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.
Smile
Paul
Chad,
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.
- Douglas
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.
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
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!
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"
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 ...
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
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.
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
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Ummmm
Did you ever hear the language coming from people who drive tanks?
Springfield PA
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?
What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?
Umm - what are you talking about here, Mike ?
Stein, confused
Probably just a bout of Turrets Syndrome
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).
Mike Kieran What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?
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.
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.
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!
Chad
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!!!
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
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 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.
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 :-)