I think the reason most beginners start with the 4 x 8 is that the pcik up a book whose first sentence reads something like this:
"Whether you only build a simple 4 x 8 or a basement emipre, you can enjoy model railroading."
I don't know how many times I've seen a variation of this sentence to start an article or book.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Scarpia wrote: Don Gibson wrote: 4x8's are simple - which is their primary virtue, but "space" and "cost" are generally the claims. There are exceptions to every generality, of course, but 4x8's waste space where P/P's and Switching layout's don't, and many 'low cost' 4X8's sport $400 ENGINES.Everyone HAS SOME limitation. It's HOW we use it. I memember a senior citizen living with his daughter in So. Cal. with NO space. He had a 3' test track and a Mother Hubbard engine running back and forth.With all due respect, who cares if someone wants to run $400 locos on a layout of any size. I was unaware that there was a dollar maximum for motive power to be used on a minimum sized layout. An argument like that, not that it's what you're suggesting, could take the wind right out of the sails for folks who like collecting models. And even if they are, well, at least it's running, and it's how that modeler chooses to use it.Could be worse in some ways. You could have a 400ft main line, and not have any money left to buy engines or rolling stock. Besides who knows, maybe in your example with the 3' test track, that gentlemen actually had a fancy pants brass import for the camelback. Shoot me for being a newbie, but I still don't understand the argument/complaint.Cheers!
Don Gibson wrote: 4x8's are simple - which is their primary virtue, but "space" and "cost" are generally the claims. There are exceptions to every generality, of course, but 4x8's waste space where P/P's and Switching layout's don't, and many 'low cost' 4X8's sport $400 ENGINES.Everyone HAS SOME limitation. It's HOW we use it. I memember a senior citizen living with his daughter in So. Cal. with NO space. He had a 3' test track and a Mother Hubbard engine running back and forth.
4x8's are simple - which is their primary virtue, but "space" and "cost" are generally the claims. There are exceptions to every generality, of course, but 4x8's waste space where P/P's and Switching layout's don't, and many 'low cost' 4X8's sport $400 ENGINES.
Everyone HAS SOME limitation. It's HOW we use it. I memember a senior citizen living with his daughter in So. Cal. with NO space. He had a 3' test track and a Mother Hubbard engine running back and forth.
With all due respect, who cares if someone wants to run $400 locos on a layout of any size. I was unaware that there was a dollar maximum for motive power to be used on a minimum sized layout. An argument like that, not that it's what you're suggesting, could take the wind right out of the sails for folks who like collecting models. And even if they are, well, at least it's running, and it's how that modeler chooses to use it.
Could be worse in some ways. You could have a 400ft main line, and not have any money left to buy engines or rolling stock.
Besides who knows, maybe in your example with the 3' test track, that gentlemen actually had a fancy pants brass import for the camelback.
Shoot me for being a newbie, but I still don't understand the argument/complaint.
Cheers!
Look at it another way. A 400 dollar choo choo pulling a 14 car heavyweight train each with 45 dollar cars from Walthers or whatever... or even 60 dollar cars from Rapido...
Call it a thousand dollar train on a 100 dollar wooden table. Can such a train even FIT on that loop?
I dont see things that way. My wife sees a 1600 dollar Brass engine = Divorce.
Back to topic, I prefer the Heart of Georgia layout on a webpage (Have to go back and find it) which renders the 4x8 obselete. My own road is not much bigger than a 4x8 (It's about 12 x 8) with a operator pit in the middle that is only 3 to 4 foot across and 6 foot long. More than sufficient for one person.
dmitzel wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: If more space is available, a bigger table top allowing a larger radius can be built. A 10x16 space would allow a 2 sheets of plywood layout 5'4" x 12' layout to be built with a 2'8" operating aisle and a 2' maintenance aisle along the ends and the back - no wheels required, although you can use wheels to fit it into a smaller space. A 9x12 room could allow a 6x10 layout on wheels with up to a 34' radius curve on the outside.Paul Could you explain the 4x8 cutting necessary to produce both the 5'4"x12' and 6x10 table-top options? I'm considering an island layout in my 12.5x20 foot space for several reasons.Thanks.
IRONROOSTER wrote: If more space is available, a bigger table top allowing a larger radius can be built. A 10x16 space would allow a 2 sheets of plywood layout 5'4" x 12' layout to be built with a 2'8" operating aisle and a 2' maintenance aisle along the ends and the back - no wheels required, although you can use wheels to fit it into a smaller space. A 9x12 room could allow a 6x10 layout on wheels with up to a 34' radius curve on the outside.Paul
If more space is available, a bigger table top allowing a larger radius can be built. A 10x16 space would allow a 2 sheets of plywood layout 5'4" x 12' layout to be built with a 2'8" operating aisle and a 2' maintenance aisle along the ends and the back - no wheels required, although you can use wheels to fit it into a smaller space. A 9x12 room could allow a 6x10 layout on wheels with up to a 34' radius curve on the outside.Paul
Could you explain the 4x8 cutting necessary to produce both the 5'4"x12' and 6x10 table-top options? I'm considering an island layout in my 12.5x20 foot space for several reasons.
Thanks.
For the 5'4" x 12' table top cut each sheet of plywood at the 5'4" mark along the 8 ft length. This will give you 2 pieces that are 5'4" x 4'. You will also have 2 pieces that are 2'8" x 4', these can be butted together to form a 5'4" x 4'. Arranging the 3 5'4" x 4' side by side will give you a 5'4" x 12' surface. You will have to plan your grid support system for the joins.
For the 6x10 cut each piece at the 6' mark along the 8' side giving you 2 6' x 4' pieces and 2 2' x 4' pieces. Arrange the 6'x4' pieces in an L shape. Cut 1 of the 2' x 4' pieces in half into 2 2'x2' pieces and use 1 of these with the other 2'x4' piece to fill in the 2'x6' open part of the L. 1 2'x2' piece will be left over. Again, plan your grid system to support these pieces.
Enjoy
Paul
Last Chance wrote:Look at it another way. A 400 dollar choo choo pulling a 14 car heavyweight train each with 45 dollar cars from Walthers or whatever... or even 60 dollar cars from Rapido...Call it a thousand dollar train on a 100 dollar wooden table. Can such a train even FIT on that loop?I dont see things that way. My wife sees a 1600 dollar Brass engine = Divorce.Back to topic, I prefer the Heart of Georgia layout on a webpage (Have to go back and find it) which renders the 4x8 obselete. My own road is not much bigger than a 4x8 (It's about 12 x 8) with a operator pit in the middle that is only 3 to 4 foot across and 6 foot long. More than sufficient for one person.
Thanks for you note. I understand your points, and I'm happy to hear that pleased with your layout. Was it your first attempt?
@Midnight - I'm sorry that my example wasn't clear. I didn't mean Mercedes to represent "rich"" but to represent "better". Hope that makes more sense.
Thanks to all for an interesting conversation. I'm all for suggesting better solutions, that's what forums like this do so well (and I've gotten some great ideas off of here, so a public thanks to everyone for that.
But I still don't understand the extreme passion that this subject arises. It's almost as if the 4x8' layout mob drove by peoples homes, and ran over their pets. I mean really.
Between this and the Bachmann rants, it's almost enough to scare off new folks to the hobby, which I cannot imagine is the goal.
Just for the record, I have a 4x8, and a bunch of Bachmann locos, and I'm enjoying both very much. (I have the 93 s-10 too). I will be upgrading the layout as soon as the room is finished, and as I'm building the room, it's when I get around to doing it.
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
Scarpia wrote:I'm kind of new to the hobby, but I really don't understand the issue.What does it matter what size the modeler uses, as long as he's modeling, and more importantly, happy with his hobby?
I'm kind of new to the hobby, but I really don't understand the issue.
What does it matter what size the modeler uses, as long as he's modeling, and more importantly, happy with his hobby?
Yes! Yes! Yes! Scarpia, you have the right idea! The point about 4'x8' dominating a room may be valid. But the post seems to have been prompted by the radius of the curve being used. "Minimum radius" snobbery is one of my pet peeves in this hobby. I get so tired of reading posts that imply if you don't have space for curves of a certain radius you should just get an acquarium instead.
4'x8' is an old tradition in model railroading. Mostly because that's the size plywood boards come in. Today most serious "prototypical" modelers build around-the-room layouts, often with peninsulas. Much of this was due to the influence of the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, by the late John Armstrong. Many of our experienced modelers do magnificent work in around-the-room layouts, and more power to them.
On this board HO modelers seem to be predominant. But for people with smaller space, or even for people who would like to get more out of their 4'x8' I recommend that they look into smaller scales. Look what Dave Vollmer has done on a door:
http://www.thevollmerfamily.com/Pennsy/index.html
As a voice crying in the wilderness, I still stand up for the rights of modelers to use tight turns and 4% grades to get the most out of their available space.
Here's a couple of my heretical articles to this end:
http://modeltrains.about.com/od/layoutconstruction/tp/track_curves.htm
http://modeltrains.about.com/od/layoutconstruction/tp/track_grades.htm
Pass them on to other newcomers to the hobby, before the experienced modelers convince them to get an acquarium.
With a little imagination, those problems can be alleviated. but I know it's a lot easier to just shoot down ideas that challenge the status quo, so this doesn't surprise me.
Before you accuse me of shooting down an idea, what idea am I shooting down? What I did was discuss the idea that was stated in the original post that 4x8 requires a much larger space due to access on all sides. I said, if you need that much space, what the heck, you might as well have an around the wall layout and get more layout in that supposed space. Whats not to like about that? ;)
Ultimately, you guys are right--people like me ought to just let others handcuff themselves, if they so choose, and do our own thing.
Anyone "hand cuffed" by an idea is weak minded if they allow themself to be limited by what someone else says. However, discussions like this are often meant to free people from pre-conceived notions and help them see other options which they may like better if they didn't just follow the 4x8 straight jacket that is put forth in so much literature. ;)
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Don Gibson wrote:quote "Do to space limitations, I have 18" HO curves, and have to use Atlas snap switches".No you don't. It's just an excuse ! A 4'X8' layout takes up a whole room, because you have to walk around it. With only 3' of 'aisle', it occupies 10'x16 of floor space, and room enough for only two people to sqeeze by each other. Spare bedrooms are 10X10 or 10X12.You're a sole operator and no onlookers? OK, a doorway is 2.5' so your layout occupies 9'x13' and addicted to a 4x8 plywood board you cannot reach across.WHY? A 3/4" plywood board can be found at any lumber store, and can be supprted by saw-horses or 4 legs, in its simplest form, and beats an oval around a Xmas tree. In most midwest homes it is relegated to the basement - along with other unwanted storage items. A man's home is his Castle, right? (mostly in the basement). Tear down? Forget it! Now one can 'play' year around - except when the lawn needs mowing.Penalties of a 4X8: All trackage has to fit the board. All curves have to 22"r or less. Equipment puchases have limitations + modern RR equipment you see and want doesn't fit. My first layout had 18" radius curves, but the rolling stock available was mostly 40' - 50' cars. Subseqently, I went to 36", then 46"-48". Now I use the room corners and can go 34" to 46" easily.
quote "Do to space limitations, I have 18" HO curves, and have to use Atlas snap switches".
No you don't. It's just an excuse !
A 4'X8' layout takes up a whole room, because you have to walk around it. With only 3' of 'aisle', it occupies 10'x16 of floor space, and room enough for only two people to sqeeze by each other. Spare bedrooms are 10X10 or 10X12.
You're a sole operator and no onlookers? OK, a doorway is 2.5' so your layout occupies 9'x13' and addicted to a 4x8 plywood board you cannot reach across.
WHY? A 3/4" plywood board can be found at any lumber store, and can be supprted by saw-horses or 4 legs, in its simplest form, and beats an oval around a Xmas tree.
In most midwest homes it is relegated to the basement - along with other unwanted storage items. A man's home is his Castle, right? (mostly in the basement).
Tear down? Forget it! Now one can 'play' year around - except when the lawn needs mowing.
Penalties of a 4X8: All trackage has to fit the board. All curves have to 22"r or less. Equipment puchases have limitations + modern RR equipment you see and want doesn't fit.
My first layout had 18" radius curves, but the rolling stock available was mostly 40' - 50' cars. Subseqently, I went to 36", then 46"-48". Now I use the room corners and can go 34" to 46" easily.
now for streetcar modeling, a 4x8 isnt a hassle, you can go down to 6" radius. Against a wall you cut an access hole or popup.
again for my shelf modules,
small, easy portable if you have to move and doesnt destroy a layout. (even if you set it up as a 4x8 8-P)
Modeling the N&W freelanced at the height of their steam era in HO.
Daniel G.
Midnight Railroader wrote: corsair7 wrote: So if the 4 x 8 gives you what you want out of your hobby, do it and don't listent othose who say you can't have fun unless you have several thousand square feet to run a consist of Big Boys hauling 1,000 cars from one end of the block to the other. I exagerate if course but one only has to please him or herself here because anything else is turning a hobby into a job. And once you do that, you are going get tired of the hobby rather quickly. Your exaggeration misses the mark by a wide margin. It is possible to cut a standard 4x8 sheet of plywood into a much more interesting and useful shape for a model railroad than the rectangle you buy at the store..
corsair7 wrote: So if the 4 x 8 gives you what you want out of your hobby, do it and don't listent othose who say you can't have fun unless you have several thousand square feet to run a consist of Big Boys hauling 1,000 cars from one end of the block to the other. I exagerate if course but one only has to please him or herself here because anything else is turning a hobby into a job. And once you do that, you are going get tired of the hobby rather quickly.
It is possible to cut a standard 4x8 sheet of plywood into a much more interesting and useful shape for a model railroad than the rectangle you buy at the store..
Yes it is possible but I think most of the guys who start with a 4 x 8 aren't interested in sawing the 4 x 8 apart or in doing anything other than putting that train set they bought into operation as soon as possible. And that's why many of the beginner's books start with words to the effect of get a 4 x sheet of plywood.
Remember that most of these guys probably don't have much experience with cutting wood or even in buying any track other than what ca,e with the train set. I know I started out tat way and many others here did the same. It's only once you decide to buy more track and cars and read some more that one realizes that the 4 x 8 can be used to build something better.
Irv
Consider those of us, such as myself, who have a set amount of space (i.e. try arguing about more space with a 6'4" man who grew up working a tobacco field)I think the 4x8 is a great size for a layout if you are a beginner. I also think it is good for an experienced modeler as well, if he applies himself and makes his RR look good.
4x8 has become a set size for beginners because it is found in so many plan books and How-to articles. BTW I have 5'x12' now
Don Gibson wrote: quote "Do to space limitations, I have 18" HO curves, and have to use Atlas snap switches".No you don't. It's just an excuse ! A 4'X8' layout takes up a whole room, because you have to walk around it. With only 3' of 'aisle', it occupies 10'x16 of floor space, and room enough for only two people to sqeeze by each other. Spare bedrooms are 10X10 or 10X12.You're a sole operator and no onlookers? OK, a doorway is 2.5' so your layout occupies 9'x13' and addicted to a 4x8 plywood board you cannot reach across.WHY? A 3/4" plywood board can be found at any lumber store, and can be supprted by saw-horses or 4 legs, in its simplest form, and beats an oval around a Xmas tree. In most midwest homes it is relegated to the basement - along with other unwanted storage items. A man's home is his Castle, right? (mostly in the basement). Tear down? Forget it! Now one can 'play' year around - except when the lawn needs mowing.Penalties of a 4X8: All trackage has to fit the board. All curves have to 22"r or less. Equipment puchases have limitations + modern RR equipment you see and want doesn't fit. My first layout had 18" radius curves, but the rolling stock available was mostly 40' - 50' cars. Subseqently, I went to 36", then 46"-48". Now I use the room corners and can go 34" to 46" easily.
Don,I would be tickled pink to have a 4x8 foot layout.
A layout similar to this one would fill my needs to a "T".
http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/gcrr2.jpg
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
For the absolute life of me, I cannot comprehend why the size/shape/minimum radius/scale... of SOMEBODY ELSE'S model railroad is such a big deal! Are we all supposed to meet some standard laid down by Zeus and handed down on ancient cunieform tablets? Is there some evil magic associated with the standard size of a modular (for North America) building product? MUST we all express our individuality by conforming?
Say WHAT???
My present layout is X by Y, because it has to fit into a Y by Y room with Z available for access to entrance and a water heater. (The actual dimensions are in another thread, if you are really curious. Happy hunting.)
Earlier layouts were 4 x 8, 3 x 6 (and an Akane USRA 2-6-6-2 could take the 15" radius curves!) 5 x 12, 1.3 x 8 with a cassette dock on one end, shelf along 2 walls of a spare bedroom 18" wide, and (in 1:192 scale) 24" x 48" on an old cabinet door. In each case, that was what my time/money/available space would allow. With the exception of that very first published trackplan on a 4 x 8, the size was what my time/ability/MONEY allowed. The dimensions, and what I did within them, were MY decision, formulated with no consideration whatsoever for the opinions of others. The same can be said for my present endeavors.
I don't care what size you build, what reasons you come up with for your decisions or any other aspect of YOUR modeling that is, in final analysis, NONE OF MY BUSINESS. If your results are attractive or noteworthy, I'll compliment you. If I don't agree with your way of doing things, you'll never know.
I most emphatically will NOT criticize your choices. I could wish that others would be equally forebearing.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
Oh Chuck!
So those "4x8" discussions have got you b****** *** ****s! I wondered who would "break" first (you, me, Tom, and whosoever). We'd best ignore those 4x8 piques. We'll live a lot longer.
Mark
tomikawaTT wrote: I most emphatically will NOT criticize your choices. I could wish that others would be equally forebearing.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)
It is the same situation. People who don't know any better--because they've not been shown other good or workable possibilities--make choices that aren't the best, be they benchwork or models.
Midnight Railroader wrote:People who don't know any better--because they've not been shown other good or workable possibilities--make choices that aren't the best, be they benchwork or models.
Midnight Railroader wrote: tomikawaTT wrote: I most emphatically will NOT criticize your choices. I could wish that others would be equally forebearing.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - my way)Your rant, then, extends to people who buy Tyco plastic and want to know why they have problems?It is the same situation. People who don't know any better--because they've not been shown other good or workable possibilities--make choices that aren't the best, be they benchwork or models.
MR,
There is an old saying:
Never criticize another person until you have walked a mile in his shoes.
That way, when he triies to punch you out, you'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes!
tomikawaTT wrote: For the absolute life of me, I cannot comprehend why the size/shape/minimum radius/scale... of SOMEBODY ELSE'S model railroad is such a big deal! Are we all supposed to meet some standard laid down by Zeus and handed down on ancient cunieform tablets?
For the absolute life of me, I cannot comprehend why the size/shape/minimum radius/scale... of SOMEBODY ELSE'S model railroad is such a big deal! Are we all supposed to meet some standard laid down by Zeus and handed down on ancient cunieform tablets?
"HEY I HEARD THAT!...
Now quite yer whining and get back to work on that clay tablet....I mean layout...yeah, layout"
Have fun with your trains
Autobus Prime wrote:In this case, wall space is at a premium. I need it for my workbench, for the elec. panel which I will not impede access to, et cetera, and the wasted access space isn't wasted at all. It overlaps other access spaces.
This is a perfect example of why a round-the-walls approach doesnt work for everyone and why the 4x8 may be a more appropriate application for some.
I've always said, "Theres no "wrong" way to build a model railroad if your happy with what your doing" ...its only "wrong" to other people who dont agree with that approach.
IRONROOSTER wrote: dmitzel wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: If more space is available, a bigger table top allowing a larger radius can be built. A 10x16 space would allow a 2 sheets of plywood layout 5'4" x 12' layout to be built with a 2'8" operating aisle and a 2' maintenance aisle along the ends and the back - no wheels required, although you can use wheels to fit it into a smaller space. A 9x12 room could allow a 6x10 layout on wheels with up to a 34' radius curve on the outside.Paul Could you explain the 4x8 cutting necessary to produce both the 5'4"x12' and 6x10 table-top options? I'm considering an island layout in my 12.5x20 foot space for several reasons.Thanks.For the 5'4" x 12' table top cut each sheet of plywood at the 5'4" mark along the 8 ft length. This will give you 2 pieces that are 5'4" x 4'. You will also have 2 pieces that are 2'8" x 4', these can be butted together to form a 5'4" x 4'. Arranging the 3 5'4" x 4' side by side will give you a 5'4" x 12' surface. You will have to plan your grid support system for the joins.For the 6x10 cut each piece at the 6' mark along the 8' side giving you 2 6' x 4' pieces and 2 2' x 4' pieces. Arrange the 6'x4' pieces in an L shape. Cut 1 of the 2' x 4' pieces in half into 2 2'x2' pieces and use 1 of these with the other 2'x4' piece to fill in the 2'x6' open part of the L. 1 2'x2' piece will be left over. Again, plan your grid system to support these pieces.EnjoyPaul
Paul,
Thanks for sharing the cutting plans. The 5'4" x 12' looks to be a good option, however, I'm wondering if I couldn't fit something a bit larger into my space - closer to 6'x18' as the room is actually 27' long on one side (an understairwell area intrudes roughly nine sq. ft. into the front left corner, plus the adjacent entry doorway takes another 3 feet). Doubling the 6'x10' to 20' in length is closer to that idea, and would still give me three-foot asles or better on three sides and no more than a 36" reach. I would place a center backdrop down the middle - modeling the Midwest so no imposing topography - and keep the primary trackage close to the front to minimize the frequency that a long reach would be required. Another option would be to open up the middle for an operating/access pit.
I have to sketch out the cutting diagram and see how it would all fit together, in the interest of building a grid of sectional benchwork that could be disassembled in the event a future move would be required. What got me thinking about this approach was the Ann Arbor layout featured in this month's (Aug '08) RMC - N scale but something similar would scale up to close to my available space in HO. My ceiling lighting is also positioned better over the center of the room to the advantage of an island design. Regardless, the AA layout appeals to me as a fine example of a quality island layout, and without the tight curves and cramped turnouts normally associated with islands. I think a larger, HO scale plan similar in concept would be an attractive alternative to rigidly mounting shelves on the walls.
If somebody SPECIFICALLY asks for advice or guidance, I will try to provide the requested advice or guidance, if my 70 years of tiny train experience qualifies me to do so. I won't jump in with 'my way or the highway' pronouncements.
If I do chime in, I will suggest ways to change and improve what he already has, or add to/substitute for things which HE perceives as problems. I will NOT criticize choices I did not make, and I won't go off and pout if my advice is not taken.
If the object is to improve some neophyte's marksmanship, you don't start by telling him that he was a fool for purchasing that particular firearm! Likewise, you don't gain anything by telling someone that they shouldn't have purchased Brand X railroad models when that is what they have.
As a matter of fact, I've made some 'good enough' kitbashes starting with Tyco products...
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
vsmith wrote: [I've always said, "Theres no "wrong" way to build a model railroad if your happy with what your doing" ...its only "wrong" to other people who dont agree with that approach.
[I've always said, "Theres no "wrong" way to build a model railroad if your happy with what your doing" ...its only "wrong" to other people who dont agree with that approach.
vsmith,
I agree that there's no wrong way as long as you're happy with it, but there IS a wrong way to build a layout:
Follow the unsolicited advice of a self-anointed expert about what your layout SHOULD be, and ignore the reasons why YOU wanted to build a layout in the first place. In that case, it's practically guaranteed that you won't be happy with the result.
Also to Chuck, a hearty "Amen!"
I have always disagreed that a 4 x 8 takes up a whole room. No it doesn't unless of course you have a 4 x 8 foot room. As a kid I had a 3 x 6 N scale layout. My 2 best friends each had 4 x 8 HO layouts. One was added onto with another 4 x 8 sheet and the other was added onto with a 4 x 4 sheet. Both added only length to make them 4 x 12 and 4 x 16 respectively. we never walked around them. Each was placed up against a wall. My own 3 x 6 layout was in a corner of the room. These layouts were great fun and had lots of action. We never moved around the tables. We stayed in "front" of them.
We also each had other furniture in the room. This is important as a layout that involved cutting apart a 4 x 8 sheet to use the outside walls would have sacrificed all of the furniture. A 4 x 8 sheet is a good beginners layout as it is. It is the most flexible layout in terms of where you can put it. Have space in the middle of the room? It can go there. Only have a corner of a room? It can go there. Have a space against one wall but not in a corner? It can go there. Any other design as far as I'm concerned, regardless of total amount of wood used or not used, does not qualify as a 4 x 8.
A 4 x 8 is used because of limited space. It's not what limits it. Sorry but I'm going to disagree with the OP. My current layout is a shelf layout so I still only stand on one side of it. It's 8 feet long but only a foot and a half deep. Less total area than my original layout and I still love it.
Some people's logic isn't very logical and common sense isn't always common. What this means is that just because one person may disagree with any particular layout does not mean it is suddenly invalid to everyone else. Not so. A 4 x 8 is a classic layout for a very good reason. It's easy and it works.
Walleye wrote: vsmith wrote: [I've always said, "Theres no "wrong" way to build a model railroad if your happy with what your doing" ...its only "wrong" to other people who dont agree with that approach. vsmith,I agree that there's no wrong way as long as you're happy with it, but there IS a wrong way to build a layout:Follow the unsolicited advice of a self-anointed expert about what your layout SHOULD be, and ignore the reasons why YOU wanted to build a layout in the first place. In that case, it's practically guaranteed that you won't be happy with the result.Also to Chuck, a hearty "Amen!"
AH but...thats NOT what I said now is it, but I get what your saying
I said theres no wrong way to build a model railroad if your happy with what your doing.
Meaning you are happy with the end results.
Its one thing for a poster to stick something up and ask for criticism, its another when someone say "look what I did" and gets pummeled for it by someone simply because that someone disagreed with the results or to be badgered by that someone into trying to do it their way. If one doesnt follow their own best judgement and let someone else manipulate them to do what THEY want then, they are violating my principal, and hence yes, they will likely be very unhappy with the results, but thats therir own fault to begin with. I always feel a certain amount of homework, education and preplanning should be done before one embarks on any major project like building a layout so that you have a clear vision of what you want to acheive. I spent six months considering mine.
So if Joe Sixpack decides to build a 4x8 sheet-o-plywood layout dedicated to Thomas and the Island of Sodor, and uses EZtrack, LifeLike grass rolls and styrofoam mountains, but is perfectly happy with the end results, who are we to critisize him? He's got just as much right to be satisfied with the results if they please him as the any of the guys with the uber-detailed layout covering a 20x30 basement room. Someone may not like the results, but then who are they to p** in his corn flakes?
Thats my point, look at me, I model large scale indoors, where there are some folks in my scale who firmly believe that all track under 48" radius should be abolished, simply because it doesnt comply to their vision of the hobby, and what I am doing is tadamount to Heresy, do I care, not a fig! I build most of my rolling stock to no real plans, by eye mostly, and a scale is something a fish has...often only using an old picture of something I like as a guide. I actually enjoy irratating some people with my vision of model railroading, why? because I'm having a grand ole time doing what I'm doing!
Once you realize that there really are no set rules (guidlelines, recommendations, best practices,,yes, but no stone tablets) and that other peoples differing opinions really dont mean nothing, its SOOOOOOO liberating...If someone else likes my nightmare creations, I'm tickled, but if it chaffs their lips, too bad ol' son!
PS thats a NKP steam tram build on the chassis of a gas critter, but there was a precedent, made by Bell Locomotives, which gave me the initial idea for the steam tram idea in the first place.
Just roll with it, and have fun more than anything else.
A master modeler can take a 4x8 and make it look like a jewel and run like a dream. (look at Charlie Comstocks work)
A hack can take a 24'x24' shelf layout and make it look like crap and run like a gnarly, tangled mess.
I used to have an 800sq. ft. basement all to myself, but the way the previous owners sectioned it off, a 4x8 was the only practical thing to do. Didn't have the funds to do a basement remodel job just for a layout.
As hard as it is for some people to accept, I had a lot of fun with that little layout.
vsmith wrote:So if Joe Sixpack decides to build a 4x8 sheet-o-plywood layout dedicated to Thomas and the Island of Sodor, and uses EZtrack, LifeLike grass rolls and styrofoam mountains, but is perfectly happy with the end results, who are we to critisize him?
Everyone knows you can't do a realistic rendition of the Island of Sodor in less than a 5 x 9. Joe shouldn't even bother.
vsmith, are you sure that you're not Malcolm Furlow?
What I say is, "you like it, keep it. Screw those who don't like it." After all, it's in YOUR basement, and YOU have to look at it, so build it to your specifications.
But yeah, plan it out, it reduces headaches.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
I DON'T THINK I SAID anything against 4X8's. They ARE popular, simple, and comparatively inexpensive. I also built one one for my son when he was 10. I learned what not to like.
What they ARE NOT is 'space saving' for those using that dodge. Like a Dinning table, they take up far more room, if one wants to eat.
A great example, but how realistic?
I'm also amazed at all the 'Defensiveness'. There must be something to be defensive about?