Geared Steam wrote: markpierce wrote:The strength of this thread is amazing. What gives?I disagree on the strength you propose, I don't feel that it is amazing, but merely unbelievable.
markpierce wrote:The strength of this thread is amazing. What gives?
I disagree on the strength you propose, I don't feel that it is amazing, but merely unbelievable.
exactly
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
steinjr wrote: I actually agree with your goal. I just question whether your proposed solution is the most optimal way of achieving that goal. What do you think would best convey a sense of completeness : - looking over a table layout to see the rest of the room beyond the layout?, or - looking into an 18" high and 24" deep "shadow box" that stretches as far as your peripherial vision can see both left and right from your viewpoint and has a background which tricks the eye into believing that the scenery continues further into the background ? Looking into an 18 feet by 24 feet shadow box is best. Anyways - I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what is the best way of creating an illusion of a large world compressed into small model. Sorry, but I disagree with that.
I actually agree with your goal. I just question whether your proposed solution is the most optimal way of achieving that goal. What do you think would best convey a sense of completeness :
- looking over a table layout to see the rest of the room beyond the layout?, or
- looking into an 18" high and 24" deep "shadow box" that stretches as far as your peripherial vision can see both left and right from your viewpoint and has a background which tricks the eye into believing that the scenery continues further into the background ?
Looking into an 18 feet by 24 feet shadow box is best.
Sorry, but I disagree with that.
- Harry
HarryHotspur wrote:Suppose I'm standing beside Rembrandt or Brueghel (one of my favorites) or any artist whose work YOU like. And I take a picture of the scene the artist is painting, be it a portrait, landscape or whatever. If I have a resonably good camera and I am a reasonably good amateur photographer, my photograph will be a more accurate and realistic rendition of the scene that that painted by the artist.But which would 99% of the people rather have? Which you rather have to hang on your wall if I offered to give you one of them? The point is that virtually everybody would choose the painting - remember it's a painting by YOUR favorite artist. However, my photograph is almost guaranteed to be more accurate and realistic than the painting, simply by virtue of the medium.
Suppose I'm standing beside Rembrandt or Brueghel (one of my favorites) or any artist whose work YOU like. And I take a picture of the scene the artist is painting, be it a portrait, landscape or whatever. If I have a resonably good camera and I am a reasonably good amateur photographer, my photograph will be a more accurate and realistic rendition of the scene that that painted by the artist.
But which would 99% of the people rather have? Which you rather have to hang on your wall if I offered to give you one of them? The point is that virtually everybody would choose the painting - remember it's a painting by YOUR favorite artist. However, my photograph is almost guaranteed to be more accurate and realistic than the painting, simply by virtue of the medium.
Umm - I think the analogy is getting in the way of communication here. A layout is a layout - 3D physical model of trains, tracks and scenery of various kinds. Using your analogy - when we compare two layouts made in different styles, we are not comparing a photo and a painting - we are comparing a painting and a painting. Or a photo and a photo, if you will.
I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it.<snip> As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth.
I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it.
<snip>
As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth.
BTW, I'm not familiar with Chuch Hitchcock or David Barrow. If you could link some photos (or paint us a picture of his work, I would appreciate it.
Hitchcock: Model Railroad Planning 2002 - can be purchased here
Barrow: Model Railroader September 1999 - can be purchased here
Anyways - I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what is the best way of creating an illusion of a large world compressed into small model.
Smile, Stein
steinjr wrote: HarryHotspur wrote:Stein -In the final analysis I suppose it depends on whether your ultimate goal is accuracy or artistry. I maybe would be evil enough to use the phrases "realistic scenes" vs "busy scenes", rather than "accuracy vs artistry", since both types of scenes can be done with equal levels of craftmanship (or "artistry", if you prefer). In the final analysis our debate has been a rerun of ye olde "prototyping/protolancing vs freelance" debate. To rephrase what I think you are saying - to me, a model railroad looks better if the illusion created is more like looking at a real railroad, to you it is irrelevant if the scene looks realistic, as long as the the scene looks good to you. Would that be a somewhat fair summary ? Most people would probably prefer the look of a layout (or a painting) made by a great master to a layout (or painting) made by an amateur, no matter what style the layout (or painting) was made in. The finish, details and impression you get left with from a layout is mainly a function of the craftsmanship (or even artistry) exhibited by the designer and builder, not a function of the format in itself. Great artists have expressed themselves in many different formats, from ceilings filled with huge paintings in vivid colors to tiny watercolors in very subdued colors. Art is way too big to be thought of merely as the opposite of realistic. In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent". Even though "Carnival and Lent" painting has far more going on within the scene than just having six gentlemen dressed in black by a plain looking table. But I totally acknowledge that this is matter of taste. And different people just have different tastes. It is not only a fact of life, but a great thing - variation is the spice of life.Darn it, Stein, you have missed my point as badly as Midnight did. Since you're obviously an intelligent guy, I must be wording it badly, so let me try again.Suppose I'm standing beside Rembrandt or Brueghel (one of my favorites) or any artist whose work YOU like. And I take a picture of the scene the artist is painting, be it a portrait, landscape or whatever. If I have a resonably good camera and I am a reasonably good amateur photographer, my photograph will be a more accurate and realistic rendition of the scene that that painted by the artist.But which would 99% of the people rather have? Which you rather have to hang on your wall if I offered to give you one of them? The point is that virtually everybody would choose the painting - remember it's a painting by YOUR favorite artist. However, my photograph is almost guaranteed to be more accurate and realistic than the painting, simply by virtue of the medium.I know you will say that you can't compare two media, but MRers do that all the time. They compare the visual results regardless of whether the builder used plaster or cement because the goal is the same. A realistic 3D visual presentation of a real life scene.So why do they like Rembrandt's better than my pic? Because it has elegance, elan, composition, and many other factors lacking in my photo. It also fools the eye - it tricks the viewer into seeing what the viewer thought he saw in the real life scene. For example, the viewer might well say, "I don't remember seeing that trash can in the meadow that shows up in your photo and it's not in the painting either." Of course he saw the trash can, but his visual memory doesn't retain that detail. The artist knows the painting will be better without it, so he leaves it out. But the photo has the trash can and the photo is indisputably more realistic.In looking at model railroad, I want to see something which appears to be totally accurate* to anyone except someone who it holding a photo to compare it to, but I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it. * I think we all realize that no MR can literally be totally accurate to the point of curves so broad you can barely tell they're curved, hundred of yards or more separating small towns, etc. As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth. Some just have more than others. A final note: If a MR were perfectly accurate insofar as length between scenes, I think it would be very boring to operate or watch.Cheers,- Harry BTW, I'm not familiar with Chuch Hitchcock or David Barrow. If you could link some photos (or paint us a picture of his work, I would appreciate it.
HarryHotspur wrote:Stein -In the final analysis I suppose it depends on whether your ultimate goal is accuracy or artistry.
I maybe would be evil enough to use the phrases "realistic scenes" vs "busy scenes", rather than "accuracy vs artistry", since both types of scenes can be done with equal levels of craftmanship (or "artistry", if you prefer).
In the final analysis our debate has been a rerun of ye olde "prototyping/protolancing vs freelance" debate.
To rephrase what I think you are saying - to me, a model railroad looks better if the illusion created is more like looking at a real railroad, to you it is irrelevant if the scene looks realistic, as long as the the scene looks good to you. Would that be a somewhat fair summary ?
Most people would probably prefer the look of a layout (or a painting) made by a great master to a layout (or painting) made by an amateur, no matter what style the layout (or painting) was made in.
The finish, details and impression you get left with from a layout is mainly a function of the craftsmanship (or even artistry) exhibited by the designer and builder, not a function of the format in itself.
Great artists have expressed themselves in many different formats, from ceilings filled with huge paintings in vivid colors to tiny watercolors in very subdued colors. Art is way too big to be thought of merely as the opposite of realistic.
In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent".
Even though "Carnival and Lent" painting has far more going on within the scene than just having six gentlemen dressed in black by a plain looking table.
But I totally acknowledge that this is matter of taste. And different people just have different tastes. It is not only a fact of life, but a great thing - variation is the spice of life.
Darn it, Stein, you have missed my point as badly as Midnight did. Since you're obviously an intelligent guy, I must be wording it badly, so let me try again.
I know you will say that you can't compare two media, but MRers do that all the time. They compare the visual results regardless of whether the builder used plaster or cement because the goal is the same. A realistic 3D visual presentation of a real life scene.
So why do they like Rembrandt's better than my pic? Because it has elegance, elan, composition, and many other factors lacking in my photo. It also fools the eye - it tricks the viewer into seeing what the viewer thought he saw in the real life scene. For example, the viewer might well say, "I don't remember seeing that trash can in the meadow that shows up in your photo and it's not in the painting either." Of course he saw the trash can, but his visual memory doesn't retain that detail. The artist knows the painting will be better without it, so he leaves it out. But the photo has the trash can and the photo is indisputably more realistic.
In looking at model railroad, I want to see something which appears to be totally accurate* to anyone except someone who it holding a photo to compare it to, but I also want it to convey a sense of completeness as opposed to a small strip of the world which has a railroad track on it.
* I think we all realize that no MR can literally be totally accurate to the point of curves so broad you can barely tell they're curved, hundred of yards or more separating small towns, etc. As I type this, I've begun to think the difference in our philosophies it that if you had a virtually unlimited budget and amount of space, you would use it in a way to maximize the lenght of your mainlines at the expense of other scenery, whereas I would maximize a much broader area, probably roughly to the extend of a person's peripheral vision at least, and live with the fact the my layout, just like all layouts, has a compression of length, width, and depth. Some just have more than others.
A final note: If a MR were perfectly accurate insofar as length between scenes, I think it would be very boring to operate or watch.
Cheers,
Stein said: "In art terms - if I had to choose between say a Rembrandt and a Pieter Bruegel - both low countries artists of the Renaissance era, I probably would have gone for e.g Rembrandt's "The Cyndics of the Clothesmakers Guild" rather than Brueghels "The Fight Between Carnival and Lent". "
I'd definitely go with the guild painting rather than the carnival. No probability about it.
Mark
About five years ago I restarted the hobby pretty much from where I had left it in 1955. Due to space limitations I chose 4' x 7'. I personally prefer right-hand running on two-track mains, and I wanted a reversing loop. It worked, but it challenged all my limited track laying skills to get the reversing loop to work in that space. It has to be very close to perfect to work well, and I was spending too much time getting it good enough. Plus, it really did look funny, even though the 6-axle loco ran well. I have one huge boxcar that wouldn't run at all, but everything else was OK, sort of. Fortunately, I moved to a different house and immediately expanded the model RR to 7' x 12'. Someday, maybe I will move beyond tables. Everything works much better now, and I have room for a small yard and some industry.
What a coincidence! Those are my suggestions - two-track main line and a reversing loop, with at least two crossovers and a few sidings here and there. It supports both loopy-loop and point-to-point, and you won't have many head-on crashes if you follow the right-hand running rules. Please note that it's hard to get a head-on crash with DC, very easy to do with DCC.
Plus, I have this plan in my head to transition to a round-the-wall with three different elevations. The table will be the desert floor and the walls of the room will be the mountains. If all goes well, the longer trains will actually need the helpers. Easy.
Finally, I don't think I understand this paragraph:But the way I look at it, the fact that you have find a way to distract attention away from the fact that your trains have to turn or loop back (possibly more than once) within a given 4 foot deep scene is an extra design challenge the 4 foot wide island format imposes, not a special strength of that format.
To me, it is distracting to have a train pass through the same view/scene many times on different levels - it does mar the illusion of realism.To you that sense of realism apparently is not an important factor. Which is perfectly fine.
I would agree that, all things being equal, more available space is better than less up to a point. But I'm curious, if you had say a 20' x 54' rectangularly shaped room to use solely as a train room, how would you use the space?
Tough question. I have never had that much space available, and very likely never will. To me, it is more a question of what you do with what you have than a question of dreaming for stuff I cannot have.
But assuming I had the level of craftmanship and other resources to actually carry it out - I think I would by far have preferred to do something like Chuch Hitchcock's around the wall Argentine Industrial District Railway or David Barrow Cat Mountain style layout with room for quite a few people to run trains at the same time through a busy industrial landscape to doing a George Selios' or Malcom Furlow more elaborate style layout.
Or maybe made a longish and winding mushroom style railroad using Belina drop dividers to hide the turnover curves, where you could intersperse busier scenes with transition or rest scenes of maybe 6-8 foot in length (roughly 20-25 N-scale 40' cars).
Obviously - it would depend a lot on what vision I decided to try to recreate - I love both innercity/industrial switching in tight corners and longish trains passing through landscapes that dwarf the trains.
I don't know if that answers your question ?
I do not have the time (or desire) to come up with a full track plan for a room that big. And of course - I do not have the resources (money, time, manpower or level of craftmanship) to pull off a grand layout in 20x54 feet. Or the exclusive use of a 20x54 foot room
What I have available is non-exclusive use of a smallish room that is 6 1/2 feet wide by 11 1/2 feet long, where I have to share the use of the room with other things - like small home workshop and storage. So I'll do as best I can within those parameters.
As we all must with the space we have available - whether it be a temporary 8x10 space in the center of the garage when the car is moved out, or the walls between the workbench and storage shelves in a smallish room.
No matter where you build and in what style you build - I wish you good luck with your layout.
Midnight Railroader wrote:Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles
Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles
All model railroads are a fantasy - the trains are very small, the people don't move, winds don't blow, and on and on.
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote:In modern lingo, Rembrandt's work has "It" or the "Wow Factor" and mine doesn't. In model railroading, John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and others have "It".To YOU. But that's by no means universal.I prefer the impression made by Chuck Hitchcock's work or David Barrow's CM&SF of the 70s and 80s.Malcolm Furlow's work is nice, but it is a fantasy so far removed from reality that it bears little resemblance to real-world railroading. I feel the same about Northlandz--it's big. Wow. But it isn't model railroading, to me--it's just really big, with trains running in circles
HarryHotspur wrote:In modern lingo, Rembrandt's work has "It" or the "Wow Factor" and mine doesn't. In model railroading, John Allen, Malcolm Furlow, and others have "It".
To YOU. But that's by no means universal.
I prefer the impression made by Chuck Hitchcock's work or David Barrow's CM&SF of the 70s and 80s.
I'm afraid you missed the point entirely - would you prefer one of my photographs over portraits painted by David Barrow or Chuck Hitchcock? I promise you that you would not, even though my photos are more realistic.
Another question : If you had a 20' x 54' rectangularly shaped room to use solely as a train room, how would you use the space?
Midnight Railroader wrote: rolleiman wrote:Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic. Childish and moronic? Explain what you mean. All I have done is suggest that the 4x8 form-factor does not make for the best model railroad. How is that childish? How is it moronic?
rolleiman wrote:Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic.
It has been moronic because instead of starting your own thread where all the bashers of the 4x8 can congregate and slap each other on the back, you've chosen to hijack this one. The OP said from the Start, that he currently has a 4x8 table he'd like to RE-USE. You lost sight of that before your first post. I doubt you even saw it. Only the thread title and you were off. It has been childish because you seem to have taken the issue of the '4x8 form factor' WAY too personally, that anyone would even Dare to consider building one. That's the way I've read your posts anyway. If you haven't taken it personally, you've certainly spent a lot of time on an impersonal subject. We heard you the first 9000 times. It doesn't make a rat's butt worth of difference to me how anyone builds their layout, or even IF they build one.
It looks to me that supporters of the 4x8, most likely people who have a layout of that size and shape, are taking this discussion far too personally.
As for That idiotic statement,
Here's my current one.
Here's the next one.
Where's yours?
Here's some links:
John Allen's Goree and Daphetid
Eulogy for John Armstrong
Forgive me if I posted this one earlier in this thread... I recommend it often:
Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong
Best!
HarryHotspur wrote:The Gorre and Daphetid was built by John Allen.
Ah - I knew that there was a little voice in the back of my head that was saying that there was something wrong there, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Of course - the builder of the G&D was John Allen, not John Armstrong.
But the builder's name makes no difference to the core of my argument. Having to make a H0 scale train loop back in 4 feet of layout width without a scenic divider of some kind is not a strength of the 4x8 type format - it is an extra design challenge.
Grin, Stein
Stein, you are confusing John Allen with John Armstrong. Allen is known for his model/scenery building, while Armstrong is known for his layout planning. Your post deals with John Allen. Armstrong has nothing to do with it.
HarryHotspur wrote: I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible.
I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible.
I guess it depends on your criteria for "better scenery". I have no doubt that John Armstrong Allen was a master model builder, and that any scenery (mountains, tunnel portals, bridges, buildings etc) he produced would be far superior to anything I could build - no matter whether the scene he worked on had been 1 foot deep, 2 feet deep or 4 feet deep.
The three main scenes are : - The town of Gorre - the aquaduct/bridge scene - The mine at Daphetid
For me it is feels more like a drawback than an advantage that in the 4x8 (or 3.7" x7" or whatever) format John Allen had to fold these three scenes on top of each other so they were all visible above each other in the same view at the same time.
A train going from Gorre to Daphetid would have to pass through the same 4 foot deep scene three times - first at ground level in Gorre in the foreground, the the same train would come back through the same scene a little higher in elevation but also in the foreground passing over the aquaduct/bridge, and finally it would end its journey at Daphetid at the highest elevation in the background.
Allen very skillfully used the two tunnels to increase the length of the run and to help partially compensate for the fact that the scenes was folded on top of each other view. I am sure that he also did things operationally to help compensate for the through the same scene multiple times feeling that the 4x8 format impose on the track plan - like maybe stopping a train in one of the tunnels and running some switching in Gorre before letting the first train continue and stuff like that.
I am also sure that he carefully picked a location and an era where one would run small engines, small cars and short trains, so that the very sharp curves needed for this track plan wouldn't look too bad..
I am not saying that you cannot do stuff to partially compensate for the inherent limitations in running a loop (or figure 8) on a 4 foot wide rectangular island layout.
But it does take a master model builder to make multiple passes through the same scene in 4 feet of depth look good.
Getting scenery depth is all about creating the illusion of depth for the viewer. The same scenes (Gorre, the Aquaduct and Daphetid) would still have looked just as (or possibly even more) impressive on an around the wall shelf layout, if a master model builder had made the mountains, trestles etc.
The tunnels could probably have been modelled just fine on 6-8" deep shelves without much in the way of loss of look and feel - just enough shelf depth to make the mountain/cliff wall slope in a sensible manner over the tunel, while the town of Gorre with the dam and impressive trestle in the background could probably have been modelled very well in 24"-36" of depth.
Just have a look at this very impressive scenery shot from poster Grampys Trains:
Looks pretty good, eh ? Physcial layout depth is not all that much in this shot. But the illustion of depth is superb.
Have a look at this WPF thread for some more pics from Grampys Trains.
I would almost have entertained the thought of selling my first born son into slavery to be able to aquire the landscaping and modelling skills of someone like John Allen or Grampys Trains
But my point remains this : yes, you certainly can make an excellent looking layout in 4x8 feet. And as we both have noted - if you cannot go along the walls, then you have to do something free standing (and possibly removeable) in the middle of the floor.
You do what you need to do. If that means the extra hassle of clearing away furniture or getting the car out of the garage and setting up sawhorses or some other form of temporary benchwork to prop a 4x8 on, then so be it.
But the way I look at it, the fact that you have find a way to distract attention away from the fact that your trains have to turn or loop back (possibly more than once) within a given 4 foot deep scene is an extra design challenge the 4 foot wide island format imposes, not a special strength of that format.
You may not agree with that assessment. That's perfectly okay - we don't have to agree on this. And I would love to see how your layout turns out when you get to build it.
Ulrich wrote:The 4X8 is a good size but somewhat limiting if you're modelling present day Class 1 operations. My own layout is a tad larger..5X9..and even that size presents challenges. But I don't want a humongous layout that will suck up all of my spare time...the smaller 4X8 or 5X9 is good for people who like the hobby but don't have the space or the time for a big layout.
Yep...(P.S.-Water is clear.)
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: This layout's much closer to 3x7 than 4x8. So I guess 4x8's not all that great, eh?
HarryHotspur wrote:
This layout's much closer to 3x7 than 4x8. So I guess 4x8's not all that great, eh?
You REALLY should start your Own bash the 4x8 thread if you want to discuss it. But since you insist on arguing with everybody here in This thread,
#1. The original G&D as planned, with the engine terminal inside the loops was 3'7" x 6'8". Considerably wider than 3 feet. As drawn in Harry's post, with the engine terminal outside the loops, the layout was 4'8 x 6'8.
#2. The layout was not built with a stock lumberyard sheet of 4x8 plywood but was open framed cookie cutter benchwork so the 4x8 argument doesn't even apply with ONE exception. IT WAS A RECTANGULAR LAYOUT. NOT AN AROUND THE WALLS affair. A layout that incedentally was later incorporated into a much larger one. TWICE.
The original one most certainly could have, can, probably has, and will likely continue to be, built using the 4x8 sheet. Like it or not, people use it. Your entire argument in this entire thread has been completely childish and moronic.
Midnight Railroader wrote: steinjr wrote:And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned. So would I. I find it funny that you argue against following what the modeling magazines advocate, yet, when it comes to the 4x8 form-factor, you're wiiling to do exactly that.
steinjr wrote:And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned.
I find it funny that you argue against following what the modeling magazines advocate, yet, when it comes to the 4x8 form-factor, you're wiiling to do exactly that.
Haven't you noticed? The current trend in the mags is point to point shelf layouts. It's just on the edge, but it's building steam rapidly. It will be mainstream in a few years.
steinjr wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: Lifting the 4' x 8' up is a much better system for the original poster than an around the walls layout which would block access to his cabinets and prevent him from getting his car outof the garage.Amazing how you want everyone to be a lemming. Yo, Harry - by "you", I assume you probably mean me ? If so, you happen to be are wrong - I am not saying that everybody should do things this way or everybody should do things that way. I am a pragmatist - if it works, it works. I believe I have acknowledged several times in this thread that a 4x8 certainly can be done pretty well, and that it may indeed be a good solution for the original poster in this thread, given his circumstances. I am not the person in this thread who keep making absolute statments like "never use a divider" or "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout" and express similar seemingly dogmatic beliefs.You are misquoting me. I said center board, not divider. If I said "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout", it was poorly phrased. I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible. It is not quite clear to me why you apparently are walking around with a stick on your shoulder, looking for something you can construe as a personal insult. But I very respectfully suggest that maybe you should try to take that stick down from your shoulder and relax a little. You certainly can make a good looking layout in 4x8. And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned.It's similar to this one, but without the lower portion where the engine house, etc. is located. Smile, Stein
HarryHotspur wrote: Lifting the 4' x 8' up is a much better system for the original poster than an around the walls layout which would block access to his cabinets and prevent him from getting his car outof the garage.Amazing how you want everyone to be a lemming.
Lifting the 4' x 8' up is a much better system for the original poster than an around the walls layout which would block access to his cabinets and prevent him from getting his car outof the garage.
Amazing how you want everyone to be a lemming.
Yo, Harry - by "you", I assume you probably mean me ? If so, you happen to be are wrong - I am not saying that everybody should do things this way or everybody should do things that way.
I am a pragmatist - if it works, it works. I believe I have acknowledged several times in this thread that a 4x8 certainly can be done pretty well, and that it may indeed be a good solution for the original poster in this thread, given his circumstances.
I am not the person in this thread who keep making absolute statments like "never use a divider" or "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout" and express similar seemingly dogmatic beliefs.
You are misquoting me. I said center board, not divider. If I said "you cannot do good scenery on a shelf layout", it was poorly phrased. I should have said "you can do better scenery on a wider layout." Of course if the shelf layout is 4 feet deep, it can handle fairly good scenery; if it's 4 inches wide, good scenery is almost impossible.
It is not quite clear to me why you apparently are walking around with a stick on your shoulder, looking for something you can construe as a personal insult. But I very respectfully suggest that maybe you should try to take that stick down from your shoulder and relax a little.
You certainly can make a good looking layout in 4x8. And I, for one, would love to see your layout (or a sketch or description or your layout plans) for a 4x8 H0 scale layout using those 15" radius curves you mentioned.
It's similar to this one, but without the lower portion where the engine house, etc. is located.
Cahrn,
It's understandable that one might feel a little cranky with the direction the thread has gone, however it's not correct that nobody's offered any suggestions for what you could do with your existing 4X8 table. You've heard suggestions to use a center divider. You mentioned the specific trackplan in which you were interested and I suggested that you might want to rework the switchback industry spurs on the one side and look at curving the backdrop, even if you stay with a 4X8. I also showed how one might alleviate some of the limitations of the plan you were looking at if one could add a foot of width and you mentioned you were looking at it. Guess you decided against that.That specific Toronto Central plan in which you were interested has the additional limitation I mentioned that the "main" oval takes an unusual path through the yard ladder and there are some slightly tight S-curves in the 4X8 version.A lot of the comments have been directed at those who jumped onto your thread. Some posters proclaimed that the 4X8 was a superior form factor for an HO railroad, even compared to 5X9, 5X10, etc. Some of these folks approach the HO 4X8 sacred sheet with a fervor and reverence normally reserved for national treasures, when it's really mostly the by-product of the building industry's preference for sheet goods size.
However, nobody's arguing that the 4X8 might not be good for you since you already have a table -- just suggesting alternatives. If you want to post an image of what you are considering, I'm sure a number of folks will have comments and suggestions. But without that, we're left to argue among ourselves, which seems to be what this forum does best.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cahrn,
I have found it is pointless to argue with a person whose mind is made up. That said, I am not directing my comments toward you rather I am replying to the thread hijack.
The actual plans you have been looking at to this point have been invisible so I have not had a lot of comments. And quite frankly, the suggestions I have made, as early as the first post to this thread, have seemed to have gone ignored.
So pick and choose who you listen to. There may be diamonds, but typically, you have to sort a lot of coal.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
cahrn wrote:I think people have lost sight of the fact that (at least in my case) I had a 4x8 table already from a pervious layout. Someone mentioned that I was trying to get a layout "handed" to me, which I am not. This will be my second layout, and I want something temporary for the next few years until I have more space for a larger layout. I have mentioned this numerous times, and though I recognize that many people were generalizing in their reply, I'm still amused by the folks who seem to advocate for larger, albeit portable layout. I lack the time or interest in building new benchwork at this point in time. Essentially what I have gathered from this thread is the following: build a larger layout which I lack the space for, or wait and build something bigger, as a 4x8 is seldom worth the time and effort, and lack potential as a viable model railroad. I havent done any modeling for a good 4 years, and I was trying to get back into the hobby with something managable: my old 4x8. I was hoping that my layout could serve as a test for me to see how well I could lay track, and install a DCC system. This is my current thinking on a track plan...if the pic works.
I think people have lost sight of the fact that (at least in my case) I had a 4x8 table already from a pervious layout. Someone mentioned that I was trying to get a layout "handed" to me, which I am not. This will be my second layout, and I want something temporary for the next few years until I have more space for a larger layout. I have mentioned this numerous times, and though I recognize that many people were generalizing in their reply, I'm still amused by the folks who seem to advocate for larger, albeit portable layout. I lack the time or interest in building new benchwork at this point in time.
Essentially what I have gathered from this thread is the following: build a larger layout which I lack the space for, or wait and build something bigger, as a 4x8 is seldom worth the time and effort, and lack potential as a viable model railroad. I havent done any modeling for a good 4 years, and I was trying to get back into the hobby with something managable: my old 4x8. I was hoping that my layout could serve as a test for me to see how well I could lay track, and install a DCC system.
This is my current thinking on a track plan...if the pic works.
It really only matters if it's worth the time and effort to you. You asked for suggestions, you've been given a couple (in the scope of your original request) and the rest of the thread has been filled with a couple people trying to ram their views down your throat. People who by the way are neither building or paying for it. So again, it only matters what You want to do.
Can't see your track plan because we don't have access to your disk. You have to upload it to a host and then post a link from there. Get yourself a Free photobucket account
www.photobucket.com
Then, This thread...
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1444408/ShowPost.aspx
About half way down is a pictoral guide on how to upload and post a photo.
kdeboy wrote: How come it never occures to people that "just possibly," a person building a 4x8 HAS considered the other options, and decided that the 4x8 format best meets their needs?
Because their posts typically indicate otherwise.
And because I find it a little too convenient that the 4x8 sheet, which just happens to be the size lumber sheets come in, just happens to also be exactly the right size for their space. As I asked earlier, would 4x8 still be just right if lumber came in 5x9 or 3x7 sheets? I suspect not.
SpaceMouse wrote: Yes, they can. But do they? By far, most of the 4 x 8's I've seen are not well laid out nor are they well-executed. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Most 4 x 8 are track-based and little thought is given to scenery, structures, access roads, parking, streets, etc.
Also very true.
Actually, a 4x8 HO layout can be made to work quite well.
Yes, they can. But do they? By far, most of the 4 x 8's I've seen are not well laid out nor are they well-executed. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. Most 4 x 8 are track-based and little thought is given to scenery, structures, access roads, parking, streets, etc.
A discussion of the merits of 4 x 8 can only be achieved with extensive thought and planning and much more difficult to accomplish than other forms. In that sense, a 4 x 8 is beyond most people who come to the forum and say, "I just want a 4 x 8, can you help me."
steinjr wrote: Yep - that would be yet another form of the concept "baseboard put up on temporary legs when in use, removed and stowed elsewhere when not in use". Or in other words - yet another way of trying to compensate for the space needs of a 4x8.
Yep - that would be yet another form of the concept "baseboard put up on temporary legs when in use, removed and stowed elsewhere when not in use". Or in other words - yet another way of trying to compensate for the space needs of a 4x8.
Space needs of a 4x8 when in use: 8x10. When not in use: 4x8 or ZERO
Space needs of HOG: 8x9. When not in use: 8x9
So they both take up the same space while in use, but when not in use the 4x8 has a clear advantage.
If the only space you have available is temporarily available large rectangle in the middle of a floor, then a solid rectangle 4x8 or 4x6 feet might very well be a good shape for a layout.
That is a limitation shared by many, and might be one of the reasons that 4x8 layouts remain popular inspite of the stigma attached to building one.
So that is one advantage of the 4x8 format - it does not take much in the way of woodworking skills to create a fairly robust yet lightweight rectangle which easily can be removed and stowed somewhere else multiple times without breaking apart - whether it is tipped on its side up against a wall or hangs suspended from pulleys in the ceiling.
That's the stgma I'm referring to...
Anyways - if I was going to do a 4x8 (or 4x6), I would seriously consider going down to a N scale layout (and use a central divider) to get the most bang for the buck.
I've seen some pretty nice HO layou designs in 4x8, also Sn3 and On30.
One certainly can make a 4x8 rectangular H0 scale layout work.
But the format does have quite a few inherent limitations,
As do ALL formats. For example, if I was to build a HOG format layout in the middle of my living room, it wouldn't be too long before I had to dismantle it, maybe find a new place to live, try to figure out how to juggle model railraod purchases with my new alimony and child support payments, etc. :)
and considering other options (like a wall style layout, a freestanding domino style open donut or walk in layout or changing scale) certainly can be worthwhile.
cheers,
Ken
http://www.trains.com/mrr/default.aspx?c=a&id=2344
I think finding some short wheelbase power and using tighter curves, especially where they may be hidden, would be a great way to help break up a 4x8 into something less typical.
With my 32"x60" N layout I tried to make sure that I had no track running parallel to the front. It made for some tighter curves, my minumum is 11" with easements, but the visual appeal is worth it.
Chris
My layout is 4x8 and I have about 15 scale miles of running three stations I can cross trains at where at least 1 of them is 12 cars plus caboose long, plenty of intermediate switching etc. It was based on an article by EE Seeley back in 1973 which if you want a copy of I do have an electronic version.
Sure it needs my imagination and some stations double as others but for something that has lasted more than 20 years, I'm not complaining!
My web site www.xdford.digitalzones.com and I hope to have a site soon where I explain some of the operations between the stations and show the variety possible with a timetable! If I were to do it again, I would proably do a HOG railroad as suggested earlier to much the same schematic as I use now.
Of course feel free to contact if you want the electronic version of the article!
Cheers from Down Under
Trevor
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
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
H0 scale (1:87) is 1.8 times bigger than N scale (1:160). In N scale, a 4x8 table would roughly be the functional equivalent of a 7x14 foot table - and curves radii can be significantly sharper in N scale than in H0 scale.
Using the curve classifications John Armstrong uses in "Track Planning for realistic operations":
Sharp curves are about 22" radius in H0, 13" radius in N, Conventional curves are about 28" radius in H0, 16" radius in N scale and Broad curves are about 34" radius in H0 and 20" radius in N scale.
Parallell straight tracks need to be about 2" apart (center-to-center) in H0 scale, about 1.15" apart in N scale.
Vertical clearance needs to be about 3" for one H0 scale train to pass under a bridge or some such thing - at max sustained climb of 3%, it takes 100" (about 8 1/3 feet) to achieve that degree of vertical separation with an acceptable grade. In N scale, you need a vertical separation of about 1.6", and a run of about 55" (4.6 feet) to achieve the same grade.
One certainly can make a 4x8 rectangular H0 scale layout work. But the format does have quite a few inherent limitations, and considering other options (like a wall style layout, a freestanding domino style open donut or walk in layout or changing scale) certainly can be worthwhile.
I can't remember - do we have any guidance yet on what kind of vision the original poster has for his layout ? What era, location, type businesses etc he wants for his layout ?
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: Just as I said. Thank you. You're welcome, and thank you for not putting up a defense to your contention that using water colored other than blue is an idea that came from modeling magazines.That is where the idea came from for most modelers, who now believe the use of blue water is inherently unrealistic or less realistic than green or black water. While there certainly are many examples of green water in nature, I've seen green water in a model of a fast flowing stream in a barren, rocky area. That simply doesn't happen in nature. Thousands of modelers did not independent discover that water was green. Until the mags started the charade, almost no one used green. I apologize for my participation in this hijacking.
HarryHotspur wrote: Just as I said. Thank you.
Just as I said. Thank you.
That is where the idea came from for most modelers, who now believe the use of blue water is inherently unrealistic or less realistic than green or black water. While there certainly are many examples of green water in nature, I've seen green water in a model of a fast flowing stream in a barren, rocky area. That simply doesn't happen in nature. Thousands of modelers did not independent discover that water was green. Until the mags started the charade, almost no one used green.
I apologize for my participation in this hijacking.
cuyama wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: By the way, those same gurus also thought "switches" were called "turnouts".Yeah, yeah, yeah. You might want to study the prototype a bit more before making pronouncements. Many railroads use the term "turnout" to describe the whole track assembly, including the diverging path. Just like model railroaders use the term. For example, ATSF Employee Timetable #3, Western Region, California Division, in effect Sunday, January 15, 1989, uses the term "turnout" many times. I have on hand a number of other prototype documents that do the same.This is more often the case in the engineering departments than the operating departments, but we're acting like the engineering departments when we plan and build our layouts, no?
HarryHotspur wrote: By the way, those same gurus also thought "switches" were called "turnouts".
Yeah, yeah, yeah. You might want to study the prototype a bit more before making pronouncements. Many railroads use the term "turnout" to describe the whole track assembly, including the diverging path. Just like model railroaders use the term. For example, ATSF Employee Timetable #3, Western Region, California Division, in effect Sunday, January 15, 1989, uses the term "turnout" many times. I have on hand a number of other prototype documents that do the same.
This is more often the case in the engineering departments than the operating departments, but we're acting like the engineering departments when we plan and build our layouts, no?
And like engineers or whatever when we operate them. Point is you will be poo-pood by alleged gurus if you use the term switches, even though it is perfectly correct.
Midnight Railroader wrote:] HarryHotspur wrote: cuyama wrote: Harry, we get it that you're making the point that the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes should be fine for model railroading. But it's not. The sun's not egg-yolk yellow, either.How did you get that idea? Does the water in my photo look like the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes?If anybody wants slime green water on their layout, that's fine with me. . The Black River in SC. If you think that's blue water, you have color-vision issues.An excellent example of slime green caused by algae and surrounding vegitation, as I explained in a previous post. North Carolina. Again, not blue.Another example of a color type I explained in my previous post. (glad you were listening) Kentucky. not blue, but essentially clear, which means you see the brown streambed. There are lots of examples like this. Bottom line: Water isn't always blue and shouldn't always be represented as blue.Just as I said. Thank you.
HarryHotspur wrote: cuyama wrote: Harry, we get it that you're making the point that the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes should be fine for model railroading. But it's not. The sun's not egg-yolk yellow, either.How did you get that idea? Does the water in my photo look like the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes?If anybody wants slime green water on their layout, that's fine with me. .
cuyama wrote: Harry, we get it that you're making the point that the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes should be fine for model railroading. But it's not. The sun's not egg-yolk yellow, either.
Harry, we get it that you're making the point that the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes should be fine for model railroading. But it's not. The sun's not egg-yolk yellow, either.
How did you get that idea? Does the water in my photo look like the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes?
If anybody wants slime green water on their layout, that's fine with me. .
The Black River in SC. If you think that's blue water, you have color-vision issues.
An excellent example of slime green caused by algae and surrounding vegitation, as I explained in a previous post.
North Carolina. Again, not blue.
Another example of a color type I explained in my previous post. (glad you were listening)
Kentucky. not blue, but essentially clear, which means you see the brown streambed.
There are lots of examples like this. Bottom line: Water isn't always blue and shouldn't always be represented as blue.
cuyama wrote:Harry, we get it that you're making the point that the same blue you used in Kindergarten for finger-painting lakes should be fine for model railroading. But it's not. The sun's not egg-yolk yellow, either.
If anybody wants slime green water on their layout, that's fine with me. I just hate to see people ruin an otherwise good layout because "the gurus" in the model railroad media say that's the way to do it. By the way, those same gurus also thought "switches" were called "turnouts".
HarryHotspur wrote: Notice how the ducks are gasping and wheezing and flailing their wings in a last desperate attempt to escape the foul fluid.
Notice how the ducks are gasping and wheezing and flailing their wings in a last desperate attempt to escape the foul fluid.
I don't know about gasping, though being the Detroit River, downstream of Zug Island and the Rouge River, it wouldn't surprise me. That photo is of the end of a territory fight. Once is chasing the other off.
Directly upstream,
Enough non-rr photos from me..
greenish water, Oakland (CA) harbor
grayish, Baltimore harbor
Even Lake Tahoe (which is usually fairly blue in the middle due to the high-altitude clear sky) looks green near the edges (the part we usually model)
Green water:
Typical water in China:
Hmm, I may have posted that too quickly. The separate switch lead on the bottom of the plan is a little contrived ... OK, here's a simpler version that still eliminates the switchback, but maybe looks a little better.
I just threw this 5X8 version together quickly, so it's a little rough. A number of the turnouts would have to be trimmed. I included the same industries Lionel Strang had shown on the original with the exception of changing one to a freight house and team track for more flexibility in traffic. I think the curved backdrop adds interest, personally.
Expanding a typical 4X8 HO "Sacred Sheet" layout to 5X8 will often allow larger minimum radius and open up other possibilities. In this case, the modification took the minimum radius from 18" to 22" for the "main oval". It also eliminated a situation in the original design where the main line went through the curved side of a #4 turnout. In addition, we eliminated an unrealistic switchback industry spur at the bottom of the plan, replacing it with a separate short switch lead, independent of other industries. A couple of s-curves were also removed.
The "deep reach" section at the center of the layout is probably too far away from the edge for rail-served industries, but would make a nice place for a city block of storefronts or a scenic feature like a wooded hill.
In both the original and this modification, the path the main oval takes is still a little convoluted (through the yard ladder), so there are probably better track plan approaches if starting from scratch. But this shows, I think, that expanding a mere foot in width can help eliminate some of the constraints of the typical HO 4X8 layout. I posted earlier about one way to get the additional width when building a train table from scratch by having a single cut made at the home center, obviously this does not help our original poster add width to his existing 4X8.
I am considering adding an additional 1' in width, but I think it would be difficult to attach given the benchwork.
I'll try to get a pic up soon as well.
You didn't look very hard, Chip. July 2003 issue, page 100. Called the Toronto Central.
Better than most 4X8s, could be improved (IMHO) by ditching the unrealistic double-switchback industry switching on one side and by angling the divider.
Of course, could be improved even more by building it as a 5X8 as noted earlier, which would allow the minimum radius to increase beyond 18". Yes, I know the original poster has his 4X8 table already built. The note about the 5X8 was for newcomers who haven't yet committed to the sacred sheet.
cahrn wrote: 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? I believe the layout is called the Toronto Central (TCR). Try looking it up.
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.
Nope. As far as I can see it is not in there. No layouts with Toronto in the name and not shown in July 2003. looks like I won't be of help unless you draw it out or post a picture.
Allow me..
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.
HarryHotspur wrote:Spacemouse, you're right. I should have read your post more carefully. My bad. - Harry
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
WVM_Nut wrote:Cahrn, What area and what era are you modeling? That will play into just what you can put into this layout also. I did several 4x8 layouts in MR in the mid 1980s that would suit you. Ed Sumner
What area and what era are you modeling? That will play into just what you can put into this layout also. I did several 4x8 layouts in MR in the mid 1980s that would suit you.
Ed Sumner
I model a freelanced rendition of the Southern Pacific. The location isnt really specific, so my scenery is pretty much nondescript. In terms of era, I try to stay focused around the 60s or 70s, because in more recent decades the motive power and rolling stock have gotten much larger and wouldnt work on my small layout space.
One day I hope to model the Southern PAcific in California (my home state) in the early 90s, but I feel like a railroad of this era would not be possible in my disposable space at the moment, at least not in HO scale.
Thanks Mr. Sumner for your advice.
Some of these are in the book "48 Top Notch Layouts" which is still available. I am planning on building the one (don't remember the name) that has the passenger terminal on one side and industrial switching area on the other.
For my circumstances, a 4x8 is definitely the best option, and yes, I've looked into all the alternatives (including 4x9, 5x8, 5x9, 6x10, etc island layouts).
Check out the following web site:
www.gatewaynmra.org
The St. Louis chapter of the NMRA has at least 10 so called "project railroads you can build" that all fit in a 4x8 or smaller space. What I like is that they offer plenty of switching action as well as continuous operation (without giving you the feeling your just going in circles) and possibilities for later extensions.
They also have an online archive with really great articles on operations.
I started as a teenager with HO on a 4*8 and had a lot of fun.
Do you want to be able to run trains continuously? then you've got to have an oval or ovoid, with about 18" - 21" radius curves. Cool. Go for it! The next question is how much switching/operating do you want to do. Build a timesaver in and around the oval, and you can have hours of entertainment for you and maybe a friend, especially if you wire for two trains.
If you DON'T want to be able to run continuously, then think about an industrial layout or an interchange. In that case, 4*8 is plenty of space, plus you can start imagining your 'big' layout extending off the ends.
my two cents.
/PhM
This is one arguement in model railroading that will go on for ever, 4x8 are great for test layouts, like what i'm doing, and think about the reasons like money, skill level, and patience. My basement is pretty large but where my layout is in the corner and i would have made a shelf layout but the b studs behind the drywall is very random, not the best area for a layout, I've added a staging yard shelf on my layout which has been a great success. Remeber that everyone has different situations to deal with, i'm still a teenager, so i have to share the space with my family.
tjsingle
jecorbett wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: jecorbett wrote:If a 4x8 was really that bad an idea, they would not have been so popular for so long. That's not necessarily true.Lumber just happens to come in 4x8 sheets, which will accomodate 18" radius curves. That makes using a 4x8 convenient, but it doesn't make the 4x8 size and shape a good idea. There are several good reason why a 4x8 table is not the best place for a model railroad. The reasons given in favor ("It's been popular for so long," "It's all the room I have") are not convincing, and can often actually be proven wrong. There's no reason not to try to show someone a better alternative to the 4x8.If you read the OP's follow up post, it is quite clear that for his situation, the 4x8 is a very good choice. I don't know why there are some who insist a 4x8 is ALWAYS a bad idea as several in this thread seem to be saying.
Midnight Railroader wrote: jecorbett wrote:If a 4x8 was really that bad an idea, they would not have been so popular for so long. That's not necessarily true.Lumber just happens to come in 4x8 sheets, which will accomodate 18" radius curves. That makes using a 4x8 convenient, but it doesn't make the 4x8 size and shape a good idea. There are several good reason why a 4x8 table is not the best place for a model railroad. The reasons given in favor ("It's been popular for so long," "It's all the room I have") are not convincing, and can often actually be proven wrong. There's no reason not to try to show someone a better alternative to the 4x8.
jecorbett wrote:If a 4x8 was really that bad an idea, they would not have been so popular for so long.
Lumber just happens to come in 4x8 sheets, which will accomodate 18" radius curves. That makes using a 4x8 convenient, but it doesn't make the 4x8 size and shape a good idea.
There are several good reason why a 4x8 table is not the best place for a model railroad. The reasons given in favor ("It's been popular for so long," "It's all the room I have") are not convincing, and can often actually be proven wrong.
There's no reason not to try to show someone a better alternative to the 4x8.
If you read the OP's follow up post, it is quite clear that for his situation, the 4x8 is a very good choice. I don't know why there are some who insist a 4x8 is ALWAYS a bad idea as several in this thread seem to be saying.
Guys - you are saying exactly the same thing, using slightly different words. Neither of you are saying either "never" or "always". Thus possibly being spared having someone quote Emerson at you ("a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds") - or formulated in another way: "never say never, never say always".
Circumstances may very well change what is a good solution in a given case.
Sometimes an island style layout might very well be a good solution. As in the case of the original poster in this thread, for whom it seems that an important given was that he wanted a portable layout that could relatively quickly and easily be moved into a different room for vertical (hanging) storage when the layout is not in use.
It is not a given that a 4x8 foot island layout is the best solution for his circumstances. A 5x9 foot (ping pong table sized) layout might have given him better radii than a 4x8, and would not necessarily have taken significantly more storage space, either hanging storage or stored up against a wall.
But a bigger island would of course by necessity of course have required a somewhat larger available footprint (e.g a 9 x 11 feet footprint for a 5x9 foot layout - 2 feet aisles on each of the long sides and on one of the short sides) instead of the 8x10 footprint needed for a 4x8 when the layout was set up for operations.
We don't really know how much space the OP have available for storage and how much space he has available for use, for he has not said anything at all about that.
So it is impossible to say whether a 4x8 layout is a reasonably good use of space for the original poster.
It could very well be that a 4x8 island layout is a good solution in these circumstances.
It could be that a 5x9 island layout would have been a more optimal use of space.
It could be that a sectional donut style freestanding layout that could be taken apart for easy storage would have been another good solution for the original poster.
It could be that a shelf style layout point-to-point style layout permenently left up and situated above furniture would have been another good solution for the original poster.
We just do not have enough information about his circumstances to be able to advice him about his specific circumstances.
And the original poster apparently does not want any advice about layout shape or size. He has just stated that he do not want to change the size or shape of his benchwork, for reasons known only to him.
So be it. So how about if we stop having these semi-religious (ie somewhat dogmatic) discussions about whether a 4x8 is a good idea or not in general ?
Sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes other layout sizes and shapes might be a better use of available space.
In this specific case, we don't have enough info to be able to say whether it is a good use of available space or not.
And I guess you weren't spared that Emerson quote anyways. Oh well
Tjsingle wrote: I have a 4X8 due to space, and well im "New" to building layouts, and this is a test layout and i happened to have 5 4x8 sheets in my garage at the time. But 4X8 can be alot of fun to build and operate and when your ready to move on, well move on!Tjsingle
I have a 4X8 due to space, and well im "New" to building layouts, and this is a test layout and i happened to have 5 4x8 sheets in my garage at the time. But 4X8 can be alot of fun to build and operate and when your ready to move on, well move on!
Tjsingle
I would like to add my two cents...
Two 4X8 sheets. Have the home center cut 32in off one end of both. Keep the "scrap". Now you have two sheets that are 64x48 and two sheets that are 32x48. Which when you place the two 32x48 one above the other gives you (in essence)3 sheets of 64x48 or a 4 piece table that is 64x144. Now obviously other configurations are possible... (i.e. only use 2 sheets for a 64x96) However I feel this makes the best "island" area that is not much bigger then the sacred 4x8 with no waste.
Midnight Railroader wrote: jecorbett wrote: Those who insist an around the room layout is always the best choice are simply being closed minded. Closed-minded is assuming that your only two options are a 4x8 table or around-the room. The oft-mentioned Heart of Georgia layout design is one example of a design that is neither.
jecorbett wrote: Those who insist an around the room layout is always the best choice are simply being closed minded.
Given its dimensions and what is I assume the average available space someone has, it might as well be an around the room design. In my part of the country, if you have a spare bedroom you're putting that in, you might as well take it from 8x9 to 10x10 or thereabouts and not waste that extra few square feet of bedroom.
jecorbett Those who insist an around the room layout is always the best choice are simply being closed minded.
Around-the-room is not the only alternative to a 4X8. The simple expedient of having the home center make one cut of the 4X8 "sacred sheet" of plywood and adding a 2X4 pre-cut handy panel of plywood the same thickness yields a 5X8 that is more adaptable to decent radii than is the HO 4X8.
Fear of cutting wood is a factor in the popularity of the 4X8 and probably always will be. Magazines know the fear factor is there, so many of their HO project layouts do not require cutting the sacred sheet. The 4X8 has nearly always been the "politically correct" choice in the model press, unfortunately, and alternatives have not always been adequately explored.
Layouts that are 5X8, 5X9, 5X10, etc. are often better island-style layouts in HO because they can host radii that work more reliably with equipment used on real railroads since the 1960s and with the increasingly popular large steamers being lapped up by HO buyers today. And most rooms where a 4X8 will fit can also accommodate a 5X9, for example.
The orignal poster already had a 4X8 table he was not interested in changing, so these suggestions are pointless for him. But for other readers, suggesting that the only alternative to the sacred sheet is around-the-room is incorrect. One might even say ... closed-minded.
We would all be better off if we saw potential layout space as just that -- space. Not a series of rectangular 4X8 sheets plopped down to fill it. Sometimes around-the-room works best to meet a certain combination of space and desires, sometimes an island layout fits best. But even those island-style layouts don't all have to be 4X8 HO sacred sheets.
If you read the OP's follow up post, it is quite clear that for his situation, the 4x8 is a very good choice. I don't know why there are some who insist a 4x8 is ALWAYS a bad idea as several in this thread seem to be saying. Each modeler has his own unique circumstances which dictate what the best configuration for them is. Those who insist an around the room layout is always the best choice are simply being closed minded.
ChrisNH wrote: jeffers_mz wrote: We like mountain ridges better than plywood scene dividers. They provide similar isolation between scenes, but fit in better and offer high angle views where the divider itself becomes a point of interest.You make a good point that a scenic divider can be anything that breaks the area up into different scenes, not just a backdrop. Whatever you use, I feel it helps create the right effect if it blocks view across the table which can be done more ways if the table is higher. Chris
jeffers_mz wrote: We like mountain ridges better than plywood scene dividers. They provide similar isolation between scenes, but fit in better and offer high angle views where the divider itself becomes a point of interest.
We like mountain ridges better than plywood scene dividers. They provide similar isolation between scenes, but fit in better and offer high angle views where the divider itself becomes a point of interest.
You make a good point that a scenic divider can be anything that breaks the area up into different scenes, not just a backdrop. Whatever you use, I feel it helps create the right effect if it blocks view across the table which can be done more ways if the table is higher.
The downside to using a mountain ridge is that it will eat up quite a bit of precious real estate where as a vertical backdrop will take very little. For interest, the two sided backdrop could be angled slightly.
While it has been over 40 years since I had my last 4x8 HO layout, I have a plan to build a Christmas layout one of these years which will be a simple
single track oval with a few sidings and maybe a spur or two. I intend to have a vertical backdrop with a New England village on one side and a rural setting on the other.
HarryHotspur wrote:The main thing about a 4' x 8' is that it's considered very politically incorrect these days.
Sometimes, the old way is not the best way. We learn and grow--or we should.
Which is all the more reason to build one
jeffers_mz wrote:We like mountain ridges better than plywood scene dividers. They provide similar isolation between scenes, but fit in better and offer high angle views where the divider itself becomes a point of interest.
We started with a 4x8, or at least thought we did. Our "professional" carpenter (that would be me) actually built the benchwork 45 inches wide, a little subtraction problem that was only rectified after the main track was laid.
The extra three inches was added after the fact, two 8 foot 2x4's and some three inch screws, and this, together with the space at the edge of the 45 inch layout gave us enough room for two eight foot "tracks to nowhere", which, along with a crossover, allowed for 4 short spurs to aid congestion, and to allow the illusion of exchange operations.
Once more space became available, these 'tracks to nowhere" became the front leg of a double track exchange mainline, accessing additional switching, another town, and a four track staging yard.
Very handy, and having the interchange along the front edge of the table allows easier re-railing when picked turnouts manifest.
The castors on the legs are a godsend, giving easy access to all sides of the table without compromising the space available.
The wheels mandate a single electrical supply cable, easy to unplug, and easy to deal with when the layout moves around for access.
Thought the layout is now 5x14, it still rolls around easily with only one person pushing, even on soft thick carpet.
FWIW, there is an article in the current issue of Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette about an N scale 2x4ft switching layout. It would of course scale nicely to a 4x8 in HO. No continuous running, but it gives an idea of what can be accomplished in that space in a switching layout.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I feel like there is a misunderstanding. Allow me to clear a few things up.
1) I have an existing portable 4x8 train table, and I am not interested in building new benchwork.
2) The layout will be in my garage, so I cannot build it around the walls as I need acess to some 6- foot high cabinets.
3) I am also well aware that building a 4x8 layout is merely something of convience, but I just wanted to see if anyone had any tips or advice from previous layouts. I was not trying to critique the idea of a 4x8 layout as a whole.
4) I also know from expereince that large locomotives are out of the question. I only brought up that issue because in the future, I would like to have the option of a possible expansion and larger radius curves to accomadate for bigger engines.
Greetings,
When I had my first layout destroyed by a collapsing cieling and I had too build a 2nd one I designed it to be modular so that I can disassemble it if I had to move it down the road.
I have built my layout in 6 30"X30" squares that are white foam glued too 1/4 ply wood and the wood has latches that fasten the squares together from under the layout.
You may want to just hang onto it and some day add it to the end of your other layout.
Happy Rails, Jess Red Horse.
I should be starting construction in a few weeks, and once I begin, I'll be sure to post some pictures of my progress and direction with the project.
To all that have given me advice and suggestions I thank you for your time.
Midnight Railroader wrote: jecorbett wrote: The original poster asked simply for suggestions for his 4x8 layout. To tell him he is wrong for wanting to go that route simply makes no sense whatsoever. What is wrong with offering alternatives and explaining why they might suit him better?
jecorbett wrote: The original poster asked simply for suggestions for his 4x8 layout. To tell him he is wrong for wanting to go that route simply makes no sense whatsoever.
The original poster asked simply for suggestions for his 4x8 layout. To tell him he is wrong for wanting to go that route simply makes no sense whatsoever.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out alternatives but so often these replies disdain a 4x8 as if it is a hairbrained idea. It most certainly is not and often is the best solution for a particular situation. If a 4x8 was really that bad an idea, they would not have been so popular for so long. In this case, the poster was very specific about requests for 4x8 ideas and he seems to have very good reasons for wanting to go that route. Why would someone want to tell him he is wrong.
Well, Midnight, I guess you've got me there. Misunderstanding. People have told the OP that he cannot easily run large locos on a 4x8.
His 5/13 answer to that is
Regarding my choice in motive power: I currently run only switchers, and do not run any large engine, as they do not fit well with such a small layout. My hope is that in the future, I can move away from a switching type layout and use some more midsized engines.
MY original response to this thread was to answer his Other question which was,
Can I fit enough track to have several chores to do each session, while still having structures and scenery on a 4x8 table?
which was quoted and highlighted in my original answer to Cahrn and you failed to quote in your original response to me.
In a general setting for a general discusion, your AB&C points are true but they still do not apply to my original answer to cahrn.
If you want to discusss what will and won't run on a 4x8, then as stated, your ab&c points are true. While an 0-8-0 will run and look okay on a 4x8 (such as the one I drew) a 4-8-8-4 will not. A GP-9 will run and look okay on the layout, an SD90 will not. 40 and 50 foot cars With body mounted couplers will, 86 foot autoracks, will not.
rolleiman wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: rolleiman wrote: In respect to all those who keep trying to tell you that you cannot run large locomotives on a 4x8, and all the rest of the well intentioned advice, the answer to your question is Yes. Your one word answer doesn't take into account that:(a) It isn't true. Not all large locos will make an 18" or even 22" curve without trouble, and(b) They look sily and toylike even if they can stay on the track.(c) If the couplers are body-mounted, which they usually are these days, long locos can drag cars off the track when they attempt these curves.So much for "well-intentioned" advice!The OP does state that he is NOT running Large Locos. He Further states that he is more intertested, currently, in sticking with his 4x8 table. So in the case of This discussion, your ABC points are, Pointless.
Midnight Railroader wrote: rolleiman wrote: In respect to all those who keep trying to tell you that you cannot run large locomotives on a 4x8, and all the rest of the well intentioned advice, the answer to your question is Yes. Your one word answer doesn't take into account that:(a) It isn't true. Not all large locos will make an 18" or even 22" curve without trouble, and(b) They look sily and toylike even if they can stay on the track.(c) If the couplers are body-mounted, which they usually are these days, long locos can drag cars off the track when they attempt these curves.So much for "well-intentioned" advice!
rolleiman wrote: In respect to all those who keep trying to tell you that you cannot run large locomotives on a 4x8, and all the rest of the well intentioned advice, the answer to your question is Yes.
In respect to all those who keep trying to tell you that you cannot run large locomotives on a 4x8, and all the rest of the well intentioned advice, the answer to your question is Yes.
(a) It isn't true. Not all large locos will make an 18" or even 22" curve without trouble, and
(b) They look sily and toylike even if they can stay on the track.
(c) If the couplers are body-mounted, which they usually are these days, long locos can drag cars off the track when they attempt these curves.
So much for "well-intentioned" advice!
The OP does state that he is NOT running Large Locos. He Further states that he is more intertested, currently, in sticking with his 4x8 table. So in the case of This discussion, your ABC points are, Pointless.
Didn't you make the post explaining that he could run large locos on a 4/8 layout? (Why, yes, you did--it's quoted above.)
Why'd you do that if it is pointless to do so?
cahrn wrote:Rolleiman: The image you posted is very interesting and I think I'll try to include parts of it in my upcoming layout. The table is portable, as well, and when not in use, it can be transported into another room and hung from the ceiling from a block and tackle type devive. All of the buildings and large scenery must be removed (ex: mountains) beforehand, so that will be included in the construction.
The table is portable, as well, and when not in use, it can be transported into another room and hung from the ceiling from a block and tackle type devive. All of the buildings and large scenery must be removed (ex: mountains) beforehand, so that will be included in the construction.
cahrn, Show us some photos when you get going. Always interesting to see layout progress photos of the folks here.
I'm not suggesting you actually build a 'puzzle' layout but this may get some ideas going for you.
Or, Just off the top of the dome, a quickie,
ChrisNH wrote: cahrn wrote: Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use. I think the cahrn pretty well covers it all here..
cahrn wrote: Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use.
Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use.
I think the cahrn pretty well covers it all here..
Yup. A moveable/stowable 4x8 certainly can take less storage space than a 32 square feet O-shaped layout when not in use, even though both layouts will take the same amount of space when in use.
Chip (SpaceMouse) already posted a link to the 4x8 competition. Don't know if anyone clicked their way down to the 4x8 layouts and looked at them, but both winner "Du Bois and Punxzy" and runner-up "Loopy Bridge and Terminal" should have quite a bit of operating potensial.
Here is the track plan for the latter:
I simulated a possible operating session of the latter layout here.
Course - if you have fairly limited space, and you have the option of putting up relatively narrow shelves high up on the walls, so you can use the space under for other things, a point to point 18" deep shelf layout high up on a wall (above e.g. storage cabinets or whatever) might be an even better option than a 4x8.
Here is a layout that takes 7x2 feet of storage space (ie 14 square feet) up on a wall, with a roughly three foot x 6" drop leaf for a lead track off one end - it certainly occupies less wall area than a stored 4x8 hanging flat on the wall, so it should be possible to use the space under the layout for e.g. storage.
An extended version of this layout:
Main part is 10.3 feet by 2 feet, with a 4.3 feet x 8" shelf on one end, and a triangle shaped extension 34" wide and 24" high at the other end - 2.8 square feet - total 26.1 square feet - a little smaller than the 32 square feet a 4x8 occupies, but with considerable more room for operations and scenery.
Bringing it up to a size of about 32 square feet, give or take a little:
Many options. But if original poster wants 4x8, then 4x8 it is. Please let us see what you end up designing and building!
markpierce wrote: It is rather sad that so many people are fixated on a 4x8 (usually HO scale) layout. Despite its relatively large space requirement (at least 8x10, almost the size of a second bedroom) because it requires access on three sides, despite that it is only 32 square feet and severely restricts minimum radius. There are better alternatives. Fortunately, I won't be commenting on any more 4x8 layouts.Mark
It is rather sad that so many people are fixated on a 4x8 (usually HO scale) layout. Despite its relatively large space requirement (at least 8x10, almost the size of a second bedroom) because it requires access on three sides, despite that it is only 32 square feet and severely restricts minimum radius. There are better alternatives. Fortunately, I won't be commenting on any more 4x8 layouts.
This argument comes up everytime the issue of a 4x8 layout comes up and while it is true that many people fixate on a 4x8 and also true that a 4x8 requires as much space to operate as one built along the walls, there are other factors which might dictate that a 4x8 is the best choice. Those who insist an around the room design is much better are as closed minded as those who believe 4x8 is the only way to go.
There are a number of factors that might fall on the 4x8 side of the scale. Portability is one. Even if a layout is not intended to travel, if it is on a table with casters it can easily be pushed into the corner of a room when not in use so it would only require a 4x8 footprint. It could be operated with the layout in the corner of the room and only pulled away from the corner when access is needed. There might be other reasons for not wanting to go around the walls such as doors or windows in inconvenient spaces. The modeler might not want to deal with a duck under which would be a requirement if one wanted a continuous running layout in a small room.
cahrn wrote:Regarding my first post, I would like to get feedback on building a layout that is more switching/industrial oriented on this table. A loop is not even a nessecity. What kind of operating potential is available on a layout like this? Can I fit enough track to have several chores to do each session, while still having structures and scenery on a 4x8 table?
Several options can be had. You've already accepted that your space is limited to that of a 4x8 table. I assume this has to be somewhat portable for storage? Further, that long trains sweeping around a mainline aren't likely to happen (in anything larger than N scale). Given that...
2 industrial areas on each side of the table, perhaps seperated by a divider (terrain, backdrop, large factory type buildings, etc). One side feeding the other and back again. One of MY favorites for this sort of thing is related to an old Timesaver design (by John Allen). His, was actually a game, in which specific parameters were set such as the constant speed of the locomotives. The opbject was to get cars moved from one end or track to another (basically) with the least number of moves (thus the shortest time).
Have a look here
http://www.wymann.info/ShuntingPuzzles/sw-timesaver.html
I call this 3 towns on 3 levels. It is by no means refined. It IS however a 4x8 layout that'll keep one or possibly even two operators busy for awhile. It is a point to point with a grade. Two terminal ends, and a division point. I've arbitraily labeled what those could be. The basic idea is to move raw material out of whatever you decide the 'mining' area to be and carry it down to the port for shipment elsewhere by boat or barge. Then, Bring empty cars back up for a reload of goods. The Division point town could be both a supplier and receiver of goods for (or from) both of the terminal ends. Get the idea?
The port level is on the ground level. The division point is midway on the elevation and the mine is on the upper level (say at 3" elevation). The two C shaped brackets denote tunnel entrances and the single track between them is hidden. With some careful fitting you could even put a staging siding in that tunnel. The large green line simply denotes a scenic (of some sort) divider between the two sides. The turnouts are all #4 and the curves are all 18" radius. The very bottom line on the drawing is the table edge, not a track. With a very slight modification, you could even have a continuous runaround track as long as you don't get too crazy with the grade seperations.
There are also a lot of scenic possibilities here. For instance, The upper right of the drawing where the two tracks exit the 'scenic divider'.. Those could be curved trestle bridges going over a river that flows off that corner.
The Gateway NMRA in St. Louis has some "project" layouts that are HO and 4x8 or smaller. They are well done and look interesting. Lots of ideas and construction details.
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm
Thanks,
Midnight Railroader wrote: HarryHotspur wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.So a 3 x 7 or 5 x 9 would be better?No, what I am saying is, there are other, better, benchwork designs that take the same amount of space that don't happen to be a rectangle, as described here.The OP describes a common misconception, that he can't go "larger than a 4x8," but unless he can levitate above it, he's already using more than 32 square feet. Why not use that same space to make a better layout?My point in mentioning the other sizes was, I find it odd that so many homes just happen to have just enough room for a layout exactly the size of a common sheet of plywood. I suspect if plywood came in standard 5x9-foot sheets, these same homes would magically have just enough room for a 5x9 layout!
HarryHotspur wrote: Midnight Railroader wrote: The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.So a 3 x 7 or 5 x 9 would be better?
Midnight Railroader wrote: The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.
The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.
So a 3 x 7 or 5 x 9 would be better?
The OP describes a common misconception, that he can't go "larger than a 4x8," but unless he can levitate above it, he's already using more than 32 square feet. Why not use that same space to make a better layout?
My point in mentioning the other sizes was, I find it odd that so many homes just happen to have just enough room for a layout exactly the size of a common sheet of plywood. I suspect if plywood came in standard 5x9-foot sheets, these same homes would magically have just enough room for a 5x9 layout!
Gotcha. Makes sense.
cahrn wrote:Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use.
I hope you post some pics of your progress as you go along.
A 4x8 is limited in HO, no matter what.
- short trains
- sharp curves (18" radius)
- 2 "towns" with a few switching locations each, at best. Or a twice-around or double track main with very little switching.
For some ideas of good, buildable 4x8 layouts:
Atlas HO layouts #30 and #33 (http://www.atlasrr.com/Code100web/index.htm). #30 is a 4x6 that could stand some expansion, but has lots of switching.
Another good example is at http://www.pacificcoastairlinerr.com/4x8/.
Iain Rice's Lilliput Logger is another favorite, but it can't be built with 18" radius curves as drawn. You either need a little more width, or tighter curves. Also, Rice's 4x8 cockpit design is interesting (see Small and Practical Layouts by Rice), but has the runaround track on a 20" radius curve.
Model Railroader published 2 good 4x8 project layouts IMHO - Jerome and Southwestern and the Turtle Creek. One of the NMRA regions has also had some good 4x8 and 4x6 designs.
Finally, John Allens' first Gorre and Daphited will easily fit in 4x8, but again has less than 18" radius curves.
just some ideas
Midnight Railroader wrote:The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.
Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use. This being said, space is at a premium, so I really cannot accomadate anything other than a 4x8.
My new layout will utilize DCC, however I am leaning toward using manual turnouts to add another aspect to the operation.
Fred has the right idea.
If you figure that you have to leave space around your 4x8 to walk around it, then you should be able to go with the HOG (Heart of Georga) layout. It puts the layout in the walk-around space. It gives you wide curves for larger equipment and a longer run. You could also make a lift bridge vs a duck-under.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
You have a real problem. Large locos and 4x8 simple don't mix well for several reasons. First of all, the maximum radius you can have is 22" and that is for the outter oval only and leaves you just 2" clearance on each side. Six axle units are going to have a problem on 22" and even if they will stay on the track, they won't look that good doing it.
The other problem is 4x8 layouts dictate short trains. Large locos look out of place pulling short trains. Whether steam or diesel, small locomotives look much more appropriate pulling trains of 10 cars or less.
This might not be what you want to hear, but that's the way it is. I would mothball the big locos until you have room for a bigger layout. Small locos will be much better for your 4x8 and can be integrated into your larger future layout.
Take a look at the Heart of Georgia plan (http://www.hogrr.com/) - the same 32 sq ft arranged differently. Takes the same space within a room, and gets rid of most of the disadvanatages of a table 4x8 you mention. The cost is a duckunder.
Hi,
Look at the 4 x 8 layout is in the design contests. There are some good creative ideas in there.
Also look at the 2 x 8 shelf alyouts, as you could possibly combine two of them in a 4 x 8.
http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Layouts.html
Given the original poster said they already had a 4x8 train table, I was considering that they may want to keep the existing table.
There are times when an island layout is the best choice although I agree one wants to explore all other options. At least, at 4' wide, you are keeping a 2' reach in from each side.
ChrisNH wrote: If you need to stay with the 4x8,
If you need to stay with the 4x8,
1. If lumber came only in sheets of 3x7 or 5x9, people would suddenly only have room for one of those.
2. If all you have is 4 x 8 feet, then you'd better be able to fly, because there will be no room for you to operate or even build the layout--you take up floor space, too. So you DO have more than 4x8 feet available.
If you need to stay with the 4x8, try putting a scenic divider down the middle to make two distinct scenes and hide one end of the oval. This will make it appear to be a single stretch of track connecting two areas..
Alternatively, you could set up one side of the oval to be staging feeding trains to a scene on the other side..
An idea I have played around with (in my head) was to take a 4X8 sheet and cut it into equal 1/4's. The build a setup to be modular so that they can be rearranged into different configurations such as train shows or if space becomes available later on. The idea though was to have them assemble back into the original 4X8 configuration and have everything still line up as it was never cut apart. Creative use of scenery breaks such as tunnels, mountains, buildings, bridges, etc could be employed to mask the ends of each piece. I wasn't necessarily considering configuring the track to any particular outside standard other than it all fits together as I want it to.
If you use scenic dividers, you can really expand on this idea for the future. Let's say the layout stays together assembled as the 4X8 set. It appears to be one large scene. You could easily create a backdrop that merely screws onto the back of each section to make it it's own individual scene independent of the others. I had though about wiring each block to a simple generic wiring harness that just plugs into the next one. If each section had the same wiring harness they'd all be interchangeable in any order. The issue that would arise would be how to deal with switches and signaling if you decided to get that detailed. If you did, I'm sure you'd think of something.
Just an idea. It's the traditional 4X8 that can also be a shelf style system later on.