In this past MR issue, there are some more 4X8 HO scale plans. The trackplans look great, but I'm thinking that N scale trackplans would look a little better in that space. After all, an 18" curve in N scale is generous and allows for large N scale equipment. Also building the plans in N scale would virtually double the train and siding lengths. Another point is that 15" radius is also a half decent radius for N scale which would allow more track. MR's Salt Lake project railroad was a great idea to fit modern railroad in 4X9 feet. What are your thoughts?
Lone Geep
\
lone geep In this past MR issue, there are some more 4X8 HO scale plans. The trackplans look great, but I'm thinking that N scale trackplans would look a little better in that space. After all, an 18" curve in N scale is generous and allows for large N scale equipment. Also building the plans in N scale would virtually double the train and siding lengths. Another point is that 15" radius is also a half decent radius for N scale which would allow more track. MR's Salt Lake project railroad was a great idea to fit modern railroad in 4X9 feet. What are your thoughts?
No brainer. Go for it.
My "why not" is for HO layouts to abandon the 4x8 since 18 and 22 inch radii are simply too small in the modern world for much of what we want to run. So the new standard should be 4x8 for N and something bigger like a 5x9 or 5x10 minimum for HO.
As Capt Picard used to say on ST:TNG - Make it so!
/issue solved.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Not too long ago, I read an essay on how dimensions for model railroads were determined. Being a life long HO scale operator, I never gave it much thought, but a literal N Scale replica of an HO 4x8 plan would be a 2x4 with adjustments to cover any variations. If you were to maintain the 4x8 dimension, conceivably, you could run 44" radius curves where there are HO 22" radius curves, and 36" N where there are 18"N, in order to maintain ratios.
FWIW: If I had to do it over from the beginning, I would go with N on the do-over.
Because 4 x 8's are evil in any scale. (tongue in cheek)
They will tell you a 4 x 8 is wasted space based on the idea you must walk around all four sides for it to be functional. Everyone wants you to build a 12" shelf or a duck under Georgia doughnut, both that have downfalls as much as any other design. Its a given and druthers thingy, it really depends on what you want to live with.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
I thought that the current issue had quite a number of things for the N-scaler this time around - i.e. more than usual. I saw the variations of the 4 x 8 layouts. Unless you are going to run a small switcher operation with only 40' rolling stock, R15" curves should never even come into the equation.
If I were to start over with a layout, I'd still pick HO because of the availability of steam and early diesel locomotives and the detailing is much better.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Geared SteamEveryone wants you to build a 12" shelf or a duck under Georgia doughnut
What`s a Georgia Doughnut?
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
I suspect the lack of 4x8 layouts in N scale is to take advantage of their smaller radii. A 4x8 placed long side against a wall has access problems across the 4 feet. But a 2 1/2 or 3 by X can be easily reached across. Also a shorter layout can fit in many rooms and still enable the room to be primarily used for something else.
IMHO the 4x8 is best suited to TT which can make good use of the space with 15 to 18 inch radius curves.
For HO a larger table top would work better. A 2 sheet of plywood layout of 5'4" by 12' can be built by cutting each sheet of plywood at the 5'4" mark - something a Lowes or HD and maybe others will do for you. This size layout will allow 24" radius curves easily. It can handle larger radii if long engines and cars are desired although the design options are lessened perhaps to a simple oval as the radius approaches 30". A slightly smaller layout of 5'4" by 10'8" can be done by using one of the small cutoff pieces turned side ways with a short cutoff from the other small piece.
Enjoy
Paul
well my next layout in N will be on a 4x8, I want to run my passenger trains.
SP&S modeler, 1960's give or take a decade or two for some equipment.
http://www.youtube.com/user/SGTDUPREY?feature=guide
Gary DuPrey
N scale model railroader
rdgk1se3019 [ What`s a Georgia Doughnut?
[
http://hogrr.blogspot.com/2009/11/welcome-to-heart-of-georgia-hog-layout.html
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
riogrande5761My "why not" is for HO layouts to abandon the 4x8 since 18 and 22 inch radii are simply too small in the modern world for much of what we want to run.
Jim,That "we" doesn't fit all modelers.That "we" just fits you intermodal pulled by 6 axle locomotives runners..A 4X8' can make a very nice industrial branch or regular blanch line.Any modern 4 axle unit will work and nothing longer then a 60' car which will go around a 22" curve with ease.One need not add the space eating mountains either like most like to cram on a 4x8..
I suspect there's far more 4x8 layouts then room size layouts if the truth was known.
As far as a 4x8 foot N Scale layout one would need to follow certain procedures to avoid a dump spaghetti bowl layout..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Geared Steam...They will tell you a 4 x 8 is wasted space based on the idea you must walk around all four sides for it to be functional...
One doesn't need to access all four sides, placing one 4' side against a wall will still allow reasonable access.
I think Jim Kelly in his N scale column in MR made this very point, about using N on a track plan intended for HO. But I agree with the posters, above, who point out that while a 4x8 is certainly convenient to purchase right from the lumber yard (not so easy to transport for many of us however) it is by no means the ideal shape or bulk for a layout because you are either going to have a center of the room layout or, if against a wall, a decided lack of access to key parts.
Tony Koester at one point or another said something along the lines of -- yes beginners: by all means buy a 4x8 sheet of plywood and THEN ask the lumber yard to rip it into two 2x8 pieces for an L shaped layout.
For N scale purchases you could also cut it in a more sophisticated way so at the extreme ends it would be 3 feet wide narrowing to one foot wide at the other end (am I making myself clear -- two "P" shaped pieces from one sheet so you'd end up with a true dogbone shaped layout, or perhaps L shaped to fit in a corner).
Another model railroad veteran, long time MR editor Linn Westcott, early in the development of N scale, asked a rhetorical question -- was N going to develop in a way that really exploits its potential or (and this is almost an exact quote as I recall) are we going to just use it to build the same dinky ovals we always have?
Dave Nelson
M_Robinson Geared Steam...They will tell you a 4 x 8 is wasted space based on the idea you must walk around all four sides for it to be functional... One doesn't need to access all four sides, placing one 4' side against a wall will still allow reasonable access.
It will?
Alton Junction
dknelson For N scale purchases you could also cut it in a more sophisticated way so at the extreme ends it would be 3 feet wide narrowing to one foot wide at the other end (am I making myself clear -- two "P" shaped pieces from one sheet so you'd end up with a true dogbone shaped layout, or perhaps L shaped to fit in a corner).
Why bother doing that when a 36"x80" HCD will yield a better layout?
Anything the "experts" say is better read with a large dose of salt since they change their minds with every change of the wind.
As far as Linn,he was not a friend of N Scale nor was MR in the early years of N Scale since it was a "novelty" scale not worth the time.We recall the cartoon with a tiny ice bunker reefer on a modelers nose that stated "Where's the iddy bitty hatches that came with the kit?"
Sure, there's no more than a 2' reach from either side of you do that. While not ideal, it works.
In-between works, my last N scale layout was 3x6, with more track and more generous radius than an HO 4x8.
The two P's connected at the base concept has some great merit, even in tha 8x12 space of the HoG (based on the 'real' space needed for a 4x8 island) - in N you could go well above minimum radius and still have the bulges across from one another, in HO you'd need to stagger them unless you were content with 18" radius, either way there are more opportunities than a rectangular island, plus it gets rid of the duckunder of the donut shape. If continuous runnign isn;t required, then a basic elgonated C shape can work well, depending on the door location.Lots of space for tracks and scenery, easy access, no duckunders, and no more actual space than a 4x8 island. A 2' wide C layout in an 8x12 room would need 1 1/2 sheets of plywood, so 50% more surface area than a 4x8. A complete donut makes it 2x the surface area but requires a duckunder. Quack.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Sure, there's no more than a 2' reach from either side of you do that. While not ideal, it works.
Oops, I see that he said to place the 4 foot end against the wall. My bad.
Rich
Why not use an HO track plan?
An 18-22 inch curve in N scale has a much nicer sweep than in HO, a single car siding becomes a small industry that can handle multiple cars, and a small town becomes a city.
Sure, there will need to be some slight tinkering with yard tracks, crossovers, etc, but if the basic design is sound an HO scale design should work fine.
I misremember which John Armstrong book included a discussion of the merits of the various scales, but I do recall that it included the same track plan in HO and N, both on a 4 x 8.
The sketched-in trains told the story.. HO had a typical five cars and a consolidation shortline train, with a doodlebug for passengers. The N-scale version hosted five full-length heavyweights behind the 4-8-4, while the three covered wagons had about twenty cars between them and the markers. Yet the N scale version looked a lot less crowded.
So the quick and dirty solution is to find a nice 4 x 8 HO plan, adjust the track centers to N-scale standards and go for it...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - 1:80 scale on a 16 x 19 walk-in)
With all the good reasons for N scale compared to HO, I'm suprised that there aren't too many N scale plans for 4X8s out there.
lone geep With all the good reasons for N scale compared to HO, I'm suprised that there aren't too many N scale plans for 4X8s out there.
Hi Guys
8 X 4 the luxury of such massive space well it would be for me at the moment my HO is only 4.5 X 4.5 feet.
So I would like to see smaller project layouts that deal with the issues the space challenged have to deal with, and more realistic sized I can build this layout at home.
Houses are getting smaller.
The model press tends to lean to much toward the impressive monster railroads that need six builders and operators to only just stand a chance of getting them built enough to run trains.
Which makes me wonder how many project layouts actually don't get built or finished because of the unrealistic I want that monster layout now mind set.
As for converting an HO to an N using the same space.
I did that once with a bit of help. What we did was left the mainline exactly where it was then adjusted every thing else to suit the main line sidings where left there original size, towns gained one or two extra structures.But only enough to make the town look more believable without chewing up to much space, after all its the extra out of town scenery space is what's wanted.
This also allowed more scenery outside the track and gave a good safety zone out side the track in case of an OOPS moment we also liked, that we felt the railroad seemed to sit more in the scenery
Rather than the scenery sitting uncomfortably around the railroad
regards John
BRAKIE Jim,That "we" doesn't fit all modelers.That "we" just fits you intermodal pulled by 6 axle locomotives runners.
Jim,That "we" doesn't fit all modelers.That "we" just fits you intermodal pulled by 6 axle locomotives runners.
Considering that long cars have existed since I was born, 1959, I'd say as a rule in HO a larger size then 4x8 is needed. Intermodal pulled by 6-axle loco's is a straw man easily knocked down but even 60's and 70's era can benefit from moderately larger curves because of passenger cars, long flat car, auto racks and plenty of 60' cars too, and absolutly yes, 6-axle loco's like SD45's!
.A 4X8' can make a very nice industrial branch or regular blanch line.Any modern 4 axle unit will work and nothing longer then a 60' car which will go around a 22" curve with ease.One need not add the space eating mountains either like most like to cram on a 4x8. I suspect there's far more 4x8 layouts then room size layouts if the truth was known.
That is probably true but only because it is a size that people are presented with by tradition and stereo type due to sheer momentum of many years. Time to break out of that!
Really, how many percentagewise would be satisfied with an industrial layout with short train cars, a few yes, but since I'm appealing to the masses, I think the 4x8 is plainly outmoded for HO.
tomikawaTT I misremember which John Armstrong book included a discussion of the merits of the various scales, but I do recall that it included the same track plan in HO and N, both on a 4 x 8. The sketched-in trains told the story.. HO had a typical five cars and a consolidation shortline train, with a doodlebug for passengers. The N-scale version hosted five full-length heavyweights behind the 4-8-4, while the three covered wagons had about twenty cars between them and the markers. Yet the N scale version looked a lot less crowded. So the quick and dirty solution is to find a nice 4 x 8 HO plan, adjust the track centers to N-scale standards and go for it... Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - 1:80 scale on a 16 x 19 walk-in)
That is in Creative Layout Design (or Creative Model Railroad Design, depending on which edition you have), in the chapter on designs as influenced by scale. The example is the Plywood Summit Lines from one of the Atlas plan books (since John designed most of those) redone for N scale, retaining the 4' width but actually shrinking to 6' length. Wider curves, lesser grades, MORE grade seperation. And much longer train lengths. And indeed, the center was more open to the elevated portions would much nicer with mountainous scenery, in HO you would almost have to have retaining walls everywhere or else make it all sheer rock cliffs.
I have two 3x8 N-scale layouts parallel to each other against opposite walls with a bridge tying them together. One is my yard and service area and the other is just a couple of loops. I went with 3’ wide because I could still manage to reach across as long as it wasn’t too high.
BRAKIEAny modern 4 axle unit will work
Four axles covers a lot of ground - all the way from an 0-8-0 to a 4-8-4, with Consolidations, Mikes, Mountains and Berks in between.
Considering that long cars have existed since I was born, 1959, I'd say as a rule in HO a larger size then 4x8 is needed. Intermodal pulled by 6-axle loco's is a straw man easily knocked down but even 60's and 70's era can benefit from moderately larger curves because of passenger cars, long flat car, auto racks and plenty of 60' cars too, and absolutely yes, 6-axle loco's like SD45's!
---------------------------------------
Speaking of stawmans.. You do know a SD45 can go around a 22 " radius with ease? Again,Jim,you're not thinking beyond long cars.A 22" curve is very workable for a 4x8 layout based on a urban industrial or regular branchline.I've ran Walthers centerbeams on the clubs 22" radius curves on the front layout..
------------------------------------
Jim,We go back many years and you know my thoughts on speaking for the masses-its a impossibility since nobody has the exact figure and that figure may not include the number of casual dabblers..
I would love to see the true number of 4x8 layouts out there since when planed correctly it can be more then a train set setup...
A 4x8 is still be cheapest layout to build and with today's track and lumber prices-need I say more? Of course those with deep pockets will continue to knock 4x8s and any layout less then a Godzilla size layout with sweeping 60" curves and number 10 switches..
As far as industrial switching layouts they are becoming more popular since one doesn't need a $5,000 in track and lumber to build it.
BF&D BRAKIEAny modern 4 axle unit will work Four axles covers a lot of ground - all the way from an 0-8-0 to a 4-8-4, with Consolidations, Mikes, Mountains and Berks in between.
"Any modern 4 axel unit" rules out any steam locomotives or older frist generation 4 axel units.
BRAKIE "Any modern 4 axel unit" rules out any steam locomotives or older frist generation 4 axel units.
Is Axel Rose first or later generation? OK, OK, don't get steamed - just pulling that diseasel chain.
What issue in MR is the article about HO 4x8's are we talking about? The most recent, or the month before? And which month? I am not yet a subscriber and purchase it from the news stand or local hobby shop. As I am new to this hobby and am building a 4 x 8 layout as my very first in HO I'd like to look at the article to give me some ideas.
Most recent (January) has 2 4x8 plans with 2 variations on each one