P.S Why is there a giant layout graphic following me around?
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Kieran
Port Able Railway
I just do what the majority of the voices in my head vote on.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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!
Chad
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
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
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.