Chip, they want to play trains, not operate them. They learn how to "run" trains later as they realize there should be more to simply running a loopty-loop for an hour a day.
They realize a train set is achievable for $40-$80, know they need a comfortable and safe place for it, and they all have a couple of saw horses and a sheet of 1/2"ply lined up against the side of the wood shed. Too easy. Card swipe, dash home, Dad's all excited for once, wife feels that he's out of her hair, and they all get a fun interlude for a few nights..................a very few nights.
Then comes the disenchantment, then some reading, then some learning, then some more realization that enjoying model trains, like anything else, takes more than a simple plug and play.
How long does it take for a child to get tired of a R/C car like those that were popular back 12 years ago or so? About a week?
Chip,
I'd have to go with the first two reasons you posted. They have a brand new set-up, need to get it started, and ol' dad was kind enough to build a table with a sheet of plywood on it to get started.
The second reason is just as important. They want to "try out the hobby." They use the 4 x 8 to find out if they: either got what it takes to become a fairly decient modeler, or fail miserably before dumping the big bucks into the hobby.
I think we all started on that first layout on a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood in our youth and as time went on, learned a whole new way to model and carry on to higher levels from there...Maybe it's as simple as: because it's fun....chuck
I would refine the answer slightly.
A 4x8 is by far the easiest benchwork to construct that a train set will fit on. Any larger (or even smaller) size takes planning, cutting, and additional steps in constructing the benchwork. The train set fits on the 4x8 with what looks like plenty of room for expansion. And there are countless articles on how to get started with a 4x8, and expand it as time goes on. Finally, as you mentioned, the commitment to a given room, $$ for benchwork, and time are about as minimal as you can get.
Fred W
Sorry chip, just had to throw that in. It actually started not in the traditional roundy-round 4 x 8, but rather, as more of a diorama (See MR, April, 1986).
A HUGE benefit of a 4 x 8 is that it's self-contained. The fact is, this makes it relatively portable. How many benchwork "joints" are there? Zero, if desired. There are a lot of benefits to a 4 x 8.
I have not built a layout since I was a kid/teenager, but really want to build another one. The local hobby shop has a 4 x 8 (roundy-round style). Now, whenever I see it, I'm constantly convinced that it can never look truly realistic with the sharp curves, etc. But, in the same amount of room space, a David Barrow domino-style layout could make for a very realistic looking layout.
As mush as I'd like continous running, if you're cramped for space, you really have to pay a HUGE price for continuous running, so I will probably live without. Those loops just eat up a TON of space. (This is where the N scale guys have a huge advantage - they can turn around quite nicely in like 2-1/2 feet or so)
Add on:
The disadvantages of the single sheet of plywood size (and of bare plywood as a base) don't really become apparent to any modeler until that person has accumulated enough experience to cease to merit the designation, "Newbie."
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I think it came about for no other reason than 4 X 8 is the defacto standard that a solid one-piece sheet of plywood comes in .... no fuss, no muss - instant table top.
The standard 4 X 8 sheet of plywood existed before the train-set, so manufacturers designed their sets to fit on that standard predetermined size. Dad wants to get his kids' train-set up and running as quick as possible and doesn't want to have to be a carpenter as well.
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
Getting out of the 'HO Centric' thinking here, 4x8 is a sizable space for an N-scale layout.
But regardless of scale, just because someone chooses to build a small layout hardly indicates they are not serious about the hobby.
Chip,There are many reasons why new modelers and experience modelers continue to use 4 x 8 footers..They are easily built,easy to maintain and when properly design they are fun to operate as well.
Now one can still lay track to the bare plywood if its finish on one side.Of course the noise level will be greater then if one use cork or Homasote as roadbed.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
In defense of the 4x8:
I've been in this hobby since 1982, so I'm no newbie. But as much as I've tried (car-cards, waybills, switch lists, etc.), operations just aren't me! I prefer to just watch 'em run. So for a guy like me, a 4x8 does offer continuous running. If I were in HO, and did that thing where you rip the 4x8 down the middle and made an L-shaped table, I'd lose the continuous running.
4x8 would make a heckuva layout in N.
Now, my next layout isn't going to be 4x8... I'd probably go around the walls. But there's something kind of exciting about a blank 4x8 sheet on plywood on a well-costructed bench that screams "build me!"
I think it's going to be tough, Chip, for you to convert everyone to the "4x8 is wasted space" view. It is, in fact, a terribly inefficient way to use space, but darned if it isn't easy to do!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
"Rust, whats not to love?"
It may be because of item 5 on your list. It is so easy to just go to HD and drag home a 4 x 8 sheet of foam, or ply and plop it on a ping pong table, pool table or some saw horses.
Sad to say, that wold be suitable for a N Gauge layout but a sorry mistake for HO gauge. One ends up with 22 inch radius curves and a loop of track that is little more than a Christmas tree layout. Gotta get boring pretty fast.
I have studied almost all of the "wonderful" 4 x 8 layout plans on this forum, and mentally traced the possible operations on them. Most of them are just around and around loops with soe sifings, many of wich ca't even be switched
An oval with a straight section of about 48 inches would be the best starting point because it would at least provide a passing siding that would permit operating a train in both directions. This would allow switching all sidings as trailing point.
If space is available an open benchwork 6 x 10 layout would be the optimum smallest practible layout for HO gauge. It would permit 30 inch radius curves and operation of 85 foot passenger cars and still allow for a 4 foot passing siding.
fwright wrote: A 4x8 is by far the easiest benchwork to construct that a train set will fit on. Any larger (or even smaller) size takes planning, cutting, and additional steps in constructing the benchwork.
A 4x8 is by far the easiest benchwork to construct that a train set will fit on. Any larger (or even smaller) size takes planning, cutting, and additional steps in constructing the benchwork.
I'll add that a 4x8 lends itself well to watching the trains going around in circles. Early modelers are less into operating than they are watching.
Plus a 4x8 can be somewhat easily moved around. A multi segment construction will have to be disassembled.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
My 4X8 exists for one purpose - for me to practice on until I can build the around-the-walls configuration I really want. It also serves as a placeholder for all the stuff I'm building/buying until I have the real layout built....OK that's 2 purposes. Anyway, it was easy to construct and at some point I'll integrate it into that real layout as a peninsula.
I've learned how to lay, solder, wire and ballast track (ugh), and run trains in circles with DCC. I've slapped some scenery stuff down just to see how to build up terrain. Most of my work isn't even done on the 4X8 - it's done on my workbench.
As you know, 4' X 8' is the standard plywood size used for home building since modern home building began many years ago. Homes studs are on 16" centers and the plywood can work with 16" centers or 24" centers without any problem. It is the easy choice since it is available at any lumberyard or home center. Many start at that size and expand and build on it since it was their first oval.
My dad used a 4' X 8' for our first S American Flyer layout and quickly expanded it to a 6' by 10" since we need more space.
Cheers
Largely it's so they can put those trains they just bought to some immediate use. I know that's what my family and I did when I got a trainset for christmas at the age of 9. Since we had a very large dining room we used a corner of it to put the train layout in. Needless to say it never dawned on us that cat invasions would become an issue. And to a kid at that age just watching the trains go around is enough. It isn't until you start getting older you begin thinking of concepts like operation or simply "how do I make this train do something other than endless laps around the layout?".
BECAUSE a 4X8 seems large enough, but is equivalent to running a boat in a bath tub.
2.It's simplicity.
3. Shades of Lionel on a 3/4" 'ping pong' table.
1. Most people can't cut a piece of 4x8 plywood.
2. It works! 18" curves take about 38" wide to do a loop, so the 48" is wide enough with room to spare!
3. No layout is perfect. If you have some track and some trains, you can start making things work and start learning. Gotta start somewhere.
Primary reason: fear of cutting wood. If plywood came from the factory in 5'X9' sheets, that would be the size of HO starter layouts (and they'd be a lot better for it).
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I see several reasons:
1. It's a convient size for a small railroad because the sheets come in 4x8. 5x10 might be better, but you don't see those at the local Lowes, HD, etc. - at least I haven't.
2. It's easy to set up. Lumber to build a supporting grid comes in 8' lengths so there's minimal waste.
3. A tabletop avoids duck unders or swing bridges and leaves access to closets, windows, electric panel, doors, hw heaters, etc.
4. Mounted on wheels and you can roll it around, leaving it in a corner most of the time.
5. It allows for a nice depth of scene.
6. You can do it in an unfinished basement and move it around later when you finish the basement.
7. You can actually get the thing looking finished even if you have little time for the hobby.
8. It's cheaper.
I find it easy to understand why the 4x8 is so popular.
What I find interesting is that larger table tops are not popular. 2 sheets of plywood cut at 5'4" can be arranged in 5'4" x 12' layout using all 4 pieces or 5'4" x 10'8" using 3 pieces and a small part of the 4th. Either of those sizes good be a good candidate for a spare bedroom or family room where you don't want the inconvience of an around the walls layout.
Enjoy
Paul
pilot wrote: 1. Most people can't cut a piece of 4x8 plywood.2. It works! 18" curves take about 38" wide to do a loop, so the 48" is wide enough with room to spare!3. No layout is perfect. If you have some track and some trains, you can start making things work and start learning. Gotta start somewhere.
Actually you can use 22" on a 4x8 footer.
As far as being a loop de loop must layouts regardless of size are loopy de loops.
Most people cannot cut a piece of 4 x 8 plywood
That statement is pure BS, thanks for sharing.
Why would a person build a layout so large that if he even finishes it in his lifetime, will spend most of time cleaning track or performing maint?
Seems like work instead of a hobby.
At any rate , your layout is a loop to loop or point to point, regardless of if its a 8x4 or 64x128. The large ones just have more in the middle to keep running, while the smaller layouts, are just running.
I'm a lone wolf modeler, I want to build something I can finish.
I work for a living, I don't have time to play choo choo all day.
I have a family, I don't have time to play choo choo all day.
trainfan1221 wrote:You do what you have to..some people just don't have the space for more. I run N scale on a 4x6 layout and get quite a bit out of it. If someone can only do 4x8 then why not as long as they can get in on things with the hobby.
If you had enough for a 4 x6 island then you had enough for a 8x8 30" wide U shape with 5.5 x 3 walk in operating area. Still contiuous running. My guess is there were other reasons--which could have been that you couldn't see that there was more space when you factored in walk around space. No matter.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Tradition.
They find a 4x8 plan they like (there are a few 4x8 plans out there ) and go with it.
Every 'beginner' layout ever published in MRR is a 4x8? (I could be wrong here, but it feels that way).
Mostly, thinking inside the box, I think.
Soem of the reasons have validity, a moveable layout is going to work much better as a 4x8 (or some other rectangle sort of thing) than around the walls.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Here's another reason why a 4x8 island might be the best option:
Sometimes the spare bedroom you plan to use has no continuous blank wall space. You know the kind; the door is on one wall, the closet on another, a window on the third, etc. How do you build a layout in there if you plan to use the doors and windows?
4x8 island to the rescuse there. I was in that boat myself in the mid 90s at my first duty assignment. I had one of those annoying rooms with only one short blank wall, and I was in HO. Hence I had a 4x8 layout.
I would argue that 4x8 is the exactly WRONG thing to start with. Here's why...
First, you can't push it up against a wall, or put it in a corner, because you can only reasonably reach about 3', especially if you table is set at 50" or above, which the same books with the 4x8 plans also recommend.
Second, 4x8 is bigger than a twin sized bed. If you don't plan to have it set up all the time, it's a hell of a big chunk to find a storage place for, unless you completely give up and don't do any scenery, or are happy with those Lifoam tunnels.
Third, If you do plan to keep it up all the time, you have to dedicate the better part of a room to it. If it's sharing space with other family functions, don't be surprised if it becomes a laundry folding zone, a place to pile up old credit card statements, or just a place for the cat to sleep. Ask anyone who bought an Air Hockey table back in the '80's.
Fourth, It's Plywood, and plywood ain't cheap! Have you priced a/c sanded 3/4" plywood lately? Try $40-50 a throw. I'd rather buy more freight cars, thank you very much. 3/4 ply is also extremely heavy. Again, not conducive to putting up and taking down.
Fifth, with rare exception, 4x8 layouts are dull as dry toast, with a short train chasing its tail. This is especially true for HO (hum) scale. N scale at least allows the prospect of cutting the panel into thirds to create a more lineal plan, or an L shape, or any of a number of configurations. I dare say, a beginner that gets trapped in a 4x8 box will not be with us very long.
HO, being the lumbering behemoth, the woolly mammoth of model railroad scales, is slow to innovate in this area. N scalers more or less invented modular railroading, pioneered the use of lightweight foam, and introduced the hollow core door as the lightweight practical alternative to the 4x8. (Because we can have a return loop of 18" radius without it looking stupid)
I believe it was Gordon Odegard's N scale Clinchfield layout revolutionized model railroading as we know it in terms of portability, overall scenic impression, and a creative approach to prototype operations.
Unfortunately, the hobby is dominated by HO adherents, so we get boring project railroads in the magazines that beginners take as gospel truth. But, as long as people like vanilla, there will be loops of HO track tacked to a sheet of plywood...
But Wait! Before you send the Black Helicopters after me, consider this... Have the pimply faced kid at the lumber yard cut your plywood up a bit... Like this:
I built the above configuration for my son's HO stuff (Kids these days!) and using that good ole 4x8 plywood, we ended up with a 4x12 layout complete with an operators pit in the middle.
The result was a longer mainline run, room for a small yard, and a couple of sidings to keep a young conductor busy.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
SpaceMouse wrote: trainfan1221 wrote:You do what you have to..some people just don't have the space for more. I run N scale on a 4x6 layout and get quite a bit out of it. If someone can only do 4x8 then why not as long as they can get in on things with the hobby.If you had enough for a 4 x6 island then you had enough for a 8x8 30" wide U shape with 5.5 x 3 walk in operating area. Still contiuous running. My guess is there were other reasons--which could have been that you couldn't see that there was more space when you factored in walk around space. No matter.
Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.
Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.
Again what is wrong with these layouts for solo operation?
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm
If everybody is thinking alike, then nobody is really thinking.
http://photobucket.com/tandarailroad/
Reasons my second layout was a 4x8:
1. Best use of space, freestanding, leaving walls free for floor to ceiling shelves.
2. Cost efficient module allowing for easy expansion.
3. Because the 'experts' hate 'em.
:-)
BRAKIE wrote: Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.Again what is wrong with these layouts for solo operation?http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm
Brakie,
I really don't have anything against the 4 x 8 if there is a reason for it to be a 4 x 8. When people say all they have room for is a 4 x 8, I am thinking what they are saying is they have room for a 4 x 8 but haven't really considered other options. There are ways of sharing a room with a layout other than taking the center of the room with the layout.
The question I have for people considering a building a 4 x 8 is this: Is the 4 x 8 the best way for you to acheive your dreams as a model railroader? Or are you making compromises without having to because you have not considered the space you really have?
People start with a 4x8 because it is easy, the track they have from their starter set fits on it and there are plenty of examples for 4x8's and "track packs" to make building one even easier.
As far as the basic concept of using a 4x8 space in HO, I agree with ON30Francisco. Westcott's Railroad that Grows is a very good example and let us not forget the Wizard of Monterey. Wasn't the original Gorre and Daphtid 4x6? And didn't it become part of the subsequent G&D?
Yes, it requires thinking and planning but that is part of the fun/enjoyment/challenge.
Tilden
jeffers_mz wrote: Reasons my second layout was a 4x8:1. Best use of space, freestanding, leaving walls free for floor to ceiling shelves.2. Cost efficient module allowing for easy expansion.3. Because the 'experts' hate 'em. :-)
I love it. If it is the best use of space, I'm all for the 4 x 8.
BRAKIE wrote: Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.
An around the walls layout, or any other shape layout, does not need to be attached to the walls, any more than a 4x8 does.
I think the point Chip is trying to bring home is mainly on the 'only have room for a 4x8' issue. In the space that you need for a 4x8 there are other options. One might consider them, and still build a 4x8, but then it isn't because it is 'all they have room' for, it is because they decided that it was the best layout for their space. Which makes it more likely to be satisfying. In my opinion.
jeffers_mz wrote: Reasons my second layout was a 4x8:
You've already told us in other threads that you had to add both length and width to yours before you were satisfied. Your layout hasn't been 4X8 for a while. Seems like a better example of the problems of a 4X8.
Mark R. wrote:I think it came about for no other reason than 4 X 8 is the defacto standard that a solid one-piece sheet of plywood comes in .... no fuss, no muss - instant table top.The standard 4 X 8 sheet of plywood existed before the train-set, so manufacturers designed their sets to fit on that standard predetermined size. Dad wants to get his kids' train-set up and running as quick as possible and doesn't want to have to be a carpenter as well.Mark.
Not quite true, they also make 5 x 9 sheets that are the standard size for table tennis (ping pong) tables. These should be readily available as table tennis tables are still being sold.
Rick
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.An around the walls layout, or any other shape layout, does not need to be attached to the walls, any more than a 4x8 does. I think the point Chip is trying to bring home is mainly on the 'only have room for a 4x8' issue. In the space that you need for a 4x8 there are other options. One might consider them, and still build a 4x8, but then it isn't because it is 'all they have room' for, it is because they decided that it was the best layout for their space. Which makes it more likely to be satisfying. In my opinion.
Jeff,90% of the round the walls layouts I had the pleasure to visit over the years has been attached to the wall studs with long shelving brackets.In fact both shelf layouts in GMR 2008 is attached to the walls by shelf brackets.
So its still a common practice to use shelf brackets.
dti406 wrote: Not quite true, they also make 5 x 9 sheets that are the standard size for table tennis (ping pong) tables.
Not quite true, they also make 5 x 9 sheets that are the standard size for table tennis (ping pong) tables.
These aren't available much any more. And in any case, they came as two 5' X 4 1/2' sheets, since most ping-pong tables fold in the middle for storage.
A readily available and inexpensive 5X9 plywood panel would help HO starter layouts quite a bit, since 5X9 will fit nearly anywhere a 4X8 would.
Another option, to date pretty much ignored by the commercial press as far as I know, is the ability to have one cut made at the lumber yard in the 4X8, then add a single 2'X4' pre-cut "handy panel" to create a 5X8. These "handy panels" are common now at lumber yards and home centers.
This is not as useful as a 5X9 or 5X10, but could be much better in terms of minimum radius in HO than the 4X8 "sacred sheet".
And IMHO, we'd all be better off if we could move away from the idea of rectangular tables plopped in a room as the only way to build a layout to look at what alternatives there are to best fit the space and the builder's interests. Tools are inexpensive now ... layouts don't have to be rectangular with solid tops.
ByronModel RR Blog
BRAKIE wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.An around the walls layout, or any other shape layout, does not need to be attached to the walls, any more than a 4x8 does. I think the point Chip is trying to bring home is mainly on the 'only have room for a 4x8' issue. In the space that you need for a 4x8 there are other options. One might consider them, and still build a 4x8, but then it isn't because it is 'all they have room' for, it is because they decided that it was the best layout for their space. Which makes it more likely to be satisfying. In my opinion. Jeff,90% of the round the walls layouts I had the pleasure to visit over the years has been attached to the wall studs with long shelving brackets.In fact both shelf layouts in GMR 2008 is attached to the walls by shelf brackets.So its still a common practice to use shelf brackets.
Sure, absolutely, not only can it be, but it is the way I would do it (and I am, using my own brackets, but that's a detail). My only point was that is does not HAVE to be. Not wanting holes in the walls is not a reason to use a 4x8, as opposed to going around the walls, or using some other alternate shape.
Hi SpaceMouse
8x4 Nothing wrong with it once you forget the table top construction and go with some form of open top construction so proper scenery can be built.
Quite a respectable HO model can be built on 8X4, it does take a bit of thought to get enough track in and the scenery as well, but you must have a view block and possibly a tunnel as well to help with the illusion of distance and be prepared to accept short trains.
When the 8X4 came into being I believe it had a lot to do with not that many people where home owners so could not fix it in place the way we do today.
It was something dad could knock up quickly and easy with what could be purchased at the local hardware store.
In those days most families would not have been able to afford anything like the amount of train stuff that we can today so the 8X4 was a nice size and that was for "O".
All the other reasons give also make sense but I think it goes back to the early days of the hobby which set the 8X4 as standard for the first layout and many others.
Regards John
twomule wrote:Most people cannot cut a piece of 4 x 8 plywoodThat statement is pure BS, thanks for sharing.
Why is that BS? Without any tools, it's hard to cut plywood by sheer force of will
John Busby wrote: 8x4 Nothing wrong with it once you forget the table top construction and go with some form of open top construction so proper scenery can be built.Quite a respectable HO model can be built on 8X4, it does take a bit of thought to get enough track in and the scenery as well, but you must have a view block and possibly a tunnel as well to help with the illusion of distance and be prepared to accept short trains.
The space inefficiencies of the 4x8 shape don't change based on the scenery method. It is absolutely true that a decent layout can be built in 4x8, my opinion is that a better layout can be built in a different shape that takes the same space as the 4x8.
wm3798 wrote:But Wait! Before you send the Black Helicopters after me, consider this... Have the pimply faced kid at the lumber yard cut your plywood up a bit... Like this:[pic snip]I built the above configuration for my son's HO stuff (Kids these days!) and using that good ole 4x8 plywood, we ended up with a 4x12 layout complete with an operators pit in the middle.[pic snip]The result was a longer mainline run, room for a small yard, and a couple of sidings to keep a young conductor busy.Lee
[pic snip]
I like that idea. A good starter layout that's small enough to "finish", but large enough to allow both for running and switching. I always figured a 4x8 sheet of plywood could be cut up like that, but I couldn't ever visualize it. Cool.
Hi Vail and Southwestern
I don't think any one is claiming the 8X4 to be the perfect solution, I do agree a better shape can be achieved in the same over all area.
This is not always practical and you will still end up with that awkward corner, your not quite sure what to do with .
But I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on scenery construction, the scenery is the difference between a good and not so good model, assuming the bench and track are right.
We all take care on track and trains to achieve the best we can in our chosen RR, some are very extra fussy about it and can get far better results than me.
I have seen quite a few layouts with great track and trains, and the same attention wasn't paid to the scenery, I don't think I need too describe the results it would not be fit to put in print, the scenery would have been better left off the layout
Scenery is the bit I am best at ( still lots to learn and things to try though) so my opinion is probably slightly biased ( just a lot) in that direction
regards John
John Busby wrote: I don't think any one is claiming the 8X4 to be the perfect solution, I do agree a better shape can be achieved in the same over all area. But I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on scenery construction, the scenery is the difference between a good and not so good model, assuming the bench and track are right.
The bolder part is the whole point of the discussion.
As far as the scenery paragraph, absolutely, but this is true whether it is a diorama or a basement filler. In most cases I agree that an open grid makes for better scenery, though with foam constuction that isn't as true as it once was. But no matter what you do with the scenery, it doesn't change the basic effectiveness of the shape.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: John Busby wrote: I don't think any one is claiming the 8X4 to be the perfect solution, I do agree a better shape can be achieved in the same over all area. But I have to respectfully disagree with your opinion on scenery construction, the scenery is the difference between a good and not so good model, assuming the bench and track are right. The bolder part is the whole point of the discussion.As far as the scenery paragraph, absolutely, but this is true whether it is a diorama or a basement filler. In most cases I agree that an open grid makes for better scenery, though with foam constuction that isn't as true as it once was. But no matter what you do with the scenery, it doesn't change the basic effectiveness of the shape.
I disagree. Better is a value judgement, what's better for one is worse for another. Within whatever space you have, the best layout is best for you not necessarily anyone else. The tabletop, around the walls, donut, or some combination are all options; solid or open grid are more options; you pick the ones that work best for your situation.
Having personally done a 4x8 solid top, 6x6.5 donut with open grid, 11x18 around the room with penisula, and a few others; I see no absolute best or better - it always depends on your situation.
Varnet wrote: twomule wrote: Most people cannot cut a piece of 4 x 8 plywoodThat statement is pure BS, thanks for sharing.Why is that BS? Without any tools, it's hard to cut plywood by sheer force of will
twomule wrote: Most people cannot cut a piece of 4 x 8 plywoodThat statement is pure BS, thanks for sharing.
I agree there are those that can't cut a 1x2 because they lack the needed saw skills.
I seen men I would not give a saw to..Just to dangerous.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: BRAKIE wrote: Chip,Facture this facts in..A lot of folks don't want to attach anything to their walls or do they want a room full of layout..A 4X8 footer suits these modelers and supply there layout needs.Again,its easy to build,easy to maintain and when properly design fun to operate.An around the walls layout, or any other shape layout, does not need to be attached to the walls, any more than a 4x8 does. I think the point Chip is trying to bring home is mainly on the 'only have room for a 4x8' issue. In the space that you need for a 4x8 there are other options. One might consider them, and still build a 4x8, but then it isn't because it is 'all they have room' for, it is because they decided that it was the best layout for their space. Which makes it more likely to be satisfying. In my opinion. Jeff,90% of the round the walls layouts I had the pleasure to visit over the years has been attached to the wall studs with long shelving brackets.In fact both shelf layouts in GMR 2008 is attached to the walls by shelf brackets.So its still a common practice to use shelf brackets. Sure, absolutely, not only can it be, but it is the way I would do it (and I am, using my own brackets, but that's a detail). My only point was that is does not HAVE to be. Not wanting holes in the walls is not a reason to use a 4x8, as opposed to going around the walls, or using some other alternate shape.
Jeff,Over the years I been in the hobby I have heard a lot of excuses on why modelers don't want to build around the wall layouts..IMHO the real reason is the house boss forbids it which leads to case closed for that round the wall layout..
I suspect that *might* be one of the many reasons experience modelers still build 4x8 footers.
After all what man in his right mind wants to endure the wrath of "She who rules the house"?
alco_fan wrote: jeffers_mz wrote: Reasons my second layout was a 4x8:You've already told us in other threads that you had to add both length and width to yours before you were satisfied. Your layout hasn't been 4X8 for a while. Seems like a better example of the problems of a 4X8.
Never intended to stay with a 4x8, but it was a great place to start. The current arrangement is a stopgap, at 5x14. When the layout moves out to the 30x60 pole barn, the expansion panels will come off, and be replaced with additional 4x8 modules.
I left off another primary reason for choosing 4x8, even though the 'experts' were down on them with my first layout, way back in 1972.
4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm not.
There has been a lot of discussion all over this forum (and other model railroading forums) about various aspects of dealing with space restrictions, basement-less homes, etc. Also, publilcations like MR --- recognizing space restrictions, and looking to spread the hobby to those who have space restrictions --- are doing things to draw attention to how good a small layout can be if done right. And they are publishing plans that aren't even as large as 4x8! I just got through reading such an article.
Other thoughts, in no particular order:
1. A 4x8, being so commonly available, is a good size to start with (and perhaps even to end with, who knows?) if you have space restirctions. As pointed out on this thread, a huge number of 4x8 plans have been published in many places, so there is a plethora of planning ideas. Remeber the famous Kalmbach book 101 Track Plans? IIRC, it had a whole chapter on 4x8's.
2. The 22" radius curve came into existence as one of the "standards," specifically because it is the broadest that will fit on a 4x8, so there are track components readily available.
3. If you're dealing with a small spare bedroom, a typical size such room in many houses is something like 10x10. In that room you could theoretically accommodate Two 4x8's, with judiciously located access holes, of course.
4. If your life requires periodic relocations, a 4x8, being a single rigid piece, is more or less readily movable.
I still think that this whole discussion is stuck in the notion that HO is the only viable option for a beginner. HO may be the easiest to buy stuff for, but it is no way the easiest to work into a small apartment or a room that has to share other family needs.
There are so many compromises one must make to work with HO under these circumstances that a person starting out might just throw in the towel because he can't do what he really wants to do with that first layout.
I know I'm in a minority here, but one look at Dave Vollmer's door-sized layout, or Ed Kapuscinski's apartment layout, or for that matter my own (the main part of which is 3'x 12 with a 3x4 peninsula) should be an eye opener for potential model railroaders facing a limited amount of available space.
I've seen well-crafted N scale layouts as small as 2'x4', there was a recent MR article on a Great Northern themed layout smaller than that. With the quality and detail now available in N scale, from track to rolling stock to locomotives, there's no reason to NOT consider N scale as a viable option for the space-challenged and the beginner.
If you're just starting out, consider an N scale door-size layout. Here's a link that describes the development of a 3x5 N Scale project from start to finish. Of particular interest is the commentary from Marty McGuirk that leads the page. I think you'll find it enlightening.
Yes a 4x8 is easy to obtain, but once the elephant is in the living room, what do you do with it?
Actually, I think you got a lot closer to the truth than you thought when you posted reason #5: Because it's what the modeling magazines and "how-to-get started" books recommend. In fact, I would make #5 into #1.
Of course the why it works that way is because of all the reasons you listed from #1 through #4, and the several additional reasons that other posters have alluded to. Still I would love to see Model Railroader introduce a "beginners" project that is something other than a slab of plywood, or a slab of plywood with a drop-leaf extension. (Admittedly they did depart from format when they did the G-scale layout some years back, but the rational behind that is self explanitory.) Why not try an around the wall shelf layout for one of the smaller scales some year? To too many beginners I am afraid, 4 X 8 is simply Holy Writ:
"And for the width of thy firmament thou shalt use four units. Not three, nor two. Four shall be the number of your counting. Nay do not trespass upon five, but stay thy hand at four..."
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
Yes, the 'Why do most people start in HO?' question! Opening the 'door' to N scale changes a lot!
As far as the elephant, give it peanuts?
cuyama wrote:Another option, to date pretty much ignored by the commercial press as far as I know, is the ability to have one cut made at the lumber yard in the 4X8, then add a single 2'X4' pre-cut "handy panel" to create a 5X8. These "handy panels" are common now at lumber yards and home centers.This is not as useful as a 5X9 or 5X10, but could be much better in terms of minimum radius in HO than the 4X8 "sacred sheet".
For making my 5x8, I planning on laying 2 4x8's side by side and lopping off the last 3 ft of each piece. I figure that two 5x4 pieces would give stronger construction than 3 or 4 different pieces fitted together - I'll use the leftover 3x4 pieces on the oppisite side of the steel studs, to eliminate any potentual twisting motion when the layout is moved.
wm3798 wrote: Yes a 4x8 is easy to obtain, but once the elephant is in the living room, what do you do with it? Lee
Not to be glib or anything, but in my expierence inviting it for tea, and then working with it to become a centerpiece always helps.
Seriously when I lived in apartments my 4x8 sat in my living room up against a wall. I had no problem with reach arounds, or any of these other problems that people say that they need for space around them.
The other reason (it's a good one) is that they rent. I told one landlord I was a MR and he had fit and flat out told me that if found one anchor bolt/screw or any evidence of damage to a wall he was taking the deposit AND charging me to redrywall the room. I told him it was a table top set up and that changed his mind, it was like a light switch how fast his attitude changed. In another apartment I told the landlord that I would be setting up a layout and he gave a ton of scrap lumber and told me not to worry about holes in the wall, and could he help. To this day it's the only layout that I have built that ever came close to being finished.
Another good reason is that thier in an occupation that forces them to move every 3 or 4 years a 4x8 is portable. It's even small enough to be stripped of scenery and shipped with the track still attached. I know growing up, I cut mine in three pieces. 2 4x3'10" and a 3" strip down the middle with four hinges to attach to hold it all together. When we moved a pieces of foam went in the middle and the sides folded around the foam. All I had to do was pull two switchs and the layout was ready for moving. Mind you this is for HO scale, my brother did the same thing for his N scale.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote:Sure, absolutely, not only can it be, but it is the way I would do it (and I am, using my own brackets, but that's a detail). My only point was that is does not HAVE to be. Not wanting holes in the walls is not a reason to use a 4x8, as opposed to going around the walls, or using some other alternate shape.
But doesn't that mean that even more bench work has to be built than would be needed for a 4x8?
jeffers_mz wrote:4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm not. :-)
I know that I want more scenery than that.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote:Yes, the 'Why do most people start in HO?' question! Opening the 'door' to N scale changes a lot!As far as the elephant, give it peanuts?
EXACTLY!
I think the best example of HO Myopia was when the last "room size layout" contest was conducted by our esteemed hosts, it was restricted to HO scale designs. For me, and legions of other oppressed N scalers, that was like repealing the First Amendment.
The best project layouts Ive seen were the N Scale Arkansas and Missouri, the N Scale BN layout, and the N scale Applachian Central. David Popp's Naugatuck Valley is also very nicely done in a limited footprint.
Greg H. wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote:Sure, absolutely, not only can it be, but it is the way I would do it (and I am, using my own brackets, but that's a detail). My only point was that is does not HAVE to be. Not wanting holes in the walls is not a reason to use a 4x8, as opposed to going around the walls, or using some other alternate shape. But doesn't that mean that even more bench work has to be built than would be needed for a 4x8?
Yes, but so what? Think of it this way. If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time.
You can't live in fear of building the layout. Every step along the way forces you to do something you've never done before. Every step you gamble that what you are doing will not mess up what you have done before. Eventually, you might get to the point of mastery. But I suspect, even the masters like CNJ push themselves to try even harder projects.
Benchwork, although it is the first step, is one of the easier and quickest steps. If you want it to go really fast, rent a chop saw.
Greg H. wrote: jeffers_mz wrote:4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm notI know that I want more scenery than that.
jeffers_mz wrote:4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm not
4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm not
Sorry, I can't buy it. A four foot island of scenery is not as effective as a 30 inch shelf with a good backdrop. And with the 4 foot depth you sacrafice realism by having multiple tracks running through the scene.
Most really effective 4 x 8's I've seen work hard to eliminate the depth so that they can create the illusion of isolated scenes for their trains to pass through, either through view breaks or backdrops. Just the opposite of what you are describing.
Look at the format for building modular benchwork... Legs, wing nuts, levelling screws... A cordless screw gun, some 2x2's... it really can go up in a hurry.
As for depth of scenery, the key there isn't the size, it's what you do with it...
David Barrow's Cat Mountain is built on a series of 2' deep tables. Multiple examples exist of backdrops blending seamlessly into a foreground shelf (Pelle Soeberg's work comes to mind).
Likewise, I've seen large table top layouts that have a big blob mountain at one end that looks like a pile of laundry. It doesn't always matter how big the scenery is, if it looks like crap, it looks like crap.
And it's not an issue of whether or not you have the skills. Skills can (and should) be developed through practice and observation.
wm3798 wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Yes, the 'Why do most people start in HO?' question! Opening the 'door' to N scale changes a lot!As far as the elephant, give it peanuts? EXACTLY!I think the best example of HO Myopia was when the last "room size layout" contest was conducted by our esteemed hosts, it was restricted to HO scale designs. For me, and legions of other oppressed N scalers, that was like repealing the First Amendment.The best project layouts Ive seen were the N Scale Arkansas and Missouri, the N Scale BN layout, and the N scale Applachian Central. David Popp's Naugatuck Valley is also very nicely done in a limited footprint.Lee
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Yes, the 'Why do most people start in HO?' question! Opening the 'door' to N scale changes a lot!As far as the elephant, give it peanuts?
I have an N scale elephant in my garage. What should I be feeding it?
A steady diet of Atlas Code 55 Rail, DZ123 decoders, and lots and lots of coal hoppers... That's what I feed mine!
Hmm, I've got plenty of the first two, I need to get hopping!
SpaceMouse wrote:If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time. Every step you gamble that what you are doing will not mess up what you have done before.Benchwork, although it is the first step, is one of the easier and quickest steps. If you want it to go really fast, rent a chop saw.
If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time.
Every step you gamble that what you are doing will not mess up what you have done before.
Printer wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time. Every step you gamble that what you are doing will not mess up what you have done before.Benchwork, although it is the first step, is one of the easier and quickest steps. If you want it to go really fast, rent a chop saw. One BIG room? Instead of a half dozen postage stamp sized cubby holes? Hmmm, let me think that one over... *grin*And I'm not willing to LOSE the gamble. That would just cause me to toss it all in the fireplace right now. I've been beaten enough by life and the ones running it, I want some relaxation time, not more aggravation and strife.As for backdrops, I am NO Rembrandt to paint lifelike scenes on the wall. And my printer only does 8 1/2 X 11 which means tape all over or glue with the associated wrinkles in the paper.I'm NOT knocking the around the room layouts, If I could afford to have a crew come in and add a room to the house and then build the layout for me, that would be great. I'm just not up to more disappointments in life when the 4 X 8 is down and dirty, quick and easy for me to get up and running. I may even eventually go the custom room type shelf or other style layout, but to cut my teeth and have some small enjoyment, and practice the skills necessary to tackle the large stuff, I'm going to get my feet wet on a 4 X 8.Yes, call it "Instant Gratification" or say I have "No Commitment" all you like. Just because I don't attempt to swim the English Channel on my first day in the water, doesn't mean I don't like to swim.Scoot
SpaceMouse wrote: If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time. Every step you gamble that what you are doing will not mess up what you have done before.Benchwork, although it is the first step, is one of the easier and quickest steps. If you want it to go really fast, rent a chop saw.
Scoot,
There are circumstance where a 4 x 8 is perfect for an individual. I've talked with you enough to know that you should enjoy what you can.
Why is that BS? Without any tools, it's hard to cut plywood by sheer force of will " border="0" width="15" height="15" />
"Most" people I'm not buying, "some" people is very believable, but just because a person has a 4 x8 does not mean he cannot cut a piece of plywood. ;) The benchwork on my 4x8 is cookie cutter, it was much more difficult than sawing up some foam I can assure you.
I guess the "broad brush" approach to 4 x8 modelers bothers me. A lot of people here consider us trainset loop noobs and probably don't have the right to post here. I do not want a basement size layout. I'm interested in details, not miles and miles of ground foam. But the difference is I don't slam the huge layouts, to each his own. I model for myself, and no one else.
So Chip, I'm wondering, how much do you get paid everytime you post a thread containing "4 x 8"
It's a labour of both love and learning for Chip. I think he is a good steward for the hobby who merely wants to ensure that those cruising through here looking for ideas don't fall into a handy nook of thinking only 4X8. If the 4X8 is what it must be, then that's just peachy....do your best. But if you had not thought outside those confines or configuration, there is sooooo much more you can do with the same square footage.
Is that what we should take from your message, Chip?
SpaceMouse wrote: Greg H. wrote: But doesn't that mean that even more bench work has to be built than would be needed for a 4x8?Yes, but so what? Think of it this way. If you were building a house would you make it all one big room to save construction time.
Greg H. wrote: But doesn't that mean that even more bench work has to be built than would be needed for a 4x8?
Depending on skill and objectives of the builder, "Yes" it can and might be built as one big room initaly, then later on it would be later broken up into individual rooms or added on to later. I have seen several homes that were built that way ( my grandparents lived in one ) - further, many office buildings and stores are intentualy built that way.
I doubt that it is fear in many cases, but, lack of skill and materials - and to some extent even time.
A 4x8 table top, layout can be put together in less time, money ( materials & tools ), and skill, than a 5x12 around the wall of the same area.
Do I have room for a 5x8 table top? Yes. The dinning room table is for all practical purposes unused.
Do I have room for a 3x12 around the wall of the same area? No - I would have to move a full 80 gal aquarium ( and there are only a few places that that aquarium can saftely sit due to it's weight ), or a lrg upright piano ( again a weight issue ), or the TV center, or any number of other things.
So we end up back at the avalability of materials and tools / or the money to obtain them. If it's not avalable ( for any number of reasions ) then they have to settle for what is readily avalable - like a 4x8 sheet of plywood. Some people don't mind buying / renting tools if they don't already have them, while others just have to make do, and don't mind having a 4x8 for a year or two, as inadaquate as other may think it is.
Who am I to say that a 3x7 is a bad choice for someone, if that is how they want to run their trains? Yet there are people out there that get enjoyment from even a 2x6 based on switching ops. It may be a bad choice for me, but it is not a bad choice for them.
twomule wrote: Why is that BS? Without any tools, it's hard to cut plywood by sheer force of will " border="0" width="15" height="15" />"Most" people I'm not buying, "some" people is very believable, but just because a person has a 4 x8 does not mean he cannot cut a piece of plywood. ;) The benchwork on my 4x8 is cookie cutter, it was much more difficult than sawing up some foam I can assure you.I guess the "broad brush" approach to 4 x8 modelers bothers me. A lot of people here consider us trainset loop noobs and probably don't have the right to post here. I do not want a basement size layout. I'm interested in details, not miles and miles of ground foam. But the difference is I don't slam the huge layouts, to each his own. I model for myself, and no one else. So Chip, I'm wondering, how much do you get paid everytime you post a thread containing "4 x 8"
I don't get paid by the post, I get paid by Microsoft every time the characters "4 x 8" appear in a Internet Explorer program.
While some people may be 4 x 8 snobs, I'm not. AS I said before, there are a lot of good 4 x 8's out there.
But I would ask you if you are doing cookie cutter (which I did on my 4 x 8 as well), why did you choose such a difficult shape to work with? I'm curious because others do as well. I did a 4 x 8, because I had heard that was a starter layout.
But you would think that an experienced modeler such as yourself would expand it out to 4.5 or 5 foot to give yourself some more options.
Just curious.
selector wrote: It's a labour of both love and learning for Chip. I think he is a good steward for the hobby who merely wants to ensure that those cruising through here looking for ideas don't fall into a handy nook of thinking only 4X8. If the 4X8 is what it must be, then that's just peachy....do your best. But if you had not thought outside those confines or configuration, there is sooooo much more you can do with the same square footage.Is that what we should take from your message, Chip?
Actually, I am planning an artile on how to design a good 4 x 8. However, since it is such a difficult medium top work with, I will spend a fair amout of time at the beginning helping the reader to assess their needs to determine whether of not a 4 x 8 is the most practical layout for them in terms of space, ability, and growth in the hobby or if they are just going the 4 x 8 route because they think it is what they should do.
SpaceMouse wrote: Greg H. wrote: I know that I want more scenery than that. Sorry, I can't buy it. A four foot island of scenery is not as effective as a 30 inch shelf with a good backdrop. And with the 4 foot depth you sacrafice realism by having multiple tracks running through the scene. Most really effective 4 x 8's I've seen work hard to eliminate the depth so that they can create the illusion of isolated scenes for their trains to pass through, either through view breaks or backdrops. Just the opposite of what you are describing.
Greg H. wrote: I know that I want more scenery than that.
But isn't the person who is building the layout the one who decides what kind of realism they do or do not want?
What is wrong with multiple tracks is the first place? There are plenty of places that have multiple tracks - the Georgetown Loop in CO, actualy loops back over it's self - it is about 2 miles from Georgetown to Silverplume as the crow flies, but the track convers 4-5 miles to climb over 600 ft between the two towns.
You can see the track at the lower left where it goes under it's own bridge.
I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO. There are better uses of space and materials. However, I don't think that a newbie is going to jump in with both feet and do an around the walls layout. With that kind of setup, your room is the 'train room'. With the 4x8, it's a room with a train set in it. I realize that it takes up the same amount of space, but psychologically, it doesn't. As far as being able to cut wood, it is a little intimidating. Ripping a piece of plywood without experience is a little scary. If you don't have a chop saw, cutting the lengths of supports is less than fun. There are a lot of things to learn about this hobby. Learning basic carpentry skills may not be at the top of the newbie's list. This whole conversation is like telling somebody to start building laser cut, wooden structures instead of plastic. Sure the results are more satisfying, but it's a little more involved than a DPM kit.
One thing for the folks that are getting 'defensive' here to remember... Chip is using inquisition as a way to learn. When he asks a question, he isn't saying what you are doing or have done is wrong, he's just trying to get to the next level of why. And then he'll probably ask another question. He's trying to get beyond the first, and even the second level of anwers. So, while it feels like he's attacking, I think he's just trying to dig deeper, both to increase his understanding, and to encourage everyone else to take their thinking to a different level. I hope I'm right about this, otherwise I just put a bunch of words in the SpaceMouse's mouth! In the time Chip has been on the forum, I have never known him to accept 'because it is' as an answer. He always goes deeper.
secondhandmodeler wrote: I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO. There are better uses of space and materials. However, I don't think that a newbie is going to jump in with both feet and do an around the walls layout. With that kind of setup, your room is the 'train room'. With the 4x8, it's a room with a train set in it. I realize that it takes up the same amount of space, but psychologically, it doesn't. As far as being able to cut wood, it is a little intimidating. Ripping a piece of plywood without experience is a little scary. If you don't have a chop saw, cutting the lengths of supports is less than fun. There are a lot of things to learn about this hobby. Learning basic carpentry skills may not be at the top of the newbie's list.
I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO. There are better uses of space and materials. However, I don't think that a newbie is going to jump in with both feet and do an around the walls layout. With that kind of setup, your room is the 'train room'. With the 4x8, it's a room with a train set in it. I realize that it takes up the same amount of space, but psychologically, it doesn't. As far as being able to cut wood, it is a little intimidating. Ripping a piece of plywood without experience is a little scary. If you don't have a chop saw, cutting the lengths of supports is less than fun. There are a lot of things to learn about this hobby. Learning basic carpentry skills may not be at the top of the newbie's list.
I think this may be getting pretty close to the answer to the original question. There is comfort in th 4x8 layout, encouraged by the magazines, the track in a trainset, and the material obviously avaible at the Home Depot.
Intimidation and fear of the 'unknown' are a big part of this hobby, as very few people have skills in all of the areas that they are going to use. I bought the paint for my backdrop a year ago, or more. But I'm scared stiff to do it, so I have kept working in other areas. The funny part is that I am pretty sure it will come out fine, once I take the plunge!
secondhandmodeler wrote: I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO. There are better uses of space and materials. However, I don't think that a newbie is going to jump in with both feet and do an around the walls layout. With that kind of setup, your room is the 'train room'. With the 4x8, it's a room with a train set in it. I realize that it takes up the same amount of space, but psychologically, it doesn't. As far as being able to cut wood, it is a little intimidating. Ripping a piece of plywood without experience is a little scary. If you don't have a chop saw, cutting the lengths of supports is less than fun. There are a lot of things to learn about this hobby. Learning basic carpentry skills may not be at the top of the newbie's list. This whole conversation is like telling somebody to start building laser cut, wooden structures instead of plastic. Sure the results are more satisfying, but it's a little more involved than a DPM kit.
Actually the purpose of this thread is not to get people to consider alternatives, but rather to explore the motivations why a person might choose such a hard medium as a first layout. The ultimate goal of this post is to create a good article on designing a good layout in spite of the limitations of a sheet of plywood.
A lot of people however, are taking things personally. For me, it's not about them. It's about research for an article. That's what writers do.
secondhandmodeler wrote:I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO.
EDIT: Now Spacemouse you went and made me look stupid by posting the same thing at the same time I did! Stop It!
SpaceMouse wrote: secondhandmodeler wrote: I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO. There are better uses of space and materials. However, I don't think that a newbie is going to jump in with both feet and do an around the walls layout. With that kind of setup, your room is the 'train room'. With the 4x8, it's a room with a train set in it. I realize that it takes up the same amount of space, but psychologically, it doesn't. As far as being able to cut wood, it is a little intimidating. Ripping a piece of plywood without experience is a little scary. If you don't have a chop saw, cutting the lengths of supports is less than fun. There are a lot of things to learn about this hobby. Learning basic carpentry skills may not be at the top of the newbie's list. This whole conversation is like telling somebody to start building laser cut, wooden structures instead of plastic. Sure the results are more satisfying, but it's a little more involved than a DPM kit.Actually the purpose of this thread is not to get people to consider alternatives, but rather to explore the motivations why a person might choose such a hard medium as a first layout. The ultimate goal of this post is to create a good article on designing a good layout in spite of the limitations of a sheet of plywood. A lot of people however, are taking things personally. For me, it's not about them. It's about research for an article. That's what writers do.
Texas Zepher wrote: secondhandmodeler wrote:I realize that the purpose of this thread is to get people to consider something other than the 4x8 in HO.Oh really, I thought that is what it has degenerated into. I thought the purpose of the thread was to give Spacemouse some observations as to why people often and frequently start with a 4x8 as background material for his article.
Edit: Reading this thread in contexed with the other thread about 4x8 plans, I may have been mistaken in my assumption.
secondhandmodeler wrote: I respect what you contribute to the hobby and forum Mr. Mouse. I believe you will write a very usefull article pertaining to first layouts. I have however read many posts by you in regards to the 4x8. Most, if not all, have been on why you shouldn't use the good ole' sheet of plywood as is. That was why I was assuming your intent for this thread. Sorry if I was wrong.
I frequently challenge the assumption that "I only have room for a 4 x 8." But in essence I've cried uncle. Mostly, I think that people are going to do what they are going to do.
In the article I still will challenge people to look at their space critically and creatively before deciding on a 4 x 8. However, since the 4 x 8 seems as though it is here to stay in spite of all the good arguments against it, I will attempt to distill what principles make for a superior design.
SpaceMouse wrote: secondhandmodeler wrote: I respect what you contribute to the hobby and forum Mr. Mouse. I believe you will write a very usefull article pertaining to first layouts. I have however read many posts by you in regards to the 4x8. Most, if not all, have been on why you shouldn't use the good ole' sheet of plywood as is. That was why I was assuming your intent for this thread. Sorry if I was wrong.I frequently challenge the assumption that "I only have room for a 4 x 8." But in essence I've cried uncle. Mostly, I think that people are going to do what they are going to do. In the article I still will challenge people to look at their space critically and creatively before deciding on a 4 x 8. However, since the 4 x 8 seems as though it is here to stay in spite of all the good arguments against it, I will attempt to distill what principles make for a superior design.
Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about.
Just my
IRONROOSTER wrote:Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about. Just my EnjoyPaul
I'm not against the 4 x8, rather I'm against blindly assuming the 4 x8 is rite of passage for the newbie. Hopefully, both my biases and my ideas will be evident in the article.
I agree with Chip completely. I think he's on the right track to challenge the newbie and the space challenged to look at all the options... including the 4x8... so they can be more informed about the pro's and con's of each.
Information is power.
I think it's also important to challenge the magazine editors to be more creative when presenting a start up layout, whether it's changing the shape and size or exploring a different scale than what we're used to seeing.
Geez, some of you guys are making like we're trying to adopt the metric system!
SpaceMouse wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about. I'm not against the 4 x8, rather I'm against blindly assuming the 4 x8 is rite of passage for the newbie. Hopefully, both my biases and my ideas will be evident in the article.
IRONROOSTER wrote:Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about.
I've seen Spacemouse mature in the hobby from a newbie, to a person almost overwhelmed by it, to a learner, through the know-it-all phase, into the prototypical research era, and then the mind expanding theories, concepts, and philosophies of MR, and now I feel he is into making practical of all he has experienced in order to help others. I find it refreshing that someone can continually change both their mind set and outlook on others in the hobby. So many people seem to get stuck in one of the phases never considering where they came from and refusing to expand to the next phase (Shakespear's Julius Ceaser Act II?). Further he has done all this in what, three years? I see far more maturity than may people I've known/know who have been in the hobby for 3 decades.
I wonder if these "phases" are as predictable of model railroaders as they are of people going through the phases of the loss of a loved one? There is an intersting study for someone. Does anyone need a Masters Degree related to model railroading?
SpaceMouse wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about. Just my EnjoyPaul I'm not against the 4 x8, rather I'm against blindly assuming the 4 x8 is rite of passage for the newbie. Hopefully, both my biases and my ideas will be evident in the article.
A noble cause no doubt but,a fool's errand as the saying goes..
As long as you have MR,RMC,layout "experts",layout books,train set manufacturers pushing the noble 4x8 layout you are bucking the system and one that has worked for decades and will for decades to come as you can see in the replies in this topic.
Chip,While I applaud your efforts I am afraid you are fighting a system that will not change after all the idea behind the 4x8 push is to get trains up and running..A newbie can appreciate such information on 4x8s due to their excitement to get a "table set up to run the trains."
Think of this even if you reach one newbie many more will go with the 4x8 layouts found in books,magazines and of course the instructions in the train set..Then of course next year there will be another 4x8 beginners layout in MR.
A nobler cause would be designing a interesting 4x8 footers that a newbie will enjoy better then the standard "snap track" designs found in most layout books.
SpaceMouse wrote: Greg H. wrote: jeffers_mz wrote:4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm notI know that I want more scenery than that. Sorry, I can't buy it. A four foot island of scenery is not as effective as a 30 inch shelf with a good backdrop. And with the 4 foot depth you sacrafice realism by having multiple tracks running through the scene. Most really effective 4 x 8's I've seen work hard to eliminate the depth so that they can create the illusion of isolated scenes for their trains to pass through, either through view breaks or backdrops. Just the opposite of what you are describing.
You asked us why we built 4x8 layouts, we tell you, and then you say you don't buy it?
Are you getting your threads mixed up?
It's ok, thread creep is part of forum life, as long as I'm sure you aren't telling me why I built what I did. I'm pretty sure I know what the reasoning was when we started, about 100%, right on the nose.
It's a photography thing, and it morphs into yet another reason too.
With a shelf layout, shooting a horizontal pic, along the track axis, there's a minimum "zoom" (the opposite of wide angle) you have to use to fill the frame with layout, to keep the illusion alive and avoid showing floor, or fascia.
If you're shooting at any down angle, across the tracks, again, you have to zoom in or crop the photo to get rid of the fascia. The effect is worse if you're shooting at an oblique angle. The narrower a shelf layout is, the more this affects your photography.
The island aspect of a 4x8 brings in the other photography consideration, you get exactly twice as many angles to work with for any given scene. With castors and removable fascia/backdrops along the "back" side of the layout, you get the best of all worlds. Deep shots, from the front or the back, and when you're done shooting, you roll it back against the wall and enjoy your backdrop.
As far as multiple tracks in a single image go, in the specific case we're modelling, it matches the prototype perfectly. The only part of the layout where the "back" side of the loop is visible, not hidden under mountains, is the 5% grade around a U shaped horseshoe bend, our representation of the Muleshoe Bend.
The Silverton railroad is described as encompassing three engineering marvels, the depot inside the wye at Red Mountain, the Corkscrew Gulch turntable, and the Muleshoe Bend. Not far away, on the west side of the ridgeline, there's a near identical feature on the Rio Grande Southern, the Ohpir Loop, built by the same Engineer, for the same reasons, to gain a lot of vertical elevation in a short horizontal span.
I don't know if it fits in your plan for your paper or not, but you might want to consider and ask about the other half of the same equation, "Why do people AVOID layouts that aren't 4x8?" Not all the reasons people build what they build are because they WANT a certain configuration, many times, they decide against certain configurations, for specific reasons. if you're giving the builder credit for knowing enough to choose one layout over another, I think you also have to give him credit enough to decide against options he chooses not to use.
jeffers_mz wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: Greg H. wrote: jeffers_mz wrote:4. Depth of scenery. Some folks are content with scenes only 20 or 24 inches deep. I'm notI know that I want more scenery than that. Sorry, I can't buy it. A four foot island of scenery is not as effective as a 30 inch shelf with a good backdrop. And with the 4 foot depth you sacrafice realism by having multiple tracks running through the scene. Most really effective 4 x 8's I've seen work hard to eliminate the depth so that they can create the illusion of isolated scenes for their trains to pass through, either through view breaks or backdrops. Just the opposite of what you are describing. You asked us why we built 4x8 layouts, we tell you, and then you say you don't buy it?Are you getting your threads mixed up?It's ok, thread creep is part of forum life, as long as I'm sure you aren't telling me why I built what I did.It's a photography thing, and it morphs into yet another reason too.With a shelf layout, shooting a horizontal pic, along the track axis, there's a minimum "zoom" (the opposite of wide angle) you have to use to fill the frame with layout, to keep the illusion alive and avoid showing floor, or fascia.If you're shooting at any down angle, across the tracks, again, you have to zoom in or crop the photo to get rid of the fascia. The effect is worse if you're shooting at an oblique angle. The narrower a shelf layout is, the more this affects your photography.The island aspect of a 4x8 brings in the other photography consideration, you get exactly twice as many angles to work with for any given scene. With castors and removable fascia/backdrops along the "back" side of the layout, you get the best of all worlds. Deep shots, from the front or the back, and when you're done shooting, you roll it back against the wall and enjoy your backdrop.As far as multiple tracks in a single image go, in the specific case we're modelling, it matches the prototype perfectly. The only part of the layout where the "back" side of the loop is visible, not hidden under mountains, is the 5% grade around a U shaped horseshoe bend, our representation of the Muleshoe Bend.The Silverton railroad is described as encompassing three engineering marvels, the depot inside the wye at Red Mountain, the Corkscrew Gulch turntable, and the Muleshoe Bend. Not far away, on the west side of the ridgeline, there's a near identical feature on the Rio Grande Southern, the Ohpir Loop, built by the same Engineer, for the same reasons, to gain a lot of vertical elevation in a short horizontal span.I don't know if it fits in your plan for your paper or not, but you might want to consider and ask about the other half of the same equation, "Why do people AVOID layouts that aren't 4x8?" Not all the reasons people build what they build are because they WANT a certain configuration, many times, they decide against certain configurations, for specific reasons. if you're giving the builder credit for knowing enough to choose one layout over another, I think you also have to give him credit enough to decide against options he chooses not to use. :-)
It's ok, thread creep is part of forum life, as long as I'm sure you aren't telling me why I built what I did.
Fair enough. I hadn't considered the photography angle.
BRAKIE wrote:A nobler cause would be designing a interesting 4x8 footers that a newbie will enjoy better then the standard "snap track" designs found in most layout books.
That is exactly what I am going for. You have a favorite that is not copyrighted?
SpaceMouse wrote: BRAKIE wrote:A nobler cause would be designing a interesting 4x8 footers that a newbie will enjoy better then the standard "snap track" designs found in most layout books.That is exactly what I am going for. You have a favorite that is not copyrighted?
That's kind of what I though tyou said earlier. If I read right, you were going to present the case for not going with a 4x8, but then say 'if you do it anyway', here are some ideas on making the most of it. Or something like that.
On the subject of benchwork building, and cutting, etc. We are paring our vehicle stable, and will soon not have a 4x8 carrier (for the first time in forever). But, even though I have a lot of buldig to go, it doesn't bother me. I can flip the seats in my car down to carry 8 foot 1x lumber (if you want to call it that), and have plywood cut into 2x4 sheets that I can use for making roadbed. I can do all the cutting I need to with a sabre saw, sometimes I'll even use (gasp!) a handsaw for a onesy! Until I tried it, I was completely intimidated, but L-girder is cool!
Why I went 4X8.
1) Santa Clause drops off train set wanted by 9 year old boys for Christmas
2) Dad runs to hardware store for piece of plywood to attach track to.
3) Well what do ya know. 4X8 sheets are rather common and fit sort of into the family station wagon.
4) The 4X8 layout is born
5) Works great for both Lionel and HO trainsets..BONUS!
Texas Zepher wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote:Since you are very against the 4x8, I think you'll have a hard time writing a non-negative unbiased article. I think you should write on what you feel positive about. I'm not against the 4 x8, rather I'm against blindly assuming the 4 x8 is rite of passage for the newbie. Hopefully, both my biases and my ideas will be evident in the article.One can have a bias and still write objective as long as they recognize that bias and both correct for it and point it out to readers. It is those who think they aren't bias that (end up writing for the news media - Oh, no no sorry off topic) lead people astray.
I like the theory, but in practice I have rarely seen this done well and frequently done badly.
Perhaps, instead of an article on the 4x8 layout, an article describing the types of layouts along with the strengths and weaknesses of each would work better. This thread could certainly be culled for a start. And we could make additional suggestions.
as always my
But Paul, nobody here has an opinion!
IRONROOSTER wrote:I like the theory, but in practice I have rarely seen this done well and frequently done badly. Perhaps, instead of an article on the 4x8 layout, an article describing the types of layouts along with the strengths and weaknesses of each would work better. This thread could certainly be culled for a start. And we could make additional suggestions.as always my EnjoyPaul
How about I'll write the article my way then you can critique it from there.
I promise I'll stay within my skillset.
6) Dad forgets nails and has to make another trip to hard ware store for 4X8 HO layout
7) Mom gives entire can of coffee grounds to boys for them to make roads.
8) Dad needs his caffeine fix and runs to store AGAIN to replace can of coffee mom gave to kids
9) Kids need green paint for grass/scenery. Again Dad grumbles and runs to hardware store for can of green paint.
10) Kids spill paint on floor seeping into new carpeting dad paid for last month.
11) Dad tells mom he's heading to hardware store to pick up cleaning solvent for carpeting, and makes a detour to local bar.
12) Dad Happy, Kids Happy, Mom Happy.
It's a lot easier to understand the 4x8 reasoning on this end, having lived through the process, than it is to pick up on it based on a few written paragraphs. Some things that were cast in stone givens here, probably aren't obvious at all to other people.
The connection between our 4x8 and the standard dimensions of plywood sheets are so tenuous as to be non-existant for most people.
First off, you have to understand I was listening to the "4x8's great/4x8 sux" debate more than 30 years ago, when flex track was a new and dangerous thing (with fiber ties no less), and DCC was barely a gleam in the eye of HF cab control wonks who had to deal with obstacles not even imagined by today's handheld wireless throttle jockeys. I thought it was a silly arguemnt then, and I think it's silly today. Exactly ONE PERSON can balance all they need to think about before comitting to a layout, and that person IS NOT anyone who doesn't live at THAT address.
Fast forward to the recent past, the room dimensions we had to work with were 12x8, with a 2.5x5 foot alcove holding a built in desk. Around two of the walls were continuous shelving units, six feet tall, three feet wide, and a foot deep, leaving us 11 feet by 8 feet of available floor area. Into that area swings a set of double doors, 2.5 feet wide per door, and when the desk is in use, two feet of chair space, which drops to a foot when the chair's pushed in.
Take out room to swing the door, and a three foot walkway along one end and one side of the layout, and you have 5 feet by 8.5 feet left. However, a permanent control panel adds another foot of width to the layout, and by luck of the draw, it landed close to opposite the desk and chair, giving us 8.5 feet by 4 feet to fit in a layout...with a shoehorn.
Having spent 20+ years in the construction trades, and having already built a very capable woodshop in the breakfast room off the kitchen, any and all layout benchwork simply did not represent any challenges, up to and including cabinet grade benchwork. So we COULD have had a 4 foot by 8 foot 6 inch layout, BUT, if we had, the door to the room would have had a permanent scruff mark where it rubbed on the benchwork, and I decided to avoid walking eyes open into a situation where I'd have to match stain of an unknown color by an unknown manufacturer to fix the door, (or throw away and replace an otherwise perfectly good door) and from there, a 4x8 was cast in stone.
As you can see, plywood dimensions did not affect the size of the layout per se, because no plywood was used, we went with an open benchwork design.
We could have made a layout that was 4 feet by 8 foot 5 inches, but 8 foot 2x4's are easily available since 8 feet tall walls are standard in residential construction, so...
Our layout isn't 4x8 because plywood is that size, instead, plywood is 4x8 for the same reason our layout is.
With that as a given, all the rest are supporting reasons, things that just fell together and worked out for the best, when the layout size was decided, whether they worked out or not.
Although 12x9 foot rooms are reasonably common in today's homes, it's unlikely that these exact circumstances will be of interest to many new modelers.
What almost certainly WILL be of interest to them is the concept that an around the walls layout essentially DEMANDS a dedicated train room. They further WASTE a TON of potential storage space, at a time when constructioncosts are through the roof, and many people can barely meet their mortgage payments, meaqning smaller houses are becoming more popular. One simple way to increase effective square footage is to go UP with storage space, shelving units around the walls.
With an island style layout, you don't have to give up this storage option, and potential modelers don't have to choose between a storage room and a train room. right there, you can sell a lot of wives, and a lot of modelers too.
Even a wife who might be inclined to give a whole room in her house over to a layout is unlikely to give TWO whole rooms up. A dedicated train room is a good thing, but if you've used up all the wall space, where are you going to store 500 Blue Box kits, 750 bottles of paint, glue, alcohol, thinners, solvaset, etc, plus about 8 BILLION miniature tools and small parts that we ALL know model railroading requires?
When you look at how many wives might be willing to give up one room but not two to a train layout, getting both the layout AND all the supporting elements into a single room adds up to a BOATLOAD of new modelers.
With that in mind, ease of photography, or depth of scenery, or radius of curvature, all those things pale to mere convenience in comparison.
Why do people start with 4 x 8's?
Simply put...people doing what works for them at the time...what ever their reasons are.
I just recently encountered someone who sold off over $500 dollars worth of model railroad investment, simply because of the responses he got when he'd mentioned wanting to do a small island continuous loop layout with no specific prototypical theme. I almost did the same thing after many of the responses I've gotten to questions concerning my little tabletop layout. I wonder how many folks this hobby loses when folks are made to feel like fools for their choices of what works for them, regardless of their reasons for their choice. When someone says they want to do a 4x8 (or what ever configuration)...or want his feature...or don't care about or want that...and the responses they get overwhelmingly imply or outright state how foolish their choice is, it's more than a bit discouraging.
More often than not in all things in life, the technical best is not the practical best. None or near none of us drive the vehicles that would be the best technical fit for us...nor live in the best technical house...nor wear the technical best clothing. It's all about making a judgment call on what compromises work the best at the time, for the individual. There is no such thing as a universal best layout configuration....it's all subjective and individually relevant.
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
How people react and feel when they learn something is entirely of their choosing. If they are inclined to feel foolish, defeated, or deflated, and sell of new stuff bought without much foresight or willingness to learn from others, that is their way of internalizing what they have come to accept as truth. It's a choice.
Also, I don't think Chip is telling anyone what do to...he wants to hear from all of us about what not to do. He has seeded the discussion with both the title and with his various following statements, but has conceded early that his wish is to learn and then to provide a service to people who may want to default to the schema of a 4X8 model railroad. Included will be a comparison between the 4X8 and other popular configurations, and encouragement to adopt whatever the person decides to use with the full knowledge of the inherent limitations and strengths of each.
At least, that is what I take from his various responses.
Jeffers,
I'm playing devil's advocate here. Certainly your reasons are justification for building a 4 x 8 just because you say they are.
However, I was also in the construction trades and a properly designed shelf layout would increase storage space. For instance, a 48" high, 30 " wide shelf can easily house a 24" cabinet comfortably. You could build a 7 inch deep door that could hold paperback books, DVD's and VCR tapes. After allowing 24" for elevations and backdrop you could put a row of cabinets to the ceiling. The underside could house your lighting. All this and the center of the room is clear.
Granted, this would cost more than going to Cosco and buying their pre-fab free standing cabinets. Unless, of course, you built them yourself.
The 4x8 is most common because most sheets of plywood come that way. But for me it started as:HO-3x7, which was just a loop, then an HO 4x8 folded dogbone, which I didn't like so I switched to N, and then I have a 4x8, but tore it down because it was a hassle because it beacame problem plaugued.
selector wrote:How people react and feel when they learn something is entirely of their choosing. If they are inclined to feel foolish, defeated, or deflated, and sell of new stuff bought without much foresight or willingness to learn from others, that is their way of internalizing what they have come to accept as truth. It's a choice.
The point is that there was no real lesson to be learned...other than conventional wisdom was that he wasn't supposed to do what he wanted with his hobby...and if he did, there was something seriously wrong with him and or his choices.
Back in the 1940s and 50s, my uncle built an absolutely amazing Lionel layout in his basement coal bin. By todays standards it violates just about every now popular principal that is accepted as a "Must" for a good layout...but he enjoyed it for 25+ years, and his kids, grand kids, and great grand kids still enjoy it and keep it up 50-60 years later...some cooming from most the way across the country to do so. By conventional wisdom he'd have been foolish to build it. Conventional wisdom is frequently not all that universally wise.
When I think about the way we often use the space in our houses, I can see some logic in what Jeffers is saying. We tend to put our furniture and 'stuff' around the perimeter of the room, effectively 'wasting' most of the space, out in the middle. Making that interior space an obvious place to build a railroad.
There is pretty clearly (at least to me) no one answer that is 'right' for everyone. But threads like this, and the article that Chip is writing should help all of us to think beyond our experience, and the way it has always been done. After that, whatever we decide to build, even if it is 4x8 we thought of at first, is going to be better for it.
I never did. When I was a boy our basement was 20'W and 50'L and all I could do was dream. Now I'm married for 36 years and my train room is 24'L and 16'W and it's taken me 30 years to figure out exactly what it is I want my layout to do. Perhaps if I had started smaller the light would have gone on sooner. I never understood the use of viewblocks but now I do and the results will be dramatic from my viewpoint. Ain't it great when the elevator goes all the way to top floor!!
Archie
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: When I think about the way we often use the space in our houses, I can see some logic in what Jeffers is saying. We tend to put our furniture and 'stuff' around the perimeter of the room, effectively 'wasting' most of the space, out in the middle. Making that interior space an obvious place to build a railroad.
It makes total sense to me as well. Jeffers brought up some very good points.
Especially in light of what I call the doghouse factor (that comes right after "the LOOK").
Woof!
Interesting discussion, especially to me -
I just agreed to give up the larger basement bedroom in our new house, which will become a 2nd family activity room and guest bedroom (when needed). The smaller bedroom I am gaining has a usable space, when the entrance way and closet aisle are accounted for, of 88" x 128". On one 88" side is a window (which must remain accessible with at most an easily removable section in front of the window), and there is access to the entire 128" width from a front aisle (also accesses doorway and closet). The room must also house a computer work station and my modeling work bench and supplies. The wife does want me to use the room for a layout of my choosing.
logically available configurations:
- Heart of Georgia doughnut style. Requires both duckunder and removable section in front of window. Front section (aka duckunder) will cause layout to dominate room. Duckunder and removable section mean only 2 sides of doughnut are easily utilized. Design implication is one town spread across 2 walls, with continuous run connection behind operator at front duckunder and across window.
- 4x7 island. I find the 4x8 or similar islands (in HO) without an extension to be very tough to design well. An extension adds so much to the operational capabilities. But no matter which way I orient the island, the extension becomes much narrower (about 10" if I keep to 30" aisles) than the 2ft depth I had envisioned.
- 2 wall shelf, with possible removable staging in front of window. Design implication is no continuous run, but maximizes appearance and use of room as other than dedicated train room.
Notice that the island and the 2 wall shelf would be relatively easy to construct, but the doughnut has lots more engineering challenges than the other 2. OTOH, the doughnut has the maximum operating potential.
In looking at these alternatives, I can easily see why the island gets more frequently selected. I know I can build a simple table (whether open or closed top). And it gives me a continuous run so I can watch my trains run occasionally hands off. I'm not so sure about making a duckunder (or a gate), and a removable section that won't become inconvenient, a maintenance nightmare, and/or an object of my cursing. I have failed before in building wall bookshelf sections, so I fear problems with the walls not being perfectly straght and true. And even if I succeed with the 2 wall shelf layout, will I get bored with just back and forth? In other words, fear of the unknown often inhibits us from making the "best" choice.
I see this fear of the unknown manifest itself over and over in a hobby that requires development of so many disparate skills. Lack of confidence in one's ability to build benchwork, understand wiring and gapping, solder connections, paint and weather models, disassemble locomotives for cleaning and lubing, paint backdrops, make uncoupling work reliably, and build scenery are all common causes of paralysis in this fine hobby.
So I would add fear of failure as another reason for building a 4x8 when another configuration might work better.
just my thoughts
twomule wrote:Why is that BS? Without any tools, it's hard to cut plywood by sheer force of will "Most" people I'm not buying, "some" people is very believable, but just because a person has a 4 x8 does not mean he cannot cut a piece of plywood. ;) The benchwork on my 4x8 is cookie cutter, it was much more difficult than sawing up some foam I can assure you.I guess the "broad brush" approach to 4 x8 modelers bothers me. [....]
I guess the "broad brush" approach to 4 x8 modelers bothers me. [....]
I'm sure that there are master carpenters with 4x8's out there; I wasn't implying anything about anybody's skills.
I was making a point that not everyone has access to tools. To add to that, building benchwork would be very intimidating for someone without any woodworking experience. I used to build houses for a living, and building benchwork still seems a little overwhelming to me at times. Like anything else, the more I do, the comfortable with it I become. But, like someone pointed out earlier in this thread, your first kit isn't a craft-kit and for a lot of folks, anything beyond a 4x8 is like starting with a craft-kit.
SpaceMouse wrote: Jeffers,I'm playing devil's advocate here. Certainly your reasons are justification for building a 4 x 8 just because you say they are. However, I was also in the construction trades and a properly designed shelf layout would increase storage space. For instance, a 48" high, 30 " wide shelf can easily house a 24" cabinet comfortably. You could build a 7 inch deep door that could hold paperback books, DVD's and VCR tapes. After allowing 24" for elevations and backdrop you could put a row of cabinets to the ceiling. The underside could house your lighting. All this and the center of the room is clear. Granted, this would cost more than going to Cosco and buying their pre-fab free standing cabinets. Unless, of course, you built them yourself.
You raise a valid point here, in some cases. Bringing a shelf layout out 30 inches at 48 inch elevation above finished floor, you effectively double storage space for the lower half of the wall area, more than making up for giving up 24 vertical inches above the layout before shelving or cabinets resume, in terms of total storage volume.
There's a trade off that needs to be mentioned doing this, you make it difficult to access under layout wiring when storing stuff underneath, and you risk damaging wiring when removing and replacing storage items too. If you create a "roof" for the under layout cabinets to protect the wiring, wiring access becomes yet more difficult. Rolling cabinets under the layout could ease this problem.
In our case, there were two more issues arguing against this approach. At the time the layout was conceived, both my 9 year old son and 4 year old daughter shared a bedroom, with bunkbeds, alternating weekends when they came over here to visit. It was a given that they'd eventually need separate rooms, in fact, I went ahead and bought matching extra bedframe parts when buying the bunkbed set, for just this eventuality.
At the time, the plan was to move the layout, the music studio, and storage for the camping gear out to the planned pole barn (finished interior, over half the footprint), freeing up the entire room for one kid or the other to call home. I figured we had two to three years to get the pole barn in, make the transition, but it turned out to be less than a year before we really needed to split them up. Instead of building the pole barn, we embarked on an odessy of furniture chess that continues to this day.
Basically, half the camping gear went to the MBR, the layout went to the underused dining area, the lower half of the bunkbed went into the layout room, my son's desk and computer moved out of the dining area and replaced the lower half of the bunkbed, and my daughters toys occupied the now empty shelves in the layout room. Those were just the big projects, the tip of the iceberg. With no "extra" room to make these transitions, we quickly ran into catch-22 after catch-22. It was a little like working those chinese tile puzzles where you assemble a picture by sliding tiles around inside a frame, except those have one empty "square" to work with, and we had none.
There were cases when 7 or 8 large items (layout or bed sized) had to move around in an intricate multi-stage dance, just to end up effecting a single change, and throughout all of it, visitation priveleges were at risk anytime fire codes and access laws were violated. Not to mention personal safety for my kids. The only real answer was to go "up", everywhere. At last count, there are more than 30 vertical storage shelf units in this house, not counting any of the closets. Four of those were just completed today, in the MBR, finally offering me a chance to get hundreds of textbooks up off the floor where they had been stacked, impeding movement.
Obviously, a fixed layout around the walls would have prevented moving my daughter's bedroom into the layout room, and wasn't an option.
Further, the items in storage there previously did not lend themselves to cabinet style storage. That's all expedition camping and climbing gear, arranged for ease and speed of access, and varies in size from tiny LED flashlights all the way up to bulky and oddly shaped backpacks. Another element was stored electronic gear for the eventually much larger studio, which proved to be a saving grace. Since that's easy to stack and arrange, it was possible to consolidate it, make room for the bulky and unmanageable larger expedition gear, and then move the smaller expedition gear to a wall of tubs in the MBR.
In the general sense, a room could accomodate both storage and a layout, as you suggest. There will be tradeoffs, with the wiring especially, as noted above, but it is an option for those challenged in available space.
In our case, the island layout was the only real option, and once equipped with castors, became a fantastic way to use more space than you really have available. In any given space with an island layout, and access to one side and one end of the layout, castors make all the difference. Just by adding wheels, you not only can now access all four sides of the layout with equal ease, but you also have easy access to the wallspace the layout normally butts up to.
With the current 5x14 layout, I'd guess we're up to a gross weight of 600 pounds of layout, could be as high as 1000, but I can move it clear across its designated space, access the far side of the layout or shelving, and have it back to original position in less than 5 minutes, all by myself. The biggest problem isn't rolling it, it is making sure you can stop it from rolling before it takes out one wall of the house. We're on carpet, and not only do trains stay on the rails during movement evolutions, but even barely balanced HO figures, people and animals, stay where they are supposed to. All the weight of benchwork, plaster, trains, controllers, computer and sound system create high momentum, and keep the G forces (changes in acceleration) so low that layout damage during movement just isn't a problem.
The combination of an island layout, mounted on castors, and around the wall storage shelves, is a powerful solution for people who believe they don't have enough room for a layout. We in fact did NOT have enough room for a layout, and we still managed to shoehorn one in anyway.
The one downside of having a rolling layout I've found so far is the need to keep off layout wiring to a minimum. By suspending the computer and sound system from under the layout, only one large cord for power goes to an electrical outlet, and we don't even have to unplug anything to roll the layout to and fro.
C'MON GUYS, THIS DEBATE IS GETTING INTO THE RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!!
There are lots of options for building small layouts. The reason for using 4x8 plywood is extremely simple: IT'S THERE!!! You can cart it home and go to work without bothering to do any carpentry (Whether or not you have the tools of ability to do carpentry is not the issue, it's simply that you don't have to be bothered!!!)
Simply put, that's the reason for its widespread popularity. That is the answer to the question that started this thread.
If you want a small layout that's not a 4x8, build what you DO want. This is America.
I'd say that a lot of it has to do with the boom in model railroading - particularly HO scale - after WW2. At that time, power tools were relatively rare in the average home. Sawing, drilling etc. were all done with hand tools. It was a lot easier to build a flat-top layout with a sheet of plywood on top than to try cutting the plywood (by hand) to build a more complicated layout shape. Dimensional lumber was cheap and plentiful (due to the housing construction boom, there were many places selling lumber) and easy to cut to length with a hand saw.
Remember too that O scale was big (pun intended) then, and with that you almost had to build an around-the-walls layout to fit in a half-way decent minimum radius. With HO, a free standing 4x8 layout seemed much more attainable, especially as a beginner. (Of course, many younger folks found that a 4x8 was sufficient to build a decent 027 or American Flyer layout too.)
So, model railroad mags featured many small layouts, and the early "how to" books also came to recommend the 4x8 as a start.(I think John Allen's first G&D was actually a 4x8 or a little smaller.) I suspect so many modellers started with that size back then , that it just became part of being a model railroader - you start with a 4x8 in HO. So that's what they recommended to new modellers.
BTW...I'm interested in track planning, and I look at the 4x8 in HO as kind of like a model railroading version of a haiku poem - you have very limited rigid structure to work with, the fun is seeing how you can find new and creative ways of using it.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote:But Paul, nobody here has an opinion!
SpaceMouse wrote:How about I'll write the article my way then you can critique it from there. I promise I'll stay within my skillset.
Good plan!!
SpaceMouse wrote: The two most convincing reason I've heard are:1) They have a train set and they want to get it working fast, so they get a sheet of plywood throw it on a couple saw horses and in two days have something running.2) They lack the commitment. They want to try model railroading to see if they like it. But there's always.3) They heard that a 4 x 8 is the starter layout.4) They think they don't have room for anything else. 5) That's what the magazines show to get newbies started.
The two most convincing reason I've heard are:
1) They have a train set and they want to get it working fast, so they get a sheet of plywood throw it on a couple saw horses and in two days have something running.
2) They lack the commitment. They want to try model railroading to see if they like it.
But there's always.
3) They heard that a 4 x 8 is the starter layout.
4) They think they don't have room for anything else.
5) That's what the magazines show to get newbies started.
When my dad and I first started out in the 1970's the layout began from a Christmas train set I got and from the floor carpet version it was quickly converted to a 4X8 sheet plywood prairie and put it up in the back shed on legs too. The reason for the initial 4X8 was your #1 and #4 reasons listed above.
Once we got that 4X8 up an running we added another 4X8 attached by a 2X3 and the layout became a C shaped with a center console between the two 4X8's.
It was the quickest and easiest way to get started on our first layout!
Now, in hindsight would I build another 4X8? NO!
But that is just me, I am still working on my around the walls multi-level layout.
Did I learn a lot from my 4X8 layout? YES!
I learned that there is so much more to layout building than a flat sheet of plywood! But again, we were new to the hobby then and did'nt know any better, but it was a great learning experience anyway!
Ryan BoudreauxThe Piedmont Division Modeling The Southern Railway, Norfolk & Western & Norfolk Southern in HO during the merger eraCajun Chef Ryan
Here I is almost 30 years after I received my 1st and last train set at the age of about 10. That little HO circle track kept me entertained for all of about a week until mom got tired of that 4X4 pc of plywood in the living room. So the train went to a storage box.
Over the years I would on occasion pick up a copy of MR or spend an hour or two sketching out a layout. Most of these sketches were room sized around the walls with bridges and canyons and running water and many other "slightly challenging" great ideas.
Now I'm in a better position ("I" being myself, my wife and kids) to afford the money and space to begin a layout. Here is where the planning becomes complicated and also where I discovered the question that is being addressed here....the existance of the 4X8.
Almost all reasons, thoughts and ideas presented here are very real foundations for the 4X8 being so popular. Having said that, here are my reasons for shooting for a 4X8-
1-since our basement (the only area my wife would permit such a hobby) is still "unfinished" I need something fairly portable. If we decide to finish out a certain area of the basement then 2 people can move the layout easily.
2-a 4X8 is relatively economic to produce (at least from the roadbed down) which permits more funds for the roadbed up.
3-this will be a trial run to determine my skills, intestinal fortitude, and the patience of my wife.
4-pending the results of #4 it will determine whether or not I continue.
The comment was made about this thread becoming ridiculous.....I think it is very informative for those of us who may be entertaining the idea of building their first layout. We look at what is available in books and on the net and what do we see? In HO we see constructing the building sized layouts, room sized layouts, and then the old stand by of the 4X8.
There is a population of us newbies that benefit from discussions such as this....
just my 1.258 cents (accounting for the economy)
ken
Space Mouse, you did one heck of a job on the Beginners Guide!!! I have attended workshops thru my employer that simplified streamlined manufacturing processes but have never even considered applying the same theorys to designing a layout. Now I need to postone my designs and focus on the intended purposes of each stop.
thank you for that info!
Ken
concretelackey wrote: Space Mouse, you did one heck of a job on the Beginners Guide!!! I have attended workshops thru my employer that simplified streamlined manufacturing processes but have never even considered applying the same theorys to designing a layout. Now I need to postone my designs and focus on the intended purposes of each stop.thank you for that info!Ken
Thank you for saying so.