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
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
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).
cheers,
Ken
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
Grin, Stein
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.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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.
Chris
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
- Harry
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?