Hi all
Well when I first started dad made my first board 8x4 as a child it seemed HUGE
I was wraped a big train set.
When I was old enough to build my own layout without help from dad well you guessed it 8x4
Building it for the first time myself scared the hell out of me but any hardware timber suplier or warehouse type store has them its easy and it works
It is something familier and that helps take the fear out of it.
I soon started to realise it was not ideal and there was a better way but without,
that first on my own 8x4 I would not know what I know now.
Because I would not have built the layouts I have built over time some bigger some smaller than that orriginal layout.
And I certainly would not be even be contemplaiting how to try and best use the space that I now have to play with.
After my expierience even knowing the problems of the 8x4 I would still say thats how I started and you will learn from it so that the next one is better.
Its biggest advantage from my perspective faults and all is its do able and can be completed.
I think thats its most important feature it is small enough to complete and has a familier feel to it.
Sacred no but do able yes.
regards John
My view- nothing wrong with a 4x8 (or 4x6) if space is a big factor and the limitations are understood. My Dad started one three years ago around the same time I got started on my more expansive and complex plan. In his case all he had to work with was a corner of a small spare bedroom. One big benefit- his railroad is essentially finished, while mine is on a 10+ year construction schedule.
Uncomplicated benchwork, no grades and a small footprint does have its place.
Another benefit- a 4x8 is a great platform for experimenting and learning from mistakes. Been there done that!
Huntington Junction - Freelance based on the B&O and C&O in coal country before the merger... doing it my way. Now working on phase 3. - Walt
For photos and more: http://www.wkhobbies.com/model-railroad/
Well I'm "testing the waters" with my first layout in 30 years, a 4x6 with 18" curves (and slightly tighter in places). I realized the limits I would have on engines and rolling stock but I'm OK with that. The challenge for me is to have a simple loop and enough interesting, to me, sidings and industries. The goal is to improve on operations, design, scenary to make it attractive and maintain interest.
No doubt the 4x8 is a popular format among beginners. Few would dispute that. In HO I never built a 4x8. When I was living with my parents my dad built a loft in the garage where I ran some. With college and moving around alot I didn't build a real layout until in a house in Indiana a 16x19 foot layout with 30 inch curves but by then I had lots of reading and planning under my belt for it.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Although everyone here agrees that a 4x8 with tight curves is not the best way to go, it would be interesting to know just how many of us here building or operating on 2nd, 3rd or 4th layouts began years ago with a 4x8. I bet the number would be quite high. Newcomers are always eager to run trains and a 4x8 is the easiest way to get started. And all of us were newcomers at some point.
What I find challenging is when newbies already have 4x8 or maybe even a bit larger benchwork built with a flat plywood or foam top. And then post asking for help in designing a track plan for it that includes mountainous terrain with grades and crossovers along with the necessary tight curves. Being encouraging and realistic at the same time can be a slippery slope.
riogrande5761hamburgers
Russell
Water Level Route Your comment got me thinking about how simple it would be for someone (NMRA? World's Greatest Hobby Group?) to put together a simple leaflet for manufacturers to place in every trainset to show some simple to do ideas for what is possible when the customer is ready to move on from the sheet of plywood. Nothing terribly detailed or lengthy, no detailed step by step, just some examples with basic steps. (Cut two sheets of plywood like this, and reasseble like this, etc....) It could even be tacked onto the end of the train set's instructions. Something to plant the seed. Wouldn't think it would be too difficult or costly.
Your comment got me thinking about how simple it would be for someone (NMRA? World's Greatest Hobby Group?) to put together a simple leaflet for manufacturers to place in every trainset to show some simple to do ideas for what is possible when the customer is ready to move on from the sheet of plywood. Nothing terribly detailed or lengthy, no detailed step by step, just some examples with basic steps. (Cut two sheets of plywood like this, and reasseble like this, etc....) It could even be tacked onto the end of the train set's instructions. Something to plant the seed. Wouldn't think it would be too difficult or costly.
An excellent suggestion!
Steve,
The 4x8 is the easiest, most accessable platform to build a layout. While to you or me, benchwork is doesn't seem like a big deal, but for some people, benchwork isn't something that always comes naturally or may be beyond what some are willing (at the early stages) to tackle. They may see it as a means to an end, something thats kind of "in the way" of supporting the thing they want to do, run some trains and add some things like scenery or buildings etc. I think as hobbyists progress, then thats part of the learning process and evolution. As we see here, there are still many who, for any number of reasons still hold a strong attraction to the 4x8 format which includes by necessity, 18 and 22 inch curves. Ultimately it's an individual choice of whether to hold on or break free from that. It's up to the hobbyist and as long as they are pleased, who can fault them. If someone does find that they can't run desired rolling stock that really requires broader curves, then that often is the motivating factor that forces the issue. It definitly was for me.
riogrande5761That said, if people are somehow tied to the 4x8 and feel it sacred, I don't want to violate anyones conscience on it. It is a convenient format which keeps things real simple if people just want to go to Home Depot or Lows and make that simple plywood 4x8 layout. I just think it's worth knowing there are definitely other options what will get you larger radius curves without taking that much more space.
Mike
It is interesting to think that most layouts at public displays are sectional layouts, most layouts in magazines are along the wall empires, and when someone new comes along they start on a sheet of plywood.
I often look at the 4X8 beginner projects in MR and think what if they just cut it down the middle and make the layout expandable. They would not even need to build those sections for the magazine but show what is possible to the reader. Benchwork is not that hard to build and with every hobby you may need to learn new skills.
Steve
cuyamaThat's not the issue at all, IMHO. Whether continous-run or not, the 4X8 Sacred Sheet significantly limits the minimum radius in HO It's especially ironic today that the HO 4X8 is still some sort of touchstone for MR, since sabre saws are relatively cheap and widely available (if using plywood) and extruded foam is an alternative to using plywood at all.
It's especially ironic today that the HO 4X8 is still some sort of touchstone for MR, since sabre saws are relatively cheap and widely available (if using plywood) and extruded foam is an alternative to using plywood at all.
Yes, the 4x8 does limit things; thats absolutely true. And it's been my assertion for some years that the 4x8 is a straight jacket to model railroad design that I've encouraged people not to jump at straight away but consider a few other options if they can open their minds to it. I guess you could say it's my version of the Taco Bell add, "Think Outside the Bun". The model train industry is still recommending "hamburgers" to beginners or space constrained folks when it could offer somthing tastier. Think out side the 4x8 sheet of plywood bun and it opens up new possibilities (and larger radii curves), even if the space isn't there for something a lot bigger.
In my opinion, MR would do much more to help newcomers by providing more information on how easy it is to build benchwork that’s not a 4X8 rectangle (or 4X6, in their latest project). These techniques were published more often in the 1970s and ‘80s, as I recall. If choosing a continuous run and an island-style layout in HO, a 5X9 or 5X10 doesn’t require much more floor space and offers much better radii to handle more recent models. (And of course many other options besides an island would be possible just in the 8’X10’ footprint of a Sacred Sheet HO 4X8 layout and its aisles.) Byron
If choosing a continuous run and an island-style layout in HO, a 5X9 or 5X10 doesn’t require much more floor space and offers much better radii to handle more recent models. (And of course many other options besides an island would be possible just in the 8’X10’ footprint of a Sacred Sheet HO 4X8 layout and its aisles.)
Byron
I agree - it sounds like you've took a page from one of my past posts.
That said, if people are somehow tied to the 4x8 and feel it sacred, I don't want to violate anyones conscience on it. It is a convenient format which keeps things real simple if people just want to go to Home Depot or Lows and make that simple plywood 4x8 layout. I just think it's worth knowing there are definitely other options what will get you larger radius curves without taking that much more space. Well said Byron.
I really can't condemn the good old 4x8 and the small radius curves that go with it. When I got my first train set (HO Scale) as a kid, my folks seeing my love for them talked about where I could put them so they could be set up permanently. My dad suggested getting a sheet of plywood I could set them up on tucked into an out of the way corner in our house and by the end of the day, there I was with (in my 8 yr old mind) a HUGE 4x8 sheet of OSB propped up on 4 old milk crates to get it off the floor. I was hooked. All I knew about model railroading was what I could find at the toys-r-us in the city where my grandparents lived. I never did get my first issue of MR until a good many years later. At the time, I didn't have the skills, and my dad didn't have the time to build anything different, and that was okay. I was happy running my trains on that 4x8 layout. I can say from experience if that first train set had come with curves that wouldn't have fit on that 4x8 sheet of plywood, I never would have had that first layout, and probably wouldn't be in the hobby today because of it.
riogrande5761The problem is most beginners (correct me if I'm wrong) probably aren't too keen on running trains back and forth on a short stretch of track
That's not the issue at all, IMHO. Whether continous-run or not, the 4X8 Sacred Sheet significantly limits the minimum radius in HO.
In my opinion, MR would do much more to help newcomers by providing more information on how easy it is to build benchwork that’s not a 4X8 rectangle (or 4X6, in their latest project). These techniques were published more often in the 1970s and ‘80s, as I recall.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
riogrande5761 Sure, I "get it" that people can grow bored of trains going in a circle fairly quickly, but thats where you need the switching opportunities built into even a 4x8, so there is some interesting things to do beyond the building of the layout and running trains in circles.
Steve:
The flip side of this is that some people prefer to have trains run in circle as opposed to switching operations. I have had two different model rails come to a few of my operating sessions, friends with everyone present, but decided after 6 or 8 sessions that they just weren't interested.
Rather sit sipping tea as first one, and then another and then another train does a few laps.
I would sooner watch a TV documentry on growing grain in Alaska, but to each his own.
Dave
I only briefly considered a 4x8 for my first layout. It would not have paid off in the end. I am still stuck with 22" curves, though most are 24". I hate running my DDA40X on the minimum, but the space you have is the space you have.
Thankfully in my case I'll be getting a larger running space soon, so I may expand the layout a bit for the first build.
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
Hey, don't feel, bad b'out nothin, I had trouble at first too. For example, o gauge and ho scale, have a lot in common, so I learned from Lionel magazines about curve radius. This radius, can go from 027 to 072, 036 fits most and that goes for ho scale as well. Although you could have a different scale such as 0 scale, America flyer, (aka s gauge), z scale, n scale, oo-gauge, or large scale, (aka g scale). These I'm still not sure if it applies, but 036 is ideal for compact layouts like mine, a slide out.
Choops I dont think there would be as much discusion about minimum radii if there were less layouts built on a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood. It is not a good place for a beginner to start in my opinion. A shelf layout looks better, operates prototypically, trains look better, easy to expand, saves space, no reach issues, easy to wire, can attach to a club, portable, etc. etc. Steve
I dont think there would be as much discusion about minimum radii if there were less layouts built on a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood. It is not a good place for a beginner to start in my opinion.
A shelf layout looks better, operates prototypically, trains look better, easy to expand, saves space, no reach issues, easy to wire, can attach to a club, portable, etc. etc.
The problem is most beginners (correct me if I'm wrong) probably aren't too keen on running trains back and forth on a short stretch of track - thats something which comes with undertanding how some train operations work and then wanting to duplicate them semi realistically. So the loop of track on a 4x8, or maybe something a little larger is what most beginners - and some experienced people would rather build. Sure, I "get it" that people can grow bored of trains going in a circle fairly quickly, but thats where you need the switching opportunities built into even a 4x8, so there is some interesting things to do beyond the building of the layout and running trains in circles.
Texas Zepher riogrande5761 When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time. at least we still aren't as bad the old Atlas forum was.
riogrande5761 When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time.
at least we still aren't as bad the old Atlas forum was.
We are trying to keep a lid on the flaming etc. but I've found MR and ARF has each their own share of "fun". Forums seem to be full of trolls and and semi-trolls everywhere, even if some like to think their hangout is better than someone elses hangout. I was just on another forum where a guy dis'd ARF as full of negative people and the next post later there was a "negative Nancy" post... heh heh.
------- Generally I would have thought 24" radius was the norm. I remember trying to figure out why the Cat Mountain was able to get so much into about the same space as my club layout at the time. Didn't take too long to find out the difference was that the Cat Mountain used 24" minimum while the club minimum was 36". I have no idea what I would consider a "modest" sized layout. I am currently dealing with a "lost in space" type area that is the total opposite of modest. Way back when I started planning a "final" permanent layout I was determine to use 30" minimum because that was the specified minimum of several brass locos that I had my eye on. Since then I've raised it because of the Walther's passenger cars.
Generally I would have thought 24" radius was the norm. I remember trying to figure out why the Cat Mountain was able to get so much into about the same space as my club layout at the time. Didn't take too long to find out the difference was that the Cat Mountain used 24" minimum while the club minimum was 36".
I have no idea what I would consider a "modest" sized layout. I am currently dealing with a "lost in space" type area that is the total opposite of modest.
Way back when I started planning a "final" permanent layout I was determine to use 30" minimum because that was the specified minimum of several brass locos that I had my eye on. Since then I've raised it because of the Walther's passenger cars.
I thought David Barrows Cat Mountain had 30" minimums - I'd have to dig through my old MR's but he's gone through many iterations, more recently domino's and maybe he's retired now.
You raised your minimum above 30" radius? As for 24 inches, I've seen some Walthers cars minimums raised to 26" radius in recent years, which is why I wouldn't recommend 26" - you never want to go with an absolute minimum if you can manage it. Of course space can be limitation as we all know.
It greves me that any hobby store owner would make someone believe they could not get started into the hobby on 18" radius curves, and others who instantly poo-poo many newbies ideas and dreams by piling on "facts" about the "right" way to do it.
Unfortunately the hobby is full of opinionated people, however, it's bad business and shooting ones self in the foot for a hobby shop owner to say stuff like that. Instead they should just say, if you are going with 18-inch curves, thats fine, but be aware that there are some things you may have trouble running - such as scale length passenger cars and long freight cars, and some loco's. Thats all.
i really don't see a contentuoius discussion here, I believe that everyone tries to use the broadest curve possible for their available space. My plan, initially called for a main line with 32" minimum, however, I found everything I wanted didn't fit in my space. My choice, stick with broad curves and fewer industries, or sharper curves (26" radius?) and more switching. Everyone's situation and solution is different.
riogrande5761When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time.
-------
------
To the other running sub/side-topic of this thread. I am also always puzzed by some who learn something (or worse read something second hand) and take it to extreme levels becomming fanatical as the "right" way. It greves me that any hobby store owner would make someone believe they could not get started into the hobby on 18" radius curves, and others who instantly poo-poo many newbies ideas and dreams by piling on "facts" about the "right" way to do it.
Jim townhouses can have decent sized basements. If mine was a contiguous space it would be 18 x 26 feet which is decent for a layout. However its divided with the largest room at 10 x 18. I would like a stand alone home hopefully for a few years before retirement.
As the discussion has pointed out, there are multiple reasons or criteria for the minimum radius. My first 'real' HO layout was built in a 13' by 15' room in my parents basement(late 60's). It started out as my Dad's shop, but it was consumed by the layout. 22" radius curves, and Atlas Customline turnouts were used. Running 50's era 4 axle diesels, and 40' freight cars for the most part worked just fine.
I suspect that a 'modest' sized layout today(10' by 12' room) running 4 axle diesels and 50' could get by with 22" radius curves and look decent.
Current layout occupies a 25' by 20' area(minus a 7' by 12' utility room in one corner). 30" radius curves and I still run transition era 40' & 50' freight cars. I can now run full length passenger cars (and 6 axle locomotives).
If I finally 'retire' from home ownership, I may build a new smaller layout in a townhouse(they have basements in Minnesota).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I'm planning a "small" urban switching layout, approx 3' x 5' that will use 15" R curves with #4 turnouts. Yeah its tight, that's the point. Its modeled on tight urban rail lines like the SP Rathole
Have fun with your trains
In my opinion it would depend on the railroad and the time period modeled. A standard guage class 1 transition era railroad or railroads modeled: freight only 24" minimum is a good number, 4 axle passenger trucks need at least 24-26 depending on manufacturer and length of truck, 6 axle branchline kit trucks need at least 26" would prefer 30". I have imperfectly installed 24" minimum radius curves (23"-25"), consequently my heavyweight cars only run on my club's modular layout. A more modern era railroad, you might think about trying to get those minimum curves up to 26" or more if possible, just dont sacrifice all of space for curves.
I also am not a fan of the 4x8 layout. As many others have noted on this forum and other forums, if you have room for a 4x8, you have room for an around the walls layout, and if you build it right, you can use the space for other things. My layout runs around a spare bedroom, which is still useable as such, as well as containing a television, several book cases, dvd racks, this computer etc.
Edit: Other pet peeve, articulateds that pivot in the middle. I have a 3 rail O N&W Class A (2-6-6-4) and it runs on 36" radius curves without the rear drivers pivoting. Watching an HO scale articulated bend in the middle with the cab swinging out looks absolutely absurd.
John Busby Hi all You call 10' X 18' modest, wow! thats a HUGE ECHO ECho echo space to build a model railroad in. Most people I know including me dream of having that kind space and think a 9' X 12' room to build nothing but a layout in means they are building a very large layout. regards John
You call 10' X 18' modest, wow! thats a HUGE ECHO ECho echo space to build a model railroad in.
Most people I know including me dream of having that kind space and think a 9' X 12' room to build nothing but a layout in means they are building a very large layout.
By European terms, thats a large space, however in America, most house basements have much larger spaces hence why train layouts here are often built in basements. California homes generally do not have basement so they rely more on garages or perhaps attics. The reason mine is small is it is in a townhouse basement. I can see it really depends who is reading this as to how they would perceive things. The rise of the American middle class after WWII combined with lots of land gave rise to many people with stand alone homes with sizable basements often featured in Model Railroader magazines over the years. Please keep that in mind for perspective. Now after the recession of 2008 and other factors, many are decrying the disappearance of the middle class in America so things have been heading the other direction and space for model trains isn't like what it was say in the 1960's through 1990's. I've been to Germany and England and know they have very little space compared to here so I understand why they have tight radius curves - it does depend on where you are and what your circumstances are too. It seems I've poked some bears by discussing the articles I've read in MR magazine in the 80's and 90's. Don't shoot the messenger!
Depends on the space available, I think. A modeler build its layout, choosing the railroad and the landscape that wants to reproduce in scale, based on the space available.
My Redstone Branch ho scale layout (www.prrho.com) covers an area of meters 1,70x5,50. I hade to make compromises and, even for the my limited budget, I did a very small layout without complicated tracks. Necessarily then, also the curves are of small radius (max 28", min 22").I hope that result is acceptable.
davidmurray A bigger room would definitely produce bigger aisles and broader curves.
A bigger room would definitely produce bigger aisles and broader curves.
The bigger room also generates more potential areas for derailments, electrical issues, etc. Planning a layout requires considering time, money, layout size, etc. Having a layout that consumes a basement is great, but I prefer having a flawlessly running operation where people don't have to travel around a large area to enjoy everything.
I agree that modest layout size is a realitive term.
My layout is 17' by 12'6". Because I wanted multiple person operations, I also wanted a double sided peninsula. I have four 50' boxcars, a few gondolas, one four bay hopper, and several 40' cars.
I set the layout in 1960, as a subbranch of CN, and to get everything in, I used 22" radius. 72' passenger cars with truck mounted couplers, back around these curves.
Have fun with what you have.