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.
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
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
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?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
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.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
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.
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
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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.
Most people cannot cut a piece of 4 x 8 plywood
That 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.
Enjoy
Paul
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.