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."
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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
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.
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.
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.
Smile, Stein
- Harry
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.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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.
ByronModel RR Blog
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..