what kinds of things people had done with a 4x8 recently.