Why do people start with 4 x 8's

[BRAKIE]

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

Enjoy

Paul 

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.

 

[jeffers_mz]

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. 

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.

 

:-)

 

 

 

[SpaceMouse]

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. 

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.

 

:-)

Fair enough. I hadn't considered the photography angle.

[SpaceMouse]

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?

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

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!

 

[Driline]

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!

[IRONROOSTER]

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

Enjoy

Paul 

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

But Paul, nobody here has an opinion!

 

[SpaceMouse]

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

Enjoy

Paul 

How about I'll write the article my way then you can critique it from there.

I promise I'll stay within my skillset.

[Driline]

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.

[jeffers_mz]

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.

[Zandoz]

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.  

[selector]

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. 

[SpaceMouse]

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.  

 

[arkansasrailfan]

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.

[Zandoz]

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.

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

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.

 

[camarokid]

    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

[SpaceMouse]

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").  

 

[Vail and Southwestern RR]

Woof!

 

[on30francisco]

Although the 4x8 or other island-type designs are an inefficient use of space, they are sometimes the only practical way to build a model railroad in an apartment or other rental living quarters (I'm biased toward continuous running). They can be stored sideways (a foam baseboard is better for this) or pushed up against a wall when the room has to be used for other purposes. When you move, it can be moved much more easily to a new place and set up in almost any other room. Around the room layouts, while much more efficient in the use of space, are more difficult to set up in an apartment because the design depends on the dimensions of the room and most landlords don't want holes in their walls. Another factor to consider is the use of some tools, especially noisy power tools, is limited, especially in a multi-unit building. It can be built on freestanding legs but the same problems occur when you move.

[fwright]

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

Fred W

[Anonymous]

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'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.

[Anonymous]

True, I guess I assume that someone that is willing to build a rr already has the tools like a circular saw, and like Brakie said, there are some people you just don't want them to have a power tool in hand.

[jeffers_mz]

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.

 

 

[Tom Curtin]

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.

 

[wjstix]

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.

[IRONROOSTER]

But Paul, nobody here has an opinion!

 

 

Enjoy

Paul 

[IRONROOSTER]

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!!

Enjoy

Paul 

[SilverSpike]

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.

Chip,

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!