Not exactly square, but you know what I mean. If plywood came in a 20'x40' sheet, that's what we would build them on. HO layouts tend to be various "walk around" types or "around the wall," with a 3-foot "reach" rule. None of the layouts depicted in CTT seem to have access holes, but appear to be out of reach in a lot of places. So how do they build them and how do the service them if they can't reach them?
Now I did see some "around the wall" designs in the latest issue of CTT, but I'm talking in general, they are "square." It can't be just the turn radius, because 18" radius is considered to be minimum on an HO layout and Fastrac (O-36) is the same radius.
If I end up building a toy train layout instead of just setting them up to play trains, I will probably build a "square" one as well, I just don't understand why.
What am I missing?
I think its a combo of three things:
1) 4 x 8 tables are easy to use as a table top for a layout. As you said if it were 20 x 40 foot sheets we might have used that instead ( how cool would that have been!!!)
2) We are creatures of habbit. Why fix something that isnt broken. My dad set up trains on a 4 x 8 table for me and I am doing the same today.
3)Lionel's advertising. In the pre war era, the catalogs showed a boy, his dad, and the family dog playing with a lionel train on the rug in the family room. So kids would so the same. By the postwar period, lionel had started showing detailed table top layouts on 4 x 8s in their catalogs. They even built dealer display layouts to show their products and kids would try to copy that in their basements.
Hopefully your layout will change this worn out system we have!
Guess it's the most easy way to build a layout. It doesn't require a lot of carpentry skills, (just take a 4x8 on a few studs) and you don't have to plan your layout before building the table. It's simple, straightforward and cheap. Besides that, you can easily reach everywhere, and since ancient lionel trackplans every plan was made from the same point of view. An ovalish layout on a square-isch table.
Nothing wrong with that, untill someone came to the idea that toytrains where no toy's but models. And models don't drive on a square table and in an oval shaped layout. They travel from A to B and have left and right turns.. So they started to mimic that, because they couldn't tell the misses that they where playing with toys. So they became "modellers" and their layouts became "models" based on the real thing with scientific based backgrounds and a whole story to go along with it. They mimic the nature, rivers, bridges and everything to a small world of their own. The misses thought they where doing something scientific, something with geoligy involved, and electricity and it looked "cute", so men could say that they where modellers instead of kids playing with toys.
However, as soon as the women accepted that "modelling" was a hobby for grownups, being a scientifical and intelligent way to spend your time, some "modellers" started to take shortcuts. They left the tiny grasses and only painted their landscape green. They started to make an oval on a square-isch table again and because the misses had accepted the "hobby" as a grown-up thing she didn't notice the "going back to the roots" movement. Even if she would say "little johnatan does exactly the same with his trainset" the men would tell that they are interested in the technics only or that the landscape is getting dirty very quickly, so it's a practical thing and absolutely NOT the same as little john does!
It's an evolution. We went from an oval, to a layout which worked and looked like the real thing and from there on some have gone back to their oval and square table. They did so because they like to play with toys, but the misses needs to think they're not..
My layout is not square, but around the walls.. The track however is an oval, but it's not that obvious since you can't oversee the whole layout at one glance.
I guess it what size the plywood is. I did it cause it was just easier making the benchwork. My layout is shaped more like a L and I can seperate it to move it. All my layouts mostly been square even my HO cause it was just a 4x8 sheet of plywood on a old folding table.
I agree with everyone's comments thus far. I initially had mine on a square layout because I was simply trying to recreate a prewar look. Also, square and rectangular shapes simply fit into corners of rooms and flush against walls, making them a bit more "room friendly". My new layout I'm working on is a modified four x eight (actually its 4.25' x 8.5' to be honest).
....Roger
btw....nice layouts guys!
I doubt that there is one comprehensive answer to this question. In a past life I did point to point HO layouts. When I "came back" to O I realized that my available space would not allow for a good point to point layout, particularly with the radii of the curves that I wanted to use so I ended up with a hybrid tabletop (versus open benchwork) somewhere between an oval and dogbone. Use of scenics tends to hide some of the round and round characteristics. Although most of the layout falls within the three foot rule, I have a couple of traps (conveniently disguised) that I can remove easily for access to a couple of hard to reach areas. So while I model a particular RR, timeframe, and location, I've had to take some liberties to accomodate the size of O versus my space available.
Of course, the entire answer could lay in the fact that the earth is flat, right?
Poppyl
They are Toy Train Layouts and not Model Railroads.
Toy Train Layouts are in multiples of 2 x 4.
Model Railroads concentrate on a specific mainline.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
The only good reason I can think of for building a stand-alone layout, rectangular or otherwise, is portability. Around-the-walls generally provides much more layout in the same space.
Consider a 10-by-12-foot room. Put a 4-by-8 foot layout in there, butted against the middle of a 10-foot wall and you have a tolerable 3 feet of clearance on each long side, 2 feet on the end, and a 2-foot reach. The layout area is of course 32 square feet; and the maximum track oval is about 20 feet.
On the other hand, a 2-foot-wide shelf around the walls leaves a 6-by-8 foot space in the middle and provides 72 square feet of layout, with a maximum track oval of about 40 feet. If you're willing to go up to a 3-foot shelf, with 4-by-6 in the middle, the area increases to 96 square feet. If you can solve the problem of getting into the room, it's no contest.
(Andrew, you're kidding, right?)
Bob Nelson
Well the numbers are true but then again you have limited the yourself with the 2 foot shelf on some types of scenery. Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong doing it that way. However I like to have the extra space to work with. Sometimes things just don't work so great being so close to the tracks.
In any event there is nothing wrong with either and I would bet it is closer to a 50/50 on track vs shelf than most people think.
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
Most toy train layouts are square so that they will not fit in a round hole. It's a well known fact.
Jim
Modeling the Baltimore waterfront in HO scale
jaabat wrote: Most toy train layouts are square so that they will not fit in a round hole. It's a well known fact. Jim
He'll be here all week, folks ... try the veal!
Jaabat. LOL!
Maybe need to know which way is north, south, east and west so trains don't get lost? Might be hard to do on a round table; even harder if it is triangular.
I know why mine are. I live in an apartment. The walls are made out of plaster over cinder block (not wood or wallboard) which makes drilling into them (unless you know what you are doing which is not me) difficult (as in the around the wall layouts). Added to the fact that there are jut-outs (corners around internal beams that hold up the apartments above me) that take away from extended wall space.
Wonder if this sounds familiar!
Actually, it is all about the plywood. I have never been to a lumber yard, that sells round sheets of plywood. Now......if they did.., then all layouts would be rounded. Unless you cut a rectangular piece into a circle. But, then you would only use curved track, unless you had a siding in the middle. hmmmmm.........
I have an L shaped layout the is 20 feet on one leg and 10 on the other. The width is 4 feet. It's all made from 4 x 8 sheets. The table may be square but the track is rounded.
Chuck
Benchwork that follows curved or multi-gon contours require more than a tape measure, skill saw, and screw shooter to build.
Toy train layouts are square because if you didn't make them square then when you run your trains you are at risk of having a wreck-tangle......
Why ar McD's fillet o fish's square? I've never seen a square fish, Daddy-o. Just the opposite. I've heard of a pretty cool fish who drives a Barracuda when ever his Sting Ray is in the shop. That same dude threw a fin in the jar for Jerry's Squids, just for the halibut...Mr. Limpet, quite a fish.
I do not know if I am kidding. It is just the first thing that popped into my head before I fell asleep.
"Around the walls" doesn't have to be "attached to the walls" at all, any more than a freestanding layout.
lionelsoni wrote: "Around the walls" doesn't have to be "attached to the walls" at all, any more than a freestanding layout.
Why? To prevent circular reasoning.
(It is ironic that many train tables are square (or rectangular) and the track plan is oval or circular).
Another theory.....
Simple economics. A square layout is cheaper to build. Consider two different 100sq ft layouts, one 10' by 10' (square!) and one 2' x 50'. The perimeter of the 10'x 10' layout is 40', so you only need 40' or less of track. The 2' x 50' layout has a perimeter of 104', so track costs are much higher. The further from square you get, the more expensive it is, plus the radius of your curves get really tight!
Tim
A square layout is also more expensive to build. Consider two different layouts with 40 feet of track, one 10 by 10 feet (square!) and one 2 by 38 feet. The area if the 10-by-10 layout is 100 square feet, so you need 100 square feet of plywood. The 2-by-38 layout has an area of 76 square feet, so plywood costs are much lower. The further from square you get, the less expensive it is.
It all depends on whether you want the least area for the amount of track you have or the least track for the area you have!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month