user="Packers#1"] vsmith, are you sure that you're not Malcolm Furlow?
vsmith, are you sure that you're not Malcolm Furlow?
Only when I squint my eyes looking in the mirror!
I wish I had that kind of talent, if I was, my garage would be solid scenery on all 4 sides from floor to rafters...and it would have been done in six months
Have fun with your trains
Actually, I have TWO 4 x 8's and a 3.5 x 5.5 LEGO layout in ONE room. Absolutely NO WAY to manage that along with the bookcases, craft tables, workbench, pillars, stairwell, furnace, water purification, and electricity / utility panels, oil tank, etc.
Ten years ago, when I got back into the hobby, I did build a 4x8 on sawhorses, because I didn't want to muck with benchwork and carved foam, but to get something --anything -- up and running quickly for the benefit of my kids. Ten years later, the kids have their own (two if you count the LEGO one), and I have plans to build a larger one, but frankly right now I'm still having too much fun with the ole 4x8!
So, for anyone to imply (or -- heaven forbid -- say outright) that I have somehow failed as a model railroader because I still have a 4 x 8 is just downright assinine.
I think we do OWE it to newcomers to make sure they understand that a first layout does not HAVE to be limited to 4x8 just because that happens to be the most common size for sheets of plywood, especially when there are so many good 4x8 track plans out there. However, our encouragement needs to stop there, and not drift into belittlement and scorn when they DO opt for a 4x8 anyway, for whatever reason or "excuse". There is absolutely nothing wrong with one either.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
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.
Don, dude, you comment on defensiveness, after this was your first post, the one that set off the tea kettle?
I don't recall anyone dinging you for not using a 4x8 footprint because of this, but the criticism seems pretty clear from your post. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct.
As a new modeler, I still don't understand the issue or the passion this seems to evok.
I have (fully knowing that politics is a bad idea on forums, mods, feel free to edit) contacted the current administration, and Pres. Bush has agreed to invade all plywood manufactures who sell their products to potential model railroaders who do not spraypaint the following words of caution on each piece.
"Using the following in it's unalderated state, with no regard for existing space, or your family members, only for the purpose of a model railroading, regardless of scale, will not only invalidate your attempt at the hobby, but will also invite the axis of evil, $4 gas, and other words that end with "cate" (such as hobbificate) into your home, makeing us much more likely to be crushed by the terrorists."
Remove that message, as you would a mattress tag.
Cheers! not Jeers!
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
Autobus Prime wrote:Now, for an example. What I said about that continuum is all true for me, but besides that, a 4x8 has turned out to be a very good use of my basement space: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.
Now, for an example. What I said about that continuum is all true for me, but besides that, a 4x8 has turned out to be a very good use of my basement space: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.
Hmmm - the most limiting factor here is really access to the furnace in the 20" gap between the pillar and the chimney base.
Your original config, as best I can estimate from your figure (assuming that the length of the 4x8 is drawn reasonably to scale relative to room size) is something like this:
I assume that you have built your 4x8 on wheels, so the layout can be rolled left to give access to the 20" wide space between pillar and the chimney for work on the furnace - otherwise access to the furnace from this room is pretty much shot - no one is going to be able to squeeze through the roughly 12" wide space between the upper wall and the pillar.
Here is a proposal for an around the wall layout that might fit into your space:
It would take a removable section between the chimney base and the pillar for access to the furnace.
That would obviously be a little more work than rolling the 4x8 to the side. Then again - if you actually do use the space beneath the 4x8 for storage, rolling it aside for access to the furnace might be quite a bit of work anyways, having to move boxes etc that was under the 4x8 between the workbench aisle and the furnace base.
Storage under layout is a maximum of 32 squre feet by clearance to layout bottom for a 4x8 if you fill up the space totally. Which you cannot easily do - using the 4x8 footprint you cannot easily access stuff under the layout by the pillar/chimney base.
Using the proposed config, you can store stuff under the layout all the way around. You can have storage in towards the pit (your train stuff) and out towards the aisles (family stuff).
Access to the shelving/pegboard/water meter on the left could fairly easily be widended if 24" of aisle space in front of these proves to be too narrow.
I would have put a low backdrop along the "outer" edges of the layout (towards the workbench and towards the pegboard). High enough to create a backdrop for the operator inside the pit, low enough that spectators can look over it - perhaps assisted by something to stand on or a raised floor in the aisleways (if possible - depends on clearance to ceiling).
Curve radius is 22" (max for a 4x8) in the lower right hand corner, more for the other curves.
Mainline run for a straight 4x8 around is 2 x 4 feet (8 feet = 96") straight along 8 foot side between turnback curves + length a circle with radius 22", ie 96 + 2*PI*22 = 234", or about 19 feet.Mainline run around track I have scetched in is about 25 feet.
As you can observe - there should be enough room for 3-4 industy sidings along the layout, similar to your 4x8 design. With fairly long sidings relative to the 4x8 design.
There should be adequate room to build quite a bit of the scenery you say you like to build along the upper wall, right wall, and between the pit and the low backdrops on the left and lower edge of the layout.
Main difference is that you now have the space for about 3 different scenes (right side towards chimney base, lower side, upper left hand corner to the left of the pillar), that won't visually interfere with each other.
The 4x8 would take less lumber and easier carpentry to build. But some simple L-girder framing supporting hollow boxes built of 1/4" plywood or lightweight foam on top isn't exactly brain surgery either.
The political part is dependent on the spouse and family. If you make something that looks neat, and you still provide the same (or more) amount of storage space under the layout and adequate aisles, you probably could negotiate some the use of more space than a 4x8 table.
Anyways - I just got curious as to whether it would have been possible to design something different than a 4x8 for the 11' 8" x 12' 8" room you have available.
Sorry about hijacking the debate. Feel free to go back to the real debate - whether it is most annoying with people who insist that it is bad manners to comment on other people's layouts without being explicitly asked to do so, or people who feel that there often (but not always) is possible to create a layout in a room that may give you more layout than a 4x8.
Grin, Stein
Great plan, Stein. Major advantages over the 4x8 are that only a fraction of the layout is visible to the operator at any given time, longer mainline run, larger radius curves, and the improved appearance of trains on curves due to viewing from inside the curves rather than outside. For me, those advantages outweigh the ability to move a solid 4x8 layout to make room for other activities and more complicated benchwork. I wonder what the layout-room owner's reaction will be.
Mark
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.
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)
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.
marknewton wrote: 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. So what if they do? If someone's choice is to buy Tyco, or to build a 4x8 layout, why should it be any concern of anyone elses? It may well be that the choices they've made aren't the best, but it's up to them to make that judgement, not Chuck, not you, or anyone else. (We have both chosen an uncommon prototype and gauge/scale combination, do you reckon we give a toss what anyone else think about that?)Mark,siding firmly with "tomikawaTT".
And I'm joining your guys side as well. It's ridiculous to say what is best or not.
Once consideration that is left out to much is kids. When I started two years I built a 4*8 for me and the kids. Since my kids are small it needed to fit their room and not cover every wall in the process. But most importantly. When you got a two year old sun, building a weird dimension switching puzzle or something gives no satisfaction. This 4*8 was made even easier by removing all the turnouts, yes! In the end it was only a loop. But my soon could run it like 2 years old does, full speed around and around. It's gone now but I learned a lot on it as far as trackwork and scenery goes. Making it usable for kids is not a bad thing. And unless you make that loop around the room their isn't any other good way to do it within reason and the wife.
People should stop telling others what to do, if one is happy that is all we can ask for.
Magnus
Magnus,
I very much agree with you and Chuck and Mark. People should be allowed to make their own choices. Even if these choices are uninformed, as long as the layout's owner is happy, it's no one else's business.
However, this thread, like many others on this forum, shows that there is a group whose enjoyment of model railroading includes (or is maybe even limited to) telling other people how their layout "should" have been done. The OP began this thread with an unsolicited critique of an unattributed (and possibly apocryphal) quote:
"Do (sic) to space limitations, I have 18" HO curves, and have to use Atlas snap switches"
which quote, you will notice, doesn't even mention a 4'x8' - or any size - layout.
Criticizing anyone who deviates from the canonical layout is one of the principal topics on these forums. Because it is so prevalent, we can assume that people enjoy doing it. It isn't limited to Internet forums. I have heard this kind of talk at train shows and my LTS, also. I don't think that the appeals of liberal-minded (small "l") people for toleration and open-mindnedness are likely to persuade these folks to change their behavior. If we are willing to accept that anyone's approach to this hobby is OK as long as they are enjoying it, then we have to accept these self-selected critics. It's their hobby, too. And while you and I might wish otherwise, this kind of behavior is what they enjoy.
Walleye wrote: Criticizing anyone who deviates from the canonical layout is one of the principal topics on these forums.
Criticizing anyone who deviates from the canonical layout is one of the principal topics on these forums.
As is complaints about people who has offered advice or feedback in a way someone else think was rude. Sometimes I get the feeling that more forum time is spent on debating each other's manners (and/or perceived lack thereof) than on debating actual model railroading
As I see it - the very purpose of creating a web forum like this one is to allow strangers a chance to interact with each other by offering and receiving feedback on things posted.
What would be the point of posting something to a public web forum if you weren't willing to receive reasonably worded feedback from others on what you post ?
To me, quite a bit of the problem here appears to be that some people are so thin skinned that they seem to handle all these three different kinds of situations in the same way - as a personal affront :
a) receiving a personal insult
b) receiving a critique (ie an honest evaluation) of something they have done, and
c) receiving advice on how to do something in an alternative way
It would indeed be a personal insult to say to someone else "I see you chose solution A - the only possible explanation for that must be that you are a 'less gifted' individual" (or words to that effect, including "only 'less gifted' individuals would ever, under any circumstances, chose solution A").
Obviously - nobody should be required to meekly accept receiving personal insults.
But is it really all that rude to offer an evaluation of someone elses's work, to offer advice on an alternative way of doing something or to compare two ways of doing something, pointing out and comparing various strengths and weaknesses of the two solutions ?
I'd say it depends on how you offer your advice or critique. To me, there is nothing inherently rude about someone saying : "Let me suggest an alternate way of doing this, instead of the way you are doing it now. The reason for why I am suggesting this alternative is because I feel the alternative would make <this> easier or make <that> better".
If I offer feedback to someone else, I certainly try to stay polite, try to explain why I like or don't like something, and try to offer what I believe to be constructive advice on possible alternative solutions. I also try to avoid saying : "do it this way". I try to say: "how about if you had tried something like this instead?"
Personally, I feel very grateful that there are a lot of people around here that are willing to spend of their own (very much non-renewable for all humans) time to point out weaknesses in things I have done, and offered advice on how to do model railroading related things in a better or different way. As well as provided inspiration for me by showing me their work, of course.
Anyways - this is not an attempt to tell anyone "do this", merely a hopeful suggestion: how about if we all took a break from giving each other feedback about our forum manners, and instead tried to give each other some more feedback about model railroading instead ?
Btw, Walleye - I have been meaning to tell you that I very much enjoyed the joke you posted about walking a mile in someone else's shoes before criticizing him. Joke probably wasn't new to all forum readers, but it was new to me, and it tickled my funny bone!
Grin,Stein
stein,
Point well taken. The criticism has become recursive. Is there any MR-related content on this thread that needs further discussion?
Walleye wrote: stein,Point well taken. The criticism has become recursive. Is there any MR-related content on this thread that needs further discussion?
Mmmm - from my point of view, probably not.
Btw - I guess I should tip Autobus Prime (and anybody else who might be interested) that I drew up a proposal for an alternate donut shaped layout with an operator pit instead of the 4x8 he uses for his Venago and Erie layout. Should be about 6-7 posts back from this post in this thread.
It is very emphatically not meant as a "this is the only correct way to do it!" thing - more like a "here is another possible solution for your space which can be compared with the existing 4x8 solution that already exists - might give someone some ideas that potensially could be useful for a tight space some day".
Smile, Stein
Walleye wrote: Magnus,I very much agree with you and Chuck and Mark. People should be allowed to make their own choices. Even if these choices are uninformed, as long as the layout's owner is happy, it's no one else's business.
Since when is it wrong to argue the merits or disadvantages of anything in this hobby?
Even Chuck and Mark have done so when the mood strikes. Why not on this topic?
Lillen wrote:When you got a two year old sun, building a weird dimension switching puzzle or something gives no satisfaction.
This is where the discussion goes awry.
I don't understand the perception that anything other than a 4x8 table must be a "weird dimension switching puzzle." Or that it must be a "shelf layout" or an "expensive" proposition requiring advanced carpentry skills.
None of these conceptions is accurate, and it is why I continue to post on this subject.
steinjr wrote:{snip}I assume that you have built your 4x8 on wheels, so the layout can be rolled left to give access to the 20" wide space between pillar and the chimney for work on the furnace - otherwise access to the furnace from this room is pretty much shot - no one is going to be able to squeeze through the roughly 12" wide space between the upper wall and the pillar. Here is a proposal for an around the wall layout that might fit into your space: It would take a removable section between the chimney base and the pillar for access to the furnace. That would obviously be a little more work than rolling the 4x8 to the side. Then again - if you actually do use the space beneath the 4x8 for storage, rolling it aside for access to the furnace might be quite a bit of work anyways, having to move boxes etc that was under the 4x8 between the workbench aisle and the furnace base. Storage under layout is a maximum of 32 squre feet by clearance to layout bottom for a 4x8 if you fill up the space totally. Which you cannot easily do - using the 4x8 footprint you cannot easily access stuff under the layout by the pillar/chimney base. Using the proposed config, you can store stuff under the layout all the way around. You can have storage in towards the pit (your train stuff) and out towards the aisles (family stuff). You would also need a duckunder or gate or liftout section to get into the pit, but you obviously can play tricks with scenery here - have a narrow feature like a bridge or some such thing. Access to the shelving/pegboard/water meter on the left could fairly easily be widended if 24" of aisle space in front of these proves to be too narrow. I would have put a low backdrop along the "outer" edges of the layout (towards the workbench and towards the pegboard). High enough to create a backdrop for the operator inside the pit, low enough that spectators can look over it - perhaps assisted by something to stand on or a raised floor in the aisleways (if possible - depends on clearance to ceiling). Curve radius is 22" (max for a 4x8) in the lower right hand corner, more for the other curves. Mainline run for a straight 4x8 around is 2 x 4 feet (8 feet = 96") straight along 8 foot side between turnback curves + length a circle with radius 22", ie 96 + 2*PI*22 = 234", or about 19 feet.Mainline run around track I have scetched in is about 25 feet. As you can observe - there should be enough room for 3-4 industy sidings along the layout, similar to your 4x8 design. With fairly long sidings relative to the 4x8 design. There should be adequate room to build quite a bit of the scenery you say you like to build along the upper wall, right wall, and between the pit and the low backdrops on the left and lower edge of the layout. Main difference is that you now have the space for about 3 different scenes (right side towards chimney base, lower side, upper left hand corner to the left of the pillar), that won't visually interfere with each other. The 4x8 might be a good design for your space. But it is not a given that that an freestanding/on the wall donut shaped layout would necessarily be inferior to a 4x8 in this case. This basement can fit something that is not a 4x8. The 4x8 would take less lumber and easier carpentry to build. But some simple L-girder framing supporting hollow boxes built of 1/4" plywood or lightweight foam on top isn't exactly brain surgery either. The political part is dependent on the spouse and family. If you make something that looks neat, and you still provide the same (or more) amount of storage space under the layout and adequate aisles, you probably could negotiate some the use of more space than a 4x8 table. Anyways - I just got curious as to whether it would have been possible to design something different than a 4x8 for the 11' 8" x 12' 8" room you have available. Sorry about hijacking the debate. Feel free to go back to the real debate - whether it is most annoying with people who insist that it is bad manners to comment on other people's layouts without being explicitly asked to do so, or people who feel that there often (but not always) is possible to create a layout in a room that may give you more layout than a 4x8. Grin, Stein
Don Gibson wrote: 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?
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?
Hi Don,
"How Realistic" as I have mentioned in other threads, we are both members of a very nice club, the Columbia Gorge, in Portland, OR which at 4200 square feet (60x70) is a size that most will only be able to dream about having to model in. But even at a large club layout like that, we are modeling approximately 100 miles of mainline, a branchline, a logging division, two freight yards and a large passenger station, all in just over ONE SQUARE SCALE MILE, so as nice as the CGMRC is, just how "REALISTIC" is it? to model "REALISTICALLY" our Albina yard alone should fill most of our layout room by itself. Forget the mainline, the Oregon Trunk Line, Logging and everything else.
To ME, I feel that the 4x8 layouts serve a very important purpose in our Hobby. A new modeler will not have devoloped a sense for track planning that an experienced modeler will have. There are many 4x8 layouts published that offer many different aspects, some focus on mainline OPS, others switching, even Logging, or other specific industrial themes. These give a new modeler some ideas to work with, so they can see what they would enjoy, and want to incorporate into a larger layout. It also gives them a practice layout to hone bench building, wiring, track laying and scenery skills, so that IF/WHEN they may decide to build a Bigger/Better layout, they have an idea of what works best for them.
Also a 4x8, if there is room to keep it, while building that Basement Empire, will allow for some run time, to help keep the hobby FUN, while a larger layout is being built. I for one, would NEVER recommend that someone build a large around the room layout, as their FIRST attempt at layout building, just as I would not recommend some learn to drive in a 385 Peterbilt, pulling a 53' trailer, although, that is something that I do on a Daily basis. Many experienced modelers on here tend to forget that very few only build ONE layout in their lifetime. Too large of an intial layout risks, the new modeler getting discouraged by the slow process that building a large layout intails. After they have cut their teeth on a smaller layout, and can forsee the enjoyment that a larger layout will provide, then the construction process may not seem so daunting, when they understand what the final reward may be.
A well built 4x8 may also be used at shows, or even be portable enough to use for school demonstrations to get more children involved in the hobby. Which, it is also easier to "SELL" Mom on a "LITTLE" 4x8 layout, than it would be on an overwhelming around the room affair, which may well be something that could be accepted later if the new modeler does get serious about the hobby, and can show skill and maturity.
As I have also said in other threads, this is a Hobby that is full of compromises and balances, and it is up to each modeler to decide for themselves how to balance their compromises to get the most enjoyment they can out of the Hobby.
Doug
CGMRC mem# 101
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
challenger3980 wrote: I for one, would NEVER recommend that someone build a large around the room layout, as their FIRST attempt at layout building,
Nor would I.
But the alternative to a 4x8 is not necessarily a "large around the room layout."
Midnight Railroader wrote: Walleye wrote: Magnus,I very much agree with you and Chuck and Mark. People should be allowed to make their own choices. Even if these choices are uninformed, as long as the layout's owner is happy, it's no one else's business.I don't think I've seen anyone here suggest a police force to compel people to do other than what they wish.Since when is it wrong to argue the merits or disadvantages of anything in this hobby?Even Chuck and Mark have done so when the mood strikes. Why not on this topic? Lillen wrote:When you got a two year old sun, building a weird dimension switching puzzle or something gives no satisfaction. This is where the discussion goes awry. I don't understand the perception that anything other than a 4x8 table must be a "weird dimension switching puzzle." Or that it must be a "shelf layout" or an "expensive" proposition requiring advanced carpentry skills. None of these conceptions is accurate, and it is why I continue to post on this subject.
Midnight railroader, when you quote someone, don't put words in to my mouth that I never stated!
Where did I say that anything but a 4*8 have to be a weird dimension switching puzzle? I wrote that for me that wasn't an option, I needed a go around. And the 4*8 was the way to go for me. I still have not seen any of the typical shelf layouts, created by cutting a 4*8 that produces something like that in HO while keeping anything worth discussing of a radius.
So I was referring quite clearly I would say about my own situation with my son. Nobody else's situation what so ever. I thought that the use of the word "I" made it understandable that I was referring to my own situation.
So in conclusion, if you want to comment what I said, comment what I said, do not use the quote to cut out the parts that make it relevant to what I was saying. Doing so to try to prove a point is outright silly and only lessens the entire argument your trying to make by aggressively going after people when their is clearly no need.
I have begun to realize that many things must be learned through trial and error.
I love to get on a soapbox and pontificate to the masses my philosophies about the hobby. Most of what I preach was learned through my own trial and error. Attempting to help others avoid the same mistakes I've made may be a noble endeavor, but it's often fruitless. So, two great truths have presented themselves to me:
1. I don't have all the answers. If I did, I'd have the perfect layout. I don't.
2. I can offer friendly advice, but I can only teach to the willing. Assuming I have the credibility to teach anything, the "student" has to want to learn, and learn from me. This is not a given.
So, I'm neither an "instructor-model railroader" nor have I all the answers.
What's the relevance to this thread? Love 'em or hate 'em, many modelers will have to learn through their own efforts the merits and limitations of a 4x8. There is so much out there already in praise of and in argument against the ole' 4x8 that a newcomer can make up his/her own minds accordingly. However, many still must build a 4x8 with their own two hands before the issues we talk about become clear to them.
I saw my layout mentioned many posts ago as to what can be built on a small island-style table. While I'm flattered, I don't particularly wish to be counted in the column in favor of this style over an open or around-the-walls plan. I built the door layout only because I move around the country (and world) in the miliary service, and this is the most portable shape I can find. The benchwork is one-piece and fits in a crate I built. Here it is being loaded last week for its jounrey to Nebraska:
I do want to make this point:
Given the room space I usually allow for my "door layout," but removing the requirement that it be completely portable, I would do an open cockpit-style plan. No question. The door benchwork applies severe constraints to my track planning, operational, and scenic possibilities.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Autobus Prime wrote:SJ: Did notice. Had to come up with an incredibly verbose reply.
Good to see I'm not the only one
Autobus Prime wrote: "HEY! You drew me as a 24" diameter cylinder! I'm not...quite...that...yet...!"
"HEY! You drew me as a 24" diameter cylinder! I'm not...quite...that...yet...!"
LOL - me neither. But sadly I am getting a lot closer these days than I was during my military service up in the arctic north of Norway 25+ years ago
Anyways - just a pretty rough worst realistic case estimate of large operator or visitor - if humans had a horizontal cross section that was a circle, a waist size of 50" would correspond to a cirle of diameter about 15", while a waist size of about 60" (which is big, but still well short of the Guiness book of records) would be a circle of diameter about 20".
Since our cross sections is more like an elongated oval and we have sharp elbows just yearning for an edge to slam into when we turn, I padded the size by a couple of extra inches on either side.
Autobus Prime wrote: First of all, I am delighted that you put this together. For one thing, it shows me that I am not the only person who makes marathon posts to answer questions nobody asked,which is comforting, but for another, I really do like your answer. Your post makes me realize I have not pointed everything out. My 4x8 is quite fixed and quite heavy, but it isn't expected to move. In fact, I should point out that there is a reason the heavy black lines are only to left and bottom - this is a quarter of the basement; the northwest corner (east is 'up'). The northeast corner is an empty area where I work on large things like doors or stair stringers. The east end, a little narrower, is the laundry area, with the walls lined with some homemade heavy racks for storing tools and miscellaneous parts and supplies.
Your post makes me realize I have not pointed everything out. My 4x8 is quite fixed and quite heavy, but it isn't expected to move. In fact, I should point out that there is a reason the heavy black lines are only to left and bottom - this is a quarter of the basement; the northwest corner (east is 'up'). The northeast corner is an empty area where I work on large things like doors or stair stringers. The east end, a little narrower, is the laundry area, with the walls lined with some homemade heavy racks for storing tools and miscellaneous parts and supplies.
Ah - that is an important part of the requirements, to be sure. That potensially opens up quite a few more possibilities.
Mmm - wish I had had your basement available. My train area is in a smallish room that is 6 1/2 foot by 11 1/2 foot, and which has to be shared with a workbench under the layout and quite a few storage shelves above the layout. But it is a huge improvement on the 7 x 2 feet I originally had available.
I needed something that would take minimal time to build, while providing maximum ability to run trains and de-stress so I wouldn't be "a grouchy jerkface" .
Makes total sense.
Anyway, enough about requirements. This is a good plan. One great thing about it is that the operator has a nice big area in the center, but any viewers or additional OPRs can still gather around. This is a great thing. Duckunders would not work in my case. Ducking isn't a problem, but my layout is built rather low due to audience considerations, even though I'd really prefer it at the 48" I had used previously. Too low a duck, so drop leaves would be needed. I find it interesting that pit-type plans like this have enjoyed a well-deserved revival in recent times, after some years of being highly deprecated for their duckunders, which followed many more years of high popularity. I think this is a good illustration of how a concentration on one drawback can mask the merits of a useful design.Track planning considerations: this plan does work in 22"R pretty nicely. I used to have one 22"R but relaid most of it with 18" to gain room for a switch. It was experimental, anyway, to see if, with my equipment, the 22"R gave any significant improvement (it didn't.) Mainline run looks good; however, I should mention that I use multiple laps between stations to expand the run (which could equally be done with this layout you've designed, as it's continuous). Siding space looks reasonable, although with drop-leaves and that curve it's going to be hard to work much into the right end. Since I don't need that furnace access from there, perhaps the right end could be filled in a little, squeezing the roly-poly operator a bit, and moving the drop-leaf to compensate. My present 4x8 has four reasonably long spurs, angled into the table center, a long runaround track that doubles as an interchange, and a three-track yard. This looks like it could fit about that much, too, which is good.
Yeah, that's what I figured too.
On topic, I really have to point out that this plan, due to the wall-space being preempted, does not actually conserve space over the 4x8, but it does allow the layout to encroach into adjoining spaces without cramping table access. Although this in itself is not a whole lot, it could be enough to allow me a similar amount of railroad with larger curves...though, again, this would not be a great advantage, given my present requirements.
Makes sense in your context.
And you are of course totally right about what you say about space saving. Putting the operator on the inside does not in itself save space.
It can quite easily take up quite a bit more floor space when the layout is not in use, since you probably cannot as easy free opp more walkspace around the outside of the layout by pushing the layout into a room corner.
Donut w/operator pit vs solid isle is, as you also know and expressed, far more about appearance and function than about space savings. It usually increases flexibility for track arrangements, allows more and longer sidings, wider curves, makes it easier to create multiple visually separated scenes.
Real saving space (and still have the advantages of the operator pit style layout) is a different animal - the key here is in principle to use the same trick people who build skyscrapers above e.g. an active railroad station use - they have a relatively small footprint on the ground, but have a lot of usable floor space, since they stack different uses of the same ground footprint above each other on multiple floors, arranged above each other.
For your space, and given the restrictions you have indicated - among them a desire to keep layout height low, an implied wish to not move the workbench or pegboard and the fairly large exclusion zone around the electrical box, the 4x8 may be the smalles layout footprint.
My point was not that a freestanding donut had a smaller footprint. My point was that the space you indicated was big enough to allow you a more flexible layout style without totally ruining other usage of the room - umm corner, I mean :-)
However, this plan does have merits, and I will keep it in mind when the inevitable expansions come up. I do think that I would have bogged down in the design phase, if I'd tackled this type of plan right away, but at some point I will be in a favorable position to try it. Perhaps I will keep the existing table, and extend 2' wide shelves into an O-shape jutting into the northeast area of the basement, turning the present access by the pillar into an access pit.
Hmmm - one potensial challenge I could see would be whether you would have to frequently move in an out of the new northeast corner pit to access stuff from the aisle between the workbench and the old 4x8.
Having a pit where one or more of the pit sides get too wide for easy access from inside the pit can potensially become "the pits" instead of "the pit", if you allow me another bad pun
Anyways - I guess I have been yammering on for way too long for most people.
If everyone is ready for a chuckle, here goes.
Shortly after moving into this 'last in this lifetime' house, I erected an L-girder-framed table that was intended to be (and later became) a peninsula - an integral part of my final (I hope) layout. At that point there was nothing but a ladder of bare joists - the cookie-cut plywood hadn't been bought, never mind cut and installed.
Nevertheless, I REALLY wanted to run some trains, just to see the wheels roll...
Enter the box of 'bought by my sister at yard sales' trackage, and the flattened cardboard boxes that were accumulating as we unpacked. Cardboard got flopped onto the joists. Train set trackage (complete with plastic roadbed) was quickly snapped together and connected to a Life-Like minipack from the same source.
Then I took the last train that had run on the old '2 sides of a spare bedroom' layout in Tennessee - the one with the gons full of salvaged rail joiners and track nails. Its roller-skate-wheeled 0-8-0T thought that 18" radius curves were HUGE! (It can handle 14" radii.) As for the cars, they're only 100mm over end sills. They will couple automatically on 18" curves.
So, the work train went into service. As plywood replaced cardboard, the screws for the risers were delivered from the other end of the table. When the first tracklaying began - on concentric 610mm/670mm/730mm curves - the rail joiners and (temporary) track nails were the same ones which had been salvaged several months before. All was well.
Just as soon as that first track was powered, the work train moved to the permanent rails and the toy track went back into the junk box.
There's a lot more benchwork, and a lot more trackwork, in place now - and none of it will ever be mistaken for sectional track - but that work train is still on the rails, and still gets run when new construction calls for screws, rail joiners, track nails and such in new locations.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - flex track, hand-laid specialwork)
Midnight Railroader wrote:Since when is it wrong to argue the merits or disadvantages of anything in this hobby?
steinjr wrote:Sorry about hijacking the debate. Feel free to go back to the real debate - whether it is most annoying with people who insist that it is bad manners to comment on other people's layouts without being explicitly asked to do so
Sorry about hijacking the debate. Feel free to go back to the real debate - whether it is most annoying with people who insist that it is bad manners to comment on other people's layouts without being explicitly asked to do so
tomikawaTT wrote:If everyone is ready for a chuckle, here goes.Shortly after moving into this 'last in this lifetime' house, I erected an L-girder-framed table that was intended to be (and later became) a peninsula - an integral part of my final (I hope) layout. At that point there was nothing but a ladder of bare joists - the cookie-cut plywood hadn't been bought, never mind cut and installed.Nevertheless, I REALLY wanted to run some trains, just to see the wheels roll...Enter the box of 'bought by my sister at yard sales' trackage, and the flattened cardboard boxes that were accumulating as we unpacked. Cardboard got flopped onto the joists. Train set trackage (complete with plastic roadbed) was quickly snapped together and connected to a Life-Like minipack from the same source.Then I took the last train that had run on the old '2 sides of a spare bedroom' layout in Tennessee - the one with the gons full of salvaged rail joiners and track nails. Its roller-skate-wheeled 0-8-0T thought that 18" radius curves were HUGE! (It can handle 14" radii.) As for the cars, they're only 100mm over end sills. They will couple automatically on 18" curves.So, the work train went into service. As plywood replaced cardboard, the screws for the risers were delivered from the other end of the table. When the first tracklaying began - on concentric 610mm/670mm/730mm curves - the rail joiners and (temporary) track nails were the same ones which had been salvaged several months before. All was well.Just as soon as that first track was powered, the work train moved to the permanent rails and the toy track went back into the junk box.There's a lot more benchwork, and a lot more trackwork, in place now - and none of it will ever be mistaken for sectional track - but that work train is still on the rails, and still gets run when new construction calls for screws, rail joiners, track nails and such in new locations.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - flex track, hand-laid specialwork)
steinjr wrote:Hmmm - one potensial challenge I could see would be whether you would have to frequently move in an out of the new northeast corner pit to access stuff from the aisle between the workbench and the old 4x8. Having a pit where one or more of the pit sides get too wide for easy access from inside the pit can potensially become "the pits" instead of "the pit", if you allow me another bad pun
Dave Vollmer wrote:...I built the door layout only because ...but ... I would do ...
...
I built the door layout only because ...
but ... I would do ...
Dave, my apologies if it seems like I took the above out of context. But it struck me that these words are the important lesson of this thread.
We all compromise our desires versus our constraints in order to have a layout and not just a dream.
Enjoy
Paul
Fritzi wrote:A 4x8 is not a limitation to modelling by any means.
Methinks you probably mean roughly "a 4x8 foot layout is not necessarily too small for all kinds of model railroads". Totally correct.
But any shape and size space puts some limitations on what we can accomplish.
The question is not "can you build a worthwhile model railroad layout on a 4x8 sheet of plywood?". Because that is clearly possible - by using the means you describe: smaller engines & cars from older times, going to a smaller scale, making tracks crisscross each other through the same scene in tunnels and on bridges and quite a few other tricks.
There is no doubt whatsoever that one can build an excellent 4x8 layout. Quite a few people have done so.
The point I think the original poster in this thread tried to make was probably more like : "even if you have limited space available, it is not a given that a 4x8 rectange is the largest layout you can squeeze into the room without ruining the room totally for other purposes".
Thinking "outside the rectangle", so to speak, may give you more layout in that room than you thought you had room for originally. Or it may not - it all depends on what limitations and wishes you have.
But just taking that 4x8 piece of plywood and cutting off two 1x4 strips from the end of it, cutting one of those two 1x4 into two equal sized triangles, and turning the 4x8 square table into a 4x6 with an 8 foot long shelf varying from 2 to 0 feet deep mounted on a wall alongside (making the layout somewhat L shaped) can create quite a bit more industries, or even add a hidden track or two representing "the rest of the world".
Here is a very quickly dashed off example - not optimized in any way:
Considering "thinking outside the rectangle" when you have limited space could be a pretty good idea.
But by all means - it is certainly possible to do nice things on a 4x8 too.
Don,Define "realistic" for ANY loop layout..As you know that definition will have thousands of answers depending on one's view.That layout can be improved..The secret is knowing what to do and there be many that will lack that skill which of course is a tragedy.We older modelers should be teaching the ways of layout designs from a lowly 1x6 foot ISL to a basement size empire that will yield fulfillment and not aggravation from being poorly planned from the word "GO!"..
Don,you and I have been in the hobby for years and have graduated from the school of hard knocks and lessons learn.We know how to design a 4x8 footer that will yield the fullest operation potential..You see I don't see a Class One railroad with pigs/stacks or 8 stall roundhouse filled with Y6Bs in that posted layout picture..My eyes see a class three work aday short line.Of course the layout needs to be "tweaked" to my " givens and druthers".
Make no mistake I would love to have room for a 4x8 footer and would be tickled pink.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
You know, I'm glad someone brought up the "a model railroad is like a dining room table" analogy. In the perception of others, a 4x8 layout, even if it is in the center of fairly bare room, is simply a piece of furniture, something that happens to be in the room, and the room is still a study, office, playroom, family room, basement, whatever.
As soon as you start adding L shapes, dog bones, cockpits, and other protuberances so that you see train no matter where you look in the room, the room becomes a train room and a source of conflict with others, especially non-railroaders.
I'm fortunate in that the model railroaders in my family outnumber the railroaders 3 to 2. But it's still "layouts in the basement" and not "train room".
steinjr wrote: Smile, Stein
Looks like a design from the newest MR. Wasn't it set in nebraska or something? i don't wanna run upstairs and look at my mag. right now.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout