Hi all,
I know there are a lot for 4x8 haters out there...but before I begin, let me state - for the space I have, and the desired needs, this seems to be the way to go.
needs:
non-needs
So this is a fun layout I designed and thought some of you might have some ideas or pointers.
Why Euro track? because 4x8 sucks? lol
My main question: is the Roco just a terrible idea? is it worth the space save?
I'm new to this(as you can tell), but aside of track availability in the US, is this just a terrible idea? I looked at the Woodland Scenics Valley kit...but I am afraid I will get bored with it?
The only thing I wish this had was a river/pond...but I just couldn't get it to practically work.
Thanks for any thoughts on this.
Chad
To get some ideas on trackplans on what you are looking for i would look here:
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm
They have some nice plans that they have built and you can see some pictures on what the final product looks like.
I also like some of the plans out of Spacemouse's design contests:
http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/4x8Contest.html
But I think you are going to be hard press for fitting a double track loop on a 4x8. Because I don't know if you have the required clearance to run trains on both tracks.
V/R
Chris
Warner Robins, GA
Check out my railroad at: Buffalo and Southwestern
Photos at:Flicker account
YouTube:StellarMRR YouTube account
Chad,
Most of us aren't 4x8 haters.... I had one for years. What most of us do want, though, is for the new hobbyist to try to break out of the 4x8 paradigm if possible. If you WANT a 4x8 layout, then by all means make one. Say so and be done with it. However, you seem to imply that you're "settling" for a 4x8.
Because a 4x8 is wider than the average human can comfortably reach, you need to preserve access all the way around it, which is actually very wasteful of space. With a 2' aisle around the outside, it actually takes up 8 x 12 (96 square feet for 32 square feet of layout). By putting your layout along 3 sides of that space and keeping it to 24-30" wide, you could actually fit a C shaped layout 8' x 12 x 8', or 48 square feet of layout with a footprint of only 80 square feet.
But that's neither here nor there. You want a 4x8, I'll give you some advice on what you've drawn.
Curve Radius -- what are you planning to run? Short steam and 4 axle diesels and 40' cars will probably be ok, anything longer will give you trouble on these tight curves.
Sidings -- they're very short. 1-2 cars is all you can fit in them. Is that OK?
Track Separation -- When you say 3/4" from from roadbed to roadbed, I assume you mean that your chosen track has molded on roadbed, and that you're planning to leave 3/4" between the pieces. The recommended minimum separation between track centers is 2" on straight track, farther on curves. It doesn't look like you'll have this, unless the roadbed is really wide.
Run Around -- In railroad terms, this is a short section of track which allows a locomotive to uncouple from it's train, move to the other end, and recouple, thus reversing the direction the train is traveling, or getting the loco to the other end. While the connection between the two mains at the bottom would allow you to do this on a very short train, that's about it. Or do you mean "Continuous Running" (the ability of your trains to run in a complete circle) or "Passing Sidings" (the ability to park a train off the main so another can pass it).
Point to point mainline -- you don't have one of these right now. But one would work really well on that hypothetical C shape I described above. Point to point means that each end represents a destination, and during one operating session, trains travel from one to the other and don't generally come back.
You've wasted a lot of space at the edges of your layout by opting for a 4x8. Your town would take up less space if it were against one side of the layout, similarly, a lake or pond can be placed as a partial feature along one edge, with a river / stream coming out and running across one side. Both of these options could be done on your current plan, but it would be harder. You could also put a view block down the center of the layout and build a town / lake up against that.
I know that sounds like I'm bashing the 4x8. I'm not. But I think you'd get more of what you want with a different shape.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
awesome feedback. thank you.
Some clarification:
Curve Radius - yes...I am only running 50' and under boxes with sd45's/gp38's on this. It would be great to hear from someone that has ran these on tighter radii such as the Roco track.
Track Spacing - this design is 2.3" center to center. Sounds like I'm ok here? this is one thing I really wanted to check on...so great to hear feedback on that.
Run Arround - I used a wrong term here. You are correct...I should have said "continuous running". thank you.
Point to Point - that is what I meant...but I suppose my thinking was more simply "destination A to Destination B". So, I should have stated that building lables were sort of ideas. I was thinking actually a grain elevator/outlet where the "coke" factory is on that image. then there is an actually "gather and deliver" point to point on a very simple level.
Space - I really like some of your ideas on this. I'm gonna play around and see what I can come up with putting the housing on one end or the back side.
Thanks!
You can go 22" outer and 18 inner with sectional or 20 inner with flex
My original 4X9 1/2 was a 22 and 18
No problems
I never finished it but switched to an around the walls layout that i am doing now
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
I'm not a 4x8 "hater" either - I just think that the combination of H0 scale and a 4x8 foot table has many challenges, especially for people who actually have little space for a layout (which is often used as the reason for building a 4x8). Due to the need for aisles, it does take quite a bit of floor space.
If the only space you have available for a layout is the space where you used to have a ping pong table (i.e. in the middle of the floor in a rec room or some such place), and you want H0 scale, a 5x9 layout would often be a pretty good choice, and better than a 4x8.
If you want a continuous run loop on a table you can reach across from one side (so it can be placed with one long side against the wall), going N scale and using a 32" deep and 6 2/3 foot long hollow core door will give you both reach and adequate curves.
If you want to do a H0 scale layout, you do not need to go down to 15" radius curves - you can work it up to 22" radius curves.
You should stay at or above 18" radius if you can, if you are planning to run American engines and rolling stock - German model railroad engines are built for 15" radius curves (hence the Roco 15" radius curves), but that is tight for many American engines and rolling stock.
The rule of the thumb for american rolling stock : try to keep minimum curve radius no smaller than three times the length of your longest rolling stock for pretty trouble free running. 4x looks better. 5x is a good choice if you want cars to couple automatically when you push them together on a curve.
40' cars - 5.5" long in H0 scale - recommended minimum curve radius : 3 x 5.5 = 16.5".
50' cars - 6.8" long in H0 scale - recommended minimum curve radius: 20.5"
You can often get away with sharper curves if you file away stuff on the underside of the car, replace couplers with longer couplers or mount couplers on the trucks instead of the bodies, and only pull well weighted cars through curves at low speed, instead of backing up through curves with longer cuts of cars.
For some possibilities of what you can do in H0 scale with continuous running, have a look at the last couple issues of Model Railroader Magazine.
Or these designs from Byron Henderson's web page - he is not a great fan of the 4x8 format either, but these are fairly decent designs for a 4x8 H0 scale layout: http://www.layoutvision.com/id47.html
Smile, Stein
I don´t think you´ll find 4 by 8-haters in here - the more experienced among us only agree that it is not the best use of a given space for a layout.
Actually, MR has re-discovered the 4 by 8. The February 2011 edition shows a very well done layout of that size and also has some interesting track plan ideas in it - it´s worth getting a copy!
As to the intended use of Roco track, there are some points you should consider:
I personally see no benefit in using Roco track.
Chad there are no haters of the 4x8 layout that I know of in this forum. What most of us are try to point out is that if you have more space say a 10x12 room. You waste space by putting a 4x8 layout in the middle of it. But by using an around the walls setup us maximize the footprint of the railroad itself.
In a 10x12 room if you set a 4x8 in the middle you have access all the way around it, yes? 3 feet on the sides and 2.5 feet on each end. But by using an around the walls layout, say two feet wide. You have a space of 6x8 in the middle to operate the railroad from while gaining fifty six feet of usable layout footage.
A 4x8 layout yields a footprint of 32 square foot of usable space. But when placed in a room of 120 square feet you waste 88 square feet of space when you can be using it for your railroad. While an around the room layout yields a layout of 88 square feet with a waste of 32 square feet.
While every layout has its drawbacks. I gladly trade more layout footage for wasted space any day.
With that said if this is your first layout or you just like the 4x8 layout, that is what it is. A 4x8 layout is a great start and we just want to help all we can.
As for your question about the trackage, I have always used Atlas and can not help you in that matter.
Johnnny_reb Once a word is spoken it can not be unspoken!
My Train Page My Photobucket Page My YouTube Channel
hi
this is a point-to-point:
I am one of the 8x4 haters................or do i have not much compassion for people not willing to look around the corner.
Never the less i see some errors in your plan.
* You are using a way to short switchback in the upper part.
* the crossovers at the bottom could be placed further apart.
* It is not clear to me why you are using the radii you have chosen. You are worrying about the spacing; radii and spacing are depending on the length of your cars or engines. You could give us more specific information.
Smile
Paul
I do have one reason for a 4x8 (or in my case a 4x6) over a shelf layout. If I had a finished basement or dining area, I would be able to run my trains on the layout and then later on, stand it on end (or side) and put it against the wall (or any other out of the way location) for other uses.
People don't always have the space (or spouse/roommate) to dedicate ONLY for model railroading.
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
P.S Why is there a giant layout graphic following me around?
Mike Kieran I do have one reason for a 4x8 (or in my case a 4x6) over a shelf layout. If I had a finished basement or dining area, I would be able to run my trains on the layout and then later on, stand it on end (or side) and put it against the wall (or any other out of the way location) for other uses. People don't always have the space (or spouse/roommate) to dedicate ONLY for model railroading.
Just started portable layout - 1 x 8 feet, comes apart in two 1 x 4 foot sections, resting on the dining table in our living room:
track plan:
More permanent layout (but build in sections) - 40-some square feet in a room which is actually too small for a 4x6 or 4x8, which also have to work as a storage room and workshop:
Several 20" x 4 foot FREMO section (not mine), use for meets with other model railroaders, from a meet at Kløfta model railroad club at Kløfta, Norway:
Other options :
- N scale continuous loop of track on a hollow core door - takes up about 30" x 6 feet along a wall.
- traction/tram/interurban layout on a narrow shelf running along one or two walls, automatically reversing direction and coming back when it gets to the other end of the shelf, with automated effects like stopping at stations, having RR crossing gates go down as the train approaches and so on and so forth.
There are numerous ways to build and use a layout when you have little space. The 4x6 or 4x8 is just one of many possible approaches.
Okay - back to the regularily scheduled discussion about how not everyone has enough space for any more than a 4x8.
Grin, Stein, who do not have space for something as big as a 4x8 :-)
Steinjr,
I love the trackplans. How long (cars and/or inches or centimeters) is the Soo interchange on the 1x8 layout? I love that design. Why not put a siding serving the Vita Company? I also love the 6x11 layout. Port layouts rock!!!
hi Mike
it is hijacking a thread, but i am very bad in understanding just words. Please can you make a drawing of the room where your layout is placed, with all obstacles like doors. And of course how your layout fits in. A clue about how and where you store your layout is welcome too.
Mike Kieran Steinjr, I love the trackplans. How long (cars and/or inches or centimeters) is the Soo interchange on the 1x8 layout? I love that design. Why not put a siding serving the Vita Company? I also love the 6x11 layout. Port layouts rock!!!
Thank you.
I won't keep hijacking the thread - just a few quick answer to Mike's questions: the Soo line interchange looks really long in the photo, but it is only 30" long - i.e it has room for three, maybe four 40-foot cars before fouling the switch.
Track plan is heavily inspired by a Byron Henderson 18" x 72" N scale switching layout plan (http://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id25.html). It would have been better if I could have used more depth, but storage and transportation considerations made a little less than a foot of depth (about 10.5") the maximum I could afford for this layout.
More or less the same plan expanded to 18" of depth - would have allowed far more room for scenery
Why not a track to the Burma Vita Co? I just felt that the layout already was pretty track heavy - I needed to leave a little breathing space. It doesn't make sense to have more 4-5 incoming cars anyways, plus maybe 2-3 more at the interchange track.
Anyways - sorry about the hijack. My point was just to illustrate that little space can be handled in any number of ways.
But a well made 4x6 or 4x8 is not a horrible idea - there were a number of good looking 4x8 layouts in a recent issue of Model Railroader Magazine. The Byron Henderson variants I linked to affords quite a bit of operations (if you want that).
Look up poster Geohan to see a really beautiful and well executed three level 4x8 H0 scale layout that can be winched up to the ceiling when not in use.
Not a design well suited as a first layout for a beginner perhaps (unless said beginner was willing and able to keep plugging away at it until it worked, redoing things over and over until it was really good) but beautiful and functional nevertheless.
But perhaps we should get back to the OP's layout?
Grin, Stein
Room: (door is bottom left. top part is 8'1"..room length is 11')
Version 2 Layout
Here are some of the room requirements:
- this is/was actually my office. I work from home, and so I actually need to have a small desk in the same room. We have a VERY small house...so this is going to have to do.
My intention was to lower the table height to 30" or so to the layout ground level. install nice cabinets underneath, nice fascia ...ect. And being 6' tall, I don't see reaching 3.5 feet as a big deal.
To be honest...if it wasn't for continuous running, I would scrap the 4x8 idea...but...I like continuous running, I like some switching and swapping fun...and I can "accept" the fact that I am not going to have any long engines, and mostly just have an enjoyable short line, that has some nice hilly scenery, and fun diorama.
I think I have accepted the fact that you can't have it all on a 4x8...scenery, diorama, outer main line, inner ops, switching, point to point...ect.
So I think the goal is to just have a usable, fun layout that I'm not going to get to bored with like I suspect I would with the woodland scenics kits.
It's really great to get all these different perspectives and ideas. very helpful!
Hey Paulis,
I’m going to try to not make this thread about me and my layout. I’m only going to discuss the concept of my layout and its portability (Port Able). I plan to start building it after Easter as time frees up.
The design is not groundbreaking. It’s a 45 inch by 63 inch loop with 3 trailing point turnouts. It will break into 3 sections measuring 45 inches by 21 inches. I plan to store the 3 sections on a shelf above a doorway and assemble them together when it’s time to play with my trains. I also wanted to be able to take it to train shows while fitting it in the back seat of a mid size sedan (48 inches of space). I was originally going to make it 2 sections that were 28 inches by 45 inches and have the layout attached by hinges to make it a 56 inch by 45 inch layout.
The concept is that it’s a shortline that took over a shortened branch line that has no passing sidings. The interchange is located near the engine house. The engine picks up the train and pulls it engine first to the two online customers – a manufacturing company and a building supply (cement hoppers). After switching the customers, the engine will push the train caboose first back to the interchange.
I mentioned that this can be done with a 4x8 or a 4x6 layout because the layout doesn’t have to be bolted to the floor. If you build the layout on lightweight framework and foam core, the layout can be built 6 inches thick and light enough so that you can pick it up and place it somewhere else on its end or on its side.
My premise is that a 4x8 layout can be useful if it shares space with other household necessities (eating, sleeping, etc). It can rest on a dining room table, straddle a bed (Don Mitchell’s Oakdale Central), or along a hallway. Our layouts are only limited by our imaginations.
This is why I loved Carl Arendt's website. It reminded us how we can still have fun, even though we don't have a basement. I'm also a big fan of Sir Ian Rice. As far as I'm concerned, genius like him should be knighted.
What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?
Mike Kieran What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?
Umm - what are you talking about here, Mike ?
Stein, confused
ChadStrat And being 6' tall, I don't see reaching 3.5 feet as a big deal.
And being 6' tall, I don't see reaching 3.5 feet as a big deal.
Umm - does that mean that the layout will go up against a wall on one long side, so you will have to reach across the layout?
If so, doing an N scale layout on a hollow core door (HCD) instead of a 4 foot wide H0 scale layout with 15" radius curves to keep the rearmost tracks at 3.5 feet from the front edge would be a really good idea.
Reaching less than 2 1/2 feet beats reaching 3 1/2 feet, and allows the layout to go in higher (i.e. with more usable space under the layout), and in N scale, 13" radius or so is about the equivalent of 23-24" radius in H0 scale - i.e. wide enough curves to work for longer cars (and look fairly good for shorter cars).
steinjr Mike Kieran: What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion? Umm - what are you talking about here, Mike ? Stein, confused
Mike Kieran: What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?
Probably just a bout of Turrets Syndrome
Springfield PA
Tourettes too. Turrets Syndrome is from driving a tank, lol. I keep getting the left side of the trackplan that started this post on the screen every time I read new submissions.
Steinjr, I mean that after you are finished operating your layout, you put it up against the wall. John Armstrong used to talk about stacking your layout on a frame or like a Murphy Bed.
Ummmm
Did you ever hear the language coming from people who drive tanks?
Mike Kieran Tourettes too. Turrets Syndrome is from driving a tank, lol. I keep getting the left side of the trackplan that started this post on the screen every time I read new submissions. Steinjr, I mean that after you are finished operating your layout, you put it up against the wall. John Armstrong used to talk about stacking your layout on a frame or like a Murphy Bed.
Oh, I got that part. I was just confused by your reference to the graphic all over the page - doesn't happen to me. Could be dependent on what web browser and version you are using, I suppose.
Mike --
Believe me, we understand why you might want to put your layout away, or why you might not be able to put it against the walls. What we're saying is that if you DON'T have those constraints, then don't force your layout into them.
Back to Chad now....
Some food for thought (I didn't bother with sidings or turnouts, or trying to get everything parallel.... just think about this). I used Atlas Code 83 track, a #6 turnout, and 22" radius curves. All very standard, inexpensive US prototype stuff.
That's your room, and look at the huge layout! So long as you don't mind a duckunder or a lift out section, you can have your continuous running. Your town could go in the top left corner, industries along the right side, maybe a lake / river down the left.... Add some sidings, passing track, etc. and you could really have some fun with this. All in the same space occupied by your 4x8.
You could even put the desk UNDER the layout.
As far as the height is concerned, 30" is really low, and you will kill your back bending over to work on it. Plus, models tend to look better when they're closer to eye level.
hi stein,
the very same here, has to do with my browser who can't read a a tpn-file or something like that.
BTW i am a bit confused, which thread do we have here?
Paulus Jas hi stein, the very same here, has to do with my browser who can't read a a tpn-file or something like that.
Ah - perhaps something that happens to people who use an obsolete old version of Internet Explorer - version 6 is by now obsolete and have with numerous weaknesses - including problems handling PNG (Portable Network Graphics) files that the OP is using.
JPG is a safer image format to post - it is handled by pretty much all web browsers that has any graphic capacity at all.
Paulus Jas BTW i am a bit confused, which thread do we have here?
Originally : Chad, H0 scale, 15" radius curves, low table, seemingly wants sharp radius in order to get tracks within 3.5 feet from front edge on 4 foot deep table.
CTValleyRR Mike -- Believe me, we understand why you might want to put your layout away, or why you might not be able to put it against the walls. What we're saying is that if you DON'T have those constraints, then don't force your layout into them. Back to Chad now.... Some food for thought (I didn't bother with sidings or turnouts, or trying to get everything parallel.... just think about this). I used Atlas Code 83 track, a #6 turnout, and 22" radius curves. All very standard, inexpensive US prototype stuff. That's your room, and look at the huge layout! So long as you don't mind a duckunder or a lift out section, you can have your continuous running. Your town could go in the top left corner, industries along the right side, maybe a lake / river down the left.... Add some sidings, passing track, etc. and you could really have some fun with this. All in the same space occupied by your 4x8. You could even put the desk UNDER the layout. As far as the height is concerned, 30" is really low, and you will kill your back bending over to work on it. Plus, models tend to look better when they're closer to eye level.
I agree
That is what I did
I scraped my 4x 9 1/2 plans and went with a 6 1/2 x 9 1/2 around the walls with a duck under and you can get bigger radii I now have 24-22 ( Atlas code 83 sectional )instead of 18-22
However my shelves are narrower since I made use of existing box work
From this
to this
I'm not "forcing" anything. It was mentioned in the beginning of the thread about 4x8 haters. I was merely pointing out that there can be a use for 4x8 layouts and presenting a devils advocate side to a 4x8 layout .
Many modellers are finding themselves constantly moving, lacking space, or don't have loads of time to spend on a layout. Model Railroader has been presenting articles and features on modular and 4x8 layouts recently for a reason. Carl Arendt had a popular website devoted to micro layouts for a reason.
What I was pointing out is that is that not eveybody is a 4x8 hater. I have been seeing a lot of posts regarding such lately on a lot of railroad forums. One must realize that views have different sides that must be presented. That's why there are forums and on a more serious scale, court systems. From there, the person making the decision must weight the pros and cons before coming to a conclusion. I've found that I come to better decisions if I listen to conflicting views before I listen to views that support my original opinion. If you don't like the post, then bypass it and move on.
Finding the good side to a 4x8 layout. I myself would prefer an around the walls layout. For one thing, you can use backround flats against the wall to suggest larger industries. Sharp curves don't appear as sharp from the inside of a curve.
There is a good argument against 4x8 layouts if they are pemanantly affixed to their space. There must be adequate space surrounding the 4x8 layout. The point that I was making is if a layout is mobile and can fold against a wall,