Hey!
So I’m getting back into model trains after about 15 years. I’m limited to a 4x8 layout and have been searching for plans revolving around that size. I’ve found one that I really like but I’m concerned about the elevation changes required to make the over/under possible.
http://www.m-rail.net/images/site_support/design/crookedcreek.jpg
I’m thinking of adding some turnouts if possible to switch between the two mainlines, I also have a NCE Powercab and a few DCC HO loco’s
Thanks!
Dave
Dave,
[#welcome] To the Forums,Made Your link clickable,so others ma view it.
Cheers,[D]
Frank
Unfortunately, that HO 4X8 design cannot be built and operated as drawn. You’ll need at least 2.5" track-to-track distance between concentric circles of track at radii that tight.
Most rooms that will hold an HO 4X8 will also hold a 5X9 or 5X10, which would allow you to build something like that plan with more reasonable radii.
Note that many plans on the Internet cannot be built as they are drawn.
Best of luck with your layout.
[#welcome]
As noted above, it is hard to get an “HO” plan on a 4’ x 8’. I started with a 4" x 12’ and found the curves too tight. It’s now 5’ x 28’. [:-^]
As far as elevation,it is hard to get an over and under cross over in 8’ without excess grade unless the under track descends as much as the over track rises.
Perhaps a smaller scale?
Good luck and happy Railroading.
Lee
4’x8’ layouts can be restricting in comparison to a 5’x9’. However there are some excellent examples out there however.
Ask yourself what space do you really have available to you and then see how you can make best use of that space.
As far as the over and under, like already said have the under track descend as well as the upper track rising up. Consider building on foam so this can be done easily.
Hope this helps.
Martin.
For whatever it might be worth, that railroad is not 4X8. The dimensions shown for the length and width are in meters. The length is pretty close to 8 feet, but the width is about 4.7 feet.
As the others have said the elevations are not th biggest problem fitting that on a 4x8. You would have to switch to 18" and 15" radius curves to make that happen.
On the other hand if you switched to N-scale something like that layout would fit nicely in 4x8.
Even more generally, on a 4x8 layout to get the over under arrangement in HO scale the best possible grade is right at 1.6%. That assumes several things including that the only two pieces of level track are the bridge and the track under the bridge. Every other piece would have to be on a grade. So more practically the grade will be closer to 2.5%-3%.
Thank you all for the welcome!
i just saw that it is slightly larger then 4x8. and it’s good to know that over/under really aren’t feasible on a 4x8 layout.
I came across another layout which I think will work quite nicely, I’d probably modify it to have 3 continuous loops unless there is a reason not to:
I’ll take a picture of the room tomorrow where the table would be setup, The room is quite large at ~10x18 but is mostly being used by the home theater. The idea of the 4x8 is that I can put a short end up against a wall, behind the theater chairs which gives me 3 accessible sides without impacting the rest of the room.
Thanks!
Dave
I like this 4’x8’ plan. bob Hahn
I built the Woodland Scenics River Pass for my grandchildren to run Thomas the Tank Engine. It is 4x8 and has 3% and 4% grades with 18 inch curves. I learned the hard way that Thomas had difficulty pulling his two cars up the 4% grade, so they had to run him in only one direction. He could go up the 3% and down the 4% grades. When we decided to add some real trains we found that some engines could not negotiate the 18 inch curves.
That original 4x8 is still embedded in my larger layout, but only a few of my shorter engines and cars actually use it’s inner loops. The rest just pass straight through it.
Lesson learned. Only the outer loop of a 4x8 is really useful.
[#welcome] Welcome aboard.
You post that N Scale plan often. Since the Original Poster is working in HO, it’s not a realistic possibility in 4X8.
If you add the third track on the outside by increasing the width of the benchwork to 5 feet or so, it could work. And in your space there is no good reason to stick with 4-foot-wide benchwork unless you have a specific fear of cutting wood. Adding a third track on the inside will need to be a pretty tight radius (limiting the kinds of equipment that will run there) and will reduce the opportunity for industry spurs.
The late Stein Jr., from whose site you borrowed this image, was a fan of this plan, but I don’t share his enthusiasm. The industry track arrangement is a bit contrived compared to the real world, and the crossovers are arranged in a way that might prove to be less reliable in that they create s-curves through the crossovers. But that is easily remedied, as seen below.
Although I am a fan of continuous running, three loops could get boring in a hurry. Having industrial sidings adds interest in the layout, However you are the boss on the railroad and whatever you do just have fun doing it
Especially since the three loops would basically be identical to each other.
I actually like the switching area of this layout. It is close to the Louisville & Wadley’s switching area in downtown Louisville. As I recall the spurs served the back ally of all the down town stores on the two main streets that crossed each other a 90 degrees (like Central & Main). That is why the approach was curved they had to come in down the ally behind one street make the curve and serve the other.
It was also the end-of-the L&W line being the furthest point away from the connection with the Central of Georgia in Wadley.