wm3798 wrote: Personally, I think there's a contingent of entrenched HO scalers who are afraid to admit that in a small space, N scale offers the possibility of a far superior model railroading experience. Fortunately, I don't suffer from such a "scalist" bias!
Personally, I think there's a contingent of entrenched HO scalers who are afraid to admit that in a small space, N scale offers the possibility of a far superior model railroading experience.
Fortunately, I don't suffer from such a "scalist" bias!
wm:
No, that much is...clear...from your post. No biases at all.
Personally, I woudn't have complained one bit if you had submitted a 2.2 x 4.4, or some O scaler a 7.25 x 14.5. That's the kind of unbiased fellow I am.
wm3798 wrote: I'm with Vollmer. When you restricted it to HO, in my opinion you completely eliminated the single most effective way to put some truly innovative thought into a 4x8 space, that being, of course, the application of N scale.There are a lot of N scale modelers out there, and when this kind of thing comes up, most of us just roll our eyes. Then we go back to other internet forums that don't suffer as much from HO myopia. In a nut shell, I didn't participate because I didn't get the idea that it was an "open" competition.Personally, I think there's a contingent of entrenched HO scalers who are afraid to admit that in a small space, N scale offers the possibility of a far superior model railroading experience. Fortunately, I don't suffer from such a "scalist" bias!Lee
I'm with Vollmer. When you restricted it to HO, in my opinion you completely eliminated the single most effective way to put some truly innovative thought into a 4x8 space, that being, of course, the application of N scale.
There are a lot of N scale modelers out there, and when this kind of thing comes up, most of us just roll our eyes. Then we go back to other internet forums that don't suffer as much from HO myopia.
In a nut shell, I didn't participate because I didn't get the idea that it was an "open" competition.
Lee
Lee-
I think you might have just missed the point of the 'contest'. It wasn't to necessarily find the best use of the 4x8. It was more to find out what creative solutions there are for the folks that are dead set on building an HO scale 4x8, and there seem to be a lot of them. Chip, and others, have tried many times to discourage it, but that usually goes south. So he decided to go at the problem from the other direction, purposely limiting the parameters to a very specific problem. There is certainly room for a different contest with different parameters. It could be fun!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
Lee,
What Jeff said.
I spend a lot of time in the Layout section and I sometimes feel that the most oft repeated phrase is "I only have room for a 4 x 8." These people have fixated on the idea and they've fixated on their HO scale.
N scalers also have a fixation on the 30" door (now if you just build it in Z scale...). As I mentioned in the thread, think of it as a Haiku. The form is set. What can you do with it? That was the challenge. I'm sorry if you thought the rules excluded N-scalers. In my world there are lots of practical uses of those itty-bitty cute little trains.
(My future office will have an N-scale layout. I've been planning it for months. It will go around the room in a book case. Give the cats something to chase.)
Italics were a joke.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
I understand the purpose of the parameters, but I don't understand why an alternate scale wouldn't be considered a "creative solution".
Personally, I don't have room for a 4x8, but if I did, I think I would take one of the more interesting (if that's possible) HO layout designs and simply lay N scale track on the same footprint just to prove my theory that N scale offers the model railroader a better opportunity to model a railroad!
I'll look forward to seeing what you do with the office layout... sounds like a neat idea. Just be careful with those cats, when they take over, next thing you know they're abandoning miles of track and laying everyone off!
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
SpaceMouse wrote: Lee,What Jeff said. I spend a lot of time in the Layout section and I sometimes feel that the most oft repeated phrase is "I only have room for a 4 x 8." These people have fixated on the idea and they've fixated on their HO scale. N scalers also have a fixation on the 30" door (now if you just build it in Z scale...). As I mentioned in the thread, think of it as a Haiku. The form is set. What can you do with it? That was the challenge. I'm sorry if you thought the rules excluded N-scalers. In my world there are lots of practical uses of those itty-bitty cute little trains. (My future office will have an N-scale layout. I've been planning it for months. It will go around the room in a book case. Give the cats something to chase.) Italics were a joke.
So you think!
wm3798 wrote: just to prove my theory that N scale offers the model railroader a better opportunity to model a railroad!
just to prove my theory that N scale offers the model railroader a better opportunity to model a railroad!
That's no theory.
That's a FACT!
The contest was purposely constrained, to get very specific suggestions, for a very specific problem. Unless you can run HO trains on an N layout it isn't a creative solution to that particular problem!
My over all feeling about the contest was and still is a good feeling.....for the first run.
My suggestions for any future contests of this nature would be to assign each layout entry a letter or number designation (layout A or layout #1) to eliminate confusion from incorrect spelling or failure of the voter to be clear on which layout was voted for (Loup Creek vs. Loopy Bridge).
Change the points awarded to one point per vote.
Perhaps run dual or triple contests at the same time to accomadate other scale entrys. Allow anyone to enter one or all of the contests. Have these all be 4X8 max size.
As stated before encourage discussion on what was the determining factor for the vote.
Even if the 4x8 footprint has been researched for the last 30, 40, or 50 years there are many of us (myself included) that have not seen many of them so while it may be old news to some it is new news to those of us that are just starting out.
Ken
SpaceMouse wrote:N-scale solution
Got some sauce for that spaghetti?
How fast do the trains have to be going to make it up that vertical bit of track at the back?
Another idea for a future contest - the best layout made in 32 sq ft. That way it can be made by chopping up a 4 x 8, and somewhat limits the size.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A GOOD 4'x8' LAYOUT - except it takes up a whole room.
The PROBLEMS occur running HO on it.
It IS better than running around a XMAS tree - and if one has NO layout at all, one can't play 'trains'.
Perhaps to appease us N-Scalers, we can do the same thing that Chip did with the HO contest. I tried working on a few HO scale designs, but was not happy with what I came up with.
Frankly, if people don't like this 4x8 stuff, they should just stay out of the threads and stop the complaining. Why try to ruin something for someone else?
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: But the real problem with the 4x8 is that it is too small. It's better suited to TT than HO. An HO table top really needs to be larger. A good size can be made from 2 sheets of plywood each cut at 5'4". The 4 pieces can be arranged in 5'4" by 12' layout (or 5'4" x 10'8" - using the two large pieces, 1 small piece, and a part of 1 small piece). Either size would allow for a decent size yard, a mainline, etc. You could also put the yard, branch line, etc. outside the mainline loop for a much more interesting layout.But for all that, I started with a 4x8 (John Armstrong design from Track Planning for Realistic Operation, 1st edition - not in 3rd edition). I had a lot of fun with it and would build it again if that was all the space I had.EnjoyPaul The whole string of events that led to the contest was that there is a recognition that 4x8 is not optimum, but that a lot of people are going to use it anyway. The idea was see what creative ways there were to get the best out of the less than ideal situation.
IRONROOSTER wrote: But the real problem with the 4x8 is that it is too small. It's better suited to TT than HO. An HO table top really needs to be larger. A good size can be made from 2 sheets of plywood each cut at 5'4". The 4 pieces can be arranged in 5'4" by 12' layout (or 5'4" x 10'8" - using the two large pieces, 1 small piece, and a part of 1 small piece). Either size would allow for a decent size yard, a mainline, etc. You could also put the yard, branch line, etc. outside the mainline loop for a much more interesting layout.But for all that, I started with a 4x8 (John Armstrong design from Track Planning for Realistic Operation, 1st edition - not in 3rd edition). I had a lot of fun with it and would build it again if that was all the space I had.EnjoyPaul
But the real problem with the 4x8 is that it is too small. It's better suited to TT than HO. An HO table top really needs to be larger. A good size can be made from 2 sheets of plywood each cut at 5'4". The 4 pieces can be arranged in 5'4" by 12' layout (or 5'4" x 10'8" - using the two large pieces, 1 small piece, and a part of 1 small piece). Either size would allow for a decent size yard, a mainline, etc. You could also put the yard, branch line, etc. outside the mainline loop for a much more interesting layout.
But for all that, I started with a 4x8 (John Armstrong design from Track Planning for Realistic Operation, 1st edition - not in 3rd edition). I had a lot of fun with it and would build it again if that was all the space I had.
Enjoy
Paul
The whole string of events that led to the contest was that there is a recognition that 4x8 is not optimum, but that a lot of people are going to use it anyway. The idea was see what creative ways there were to get the best out of the less than ideal situation.
Actually the criticism on this forum also includes the idea that a tabletop layout is not a good idea. I disagree with this point. The tabletop is a fine type of layout it's just that the execution in HO on a 4x8 does not really show the advantages of the table top.
The original poster of this thread asked "The 4 x 8 design contest took a month and yielded some good designs. However, I'm currious what you thought was good and bad about the exercise." A reasonable reading of that request suggests that responses need not be limited to the 4x8 designs but should also include thoughts on the contest itself. I am responding in that spirit. As my complete post made clear, I think we're tromping through well trod ground here and a more interesting exercise would continue the theme of the tabletop with less restrictions for the 4x8 or lift the size restriction or both.
... As far as the number of posts on 4x8s, l'd have to say that based on how many people's first post is 'I only have room for a 4x8, what should I do?' it is a topic that should be discussed. And this page of designs is another source of idea, many of which took good steps outside of the oval with a passing siding.
1. A 4'x8' is SIMPLE. That's it's claim to fame. Not SKILL. A 'BEGINNERS' design, MR runs 'HOW TO' articles several times a year for those wanting to get started.
ATLAS Tool & Die has specialized in low-cost entry level products to pay the way for importing 'quallity' engines to sell.
2. A '4X8' takes up most rooms because it requires 'room' - say 2X - to operate . So does a Dining table. One cannot eat at a 10X12 dining table in a 10X12 room, (nor a 4X8 dining table in a 4X8 room).
WIVES don't seem amenable to putting a train layout in a dining room, so most of us are relegated to an out-of-sight basement, wheras a Sewing Machine would quickly acquire a 'Sewing Room' - one of life's continuous mysteries.
The OTHER one, of course, is the 'modeler' using a 4X8 piece of plywood (approx. 8'X16' of floor space) to "SAVE ROOM".
concretelackey wrote: ...Change the points awarded to one point per vote... Ken
...Change the points awarded to one point per vote...
How would you differentiate between first and second place if each got a point per vote? If all voters place exhibit A first and exhibit B second, what purpose would their identical numbers of points serve? Chip was correct to assign a weight to their respective positions so that the actual numbers of times an exhibit places over any other provides that exhibit with a discrete score that actually establishes its overall position in the rank ordering.
SpaceMouse wrote:Lee,What Jeff said. I spend a lot of time in the Layout section and I sometimes feel that the most oft repeated phrase is "I only have room for a 4 x 8." These people have fixated on the idea and they've fixated on their HO scale. N scalers also have a fixation on the 30" door (now if you just build it in Z scale...). As I mentioned in the thread, think of it as a Haiku. The form is set. What can you do with it? That was the challenge. I'm sorry if you thought the rules excluded N-scalers. In my world there are lots of practical uses of those itty-bitty cute little trains. (My future office will have an N-scale layout. I've been planning it for months. It will go around the room in a book case. Give the cats something to chase.) Italics were a joke.
Don Gibson wrote: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A GOOD 4'x8' LAYOUT - except it takes up a whole room.The PROBLEMS occur running HO on it.It IS better than running around a XMAS tree - and if one has NO layout at all, one can't play 'trains'.
DG:
I don't see a whole lot of problems running HO. As long as the owner doesn't mind using equipment that works on 18" or 20" radius curves, there's a decent amount of room on a 4 x 8. I'm pretty happy with it, anyway.
As for the room-space thing, well, here is what I've got (not to scale):
http://s19.photobucket.com/albums/b191/autobus_prime/rr/ve_situ.gif
I like the workbench where it is. I don't want *anything* by the electrical box. For one thing, the NEC doesn't allow anything that sticks out past the box, but I also want room to work in the box. Similarly, I really don't have enough wall-space for my shelves & pegboards as it is, so I'm sure not going to take that up with railroad. The railroad sits very nicely in a space formerly occupied by boxes of stored stuff, which is much happier in plastic tubs under the railroad.
I could probably finagle a narrow shelf into my workshop, and I might do this eventually to extend the V & E, but I also like having a little depth to the table, to give me room for scenery. I could also have put in an O, with the square pillar in the middle, but when I replace that old Johnson forced-air furnace with something more efficient, I'm going to have to relocate it, and t'other side of the pillar happens to be almost ideal.
I think a lot of us have similar situations, especially if we live in old houses, but that of course varies. If I was building this in my semi-finished attic, a shelf layout on top of wall-mounted bookcases would be ideal; no workbenches or utility stuff, few windows, and wall space is not good for standing, because of the roof slope.
space mouse,
i looked at your layout and it looks wounderful is mel brooks a resedent in rock ridge? if so where did you place the toll booth in the desert?
As promised here are a couple obersvations I had on the contest entries and the contest itself. I think my observations would be a lot more valid had we gotten about 4x the number of votes.
First was the similarity of some of the layouts. If one drew a schematic of the layouts The De Bois & RAT were almost technically the same (RAT having a reversing loop, De Bois having a larger yard), as are the Turkey Trail and Ward (single level with crossings vs grade), and to a lesser degree the three Loopy, Sierra, and Becket (difffering mostly in the amount of track). Yet in the voting many people would choose one of these high on their favorite and not the other one at all, or as last choice. Then yet again look how close the Turkey Train and Ward ended up to each other in total votes. Essentially a tie. ? ? ?
In all the zillions of comments that get made on the forums about layouts, most of the time people talk about overcrowding, solid track, and spagetti bowls, Yet in the voting the three most densely track populated layouts end up being the clear winners. ? ? ?
On the other hand (for the most part) layouts that followed all the trendy themes of the day such as passing through scene only once, essential staging, LDEs, focus on a single thing in a scene, etc. Didn't do nearly as well!
I think C&O Fans two entries would have done better with a better scenery plan. I know the helix was sort of abandon for the other but there is a comment to itself. The Helix idea deserves a lot closer look. One can fit a lot of in-line staging in a helix on a 4x8.
I am puzzled why the Sierra didn't do better. I didn't vote for it because I hate the passing siding through a 180 degree corner configuration, but I thought that was a thing unique to me.
I am still pretty certain that the Loup River was done with an O-scale track library and would look and present much better if done with an HO library. I looked through every library I had and could not find the pieces mentioned in it.
Whisper River was probably the most interesting, but being primarly HOn3 it was really in a class by itself. I thought it very similar at least in concept to 101 layouts track #35.
Some conclusions - People love parallel tracks making up a yard - any yard - even if there is no logical need for them. Layouts always be way over-yarded. People love the continous running of trains. A layout with a loop will beat those without them everytime. I guess the bottom line is Toy Trains rule.
click the image to enlarge
TZ,
I thought I'd make a comment about your assessment which I feel is astute. However, I feel a sense of loss about what you feel is the "trend" in layouts. The 4 x 8 is very restrictive which is why it is a poor choices for a layout unless all other alternatives have been exhausted.
I will only speak about my layout because I designed it for the way I see operations. Typically, I try to balance the yard with the industries, but if that were the only criteria, Loopy would have been the clear winner. I also try to balance the yard and industries with staging, which in the case of a 4 x8 is, well, difficult.
To compensate, I made the yard bigger, to act as staging. By doing so, at least in my head, I was able to create a larger operating capacity. Trains that were coming from the east or west were already in the yard ready to run a lap or two to be broken down for local switching, etc.
What suffered was the density of track and the weightiness of the yard. as compared to some of the other layouts. I had hoped that the full vegetation around the yard would tone it down a bit.
To make it work I needed a yard lead that crossed through the industrial area, but with the divider, you wouldn't see that really happening from one side or the other.
You are correct in pointing out that in doing so, the yard lead ran through the town scene creating a multiple track through a single scene. I had hoped that the tower would make it look like two lines passing through an area, much like the PRR and B&O did in my town with no interchange.
Anyway, this response is something I wanted to say after hearing a lot of comments and you opened the door. It's not so much of as a justification as an explanation for my choices. Given the limitations of the 4 x 8, there are always going to be compromises. I like having a lot of things to do, so I made my choices in that direction.
As for the loop and toy trains reference, as much as I like things to do, Sometimes I like to windem' up, crack a beer and lettem go. So if I can help it any layout I make will have continuous running of some sort. Ironically, I don't have that on my current layout. It's all about things to do. And I surely miss it.
I thought the idea of having a contest was pretty neat. No, I didn't vote - I didn't put in the time required to review each layout in detail to understand the operating possibilities and limitations. I did enjoy the discussions which took place regarding some of the preliminary entries. I did take the time to review the 3 winners. I think people will have different choices based on their individual focuses. My focus is on operations, and my favorite of the three is Loopy Bridge. Too bad it's not completely original, but cudos to the author for stating that in the description.
Personally, I'd like to think I'm beyond the 4x8, but I am in the early process of designing a temporary 4x8 Christmas layout to showcase my fathers post-war lionel trains. As a non-permanent project I think the simplicity of a 4x8 is completely appropriate.
I think there is great benefit of designing a layout as a consensus of a group of people. Maybe the next contest should have the option of being a team-oriented event. Also, maybe rather than a 4x8, the layout could be one of the classic layout shapes found in "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong. I think any scale could be used, but the physical dimensions of the layout should be adjusted accordingly. The book uses "squares" which have different sizes based on the guage.
I have other things flying here than to try to design something out quickly or vote around, Some great venerable designs submitted but no one exact version I consider better than the next.
The design I woulda tried woulda made a little more spaghetti design to jam in all the run time you can with multi levels. I recall one layout I think was in Westcotts book of 101 plans I always liked if I ever built it, but I have different ideas now.
Getting the good idea takes time.
jim22 wrote: I think people will have different choices based on their individual focuses. My focus is on operations, and my favorite of the three is Loopy Bridge. Too bad it's not completely original, but cudos to the author for stating that in the description.
I think people will have different choices based on their individual focuses. My focus is on operations, and my favorite of the three is Loopy Bridge. Too bad it's not completely original, but cudos to the author for stating that in the description.
Thank you. It was quite deliberately designed to maximize operations, at the expense of scenery - I didn't even sketch in a scenery plan.
Main (non-cosmetic) changes relative to original track plan was that I added a small engine service/fueling facility with two tracks on the upper half of the board, and that I added the "mill spur" with the two industries (one on a switchback) on the bottom half of the layout.
Both made the layout more crowded - which some people (like me) like and some people hate. And both were added to enhance operational possibilities from the original design - engine servicing on the yard/interchange half of the layout, and train meets/local freight clearing the main for a superior train on the industrial scene half of the layout.
Here is a link to a simulated ops session, which I forwarded to SpaceMouse for inclusion on the layout presentation page, but too late - it was after the competition had started, so it wasn't added into the presentation:
http://home.online.no/~steinjr/trains/modelling/forum/ops/loopy/session.html
The original plan by Linda Sand also had another neat feature - which I hadn's seen anyone deliberately design into 4x8 beginners module before Linda came up with it.
I retained this idea of Linda's in my plan - the main layout of the plan was quite deliberately made such that the 4x8 fairly easily could be converted into a 16x2 or two 2x8s put together in an L, just by cutting the 4x8 in two along the backdrop, and changing the 180 degree curve joining the two halves in 4x8 configuration into a large, gentle S-curve joining the two 2x8 sections.
Something like this:
I think this idea of Linda Sands is a very neat concept, which I felt deserved wider circulation when discussing 4x8 layouts. Start with a 4x8 where you can do ops. When you get tired of the 4x8 (if ever), cut it into a more realistic shape with a minimum amount of waste.
People might eventually want to redesign these sections (or throw them away after having salvaged what can be reused), but in the meantime, one could have a good time with a 4x8, learn quite a bit about ops for one or two people.
Oh well, glad you liked Loopy Bridge and Terminal. I won't be building it myself - I can't spare all the space a two scene 4x8 really demands (a minimum 8x10 footprint - 2' aisles on three sides - the main problem with the 4x8 format).
I plan to use what space I have available for a shelf layout and/or an around the wall donut shaped layout (with the operator in the middle, using a lift-up or a swinging gate to enter the operators pit).
A good beginners donut shaped design is the Heart of Georgia (HOG) railroad: http://www.layoutdesignservice.com/lds/samples/betterbeginnerlayout.htm
.Grin, Stein
Hej Stein,
Your modifications were significant improvements to the original design. The resulting plan was clearly my favorite.
Mark
Texas Zepher wrote: I think C&O Fans two entries would have done better with a better scenery plan. I know the helix was sort of abandon for the other but there is a comment to itself. The Helix idea deserves a lot closer look. One can fit a lot of in-line staging in a helix on a 4x8. I am still pretty certain that the Loup River was done with an O-scale track library and would look and present much better if done with an HO library. I looked through every library I had and could not find the pieces mentioned in it. Some conclusions - People love parallel tracks making up a yard - any yard - even if there is no logical need for them. Layouts always be way over-yarded. People love the continous running of trains. A layout with a loop will beat those without them everytime. I guess the bottom line is Toy Trains rule.
You are correct both designs were done in the wrong scale using the wrong Library
They were done in haste during the same week i was getting ready for my open house
I gave up on the Helix because no beginner would ever attempt it
What i have noticed is that beginners love loooooooooooong trains Which was one of the benifits of Loup Creek
You could run 2 10 foot long trains in opposite directions and have them disapear
around the sky board
Boring ? yes to me and you but most all the people involved with this are not beginners
I liked most all the other layout designs but i don't think a beginner would try to build the more complex ones
TerryinTexas
See my Web Site Here
http://conewriversubdivision.yolasite.com/
SpaceMouse wrote: I will only speak about my layout ...
Given the limitations of the 4 x 8, there are always going to be compromises.
CnO Fan wrote:What i have noticed is that beginners love loooooooooooong trains Which was one of the benifits of Loup Creek
Even at the club (designed for 6-10 40' car trains) on open house nights people will bring down 100 50' car coal unit trains, or 21 car "City Of" type passenger trains and try to run them. Makes a huge traffic jam and opposing traffic just down right impossible.