So what's everyone's thoughts on using 4x8s as the core of layouts these days? I'm thinking about doing a sectional layout so I can theoretically take it with, and building a section at a time with the ability to add more in-between run distance is promising.
However, I (and I am sure many people) want to have the ability to have continuous running of some sort with the layout. The way I see it, the options are either have a reverse loop section at each end, or have a central section that is a more traditional 4x8. The latter option seems to have been historically more popular, but with modern layout building trends does it make sense?
I'll add, my prototype has a central point on it with a mustering yard and branch line interchange, which makes a number of 4x8 layouts (such as the Virginian among others) seem a promising representation of that point, with the shorter ore cars working fine with the limited radius of a 4x8, while passenger cars would just pass through. Anyone have any though on this topic?
I think HO scale is going to have a problem as people look to model the 2000's. At 10" long, it will be tough to run a Gevo plus any sort of train. I think a layout like the Chester Branch is a good start. The Heart of Georgia works too.
I like the idea of a sectional layout too. Checkout the Marshall Sub by Bob Sprague.
the N scale State Line route is very tempting as a next layout.
Outsailing86 the N scale State Line route is very tempting as a next layout.
If I was modeling anything post-1970 I'd definitely go N scale, and I think State Line has been a great layout for that (especially with the sectional potential).
Unfortunately, I'm modeling a 1930s era layout with a prototype that never had anything larger than a 100 ton consolidation, and unfortunately N scale steam isn't that good or available yet.
allegedlynerdySo what's everyone's thoughts on using 4x8s as the core of layouts these days? I'm thinking about doing a sectional layout so I can theoretically take it with, and building a section at a time with the ability to add more in-between run distance is promising.
What are your real reasons for doing a sectional layout? I ask because a 4x8 isn't very portable. It won't fit in most vehicles (some minivans and enclosed truck beds being the exception), which means you need a trailer. It is too heavy to lift or carry single-handed. It won't go up or down most stairways or around angles in hallways. Don't ask how I know this. Even a 2x8 module suffers from most of these drawbacks.
The maximum practical length for manuvering stairwells, doorways, and hallways is just under 80" - the height of a standard door. The largest practical modules for single handing are 42" long if you want to carry by the ends, or 72" if narrow enough that you can reach across and carry by the sides.
A 4x12 layout can be made from 4 2x6 sections, or go a little bit wider at 2.5ft for a 5x12. You are losing the ability to single hand, but it would be reasonably moveable.
The Heart of Georgia - a donut style layout - resolves most of these issues by giving a longer continuous run, bigger radius, using nearly the same floor space when access aisles are figured in. The cost is ducking under, or adding enough space to operate from the outside.
I will likely eventually add a 4x6 to my HO/HOn3 sectional shelf layout (sections are 39" x 24" for the visible parts, much narrower where it goes behind TV). The 6ft length is limiting in HO when turnbacks are added to both ends. In the meantime, I have a 40" x 60" portable 18" radius dual gauge test track loop built on foam core that I set on top of saw horses, a bed, or a large table when I need a continuous run fix. The rest of the time, the test track loop stands in the attic.
I would think very hard on your real portability requirements before you rule out your monolith 4x8. If you don't need the portability, and 18" radius isn't too limiting for you, then the 4x8 is fine.
Fred W
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....
A 4x8 is not an easily portable layout. It limits you to very tight radii in HO, and limits the scenic options (among other limitations).
Splitting it into 4 2x4 sections makes a much more versatile and easier to move layout. There are two ways you can do that, you can have 4 quarters or you can have a 2x4 pieces on each end and a pair of 2x4's side by side in the middle. YOu put the curves on the end pieces and then the middle pieces have the "straight" parts. The advantage of that is it becomes easy to add pieces between the curves to expand the layout, you could even remove the straights to and put the two curved ends together to make a circle.
In N scale you couldput both straights end to end along one side and the curves on the end, then add a piece on each end (and connecting track on the curves) to make a return loop on each end, making a dogbone shape.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanA 4x8 is not an easily portable layout. It limits you to very tight radii in HO, and limits the scenic options (among other limitations). Splitting it into 4 2x4 sections makes a much more versatile and easier to move layout. There are two ways you can do that, you can have 4 quarters or you can have a 2x4 pieces on each end and a pair of 2x4's side by side in the middle. YOu put the curves on the end pieces and then the middle pieces have the "straight" parts. The advantage of that is it becomes easy to add pieces between the curves to expand the layout, you could even remove the straights to and put the two curved ends together to make a circle.
Dave
Some great ideas there that I never thought of.
Thank you.
Tony Koester for some years has been preaching that the best use of a 4x8 sheet of plywood is to have it ripped into narrower pieces. He wasn't talking about portability although I can say that for most layout situations anything longer than 4 or 5 feet, regardless of width, is very awkward to get around corners and down (or up) the average home staircase.
Rather Tony Koester was addressing that fact that a width of 4 feet exceeds what you can reach from one side, so with 4 feet width you are automatically ruling out having the layout against a wall. And that in turn means that precious floor space is being used for human access not for layout. While it is sometimes suggested that 30" (example a hollow core door) is more or less the maximum that gives access from one side, as a practical matter 30" is still too wide for delicate soldering of feeder wires, handlaying track, installing turnout controls, and even some basic re-railing of trains (Murphy's Law!). 24" is even better in my opinion for a layout against a wall, in whole or in part. If you want a turn-around for continuous running you can do that where needed, rather than having it everywhere including where it is not needed. Koester was also an advocate for point to point layout planning, as am I, but I recognize that continuous running serves so many people's needs and desires that it is never going to go away.
Nothing is every going to kill off the 4x8 sheet as a basis for layout building but from a planning perspective, think about reach, think about aisles that result from need to reach, and think about the space advantages of a layout entirely or partially against a wall. And think also about what it's like to move big stuff -- a sleeper sofa, a dining room table, a tall bookshelf -- and then ponder what moving big parts of a layout would be like.
Dave Nelson
On a pervious temporary layout, I had the two 2x4 ends and then put the straight pieces in the front to give an 8 ft long, 2 ft wide scene. Then I got an 8 ft long 1x8 and some 1x4's to stiffen it and in the back made a 8 ft long staging yard with a main and two double ended sidings. I could stage 2 or 3 trains, switch cars in a good sized station in the front and still run continuous if I wanted.
I personally refuse to ever build a layout with a duckunder - my family layout as a teenager had one, and even than I was sure that was enough of that.
As such, continuous running for me either means a walk around of a loop-to-loop option, or a centrally located 4x8 (or something similar).
As far as "portable", I mean it could be moved, if they need arises. Additionally, being able to move sections around the layout space is useful for adding more running space etc. in after i get my signature towns and industries added.
Starting with two reverse loops gives me, if I stick to my minimum mainline radius, two 5'+ sections that will take up a lot of space and could maybe hold staging in them. Or a walk-around, which would not be the best use of space, or start either easing up on opinions of duckunders or mainline radius.
Or I could make smaller reversing loops that could handle the freight trains that i could run continuous on the 4x8 anyways, and then build larger ones later I suppose, but that feels more wasteful than using a ,4x8 as a peninsula
My first HO scale layout was on a 4'x8' table (four 2"x2" legs, and with 1"x4"s supporting the edges of the 1/4" plywood, and similar 1"x4"s on 16" centres supporting the layout.
It wasn't what you'd call "portable", but when it was sold, is was easily carried up the basement stairs by two guys, and loaded into their van.
Here's a rough sketch of the trackplan, which featured and up-and-over direction reversing outside loop, and a tight radius inside loop which also allowed reversing a train.
As best I can recall, the passenger cars were 60'-ers, which easily negotiated the inside reversing loop.
The layout had remote uncoupling (early Kadee couplers and uncoupling ramps) along with control panel turnout switching via sprung wire choke cables, beneath the layout.
There is a photo of it somewhere, but I haven't yet found it.
Wayne
allegedlynerdyI personally refuse to ever build a layout with a duckunder - my family layout as a teenager had one, and even than I was sure that was enough of that. As such, continuous running for me either means a walk around of a loop-to-loop option, or a centrally located 4x8 (or something similar). As far as "portable", I mean it could be moved, if they need arises. Additionally, being able to move sections around the layout space is useful for adding more running space etc. in after i get my signature towns and industries added. Starting with two reverse loops gives me, if I stick to my minimum mainline radius, two 5'+ sections that will take up a lot of space and could maybe hold staging in them. Or a walk-around, which would not be the best use of space, or start either easing up on opinions of duckunders or mainline radius. Or I could make smaller reversing loops that could handle the freight trains that i could run continuous on the 4x8 anyways, and then build larger ones later I suppose, but that feels more wasteful than using a ,4x8 as a peninsula
I fully understand your aversion to a duckunder.
A caution - a 4x8 as a peninsula could make access to the back middle of the 4x8 difficult. The deeper the shelves on either side of the 4x8 peninsula, the worse the access will be. 2ft deep shelves on either side mean a 34" reach to the center back of the 4x8 - where the back of the turnback curve is going to be. If the shelf depth is limited to 1ft, you have a 27" reach worst case.
Which is why I am planning on using an L configuration with the 4x6 with a 12" deep shelf on one side only. Shelf depth will grow to 2ft further away from the 4x6.
allegedlynerdy I personally refuse to ever build a layout with a duckunder - my family layout as a teenager had one, and even than I was sure that was enough of that. As such, continuous running for me either means a walk around of a loop-to-loop option, or a centrally located 4x8 (or something similar).
Happy 2023 everyone!
Count me in for being opposed to duck-unders. I had one on my 1st layout and vowed never again. My current layout is in an "E" shape. It's very helpful being able to walk along the entire layout. Additonally, the farthest I need to reach is about 24".
4x8 is doable but it depends on your era, scale, etc. I agree that something with those dimensions is very tight, but possible with enough planning.
My layout is a 4x6 which works great. I don't understand how so many people have problems with 4x8s because I run gevos and don't have any derailments (knock on wood ) on my 4x6.
For noobs yes. Me, negatory.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
dknelsonTony Koester for some years has been preaching that the best use of a 4x8 sheet of plywood is to have it ripped into narrower pieces.
One thing to check out is the availability of smaller pieces of plywood. My local Menards sells plywood in 2'x4' sheets, buying those might be quicker/easier than buying full 4'x8' sheets and having them cut into pieces. I believe they also have 2'x8' and perhaps other sizes.
The 2'x4' sections could be built as individiual modules, set up end to end to make a long straight section or L-shaped layout. Adding additional plywood at each end to widen out the ends could create a continous run "dogbone" or "waterwings" layout.