why does everyone hate 4X8 layouts?

[Anonymous]

Well, you did it.

[SteelMonsters]

What kind of 7 1/2" gauge layout can you put on a 4X8[?]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteelMonsters

What kind of 7 1/2" gauge layout can you put on a 4X8[?]

If you use very strong benchwork, you might be able to display a locomotive on it, and maybe even go back and forth an inch or two.[;)]

How many sheets of plywood would it take for a layout like that?[:0][:p]

40 x 80 feet is more like it.[8D]

[John Busby]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Stuckarmchairing

4x8's are fine if your into the whole running in circles scene, but If your into realistic operation (Like myself) that space could be used better for a shelf layout.

hi
That's interesting I managed to get three stations two levels and a realistic operational layout on eight by four
The only thing that annoyed me was I could not get enough pre grouping fish wagons and a railway hearse wagon for something different in rail traffic.
I also found it scenically challenging and was able to go into a higher level of detail
than you see on the large layouts including a badger set, weasels herons birds rabbits, foxes domestic gardens etc etc.
its all a question of are you prepaired accept short trains and use a bit of brain power to get the best out of the space avalable
regards John

[BRAKIE]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

My biggest problem with the 4x8 is the one I built. If you do like I did and place the switches all on one panel, then the far ones are out of reach. This is a problem if you want to set cars out and do run arounds and the like. Throw a switch. Run around uncouple a car. Run back throw a switch. Run around dorp a car. Throw a switch. Run back and uncouple. Run back and reattach the loco.

IF you use the same space for a U shaped layout, you don't have to run around your layout.

Chip,That's one way of losing weight and getting exerise..On the other hand why not use KD's uncoupling magnets and remote switches?

[ICRR1964]

When we first bought our house I had a 4 by 8 in one of the 5 bedrooms in our home, it went in a oval run with 2 switches that came into the center for my transfer yard and supplied industries. There was a total of 7 spurs in the middle feeding several industries, and it worked great. After I built my 3 car garage, a year later I asked my wife if I could put an addition on the south side of the garage for a train room! She liked the idea allot so I started contruction and finished in 3 weeks. The addition is 24ft deep By 20ft wide. After taking apart the old layout and doing the bench work for the new, I decided on using 3 walls and using 4 by 8 end to end in a "C" shaped setup. I have 2 trains that are running at all times, almost 20 switches to watch, 18 industies to feed, and 1 small yard for the holding zone.

I have a freind of mine who hated this whole setup and refused to run his trains at all on my setup, told me it was to deep and it was funny looking, his narrow 2 ft waide runs he said were better and easy to get at, which is true. But he is only 5ft 2inches tall with short arms, I am 6 ft 2 inchs with long arms. So it works pretty good for me having the depth, it all depands on what each MRer wants. To each his own!

[gvdobler]

I would bet a poll would show that the majority of people on this forum have a 4x8 layout or 3x6 or some version of the 4x8.

I can't imagine anything more boring than a 16' switching layout 2' deep. Back and forth instead of round and round. But that's me, I like to see main line action. If I want a puzzle, I'll get a Rubik's Cube.

If someone has a 4x8 that they enjoy and use as opposed to someone with an around the wall that they never run or work on, who's having more fun?

Different stroke folks.

Disclaimer: No insult intended to anyone unless you diagree with me. [:D]

[Anonymous]

i don't like shelf layouts- you need much more room- i know they can be modular but it's still easier to have a few 4'x8' tables if you ever move to a different house. I would want to have 4'x8' 's lined up in the middle of the room or along the wall to get a size of 4'x16' or even 4'x24' -Let the 4'x8' live on

[Anonymous]

That's one bird brain smiely was he seduicial[(-D][(-D]

[IRONROOSTER]

As have many others, I started with a 4x8. It's a good size because you can get it set up wiith a minimum of carpentry. Since it is usually set up in the center of the room or with one end against the wall, you have good access to doors, windows, closets, etc in the room. The chief limitation of the 4x8 in scales larger than TT is the maximum radius - 22". By using a bigger table such as 5x10 you can get a 28" radius at 6x12 you can get to 34". Beyond this size you have access problems to the center.

One of the traps in this hobby is feeling that you have to max out the railroad for the space available. The three ingredients of the hobby are time, space, and money. If any of these are limited, then you need to limit the layout accordingly. One way is the table or island layout.

Enjoy
Paul

[wjstix]

Nothing wrong with a small layout, for many years as a teenager I had a 4-1/2' x 10' layout (a 9 x 5) cut in half and both halves rotated 90 degrees)...and that was in O scale !!

But I think one problem is newer modellers come in with unrealistic expectations. "I need help designing a track plan where I can run three trains at once, the largest pieces of equipment being a UP 4-8-8-4 Big Boy and 80' passenger cars, and I want three industries and at least three passenger depots....oh, and I only have room for a 4'x8' layout. "

[JimRCGMO]

As several others have pointed out, most of us (those in HO especially, since a lot of MR layouts used the 4X8 size format) have had (or still have) such a layout. For those in the tinier scales (like N, TT, Z, etc.), the size wouldn't seem to be as much of a hindrance, actually. I had a 4X8 layout when I was in junior high and partway into high school. (Never quite finished that one, though). [:O][;)]

The main problem I saw/see in the 4X8 layout (for HO) is that due to the smaller radii you have problems running longer cars (for example, most passenger cars) and engines - unless you are modeling a narrow gauge RR, where everything tends to be shorter, anyway. If you run passenger cars on the 18 to 22 inch radius curves on a 4X8, they overhang a lot on the curves. One MR/Kalmbach book even kind of acknowledged this fact by suggesting that if you raise the track level closer to eye level, you don't notice the overhang so much as if you are looking 'down' at the track.

I currently (partly due to living in a smaller apartment) am working on a semi-modular layout that I can later work into an around the room layout when I get more space. I have two modules started, about 2' X 4' (plus a few inches wider near where they join), because I want some switching tracks and some buildings/scenery. That would be harder to do in a narrower section (like 18 inches or under). Later, I can add corner sections which have wider radius curves for passenger cars, longer engines, etc. This way, I can have them look good on the curves and the straighter tracks.[:)]

Blessings,

Jim

[Phil1361]

I have nothing against 4 X 8 layouts. I would rather have a 2' X 16' switching layout as trains going round and round in circles bores me after a while. But as what was written above- to each his own.

[Anonymous]

I started with a 4X8 forty years ago. The main problem with it was watching the train chase its caboose and the curve and turnout radii. I now am in the process of starting a 9X12 with a 5x8 operating pit in the center. It is based on one of Ian Rice's plans in Small, Smart, and Practical layouts. In other words, I am building an around-the-room type of layout. That will give me the luxury of having a staging yard on one side and a working yard on the other. Not much room for scenery in between, however. But, it will also give me the chance to use nice, wide-radii curves on the layout. And, that is the other problem with a 4x8: you can only use a maximum of a 22-inch radius curve. That limits you on both rolling stock and locomotives that you can run without trouble. Yes, yes, I know that a lot of locomotives will take an 18" and most will take a 22" curve, but they still often look like fertilizer when they do. Also, the overhang and clearance problems can be problematic.

[vsmith]

part of it because experienced modelers know that its an inefficient use of space, just to give an example, Look at the PDF file below, assuming your typical 4 x 8 layout with a miniumum of 36 inches clear each side for access, yields a 10'x 14' area thats the actual layout "area". Now if instead of walking "around" the layout you instead build the layout "around" you. Take that 4 x 8, cut it in half move them to opposite corners and connect them with 24inch wide shelf system with a backdrop and you get a much larger and more dramatic layout with far more potential, all in the same effective area that the 4 x 8 occupies. [;)]

Open me:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/vsmith//4x8%20alternate%20area%20example.pdf

[Anonymous]

I built the Turtle Creek Central -- with a couple of significant modifications -- which is a cleverly -- deceptively clever -- designed 4 by 8 track plan. It can be operated as a point to point with the tunnel used as a staging area. You can also have continuous running for the kids. I thought I would build it for my kids and then move on to something else, but I've grown attached to the track plan.

There are other excellent 4 by 8 track plans, especially those that are waterfront switching layouts. With a bit of creativity a 4 by 8 can be a whole lot more than an oval, a passing siding and a couple of spurs.

With that being said, the worst part about a 4 by 8 in HO is trying to line things up and join the oval, especially when using flex track. If a single turnout is just slightly misaligned it can throw the entire layout out of whack. Since a 4 by 8 is usually built by a beginner, laying the flex track becomes a baptism by fire because trying to align a loop to turn outs is probably the most difficult part of working with flex track. Laying flex track is much easier to learn on a point to point. In that setting you can save the return or reverse loop for the very end, after you've become handy enough with the Xurons that it is second nature.

[selector]

Maybe we should tell our friend that, while there is nothing inherently wrong with the typical 4X8, if you actually decide that that is the way to go at present, at least make it easily added to, or make it easy to mate to a larger trackplan. Honestly, there are some wonderfully creative designs, but they almost always get put aside or modified by the modeler after a short while. The reason is that our thinking is limited without actual learning and experience. Once we get that experience, and see what limitations we didn't appreciate when we elected to go with the slab, that is when all that work gets put aside. What I am suggesting is leave some open ends near the edge, and that will allow you to build another module, maybe a shelf, for a decent yard, staging, whatever.

The real killer of any layout is a lack of variety. if you don't have a couple of other things to make the trains do besides circle and back into spurs or sidings (about all you can do in so many 4X8 plans), its life will be what Hobbes said in Leviathan; "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and SHORT."

Build the 4X8...honestly, go ahead and learn, but please leave one track-end open near one edge so that you can add to it, and not have to throw out all that time and money.

[steveblackledge]

Nothing wrong with a 4' x 8' , i cut my teeth on one as a kid, it gave me hours of fun, thats what it's all about, Fun, Fun, Fun, my friends got a great little layout in N scale, that's on a 3' x 3'

[on30francisco]

I started out with a 4x8 Lionel layout with "Super O" track over 40 years ago. I also built "The HO Railroad That Grows" on a 4x8 over 20 years ago. I now have a movable layout built around the perimeter of the room. I think around the room layouts are a much more efficient use of space, permit broader curves, allow longer runs, and allow better scenic effects. Since I sometimes like to kick back and just watch the trains run, I built an easily removable bridge (a simple, unscenicked 2x4) across two sections. Although a 4x8 may not be the most efficient use of space, I have enjoyed and learned a lot from the ones I've built.

[on30francisco]

I started out with a 4x8 Lionel layout with "Super O" track over 40 years ago. I also built "The HO Railroad That Grows" on a 4x8 over 20 years ago. I now have a movable layout built around the perimeter of the room. I think around the room layouts are a much more efficient use of space, permit broader curves, allow longer runs, and allow better scenic effects. Since I sometimes like to kick back and just watch the trains run, I built an easily removable bridge (a simple, unscenicked 2x4) across two sections. Although a 4x8 may not be the most efficient use of space, I have enjoyed and learned a lot from the ones I've built.

[Anonymous]

I currently have a 10x12 U-shaped layout, but once I move I will probably go against the popular wisdom and build a 4x8, quite possibly following the basic structure of MR's latest project layout. I really like the portability of a 4x8, the simplicity of the benchwork, and the chance to do some scenery that has real depth. The nice thing about the current feature layout in MR is that the track plan includes interchange tracks at both ends, so if I ever do decide to build a bigger, more open layout, I can integrate it very easily.

[Don Gibson]

PHASE I. Bring it out and run it around the Xmas tree.

PHASE II: Mount it on a sheet of plywood, so you can play with it between Xmas's.
Positive's: Add equipment, building's.
Negative: Still run's in circles.

PHASE III: Finding permanent spot; Building an 'Empire'.

4X8's? It's a 50 year old design with minimum carpentry, curves, and equipment limitation's.

HATE? Naw. Some of us graduate, some don't.

[BRAKIE]

Don,There are some that doesn't have a basement or tons of money to spend building a layout..IMHO a 4x8 beats no layout or worst being a armchair dreamer waiting on that "dream" layout that may never come..

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Don,There are some that doesn't have a basement or tons of money to spend building a layout..IMHO a 4x8 beats no layout or worst being a armchair dreamer waiting on that "dream" layout that may never come..

Amen. I only have 3'X6'.... if I had a 12X12 room to spare, Id definately fill it.

[Don Gibson]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Don,There are some that doesn't have a basement or tons of money to spend building a layout..IMHO a 4x8 beats no layout or worst ...waiting on that "dream" layout that may never come

- OR spending it on another hobby, such as Photography? How about Dating?

For my money, a 1.5 - 2' narrow switching layout provide's more activity, more challenges, and more fun than ANY round the round (loop) RR.- let's see, scale 60mph = 1' per second HO.. And roughly 12' of track is ? ... once around a 4X8 is about every 12 second's. No activity ,worse, reptition becomes BORING to my brain. BEST of all, it can be shoved against a wall, and into corner's. I have 18" wide modules along the wall. More than bookshelves, but less than my large TV.

I enjoy running passenger too - I run 10 car passenger train's at a club where more time elapses between repeat's. 10 - 85' cars is 10' in HO plus engine. An ABBA adds' another 3 feet. Even 12 feet of train on a 4X8 has the engineer 'sniffing' his own tail.
No thank's.

BRAKIE In terns of cost :
4 pieces of 8' ply = $65
Av. engine = 75
turnouts = 20 ea.

SInce turnout's are the cause 99% of derailment's, I use Shinohara made turnout's with pleasing result's.
.

[rolleiman]

Can't say hate the 4x8, I've built quite a few. Especially when I didn't have the space for a perminant setup (rental house) and couldn't attach a layout to the walls.. Done the module thing too.. But I think that if space is available for even a Semi-perminant 4x8, after all, you have to set it up somewhere, the space can be better used.. Even a 1 foot wide shelf around a room will provide more railroading that you could Ever hope to cram onto a sheet of plywood. It can be more perminatant and even functional too.. Think book cases with several shadowbox railroad scenes.. How much wall space do you currently give up to nic-nak collections?? Or Family photos (that could be framed and nicely displayed on a shelf)?? Don't hate them, just think there are better options..

Jeff
[:)]

[jeffers_mz]

I don't hate 4x8's, I'm building one for my kids right now. It has forty feet of mainline, a railroad interchange, four towns (one is an imaginary one where the staging area is), a large mining area, 11 tunnel entrances, four bridges, four creeks, two (and maybe more) waterfalls, twelve turnouts, nine blocks, two yard areas, two return loops for a total of four ways to reverse direction, and two levels.

The room it's in serves triple duty, being a bedroom when the kids are here, a music room when they aren't, and a train room all the time. It's also a storage room for a ton of camping and climbing equipment. In the spring I'll start a pole barn, which will eventually house the gear storage and studio, so maybe then we'll expand the trains, but right now, there isn't room for an around the room set or anything larger than a 4x8.

You can pack a lot of activity on a 4x8 in some circumstances. A mining area can imply mountains, which hide enough track to avoid too "busy" of an appearance, steep grades and tight curves. You probably can't run a lot of long freights or big passenger cars, but the prototypes from the gold rush mining days don't support that anyway.

They'll be supplies and passengers coming up from the staging area, with freight trains being broken down and re-formed at the supply hub/interhange, then heading on up to the mines with coal and passengers. The empty coal cars and ore have to come back down, then be reordered and sent back down to the staging area main branchline.

I'm guessing it will keep us busy for several years, which is the whole point, right?

[John Busby]

Hi all
The secret to a successful 8X4 is to have a layout that should have short trains small locomotives etc definitely no 4-8-8-4's
it also needs to be divided scenically to break the round and round effect.
a branch line is ideal.
Its been said have extension built in well that's where the main line comes in
that's the extension point.
on the 8X4 is the mainline station one end of the line one very simple intermediate station make sure its got a small industry of some sort to generate traffic then you have the branch terminal with a different industry maybe two a loco shed and fuel water if applicable a couple of town buildings
The intermediate station has the industry and a road off the board to town and a depot or at least a shelter.
The main line station has the branch track heading for the main line a couple of sidings for branch traffic. if and only if you can squeeze it in a small industry but have a couple of town buildings.
The down side is trains are only three maybe four short freight cars one of which is a bobber caboose.
passenger trains are one combine or may be drovers caboose and refrigerator car.
The trick is to make it all fit it can be done with a continuous run to get a bit of distance into the point to point run or you can just lazily watch trains go by
The loop is also handy for running in new locos or testing repaired ones.
regards John

[BRAKIE]

Don,As far as photography I believe lots of modelers are also railfans..Dating? I believe that's how we woo women into marrying us.[}:)]

What say you about these small layouts that are highly operatable? Should these be past by because some are 4x6? I think not..A small layout including a switching layout beats none at all.

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/mr2001.gif

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project10.htm

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/gcrr2.jpg

http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/gcrr2.jpg

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's a question of EVERYONE hating them, just those that see no need in them or get no satisfaction from operating or watching a 4x8 layout.

For me, I am not a 4x8 guy. I cannot get what I want in a layout from a 4x8. For those who do, go on and build to your's heart's content. It's not my layout so I cannot tell you how to build it.

The real problem with 4x8s now is you cannot model today's equipment on it. Which is worse on the kids. If I was a kid I would want to model double stacks and piggy backs becuase that's all I see going by the house but, you cannot do that on a 4x8, which kinda leaves the young uns out.