mike,
playing the devils advocate is a waste of time.
MR is presenting 8x4 for one reason, cause most newbies think it is easy to construct. And yes, getting some sawhorses and a sheet of plywood seems easy enough. A lot of guys never hold a saw or a power drill in their hands. But they end up with a way to low layout, a pike very hard to transport cause it is very big, and not easy at all to store on the side. Without building a frame they will encounter sag too.
Building in sections, like the Beer Line, would be a big step ahead. And yes, that seems and is more complicated to construct. My LHS dealer told me once, he lost a lot of clients cause they were unable to or shied away from more complicated projects. But if you are not willing to take a step, if you do not dare to try out things, you will probably never build a satisfying layout.
Getting forum members so far, they will make a drawing of their room often take ages; not cause I want to force them into an around-the-room design but looking at possibilities to build an addition or a cassette. Even the idea of staging / interchange is beyond their view. No harm is done starting with a 8x4, getting experience ain't that bad, but often at a prize of a few 1000's dollars.
Going back to this thread, why is Chad so afraid his 2,4 spacing is not enough..........i think i can guess the answer. I asked him about it, he did not respond of course; chances are he has bought 89 feet coaches and auto-racks. Hard to run over 18" or smaller radii.
Bottom line is, no-one is a 8x4 HO hater, but what I hate is people asking for help, who refuse to give the appropriate information. And lets be honest, if you have a switching district between 3 and 4 feet away, with very short tracks, coupling and uncoupling might become impossible, especially when nice scenic features are build between the operator and his train.
Thinking first, then buying and building is at stake..................not easy, we all fell in that trap once in a while.
Smile
Paul
Paulus Jas Going back to this thread, why is Chad so afraid his 2,4 spacing is not enough..........i think i can guess the answer. I asked him about it, he did not respond of course; chances are he has bought 89 feet coaches and auto-racks. Hard to run over 18" or smaller radii.
Chad (OP) has already clearly stated "I am only running 50' and under boxes with sd45's/gp38's on this". This is engines and rolling stock entirely within the range of manageable on a 4x8 foot H0 scale layout with 18"-22" radius (the SD45 might depend on what model you got - I hear people say that some versions want minimum 20-22" radius curves).
Paul of course is right about a 4x8 table being a fairly large object to move around and stand on it's side, especially when covered with scenery and buildings. Adding a scenic divider diagonally across the table only makes it harder to move around and put up against a wall.
But to get back to Chad's layout. If Chad wants to do a H0 scale loop with 15" radius on a 3.5 x 8 foot layout in H0 scale (which is in effect what he seems to be planning), he of course is free to do so.
But if reach is an issue, it might be a better idea to use 20-22" radius for the outer loop and 18" radius for the innermost tracks, and just not have any turnouts or anything requiring switching along the rear of the layout. Put the whole thing on wheels and pull it out when you need to get to the back of it.
Smile, Stein
hi.
missed that one, the thread has become a bit complicated, but not very attentive of me.
Stein , you confuse me, if he has his layout on wheels, he can roll it out and walk around it, while operating and push it back, in some corner, later. Again a drawing of the room should make clear if that is an option.
SD 45's are pretty large.........
I am missing the OP lately, did he leave his own thread?
I agree with Paulus -- I'd like to hear from Chad again.
To re-emphasize: He's perfectly free to make a 4x8 layout if that's what he wants to do. That's not what I'm trying to achieve here. What I want to make sure he understands is that it doesn't sound like he's entirely happy with what he can do on the 4x8, and that he should look at the alternatives. I haven't seen Chad post that he needs to be able to move the layout in any way, only that the room he has must continue to serve as his office.
If it comes right down to it, if he puts the layout somewhere over 4' in height, there's plenty of room under it for a desk, bookshelves, whatever else he might need.
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
Chad,
There's already been good advice given, but I'm going to jump in here.
I think a layout of 18" deep shelves going around the room would be less intrusive than a 4x8 shoved into the upper end (assuming it would be there if you want a desk in the room too). The little bump out where the door appears to be gives you some door swing room too, so as not to bump the benchwork if you go with a solid duckunder. A layout height of 52" or higher pretty much makes the entire room useful as an office. A desk is about 30" high and deep, so layout benchwork sitting about 18" higher still gives plenty of room for short hutch, not to mention giving you the remaining floor space. 48" high bookshelves would fit perfectly under the layout. At 8 ft wide, you barely need any shelf brackets, maybe one to span the middle, maybe two for the 11 foot side. Bookshelves could hide the brackets decently. It would be worth it to have the broader curves and a more linear trackplan, IMO
If a 4x8 is set in stone, I like the track plan well enough, but....
As a scenic preference, I would just continue the road as a diagonal through the entire layout. The circle of buildings you propose won't look right. You'll also be able to extend those two spurs, which are currently kind of truncated by the town.
Good luck
- Douglas
Seems, as if we have lost the good man by giving him the full load of advice. He probably just wanted to build a simple layout and have fun
Well, you win a few and you lose a few ...
Nope. didn't lose me. Just taking it all in and designing new ideas. I think one issue I was having was not really having any "end objective".
I toyed with the Idea of modeling the short industry of my hometown in the early-mid 1980's. The problem is, most of the line is no longer there, and most of the businesses those lines served are closed. I have been pouring over snippets of info on the Conrail line that ran in that time period...but everything is so vague and unhelpful....and the nearest major yard was a B line....so, needless to say, that's just going to have to wait.
So I moved on to something that brings me personal joy...beer. :-P
And since there is no local brewery to my home town, I now present you with the virtual world of "Mojo Brewery Short Line" he he
A pretty fun 2'w 8x7 shelf layout - pickup and delivery with yard track. inspired by my love for good beer and "Model Railroader's Guide to Industries 2"
Good to see you back, Chad!
Just up front, there is nothing wrong in building a 4 by 8 layout, but a lot of folks just underestimate the actual space requirement of this type of layout.
That´s a pretty good looking switching layout you have come up with. I very much like the way you have arranged the track, leaving sufficient space for "scenery"
If you like to get some more inspiration, I ´d suggest to visit Lance Mindheim´s web page at this link
Have fun!
I agree that you've got a nice looking switching layout there, which will probably give you many hours of enjoyment -- both building and operating. You have, however, departed rather radically from your original concept (not that that's a bad thing).
BTW -- I want to give you two kudos up front here. 1) You seem very willing to play around with ideas and try different things, which will serve you well in this hobby, and 2) You appear to be doing things in the right order -- namely defining what you want and where you'll put it before you run off and start building (remember: Dream, Plan, Build). Again, that will help minimize frustration later.
I like this layout better than the 4x8. Yes, you lose continuous running, but continuous running on 15 and 18 inch curves isn't that wonderful anyway. You're not giving up a whole lot here. Your last post indicates that you seem to want some prototypical basis for what you ultimately build, so this layout is a better choice for that too.
Its also flexible in that you could eventually expand it to encircle the room, whenever you feel comfortable with that. You could even make the loop only 6 to 9 inches deep, if you just want it for continuous running. There is an article in a recent Kalmbach publication that talks about scenic techniques for very narrow shelves. I'm sorry, I don't remember where the article it is located.
Since I like to nitpick track plans, I will yours:
I think like the array of tracks in the NE corner seem short. Play around with locating the turnouts farther to the left.
Part of the advantage of a shelf layout is the ability to have background buildings along the wall serve as industries. You currently have trees there. Maybe flip the larger industry thats on the upper shelf to other side of the main and along the wall. If you cut it in half lengthwise, the two halves of that building could be shoved together to make a large looking industry. Pikestuff kits are kitbashing favorites, and DPM makes modular walls for just such things.
Also, runarounds on curves present (un)coupling problems since the locomotive and cars don't line up nicely on sharper curves. Try to extend the runaround so there is at least 12" of straight tracks between the curve(s) and the turnouts to allow the moving parts to line up better.
Again, a little playing around with the location of the turnouts should correct these issues without changing the nature of the layout at all.
hi Chad
i have drawn your plan, but i did not manage to get it in the space you have allowed for it, due to Atlas track.
I would keep things a wee bit simpler. Especially the top left corner seems to have problems. It will be hard to (un)couple behind an overpass and houses on a very sharp curve.
By omitting the run-around in the top left corner, a simple spur will do, you will gain some space for longer yard-tracks.
I personally think you will miss continuous running
Watching them go forward and then having to back up is not as fun fun as watching them go round and round
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
UncBob Watching them go forward and then having to back up is not as fun fun as watching them go round and round
Which probably is why most people who choose to build a point to point layout also choose to do something more than just sitting there watching trains run from one end of the layout to the other end, and then come back again.
Different strokes for different people, Bob.
Doing more gets just as boring
Ok, so I like this. It has more of a "main line" in and out to it for future expansion with only a short shared segment.
Pluses:
Minuses:
Inudustries:
C
hi chad,
if you want to expand your layout later it is time to make a drawing of your room and some kind of a master-plan. You are talking about classification, but i have no clue what is happening on your layout. Where are trains coming from, could be virtual, and how and why are they rearranged?
I do not see much "scenic" opportunities, cause the whole layout is rather track-heavy.
It would be great if you would save your plans in jpg or a bitmap format.
Smile Paul
Wrong! Model Railroader is presenting 4x8 foot layouts because they are simpler to set up, easier to envision, and affordable for those entering the hobby. Over the years, Model Railroader has taken polls, and it seems that modelers are more likely to build the Beer Line than the Franklin and South Manchester (which started out as a 4x8 layout) or the Gorre and Daphetid (which started out as a 4x6).
I’ve been told on this thread that I’m trying to force my views of a 4x8 on people when it appears that there are people forcing their views on shelf layouts.
The bottom line is each layout design has its faults. and merits. Some people want a continuous run because when someone comes over, the visitor could care less about seeing the engine shunting back and forth. Some people go with a loop because they want the continuous run in order to break in locomotives. Others go with the loop because they just want to see the trains run while they sit down and veg out.
A loop can also have the curves double as switch leads, interchange tracks, and running tracks. A 4x8 can be stored against a wall either as is or placed on a side or end to allow mixed use in the room. The footprint of the layout depends on the Givens & Druthers of the layout’s builder.
The problems with a 4x8 loop are that you are limited as to what kind of locomotives and rolling stock that you could use, you are limited in the size of the industrial customers on the layout, and it’s a space eater because you need at least 2 feet of space around each side (unless one end is against a wall).
With a shelf layout, you can build a layout anywhere between 9 inches deep to 30 inches deep. You only need about 3 feet of space in the middle. In theory, you can build a shelf layout inside of a 4x8 foot space. Industries can be enormous because you are only modeling the area served by the railroad and the structure isn’t viewed from a 360o perspective. Curves don’t look as sharp from the inside as from the outside. Curves can be wider, thus lowering restrictions on rolling stock.
On shelf layouts, getting in often requires a duckunder or a removable section of track if you want a continuous run option. If it’s a shelf switcher layout, you need to have a switch lead (and runaround) length long enough for a locomotive and 2 cars to appear somewhat prototypical. For 40 foot cars, that’s 18 inches, for 50 foot cars, that’s a minimum of 22 inches. Shelf layouts must also blend in with the room’s decor if it’s for mixed use (unless it’s a portable, modular layout).
My layout is a simple loop. I don’t have wall space for a shelf layout (which l would prefer). It’s going to sit on my dining room table when in use. While it’s only going to measure 61 inches by 45 inches, between track, structures, lumber, scenery, rolling stock, locomotives, and track power, it will cost around $500 when it’s finished. A larger layout costs a lot more than that. It will come apart with removable structures. Rolling stock will be stored. Not my dream layout, but it's a necessary compromise.
As much as 10 years ago, layouts were simpler and cheaper, now it takes a lot more financial assets to build a decent pike. Even with deep pockets, one has to consider the time needed to build, operate, and maintain these layouts. I've gone to well detailed layouts with a layer of dust on them because maintainance is time consuming.
In this ever increasingly mobile society, people are often finding that they are moving more often than they have in previous generations. A 4x8 is easier to transport and set down in a new space than a shelf layout.
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
Chad, whetheryou build a 4x8 or a shelf, just enjoy it. You know what space you have available, you know what you want, and only you can decide what will work. There's a lot of different routes to take toward your enjoyment of the hobby.
(reformatted)
Mike KieranA 4x8 is easier to transport and set down in a new space than a shelf layout.
In my humble opinion, what probably is the easiest to transport and set up in a new location is a sectional layout with relatively small sections - say 4 feet long x 2 feet deep or so.
You move the sections you want to keep, stove away sections if you need to fit it into a smaller space, add new transition sections if you need to go around corners and so on and so forth.
Up to you whether you put the sections on legs in the middle of a room, put them up as a 4x8 foot table, or hang em from a wall, and whether you form a continuous loop or not.
I think transportability is a function of how things are constructed. Not of what footprint the layout has.
Smile,Stein
Mike,
Please if you want to debate the merits of a 8x4 start your own thread.
Chad --
For whatever it may be worth, I think the modifications Paulus suggested are worthwhile - in particular dropping the short runaround in the upper left corner (turning that into a single ended industry spur), and connecting the longer inner runaround to the middle track, so you won't have to move away cars at Clyde and Dale's barrel factory in order to use the inner runaround.
Maybe combine your idea for a switchback industry off the yard, and the bridge/water feature Paulus suggested?
Anyways - your layout, no matter what you end up doing and how you construct it: the rest of us can make various suggestions, but in the end it obviously is you who will have to decide what you want to do, and how you want to do it.
Paulus,
You need to read my threads more. I have not been saying that a 4x8 is the only way to go.
What I am saying is I'm not picking one over the other. I'm just trying to point out that there are a lot of factors in building a layout. If one is going to invest time and money, one must consider all of the options in the give and take that is a Givens and Druthers.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that 4x8 layout are not a viable alternative. Chad originally started out with a 4x8 for whatever reasons that he had. I'm not saying that he must build a 4x8. You on the other hand are telling him that he should build a shelf layout with out knowing the space that he has to work with.
Steinjr,
I agree with your post. 4 2x4 sections would be even better. After they are taken apart, they can be stored on shelves and out of the way. I'll even build upon your thought, if I may.
In one of the Model Railroader Planning issues, Linda sand had a design for a 4x8 (patience people, patience) that was cut down the middle. This gives the layout owner options.
You can run it as a conventional 4x8, you can run it in an L configuration, or you can run them end to end in a 16x2 foot configuratio. The Beer Line built upon than idea by using smaller modules tht could also be gonfigured in a g, f, or a t pattern as well as the above mentioned configuruations.
The only problem I have with a backdrop down the middle is visually, it can be distracting. Art Currens idea would be more appealing because your buildings alond the center line are double sided, so they appear to be 2 different buildings. Don Mitchel did something like this with the Union Terminal plan, but with staging included.
I am a big proponent of the domino layout because you can always take it with you. Some people have a problem with sectional layouts because they don't want to put turnouts over a seam on the modules or just the sight of seams on the layout. That's the reason why people keep the 4x8 whole. I actually knew someone that put their 4x7 not only stacked up on it's end, but behind a bookcase. He had a wide doorway next to the bookcase and slid it behind. He had felt on the end to make it slide.
i never told Chad what to do. Read better please.
Both you and Chad refused so far to come up with a drawing of your room, although i asked for it. So some alternatives like using a cassette couldn't be discussed. Without knowing the space ........yes you carefully took care of it.
You your self mentioned the Beer Line, not a typical 8x4, since it was built in sections. And yes, IMAO these sections are way easier to transport and stored then a whole 8x4. As stated earlier by me, building in sections or building along the wall seems and is more complicated then buying two sawhorses and a sheet of plywood. And i did admit this might be a very valid reason for a newbie to go for a 8x4.
The HOG is build on the same quantity of wood as a 8x4, has way bigger radii, longer straights and can be build for about the same amount of money. The 4 parts are easy to transport and stored, it could be a nice alternative, though the build is a little bit more complicated. Setting up the smaller and lighter parts is way easier however, if you have included legs in the design.
I would love to give you the dimensions of Chad's room, but I don't even know where he lives.
Paulus, first you accuse me of hijacking the thread, then you tell me to stop playing devil's advocate, and then you tell me to start my own thread for 8x4s because I mentioned that there is a place for 4x8 layouts.
You're being rude and pushy.
you are using someone elses thread for debating the merits of a 8x4. You your self called it playing the devils advocate, is IMAO a waste of time, why should you?
And if you can't win on arguments you are using the words rude and pushy. Never seen a better reason not to use Chad's thread for this.
I would love to give the dimensions of Chad's room......that is up to Chad, not your problem.
Gentlemen --
Let's not get into a food fight here, eh?
Chad has posted a drawing of his room in this thread, Paulus. It is just that your browser cannot display the image format he used.
Here is a jpg version (from a screen capture):
I have no idea of the room actually is drawn to scale, but if it is, and knowing that the L shaped track plan is on 2 foot deep shelves and that the two wings are respectively 7 and 8 foot long, indicates that upper part of the L-shaped room is about 8 x 8 feet, and the lower part of the room is about 4 x 11 feet or so.
If we assume that the upper part of the room is 8 feet across left to right, you could fit a 4x8 into this room - say 2 feet down from the upper wall across the room. It would pretty much take crawling under 4 feet of table to get to the rear aisle, but it is marginally doable.
Would I recommend doing a H0 scale 4x8 in this room? No. For a continuous run loop on a table I would instead have recommend N scale on a hollow core door.
Or a U shaped layout with turnback blobs at the lower ends around three sides of the upper part of the room, with a 2 foot aisle at the narrowest point (by the turnback blobs) and a 18" to 24" deep layout with 3 - 3.5 foot aisles for the rest of the U.
Or if you wanted to go wild hog - an N scale narrow layout around four of the six walls of the room, with turnback blobs at the ends, and possibly under layout staging. Or a H0 scale shelf like that, without the turnback blobs.
There is usually more than one way to do things. The key is to understand what the goals of the layout builder/owner is, and to look at what trade-offs you are willing to make.
Uhhhh...My computer shows that Chad supplied the dimensions of the room, and a drawing thereof, on the top of page 2. He pretty much has supplied drawings of his proposed layouts in the room, as well as a desk and printer stand, in just about every post thereafter.
Hmmm...A 4 x8 that unfolds into a shelf layout.? The result.... a noncontinous run layout with a lot of sharp curves. Uhh... no thanks. The MR beer line layout worked, but not that greatly, IMO.
In addition to having sharp curves, the problem with a 4x8 is the inablilty to really scenic the layout in a way that convincingly looks like something other than just one town. Unless you put a backdrop down the middle.
If I were Chad, and wanted a 4x8 for continous running, I would think about modeling just one large industry. A brewery receives a variety of cars. It could operationally be a switiching layout, but also have one of the corners of the loop hidden by a massive mill structure. The structures could also hide some staging or car storage areas. Access would be an issue but as long as there were no turnouts, derailments would be minimal and access holes could be cut into the plywood under the structure. There are plenty of prototypical examples of large industries that are accessed by rather tight loops, and MR once did a series of trackplans based soley upon this concept.
Google Map 3400 Cline road NW, Corydon, Indiana, as an example. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=3400+cline+rd+nw,+corydon,+indiana&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=3400+Cline+Rd+NW,+Corydon,+IN+47112&gl=us&ei=SbyITbKzIsmugQfGyPTCDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ8gEwAA
Ain´t it great our hobby can serve so many different interests?
I quite like the way the OP "matured" from a more toyish looking 4 by 8 to the layout design he now favors. Not that I am against building a 4 by 8, but I´d rather go for a switching layout than trying to incorporate continuous running on a "small" foot print like the 4 by 8 is. Even if you put a scenic divider right through the middle of it, it won´t prevent that feeling of a loco chasing the caboose. Just take a look at MR´s feature layout of February 2011. See how dominating the trains are?