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.
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!"
rdgk1se3019 [ What`s a Georgia Doughnut?
[
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.
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
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
Geared SteamEveryone wants you to build a 12" shelf or a duck under Georgia doughnut
Dennis Blank Jr.
CEO,COO,CFO,CMO,Bossman,Slavedriver,Engineer,Trackforeman,Grunt. Birdsboro & Reading Railroad
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.
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/
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.
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?
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
Lone Geep
\