why does everyone hate 4X8 layouts?

[Anonymous]

I started with 4' x 8' and it's now up to 6 1/2' x 9 1/2' using a foam base.
I built a wodden L-girder platform on rollers first so I can roll it to whatever area of the living room I want when my wife wants to rearrange furniture. (She got tired of me being out in the garage all the time. Now, I have my layout inside where I see it all the time and she has me inside with her.)
I can also move it if we decide to move. The layout is not attached to the platform and I keep the layout a maximum of 30" high so it will fit out the door.
I do the old timers, so the cars and locos are short.
Because you have 4 x 8 laterally doesn't mean you can't vertically with your track, also.
I'm switching to On30 and still have enough room to run 2 lower ovals, 2 upper ovals, and a "back and forth" section on the upper levels. I'm working on rearranging some of the track to accomodate the On30.
If you're into long diesels and cars it doesn't work well.
From this in 2001 -

To this in 2004 -
[imghttp://www.sarget.com/xmas04-1.jpg][/img]

[Anonymous]

I messed up the second image - 2004 -

[Anonymous]

I don't hate them. i don't love them either. they are a practical soloution to a problem. I also know some people who would love a 4x8 layout. they are better than having the trains sitting in a box not being used. say you could start out with a 4x8, then when you have finnished you can put another 4x8 board next to it. this means you can have either 4x16 or 8x8. That would almost fill up a small room. and also if something goes wrong on a huge layout it is much harder to find the cause than on a smaller layout. then there is the COST!!! involved in making a huge layout. the list goes on, and on[2c]

[SpaceMouse]

Just to bring the argument back into the conversation. The biggest reason why people don't like a 4 x 8 is that they take up 9 x 11 space when you count walkarounds and a 9 x 11 shelf, U-shaped layout is much more versatile and easier to reach and operate. People gravitate toward the 4 x 8 because they don't think in term of space and cutting a piece of plywood.

The "I only have space for a 4 x 8" argument doesn't hold up.

[andrechapelon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Just to bring the argument back into the conversation. The biggest reason why people don't like a 4 x 8 is that they take up 9 x 11 space when you count walkarounds and a 9 x 11 shelf, U shaped layout is much more versatile and easier to reach and operate. People gravitate toward the 4 x 8 because they don't think in term of space and cutting a piece of plywood.

The I only have space for a 4 x 8 doesn't hold up.

Or to put it more bluntly, the 4x8 uses space inefficiently. You need access on both of the 8 foot sides and at least one of the 4 foot sides. With a minimum of 2 feet wide clear access space on those 3 sides, the minimum sized room you need for a 4x8 is 8 x 10. Furthermore, you're limited to 18-22 inch radius curves. The primary (and probably only real ) virtue of the 4x8 is that it is the size of a standard sheet of plywood and all you have to do is build a relatively sturdy framework to support the plywood sheet. IOW, it's the easiest route but probably not the optimal one.

Iain Rice has come up with some nice track plans (8 x 12 - "Small, Smart and Practical Track Plans") ), which feature 30 inch radius curves (nice for those 80-85 foot passenger cars), plenty of staging and at least enough room for 14 car freights (40-50 foot steam era cars) plus caboose and a couple of 4 axle diesel units. Not only that, but there's plenty of room for staging a variety of trains. Built on shelves suspended from the walls high enough off the floor, most of the floor space could still be useable for other things.

For those who are interested, you might want to check out the 3 part series by Don Spiro in Railroad Model Craftsman (yeah, I know I'm going to Hell for mentioning RMC). Spiro kinda turns the conventional wisdom on its head when it comes to layout building. The September, October and November, 2005 issues are the relevant ones.

Andre

[BRAKIE]

Chip,A round the walls layout also requires space..Where? You need the space to decent make turn back curves..Its best to use all 4 walls.This will save space.Still a round the walls layout has limitations and can be a space eater and not to mention needing to attach the layout to the walls and drilling into the center of the wall raisers..

[Soo Line fan]

One way to gain access to both 8' sides and still have it against the wall is to put it on casters. Attach the backdrop to the wall and move the layout away when access is needed.

Jim

[Anonymous]

I didn't take time to plow through all the responses, but to me the problem with a 4X8' is that we are allowing the size of an uncut sheet of plywood to dictate our layout. Most spaces that will hold a 4X8' will hold a 5X8' or 6X9', both of which permit wider radius curves that look and operate much better.

Moreover, a 5X8' is 25% larger than a 4X8'. A 6X9' is 35% larger, meaning that you have a lot more room for structures and scenery, as well.

In any case, after building several layouts, I've gone modular with nothing wider than 3' .

Your local lumber yard or big box store (Home Depot, Lowe's) will cut plywood for very little cost and the first cuts are usually free.

John Timm

[trainfreek92]

QUOTE: Originally posted by ondrek

I forgot to mention that the 0-4-0 will do the radi that leads into the building too, and that radi is well, not really sure, but 6" is my guess. with that radi, the tender will not work though so if you have a dockside 0-4-0 you can do anything really. that was my plan, two trains on this, the 0-6-0 ran around bringing goods in, and a 0-4-0 would pick up the car, pull it to the siding and push it into the bulding, then get the empty from the other line in the samebuilding and put it back on the main line for the 0-6-0 to take off to the rest of the world. If you have doubts of this working, I do have a 10meg 40sec video that shows the 0-4-0 going from the main up to the siding and into the two lines that go into the building.
I also have vids of the two trains running the main line loop no tenders attached, in the vids though, but i did do tenders no on video.

Kevin

6????? this is Ho we are talking about

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrechapelon

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Just to bring the argument back into the conversation. The biggest reason why people don't like a 4 x 8 is that they take up 9 x 11 space when you count walkarounds and a 9 x 11 shelf, U shaped layout is much more versatile and easier to reach and operate. People gravitate toward the 4 x 8 because they don't think in term of space and cutting a piece of plywood.

The I only have space for a 4 x 8 doesn't hold up.

Or to put it more bluntly, the 4x8 uses space inefficiently. You need access on both of the 8 foot sides and at least one of the 4 foot sides. With a minimum of 2 feet wide clear access space on those 3 sides, the minimum sized room you need for a 4x8 is 8 x 10. Furthermore, you're limited to 18-22 inch radius curves. The primary (and probably only real ) virtue of the 4x8 is that it is the size of a standard sheet of plywood and all you have to do is build a relatively sturdy framework to support the plywood sheet. IOW, it's the easiest route but probably not the optimal one.

Iain Rice has come up with some nice track plans (8 x 12 - "Small, Smart and Practical Track Plans") ), which feature 30 inch radius curves (nice for those 80-85 foot passenger cars), plenty of staging and at least enough room for 14 car freights (40-50 foot steam era cars) plus caboose and a couple of 4 axle diesel units. Not only that, but there's plenty of room for staging a variety of trains. Built on shelves suspended from the walls high enough off the floor, most of the floor space could still be useable for other things.

For those who are interested, you might want to check out the 3 part series by Don Spiro in Railroad Model Craftsman (yeah, I know I'm going to Hell for mentioning RMC). Spiro kinda turns the conventional wisdom on its head when it comes to layout building. The September, October and November, 2005 issues are the relevant ones.

Andre

Hmmm...I mentioned this same point in my earlier post, even included a PDF drawing illustrating it, although I was a bit more generous including 3 feet for walkaround that could be better used for layout space. The layout should move around you, not move you around the layout.

[waltersrails]

Its just comes down to how you look at it

[jecorbett]

I have a large around the room layout with a peninsula planned down the middle but I can still appreciate a well done 4X8 or any other small railroad whether an island or shelf layout. Not only can small layouts be good switching layouts, but the small size allows a level of craftsmanship that is not practical with a larger layout. Those of us with large layouts have to settle for the good-enough approach in much of what we do if we want to get anywhere near completed in our lifetimes. A small layout gives you the opportunity to build structures and scenery of contest quality.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith



Hmmm...I mentioned this same point in my earlier post, even included a PDF drawing illustrating it, although I was a bit more generous including 3 feet for walkaround that could be better used for layout space. The layout should move around you, not move you around the layout.

I know you did. It's just that a lot of the more recent posters seemed to have skipped the ongoing arguments and went straight to posting.

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BRAKIE

Chip,A round the walls layout also requires space..Where? You need the space to decent make turn back curves..Its best to use all 4 walls.This will save space.Still a round the walls layout has limitations and can be a space eater and not to mention needing to attach the layout to the walls and drilling into the center of the wall raisers..

If you have 9 x 12 feet to work with you can have 2 4ft blobs to create a folded dogbone, or reverse loop if you have DCC. You may have to stagger the blobs if you have access on the shorter side.

[ondrek]

QUOTE: Originally posted by trainfreek92

QUOTE: Originally posted by ondrek

I forgot to mention that the 0-4-0 will do the radi that leads into the building too, and that radi is well, not really sure, but 6" is my guess. with that radi, the tender will not work though so if you have a dockside 0-4-0 you can do anything really. that was my plan, two trains on this, the 0-6-0 ran around bringing goods in, and a 0-4-0 would pick up the car, pull it to the siding and push it into the bulding, then get the empty from the other line in the samebuilding and put it back on the main line for the 0-6-0 to take off to the rest of the world. If you have doubts of this working, I do have a 10meg 40sec video that shows the 0-4-0 going from the main up to the siding and into the two lines that go into the building.
I also have vids of the two trains running the main line loop no tenders attached, in the vids though, but i did do tenders no on video.

Kevin

6????? this is Ho we are talking about

yup, HO Atlas code 100 to be exact is what is in those pics. I would guess the radi is 6" for those two into the building lines.

Kevin

[aloco]

I have a 3.5 by 6 foot oval layout with only two sidings. It's analog, I run my painted and detailed locos on it, and I just do idiot loops. I've had it for eight years and I've grown accustomed to it. It didn't take long to finish either.

If I want to do yard switching, wayfreight operations, and all that razzmatazz I've got a fleet of factory-painted DCC-equipped locos to run on the model railroad club layout.

[Jetrock]

I always liked the Brit idea of slicing that 4x8 sheet of lumber into two 1x8 sheets and two 2x4 sheets, then putting them together to make an 8x8 layout with a 4x4 foot operator hole in the center. Comfortable reach from any point on the layout, wider curves, doesn't take any more space than a 4x8, and you get to look at the trains from the inside of the curve instead of the outside. I understand it is common in the UK but kind of unknown here.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone hates a 4x8 layout.

[Don Gibson]

To each his own - but let's keep it simple :

FACT: People build 4X8's because they think 4X8's take up less room.
FALSE: They require 'walk around' room to operate, like table-tennis.Try 10X11'.

FACT: People build 4X8's because they think it's simpler to do?
TRUE: Building material ply is readily available in 4X8. (It used to be avail. in 5 x10), so a 4x8 is a piece of wood that limit's our imagination and worse what will run on it.

Let's get some BS out of the way: I've built a 4X8. I presently have a 18"X24' along 2 walls - taking up very little space. I Can add another 'L' out into the room and still have 3 ft. aisleway.

PEOPLE on average have 32" long arm's so a 3' wide layout seems logical. Instead of a 4X8 WHY NOT a 9'X9' square,with 1' wide sides and backstretch,and operated from the inside? One can still run in circles, and It takes up less room.

COST'S: No increase in engines or building's, 12 pieces of flextrack, one power pack, and can be done with as little as 2 pieces of $16 ply by using 1' wide ply for the sides and backstretch. Is there a catch? YES!. 3 More supprt's to saw, screw, & glue together. I also like to 45degree-angle the inside corners to provide wider curves (Extra ply). Benefit: wider assortment of equipment - including 4-8-8-2's and neat passenger cars will run on THIS layout - using (key word) less space to do it in. Even a 9'X12' against a wall uses less floor space than a 4X8.

So skip the excuses. Get out the Saw & Hammer. The wood will be the cheapest part of your RR.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Just to bring the argument back into the conversation. The biggest reason why people don't like a 4 x 8 is that they take up 9 x 11 space when you count walkarounds and a 9 x 11 shelf, U-shaped layout is much more versatile and easier to reach and operate. People gravitate toward the 4 x 8 because they don't think in term of space and cutting a piece of plywood.

The "I only have space for a 4 x 8" argument doesn't hold up.

Actullay if you have it on wheels it can be pushed against the walls wnen not in use. then you can pull it out when it is in use.

[ocalicreek]

Perhaps the greatest drawback I can see to a 4x8 is the flat top. One of the AP award criteria for tracklaying is to demonstrate an understanding of proper railroad grading including drainage, balast depth, etc. Granted, on many industrial lines the ties are long gone beneath a layer of dirt, grime, oil drippings, weeds (ooh, I'm getting excited just thinking about it!) and any balast that may have been there at one time is now long buried as well. Laying track on a strip of roadbed gives some semblance of reality, but when the rest of the world (read 'tabletop') is flat the effort produces little effect.

Also, a 4x8 sheet of 2" extruded insulation isn't that much more than a sheet of ply and can offer a beginner (who may not be old enough to use power tools alone safely, or may not have them at all, regardless of age) an opportunity to cut drainage ditches, etc, or even better, cookie cutter a second sheet with the track layout including any track level elements and apply this to the first sheet. Now any fills can be taken care of easily, or bridges for that matter, and the rest can go up from there.

That said, I should mention that I am planning on building a 4x8 soon (no, really I am) and here's why. It'll be on a porch where three sides are windows from about 40" up and I like the view so an around the walls design is out. The fourth wall includes a double door and a large window that I'd like to avoid blocking as well. Also, how long we'll be here is uncertain; could be months or years.

I'll be building it with lauan ply seriously braced because foam sheets are hard to get around here (not impossible, just hard to find) and I've been wanting to experiment with lightweight framework. The plus here is portability. We move mattresses in and out of homes - why not layouts that size?

I like 'railfanning' a layout, regardless of size. But that implies that it's a place I'd go and sit next to the tracks. I like to find interesting places to look for trains, not just anywhere there's a train. For me, that's one of the perks of modeling. I get to recreate a place I like to be (or can't be but would rather be) where trains run, the kind of trains I like to see (or wish I could see more often). On a 4x8 I get to experience that run-by as often as I like, and depending on the speed, that can be every few seconds or few minutes. Slower trains can look longer, invite the viewer to study them, and can appear more massive if they run smoothly.

I'll be using gorilla rack freestanding steel shelving for support. It's 7 feet high when fully assembled, or can be assembled as 3' and 4' high sections. I have three sets of shelving so I'll be breaking down two of them into 4' high sections for the supports and storage beneath the layout. Each unit is 4' long by 18" deep. Would make great support for an around the walls layout someday too.

The goal - a high (eye level) track level, scenery that extends well below track level, mountainous scenery to divide the layout into scenes, smooth running equipment, the ability to run one train for a while then another after that and maybe do a little switching, opportunities to do some nice scenery well (what I enjoy most).

I already have a scenicked timesaver (5'x14") that I thoroughly enjoy. Hand laid code 70 trackwork, a river landing setting, and a nice little MDC Critter to shove cars around. Much fun for many hours. But I miss being able to just sit back and watch a train roll by. I have had to come to terms with the limitations of being able to run mostly 40' equipment, four axle diesels and smaller steam. But it has forced me to be creative in the planning process. It will be fun to build, that's for sure.

Ocalicreek

[BRAKIE]

Sorry Guys..I still maintain that a industrial switching layout is not everybody's cup of tea nor is building a round the walls layout with its limitations..I still think a 4x8 layout is far better then no layout or arm chairing and dreaming of that dream layout that may never materialized.
Again I find the need to challenge anybody that has a open mind to find faults with these layouts.There was no takers the first time I ask and yet like a broken record the 4x8 bashers feel they must bash on and hasn't proven anything except they know how to use a keyboard to pu***heir own closed minds on how "bad" a 4x8 is and how perfect for everybody their layout ideas and look down their long self righteous noses on those that chose to build a 4x8 layout.

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

[SpaceMouse]

Brakie,

For me, 4 x 8 bashing is a relative term. There are good well-thought out 4 x 8's and there are 4 x8 that show all the imagination of a turnip. I lucked out and got a decent one. I say lucked out because of the advice of a few people on this board that kept me from making some newbee mistakes.

However, even though I'm still a rookie here (I graduate to sophmore next week) I find that most if not a good portion of the newbees that get on this board jump into a 4 x 8 not because they thought about it, but because they got an Atlas book for $3.95 or so and the track plan looked easy.

But that's all the thought they put into it. This type of person will get the track layed, start running trains, make 6 laps a minute until they get bored and say, "Now what?"

So there is a great deal of difference between a well thought out 4 x 8 where all options have been thought out. The designer has thoroughly examined his givens and druthers and sets about making his 4 x 8 empire.

This contrasts greatly to "Newbee 4 x 8 Disease."

[BRAKIE]

Chip,I agree with the 4x8 book layouts and some of MR's project 4x8 layouts as being down right boring and the main cause of "Newbie 4 x 8 Disease". However with proper guidance on designing a well thought out 4x8 foot layout can be a joy to operate beyond just running laps.
On the other hand newbies doesn't need 4x8 bashing from experience modelers but,they need to be coach in proper 4x8 layout design by experience modelers and 4x8 layout designers that design 4x8 layouts beyond the Lionel mentality of the more common 4x8 layout designs...And that my friend is where the problem lies.
BTW If you think all the layouts I linked to are 4x8s guess again..You see some are 4x6s! [:0]

[SpaceMouse]

Actually, I think they do need to hear it, or at least a reasonable discussion of it. There are options besides the 4 x 8 for beginners, as Don and Byron have pointed out, that give greater chance for operations and using properly spaced blobs can still provide contiuous operation if that is a desire.

Frankly, although it is warranted in certain circumstances, when you fully embrace your givens and druthers, there are almost always better options than a 4 x 8. It is just not a practical layout form.

[jecorbett]

QUOTE: Originally posted by alexander13

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Just to bring the argument back into the conversation. The biggest reason why people don't like a 4 x 8 is that they take up 9 x 11 space when you count walkarounds and a 9 x 11 shelf, U-shaped layout is much more versatile and easier to reach and operate. People gravitate toward the 4 x 8 because they don't think in term of space and cutting a piece of plywood.

The "I only have space for a 4 x 8" argument doesn't hold up.

Actullay if you have it on wheels it can be pushed against the walls wnen not in use. then you can pull it out when it is in use.

It seems to me that if your structures and scenery weren't too tall, you could fold it into the wall like a Murphy bed. Has anyone ever seen this done?

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jecorbett


It seems to me that if your structures and scenery weren't too tall, you could fold it into the wall like a Murphy bed. Has anyone ever seen this done?

John Armstrong has one in his Creative Layout Designs book.

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

Actually, I think they do need to hear it, or at least a reasonable discussion of it. There are options besides the 4 x 8 for beginners, as Don and Byron have pointed out, that give greater chance for operations and using properly spaced blobs can still provide contiuous operation if that is a desire.

Frankly, although it is warranted in certain circumstances, when you fully embrace your givens and druthers, there are almost always better options than a 4 x 8. It is just not a practical layout form.

I left this thread some time ago as it was getting repetitious...no finger-pointing, just saying that I had thought that it had all been said. Anyway, I took a quick peek due to its longetivity, and find that I tend to agree with you, Chip. We have a "civic" duty here, as pseudo-stewards of our hobby, to make sure we educate newcomers to spare them hardship, heartache, and unecessary expense considering the complaints elsewhere about how costly this hobby is (aren't they all?).

If we all learn, eventually, that a 4X8 has limits for advanced levels of the modeling, we should point that out to the newer folks. We should tell them that a 4X8 is a wonderful way to learn about MR in a hurry, especially if one's pockets are reasonably deep. On the other hand, especially for the younger keeners, and especially if they take the time to come into the light and ask us, we should tell them what we know and understand about their intended path. Just as we don't steer vacationers two miles out of their way to the closest hotel, we should direct the beginners to the shortest path to success...as we define it ourselves...something that is everyone's purview here.

-Crandell

Edit- Of course, some people need to learn the hard way...

[Anonymous]

I'm just getting back into the hobby.I've been looking at all information I can get my hands on.Threads such as this one make me laugh.Everyone has a valid reason or opinion as to what they prefer.That makes everyone "right" for his or her own application.If it's not fun or relaxing to YOU,why bother? I'm seriously considering N scale T-Trak modules just for kicks.I saw plans for a timesaver switching layout built on three modules in addition to the continuous loops.Best of both worlds!That sent me over the edge.But that's what seems right for my space situation.I love all nice layouts regardless of size or scale.Keep the arguments and the pictures coming!

[BRAKIE]

Ok Guys,Tell me this..Name a layout that doesn't have limitions? A round the walls has limitions,a basement size layout has limitions as does the biggest of club layouts.I think we all can agree that 90% or more of the layouts built is built with loops for continuous running just like a 4x8..Why? Limitations.

Now Chip and selector please tell me whats wrong with those layout that I linked to? I bet you didn't bother to look because of your mind is set against 4x8 foot or less layouts or are they proof positive what a good small layout design can look like and above all very operational..

There are many things you guys are over looking including carpenter skills of the new modeler..What if modelers doesn't have a basement or large spare room and can only work with a 4x8 foot layout space? Have you forgotten the other inhabitants of the house that might need space as well? How about not having the mega $$$ needed to build that super size layout? What if the modeler rents and can't anchor into the walls for that round the walls king size loop?? So,I guess and according to your thoughts these modelers should not build a 4x8 foot layout???