4x8 Layout advice

Hi all,

I know there are a lot for 4x8 haters out there…but before I begin, let me state - for the space I have, and the desired needs, this seems to be the way to go.

needs:

  • fun switching
  • run around
  • interesting terrain
  • small city diorama
  • practical point to point to mainline

non-needs

  • not modeling any particular line or area per se

So this is a fun layout I designed and thought some of you might have some ideas or pointers.

  • green is elevation/hills. I am from the Ohio Valley area…so this seems appropriate
  • outside track is Roco 83 481.2mm (19" R)
  • inside track is Rocco 83 83 419.6 (16.5" R)
  • 3/4" from road bed to road bed (to close?)
  • the back-side track is elevated 2" with a grade wall.

Why Euro track? because 4x8 sucks? lol

My main question: is the Roco just a terrible idea? is it worth the space save?

I’m new to this(as you can tell), but aside of track availability in the US, is this just a terrible idea? I looked at the Woodland Scenics Valley kit…but I am afraid I will get bored with it?

The only thing I wish this had was a river/pond…but I just couldn’t get it to practically work.

Thanks for any thoughts on this.

Chad

To get some ideas on trackplans on what you are looking for i would look here:

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

They have some nice plans that they have built and you can see some pictures on what the final product looks like.

I also like some of the plans out of Spacemouse’s design contests:

http://www.chipengelmann.com/Trains/4x8Contest.html

But I think you are going to be hard press for fitting a double track loop on a 4x8. Because I don’t know if you have the required clearance to run trains on both tracks.

V/R

Chris

Warner Robins, GA

Chad,

Most of us aren’t 4x8 haters… I had one for years. What most of us do want, though, is for the new hobbyist to try to break out of the 4x8 paradigm if possible. If you WANT a 4x8 layout, then by all means make one. Say so and be done with it. However, you seem to imply that you’re “settling” for a 4x8.

Because a 4x8 is wider than the average human can comfortably reach, you need to preserve access all the way around it, which is actually very wasteful of space. With a 2’ aisle around the outside, it actually takes up 8 x 12 (96 square feet for 32 square feet of layout). By putting your layout along 3 sides of that space and keeping it to 24-30" wide, you could actually fit a C shaped layout 8’ x 12 x 8’, or 48 square feet of layout with a footprint of only 80 square feet.

But that’s neither here nor there. You want a 4x8, I’ll give you some advice on what you’ve drawn.

Curve Radius – what are you planning to run? Short steam and 4 axle diesels and 40’ cars will probably be ok, anything longer will give you trouble on these tight curves.

Sidings – they’re very short. 1-2 cars is all you can fit in them. Is that OK?

Track Separation – When you say 3/4" from from roadbed to roadbed, I assume you mean that your chosen track has molded on roadbed, and that you’re planning to leave 3/4" between the pieces. The recommended minimum separation between track centers is 2" on straight track, farther on curves. It doesn’t look like you’ll have this, unless the roadbed is really wide.

Run Around – In railroad terms, this is a short section of track which allows a locomotive to uncouple from it’s train, move to the other end, and recouple, thus reversing the direction the train is traveling, or getting the loco to the other end. While the connection between the two mains at the bottom would allow you to do this on a very short train, that’s about it. Or do you mean "

awesome feedback. thank you.

Some clarification:

Curve Radius - yes…I am only running 50’ and under boxes with sd45’s/gp38’s on this. It would be great to hear from someone that has ran these on tighter radii such as the Roco track.

Track Spacing - this design is 2.3" center to center. Sounds like I’m ok here? this is one thing I really wanted to check on…so great to hear feedback on that.

Run Arround - I used a wrong term here. You are correct…I should have said “continuous running”. thank you.

Point to Point - that is what I meant…but I suppose my thinking was more simply “destination A to Destination B”. So, I should have stated that building lables were sort of ideas. I was thinking actually a grain elevator/outlet where the “coke” factory is on that image. then there is an actually “gather and deliver” point to point on a very simple level.

Space - I really like some of your ideas on this. I’m gonna play around and see what I can come up with putting the housing on one end or the back side.

Thanks!

Chad

You can go 22" outer and 18 inner with sectional or 20 inner with flex

My original 4X9 1/2 was a 22 and 18

No problems

I never finished it but switched to an around the walls layout that i am doing now

I’m not a 4x8 “hater” either - I just think that the combination of H0 scale and a 4x8 foot table has many challenges, especially for people who actually have little space for a layout (which is often used as the reason for building a 4x8). Due to the need for aisles, it does take quite a bit of floor space.

If the only space you have available for a layout is the space where you used to have a ping pong table (i.e. in the middle of the floor in a rec room or some such place), and you want H0 scale, a 5x9 layout would often be a pretty good choice, and better than a 4x8.

If you want a continuous run loop on a table you can reach across from one side (so it can be placed with one long side against the wall), going N scale and using a 32" deep and 6 2/3 foot long hollow core door will give you both reach and adequate curves.

If you want to do a H0 scale layout, you do not need to go down to 15" radius curves - you can work it up to 22" radius curves.

You should stay at or above 18" radius if you can, if you are planning to run American engines and rolling stock - German model railroad engines are built for 15" radius curves (hence the Roco 15" radius curves), but that is tight for many American engines and rolling stock.

The rule of the thumb for american rolling stock : try to keep minimum curve radius no smaller than three times the length of your longest rolling stock for pretty trouble free running. 4x looks better. 5x is a good choice if you want cars to couple automatically when you push them together on a curve.

40’ cars - 5.5" long in H0 scale - recommended minimum curve radius : 3 x 5.5 = 16.5".

50’ cars - 6.8" long in H0 scale - recommended minimum curve radius: 20.5"

You can often get away with sharper curves if you file away stuff on the underside of the car, replace couplers with longer couplers or mount couplers on the trucks i

I don´t think you´ll find 4 by 8-haters in here - the more experienced among us only agree that it is not the best use of a given space for a layout.

Actually, MR has re-discovered the 4 by 8. The February 2011 edition shows a very well done layout of that size and also has some interesting track plan ideas in it - it´s worth getting a copy!

As to the intended use of Roco track, there are some points you should consider:

  • Coupling will be an issue on the tight radii. They are intended for truck mounted couplers, which most of the European rolling stock has, but is not common with US equipment.
  • Tie spacing and tie arrangement at turnouts follows European practice, which is very much different from US-style.
  • Sourcing may be an issue, as well as cost - that stuff is expensive.

I personally see no benefit in using Roco track.

Chad there are no haters of the 4x8 layout that I know of in this forum. What most of us are try to point out is that if you have more space say a 10x12 room. You waste space by putting a 4x8 layout in the middle of it. But by using an around the walls setup us maximize the footprint of the railroad itself.

In a 10x12 room if you set a 4x8 in the middle you have access all the way around it, yes? 3 feet on the sides and 2.5 feet on each end. But by using an around the walls layout, say two feet wide. You have a space of 6x8 in the middle to operate the railroad from while gaining fifty six feet of usable layout footage.

A 4x8 layout yields a footprint of 32 square foot of usable space. But when placed in a room of 120 square feet you waste 88 square feet of space when you can be using it for your railroad. While an around the room layout yields a layout of 88 square feet with a waste of 32 square feet.

While every layout has its drawbacks. I gladly trade more layout footage for wasted space any day.

With that said if this is your first layout or you just like the 4x8 layout, that is what it is. A 4x8 layout is a great start and we just want to help all we can.

As for your question about the trackage, I have always used Atlas and can not help you in that matter.

hi

this is a point-to-point:

I am one of the 8x4 haters…or do i have not much compassion for people not willing to look around the corner.

Never the less i see some errors in your plan.

  • You are using a way to short switchback in the upper part.

  • the crossovers at the bottom could be placed further apart.

  • It is not clear to me why you are using the radii you have chosen. You are worrying about the spacing; radii and spacing are depending on the length of your cars or engines. You could give us more specific information.

Smile

Paul

I do have one reason for a 4x8 (or in my case a 4x6) over a shelf layout. If I had a finished basement or dining area, I would be able to run my trains on the layout and then later on, stand it on end (or side) and put it against the wall (or any other out of the way location) for other uses.

People don’t always have the space (or spouse/roommate) to dedicate ONLY for model railroading.

P.S Why is there a giant layout graphic following me around?

Just started portable layout - 1 x 8 feet, comes apart in two 1 x 4 foot sections, resting on the dining table in our living room:

track plan:

More permanent layout (but build in sections) - 40-some square feet in a room which is actually too small for a 4x6 or 4x8, which also have to work as a storage room and workshop:

Several 20" x 4 foot FREMO section (not mine), use for meets with other model railroaders, from a meet at Kløfta model railroad club at Kløfta, Norway:

Other options :

  • N scale continuous loop of track on a hollow core door - takes up about 30" x 6 feet along a wall.

  • traction/tram/interurban layout on a narrow shelf running along one or two walls, automatically rev

Steinjr,

I love the trackplans. How long (cars and/or inches or centimeters) is the Soo interchange on the 1x8 layout? I love that design. Why not put a siding serving the Vita Company? I also love the 6x11 layout. Port layouts rock!!!

hi Mike

it is hijacking a thread, but i am very bad in understanding just words. Please can you make a drawing of the room where your layout is placed, with all obstacles like doors. And of course how your layout fits in. A clue about how and where you store your layout is welcome too.

Paul

Thank you.

I won’t keep hijacking the thread - just a few quick answer to Mike’s questions: the Soo line interchange looks really long in the photo, but it is only 30" long - i.e it has room for three, maybe four 40-foot cars before fouling the switch.

Track plan is heavily inspired by a Byron Henderson 18" x 72" N scale switching layout plan (http://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id25.html). It would have been better if I could have used more depth, but storage and transportation considerations made a little less than a foot of depth (about 10.5") the maximum I could afford for this layout.

More or less the same plan expanded to 18" of depth - would have allowed far more room for scenery

Why not a track to the Burma Vita Co? I just felt that the layout already was pretty track heavy - I needed to leave a little breathing space. It doesn’t make sense to have more 4-5 incoming cars anyways, plus maybe 2-3 more at the interchange track.

Anyways - sorry about the hijack. My point was just to illustrate that little space can be handled in any number of ways.

But a well made 4x6 or 4x8 is not a horrible idea - there were a number of good looking 4x8 layouts in a recent issue of Model Railroader Magazine. The Byron Henderson variants I linked to affords quite a bit of operations (if you want that).

Look up poster Geohan to see a really beautiful and well executed three

Room: (door is bottom left. top part is 8’1"…room length is 11’)

Version 2 Layout

Here are some of the room requirements:

  • this is/was actually my office. I work from home, and so I actually need to have a small desk in the same room. We have a VERY small house…so this is going to have to do.

My intention was to lower the table height to 30" or so to the layout ground level. install nice cabinets underneath, nice fascia …ect. And being 6’ tall, I don’t see reaching 3.5 feet as a big deal.

To be honest…if it wasn’t for continuous running, I would scrap the 4x8 idea…but…I like continuous running, I like some switching and swapping fun…and I can “accept” the fact that I am not going to have any long engines, and mostly just have an enjoyable short line, that has some nice hilly scenery, and fun diorama.

I think I have accepted the fact that you can’t have it all on a 4x8…scenery, diorama, outer main line, inner ops, switching, point to point…ect.

So I think the goal is to just have a usable, fun layout that I’m not going to get to bored with like I suspect I would with the woodland scenics kits.

It’s really great to get all these different perspectives and ideas. very helpful!

Chad

Hey Paulis,

I’m going to try to not make this thread about me and my layout. I’m only going to discuss the concept of my layout and its portability (Port Able). I plan to start building it after Easter as time frees up.

The design is not groundbreaking. It’s a 45 inch by 63 inch loop with 3 trailing point turnouts. It will break into 3 sections measuring 45 inches by 21 inches. I plan to store the 3 sections on a shelf above a doorway and assemble them together when it’s time to play with my trains. I also wanted to be able to take it to train shows while fitting it in the back seat of a mid size sedan (48 inches of space). I was originally going to make it 2 sections that were 28 inches by 45 inches and have the layout attached by hinges to make it a 56 inch by 45 inch layout.

The concept is that it’s a shortline that took over a shortened branch line that has no passing sidings. The interchange is located near the engine house. The engine picks up the train and pulls it engine first to the two online customers – a manufacturing company and a building supply (cement hoppers). After switching the customers, the engine will push the train caboose first back to the interchange.

I mentioned that this can be done with a 4x8 or a 4x6 layout because the layout doesn’t have to be bolted to the floor. If you build the layout on li

This is why I loved Carl Arendt’s website. It reminded us how we can still have fun, even though we don’t have a basement. I’m also a big fan of Sir Ian Rice. As far as I’m concerned, genius like him should be knighted.

What the hell is that layout graphic doing all over the discussion?

Umm - what are you talking about here, Mike ?

Stein, confused